I'm going to spend a week sitting on the balcony of a condo overlooking the white sands and emerald waters of Santa Rosa Beach, FL, just watching the waves and the tides slowly coming in and going out. And a sunset or two over the Gulf waters.
Sort of a chance to slow the pace, cleanse my mind and reflect on things, now that I no longer have the day to day administrative responsibility of the Emory Psychoanalytic Institute to keep me jazzed and occupied.
I will not have email or internet access, so there will be a hiatus here on ShrinkRap. Hope it's a good week for all. I'll be back ranting again, probably around Sept. 18 or 19.
Ralph
Friday, September 9, 2011
More bad news for Newt
Joe Nocera writes a column for the New York Times, usually about the political scene. On 9/6/11 he wrote about "The Last Moderate," Jim Copper, who is a Blue Dog Democrat from Tennessee.
Nacera describes Cooper as the conscience of the House,
Snake oil and shiny mirrors still attract the dumb and the naive. Fortunately, not very many of them now, down to 4% in one recent poll. And at least being in the race keeps him off the Sunday morning talk shows as a supposedly smart pundit.
Ralph
Nacera describes Cooper as the conscience of the House,
". . . a lonely voice for civility in this ugly era. He remembers when 'compromise' was not a dirty word and politicians put country ahead of party. And he's not afraid to talk about it. 'We've gone from Brigadoon to Lord of the Flies,' he likes to say."Nacera talked with him in an interview about how the climate has changed in the House since he was first elected in 1982.
"To Cooper, the true villain is not the Tea Party; it's Newt Gingrich. In the 1980s, when Tip O'Neill was speaker of the House, "Congress was functional. . . . Committees worked. Tip saw his role as speaker of the whole House, not just the Democrats. "'Gingrich was a new kind of speaker: deeply partisan and startlingly power-hungry. His first move was to get rid of the Democratic Study Group, which analyzed bills, and which was so trusted that Republicans as well as Democrats relied on it. . . . "'This was [Gingrich's] way of preventing us from knowing what we were voting on. Today, the ignorance around here is staggering. Nobody has any idea what they're voting on. . . . We no longer search for the best ideas or the best policies. . . . Too many people here are willing to deliberately harm the country for partisan gain. That is borderline treason. "'This is not collegial body anymore. It is more like gang behavior. . . . That is what Congress has become.'"And we can thank Newt for that. Too bad we can't call it treason and hang him for it. And some fools actually think he would be a good president to solve the country's ills.
Snake oil and shiny mirrors still attract the dumb and the naive. Fortunately, not very many of them now, down to 4% in one recent poll. And at least being in the race keeps him off the Sunday morning talk shows as a supposedly smart pundit.
Ralph
. . . but not big enough
Clinton's former Secretary of Labor, who has been critical of Obama for not "going big enough," in the past rated this speech as "Two Cheers and One Jeer."
Two cheers for: (1) presenting it to a joint session of Congress to signal its importance and sounding more passionate and determined than ever before since the 2008 campaign speeches; and (2) for correctly identifying the problem.
But one jeer because "it's not big enough." That's of course what Reich said about the $800 billion stimulus -- and has been saying every since. It's not just that he's a scold. He's right. It's not big enough and it didn't do what was needed.
Reich is not without understanding the problem Obama faces. What he has done makes sence: he limits the total and puts the largest chunk of it into tax cuts in order to get Republican votes. Otherwise, it won't pass. The cuts are for payroll for the working class and tax credits for small businesses, not for the wealthy and big corporations.
The problem is that tax cuts by themselves don't really do much long range, because they are temporary. So we pass an inadequate bill as the only thing that will pass, and then it doesn't do much. So it makes it that much harder to do it again or to make it larger.
And then Repubs use it to proclaim "the death of Keynesian economics," as Perry did in the debate this week. That meme must be in the Repub catechism: if you can't stop a program you dislike, cut its budget down so it's not effective, then claim it doesn't work. Happens all across the board, time and again.
I keep trying to understand what it is in their core beliefs that makes them so absolutely certain they're right, so blind to evidence to the contrary, and so implacable in negotiations. How can you continue to believe in that myth that privilege for the few, whether it's profits or tax cuts, will trickle down to the poor people? And then there's that meme's twin: a rising tide floats all boats.
Bah humbug. Ask all the people out of work, losing their homes, having to live on handouts and family members, while the salaries of fat cats and CEOs and the corporate profits are at record highs. When are the little boats going to start floating?
Not until after Obama has been defeated in 2012, if the Repubs can pull it off. Their strategy, whether admitted out loud or not, is to make him look like a failure at the expense of the country and the ruin of the middle class -- so they can then take over the government.
