Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Lame Duck, It's not just Bush

Last night the pathetic spectacle of George Bush, in my opinion the worst President of my lifetime, gave his final State of the Union speech. It is required by law, but I'm sure most of the participants would have voted to let him e mail it. As it was, the leader of the free world stood powerless, clad in failure in front of two of his likely successors, Clinton and Obama.

I need not go through the list of failed policies that Bush pursued while in office. Enough said that his constituency, the religious right and the economically privileged are not really better off than they were seven years ago when he took office with their hopes and prayers lifting him up as the next saviour. Yes they have their Supreme Court and their tax cuts, but even those will fade. Karl Rove's dream of a generational Republican dynasty was destroyed in the wake of inept leadership, the strum and drang of the War in Iraq and the total lack of dialogue with anyone who could have told them they were not in touch with the majority of American People.

We are not a nation of bigots. Nor do we believe that getting rich is worth setting aside any commitment to the common good. We do have noble intentions. Some of us do not know what to do with those feelings. We crave action on the matter. Like the physician we seek to do no harm and feel it would be nice to leave this place a little better than we found it. From time to time, a leader comes a long that inspires us Some bring out the worst of our fears and inclinations. Some inspire us to do better.

We may have such a leader in Barak Obama. Regardless of whether he becomes President, because there is a lot of work to be done in that effort, his candidacy represents the turning of the page on an ugly story in American Political History. The rejection of the social contract for individualism, the elevation of economics over citizenship and the criminalization of poverty may have felt good as long as you were on the winning team, but when the fact that the game was rigged became apparent it behoves all of us to be a little bit ashamed.

It is a time for change. This word might become a campaign cliche, but it is true nonetheless. I believe we've had enough partisan politics. Make no mistake no matter how weakened the Republican Party might be after the election, they will not go quietly in the that good night. And if you don't believe there are some Democrats that will waste their time looking for payback, you've in for a shock.

But as the will of the people becomes more apparent, it is my hope that we can coalesce under an agenda of the real issues. The issues that balance the needs of the people against those of special interests (which will not go away either). We have problems of global proportions. The mismanagement of environmental issues, the belligerent conduct of foreign policy and the neglect of infrastructure issues are bad enough, but we must be aware the policies of change need traction. Moving from one direction to another will take time, patience and most of all leadership that keep it's eye on the business at hand.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Clinton's Folly, Bill that is...

No one owes more to a wife that stuck by him through thick and thin, than Bill Clinton. Be warned, I discount the Monica thing. She has been his conscience, his soul mate and his minister without portfolio during times when his enemies were people like Delay, Armey and Gingrich. This unholy force was enough to make anyone wish they were teaching at a small University in some obscure state, such as Arkansas rather than living in the bull ring that is Washington DC. Everything from her effort to straighten out the health care mess in the country to the hairstyle she chose was criticized by lead brains that included Moreen Dowd, who writes for a paper that is rumoured to be liberal. During the eight years of Bill's presidency she was vilified and hated by some of the highest ranking Christians and right wing nuts in the political spectrum.

Generally, Hilary Clinton was more intelligent than her opposition. She showed more class and restraint in the onset of attack after attack, than any of her partisan pot-shooters. The only time she really looked pathetic was when Bill lied. (I didn't have sex with that women.) She believed him at a time when she should have known better. At the time, she told the media that it was a conspiracy by the right wing. And it was, however for once they didn't need to rig the charge.

All of this being said, Bill has been on the campaign trail trying to get Hilary into his old job, and no one is working harder, maybe to hard. As you regular readers know I have my doubts about another Clinton White House, but that would not prevent me voting for her. I do like the prospects of an Obama White House, so sift my remarks good citizen, I'm not totally without bias.

Bill is swinging the ax that has two edges. He might cut Obama with his relentless, "his record isn't clean on the War in Iraq" and "he isn't experienced enough", but what happens dear friend when one of them becomes the nominee of the party? We will need both of them to form the coalition that will put this partisan gridlock behind us and get us moving again. That's when the other edge of the ax might hurt us.

Friday, January 25, 2008

How to Lose a Sure Thing

I, like I'm sure many others are totally dismayed at the current democratic campaigns for their parties nomination. Talk about he said she said and all of the school yard antics to go with it. I have to say, as Bill Cosby soeloquently titled his latest book, "Come on People!".

The Republican Party is in melt down. The various factions within the party are trying to position themselves for a post Bush era and they have failed to find a rally point. The candidates are stuck defending Bush's failed policies because to not do so would lose them a significant part of the party base. Remember, they have to appeal to Republican voters not the general public. The real candidate will emerge after they are nominated.
The religious right, that vaunted two edge sword that Karl Rove and company sharpened so well for Bush, can't find a candidate that will pass their narrow litmus test of social engineer and true Christian.

The anti-Tax guys, Norquist and Company, just don't get it. The mood of the electorate has changed. We have seen less government and we don't like it. It seems that lack of regulation and free market economics produces Enron, Wall StreetBanditry and home loan panics. With the rich obviously getting richer, the poor getting nominally poorer and the middle evaporating like spilled beer on a summer sidewalk, it seems the myth of everyone being welcomed at the country club has vanished.

Health care costs and educational opportunities are more important than spreading democracy to the Middle East. And while Iraq is on the back burner because the "Surge" has put a relativedegree of calm in the area, most of us still don't see the way out. Maybe a newer version of a dignified retreat?

Amidst all of this Republican chaos is the gloom of failure. Supply side economics, the hallmark of the Reagan era, has failed. Peace in the Middle East is still not a reality. We have lost the respect and admiration of most of the world including our friends. Trust me, nothing will happen on the international front until thisadministration is gone. Our domestic economy and infrastructure has been ignored to a large extent. The only thing that is sure since Bush has taken office is that Corporate Welfare entitlements are firmly in place for theforeseeable future.

And the Democrat? Fighting like kids in a school yard over which is better girls or boys, he said she said and my friends are cooler than your friends. Come on People!

Monday, January 14, 2008

The American Ayatollah's

No, they didn't insist on women wearing headscarf's or hiding their bodies completely in floor length gowns. Nor, did they insist that they travel only with male members of their own family. And they weren't Muslim extremists, but other similarities to the Taliban are frightening.

In my mind, any religion that subjugates either sex is wrong on the face of its belief system. I can't think of one religion that considers men the inferior of the two sexes. While the equality of women in American culture is new, (Yes, I know that will surprise people under the age of forty.), the blow-back from the feminist movement of the sixties has always been at the forefront of the conservative, may I say, extremists in the US. The recognition of equality between the sexes has been blamed for the break up of the traditional American Family, the higher divorce rate, the resulting escalation in single parent families, the abortion rate and the general lowering of morals in the society. Are these issues all solely the results of the feminist success?

Many men who were caught in the cross over from "a mans home is his castle" to the "why doesn't he help with the housework' eras, were frustrated, some say emasculated by events and there is no doubt they were motivated to strike back. Women who felt that the freedom to be all they could be was nice, but the practical application of the day to day reality of the concept was hard. In the early days of the movement the talk was easy, the walk, as a lot of women will tell you, was another story. Your security and future, when you have kids, a low paying job and no husband doesn't look to good and slogan and conscious raising nights out with the girls isn't a lot of solace.

Those of us that lived through the sixties thought that society had changed irrevocably on number of social fronts, but what we forget is that power is never surrendered. Finding a coalition of frustrated and seemingly disenfranchised, religious leaders formed a movement called "the moral Majority". Let me say this that while admittedly the movement gained a lot of power because of its solidarity and visibility, at its core it was neither moral nor a majority, but it often times appeared that way. T V Evangelists and mega church pastors did one thing differently than their predecessors, they took sides in the political arena. Billy Graham, used to be the pastor to presidents. He never seemed political, but he was always welcome in the White House. The new Ayatollahs however, hung their hat on the Republican party and rode the moral and social discontent to a position of power so great that even during this election process in 2008, we are witnessing the republican candidates jockeying for "Evangelical Christian" support, similar to the Democrats scrambling for the Labor Union support.

The Ayatollahs have been able to keep their flock together because they successfully convinced these good folks that these issues are personal and that they are being persecuted. The government is the problem. The government is controlled by liberal interests that do not have their best interests in mind when they legislate laws that protect gays, promiscuous single moms, and convicted criminals. This movement is highly symbolic. Prayer in school, protection for the American Flag and focus on banning abortions are all highly visible rallying points. I call The guns, flags, sluts and fags" agenda.

The problem is that while the support of these groups might be important to get the nomination from the party in some respects they are toxic in the general election. The American Ayatollahs are no different in one respect to their counterparts in the Muslim world. They have to convince their followers that they are the victims of society, that they are persecuted for their beliefs and the enemy is the defiler of their sacred beliefs. Abortion is murder and those that practice it can be justifiably killed. Women are vessels of God and should be sheltered and defended from sin and degradation. Only their husband can do that and they must trust and obey him in all things. Homosexuals are all living in sin and can not be tolerated. If we do not pray in school we are losing the Christian foundation of our American beliefs. And the latest scare tactic, illegal immigrants are a threat to our society and must be expunged from our country.

This deliberate and calculated reliance on discontent and fear is no different than their counterparts in extremist Muslim countries. Unfortunately, it worked for a long time. A minority of malcontents have held this countries deliberative process hostage for far to long. For Republicans it required being the right kind of conservative to gain admission to the inner circle, moderates from either party need not apply. And so in each election process, the candidates would march to Bob Jones University, pay homage to the Ayatollahs and get their blessing. The power, of course, came from motivating a huge voter turn out that blindly voted their pitiful one issue minds. Their need to be assured that the candidate would not make them license their guns, would not recognize gay marriage, fight to overturn Roe v Wade, allow them to pray in schools and, subtly but clearly understood was, the need to assure them that they were candidates of a Christian America.

What's changed? The stark realization that the Ayatollahs had sold out the needs of the average Joe. Somewhere along the line, people began to realize that all of these social issues were important, but not so important as to not recognize other needs, pressing needs. Poor health care delivery, the instability of jobs in a global economy. failing infrastructure and lack of emergency preparedness all became more important than abortion rights, flag burning, commencement prayers and homosexuals rights.

As a matter of fact, people became aware that nobody was preventing them from pray silently in school, forcing them to, burn a flag, have an abortion or adopt a homosexual lifestyle. They could still object to these things on moral ground and more to the point they did not have to prevent others from holding their beliefs. In short they weren't being persecuted for their beliefs, they were attempting to inflict their beliefs on others by law. Does that not sound like religious extremism? Of course it is and while you can try and call it strong religious belief, it's fascism with a holy face. I am hoping this next election deals a death blow to religious extremism in our political system. I want the Republicans to field meaningful candidates and provide honest opposition to the Democrats in matters of civil law and statecraft. The Ayatollahs will not go away, but at least they will be relegated to the fanatic fringe where they belong.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Analysis of Change

The race as of this date is still on. Obama was not able to administer the knockout blow to Clinton in the New Hampshire Primary. Nor were the Republicans able to sort out their dysfunctional differences, as John McCain won on the Republican side of the ticket While these people are running for the same office the differences between the major parties is huge.

The buzz word on the campaign trail is change. Every Candidate has been urged by their handlers to incorporate their two cents worth on the matter of change. The question is change from what. Obama and Edwards talk about changing the way we do business in Washington. Ultra partisan politics and the gridlock and stagnation it causes has exasperated the public, regardless of party or political tendency.

Bush, with the total cooperation of the Republican majority spent this country into a corner, started an war that is costly not only in money but its tax on our countries spirit and moral and he has squandered our reputation worldwide because of his lack of vision and management skills. This failed philosophy of preemptive war and supply side economics is what people want changed. How do we change that?

Some would say, vote out the Republicans. That might be a good idea and it certainly helps the Democrats in that some people are going to vote that way as they did in the midterm election in 2006. But what have the Democrats done with their majority? As it turns out, dammed little! It's clear that with a change in the White House and assembling a coalition of centrist or progressives,as they want to be called now, Democrats and moderate Republicans would help to start to straighten out this mess. Who is best sited to do this?

In the Republican Party there is only one obvious candidate, John McCain. McCain's problem is simple. He'll have a chance at winning because he is popular with independents, palatable to some Democrats and moderate Republicans, but he has to get his parties nomination. This is a huge problem since McCain has been a maverick in his own party for years. The far right wing does not trust him, the evangelicals don't like him and the Bush people hate him. You can make a case that given the low quality of the rest of the field that the party may hold it's nose and nominate him anyway, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on that happening.

The Democrats are suffering from an embarrassment of riches, to borrow the current cliche, with the Edwards, Obama, Clinton Troika on the Democratic side. Edwards is fully capable man who has forced the issue of middle class neglect and exploitation onto the agenda for two election cycles. He has enough of a constituency to be at the bargaining table and end up with some job in the new administration, regardless of which party wins, but I doubt he'll be the nominee of the party.

Reality set in after the Iowa. Hillary Clinton was so ready to be President that for a while early in this campaign she was assuming that she would be and started acting like the presumptive nominee. While she won in New Hampshire, she won in a three way race. What is interesting is that nobody is talking about what is going to happen when Edwards finally drops out. Where would those votes in New Hampshire have gone if Edwards is not on the ballot. Regardless, Clinton as the candidate is not your coalition candidate. You can argue that her husband did it with the opposition in control of the House and Senate, but we've sen Bill Clinton in action and Hillary is no Bill Clinton, regardless of her obvious qualifications. While it is true is that Hillary has more practical experience thanObama it is also true that she is far more polarizing. Obama is clearly the guy who has an involved and new constituency (See my comments about the Tiger Effect in my last blog). He can "reach across the aisle" and work with the opposition.

We need someone who can bring together the great political center of the society. Notice please, that the center of the electorate is not overwhelmingly Republican or Democratic. It is the independent voter who shifts back and forth between parties. It is this constituent that the parties seek after they have received their party's nomination and than forget once the vote has been tallied. The independent voter who has no organization to fall back on, no lobbyist in Washington, they are the true victims of the system. This is the group that is crying out for change. And excuse me Mr. Rove, by serving this constituency a party can build a future of long term dominance of the political system, not by pandering to the fears and prejudices of the fringe.

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Where Did You Think They Would Go?

In the search for a new community, we ended up at Starbuck's. I remember when it was fashionable, in fact "way cool" to meet the love of your life in a bar. Squares, today I think they are called "dweebs", paired off at church socials or, God forbid, they were high school sweethearts. Some will argue the grocery store and the coin op laundry are better places to meet perspective mates, but I have the sense that these people are the new breed of multitaskers. There was the health club fad which still has it adherents, but the rest of us gravitated to the coffee house.

Let me assure you, I'm not looking for a new mate, but socializing with friends and having short business meetings still is a part of my life. Like a lot of fads, coffeehouses, when observed in a rear view mirror, were a thing waiting to happen. We need a place to gather and bond as a community. I hate to sound old school, but I don't believe that the Internet will ever replace interpersonal relations. (I do think the net can help get people together, if they have a common interest.)

In my investigation of coffee houses in Milwaukee (www.espressoexpressions.com), I note that there are some group characteristics to some of them. The college hangout, the yuppie spot, the smokers spot and the Seniors roust are pretty apparent after you've stopped a couple of times. My son, Todd, in Seattle, the capital of Espresso, tells me some shops, for the most part, serve just one office building.

The coffee explosion was probably the direct result of the melt down in the two martini lunch and the neighborhood watering hole. Granted there is some of this going on, but let me assure you, it's not like it was back in the day. Health concerns and an new emphasis's on drunk driving enforcement probably did as much as anything to make people drink more responsibly, but than folks will always find someplace to congregate. My families for me figured out. I got three gift cards for coffee houses this Christmas. So I'll see you latte.

Sunday, January 06, 2008

Down the Rabbit Hole with Obama

Well it wasn't Kansas but it was close. Obama's victory in Iowa woke up the press and the country to the fact that this guy is the real deal. You're going to hear pundits going on about why he resonates with the common man and that his message is messianic in it's recall of the great changers of society; Franklin D Roosevelt and John F Kennedy are most often mentioned.

What the pundits and the deer-in-the-headlights mainstream politicians don't get is that the electorate is not amazed by Obama and his populist appeal, they've been waiting for him. Maybe we are all a little surprised that our next leader is going to be a black man from Illinois, but than he's not running to be the President of Black America either. His ability to connect with a broad spectrum of people is partly because he doesn't bring the baggage that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton did.

We've know for a long time that people have had it with politics as usual in Washington. Governor Shwarzenegger in California saw it and abruptly changed his confrontational tactic's to great effect. Signaling that Republicans who are going to be successful in the future are going to be moderate Republicans. The Republican Party is not your evangelical, gun toting, tax cuts at any price, gay bashing, Karl Rove crowd anymore. People have woken up and realized that the snake oil sales men left them with a product that is of dubious value.

I don't see why we ever thought that arming the ordinary citizen, segregating Gay's and relegating non-Christians to secondary citizenship was more important than health care, education and the growth of good paying jobs. I know we bought the bag of baloney that giving the wealthy more money would benefit all of us. I just don't why. What I do know is that we did buy into this, or at least enough of us did so that people like George W Bush got two terms as president of the United States.

What Obama's victory in Iowa meant is that era is in all probability over. I've mentioned before Obama's "Tiger Effect" on the voting public. Like Tiger Woods, Obama has people who were on the outside looking in, coming into the event and participating. Young people and disenfranchised Republicans, independent voters and moderate Democrats have responded to his message His cutting across demographics has amazed the experts. His challenge will be to keep them engaged long enough to get elected.

The cynicism of the electorate is understandable since after the Democrats routed the Republicans in the last election they have done little or nothing to effect change. Why is Obama any different? Maybe to much was expected, but the price for the Democrats is that the new face looks better than same old, same old. In truth, it's not just the Republicans that the public doesn't trust anymore, it's the establishment politicians. It's to bad for Hillary, Joe and Chris and time for Obama