Ralph
Two cheers for: (1) presenting it to a joint session of Congress to signal its importance and sounding more passionate and determined than ever before since the 2008 campaign speeches; and (2) for correctly identifying the problem.
But one jeer because "it's not big enough." That's of course what Reich said about the $800 billion stimulus -- and has been saying every since. It's not just that he's a scold. He's right. It's not big enough and it didn't do what was needed.
Reich is not without understanding the problem Obama faces. What he has done makes sence: he limits the total and puts the largest chunk of it into tax cuts in order to get Republican votes. Otherwise, it won't pass. The cuts are for payroll for the working class and tax credits for small businesses, not for the wealthy and big corporations.
The problem is that tax cuts by themselves don't really do much long range, because they are temporary. So we pass an inadequate bill as the only thing that will pass, and then it doesn't do much. So it makes it that much harder to do it again or to make it larger.
And then Repubs use it to proclaim "the death of Keynesian economics," as Perry did in the debate this week. That meme must be in the Repub catechism: if you can't stop a program you dislike, cut its budget down so it's not effective, then claim it doesn't work. Happens all across the board, time and again.
I keep trying to understand what it is in their core beliefs that makes them so absolutely certain they're right, so blind to evidence to the contrary, and so implacable in negotiations. How can you continue to believe in that myth that privilege for the few, whether it's profits or tax cuts, will trickle down to the poor people? And then there's that meme's twin: a rising tide floats all boats.
Bah humbug. Ask all the people out of work, losing their homes, having to live on handouts and family members, while the salaries of fat cats and CEOs and the corporate profits are at record highs. When are the little boats going to start floating?
Not until after Obama has been defeated in 2012, if the Repubs can pull it off. Their strategy, whether admitted out loud or not, is to make him look like a failure at the expense of the country and the ruin of the middle class -- so they can then take over the government.
Ralph
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Obama goes big
In his jobs speech to Congress tonight, Obama, as they say, "went big." Last week, rumors were that he was going to ask for a $300 billion jobs package. Today, it was leaked that he was "going big," quoting one of his economic adivsors as saying, "If you're not going to do something real, don't do anything." And progressive criticism has been that he didn't in the past go for a big enough stimulus.
So, tonight, Obama gave a speech that had fire and grit and some of the rhetorical cadence of his campaign speeches. I thought it was terrific. Democrats in the House chamber thought so too, as their enthusiastic applause and cheering indicated.
He began by saying the everything he was proposing had been supported by both Democrats and Republicans in the past. And it will be paid for. So you should pass it right away. That last line became a chorus that he repeated six or eight times in the speech: "you should pass it right now." Adding near the end, "You should pass it, and I intend to take that message to every corner of this country." And then he called on the American people to lend your voice, let Congress know, make us pass it.
He did not mention the amount in his speech, but aides have released the figure of $447 billion, more than half ($250 billion) will be for tax cuts for small businesses, the ones most likely to create new jobs with enough incentive. It will also extend the payroll tax cuts for another year, as well as unemployment insurance and infrastructure programs that add jobs -- but only for projects that are already approved: "No more earmarks. No more boondoggles. No more bridges to nowhere," he said in the speech.
Some memorable lines:
"While they’re adding teachers in places like South Korea, we’re laying them off in droves. It’s unfair to our kids. It undermines their future and ours. And it has to stop."
Quoting Warren Buffet that he pays a lower income tax rate than his secretary, Obama said, "And he has asked us to change it." Later he said, about asking the wealthy to pay more: "This isn’t class warfare. This is simple math. These are real choices we have to make." There were some boos from the Republican side.
On regulatory reform, he acknowledged that some regulations did need to be reduced, but he rejected the notion that we had to trade off the health, safety, and welfare of the American people; so he intends to keep regulations that meet the test of those standards. And he added:
"I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy."
As he moved to conclude, he said:
So, tonight, Obama gave a speech that had fire and grit and some of the rhetorical cadence of his campaign speeches. I thought it was terrific. Democrats in the House chamber thought so too, as their enthusiastic applause and cheering indicated.
He began by saying the everything he was proposing had been supported by both Democrats and Republicans in the past. And it will be paid for. So you should pass it right away. That last line became a chorus that he repeated six or eight times in the speech: "you should pass it right now." Adding near the end, "You should pass it, and I intend to take that message to every corner of this country." And then he called on the American people to lend your voice, let Congress know, make us pass it.
He did not mention the amount in his speech, but aides have released the figure of $447 billion, more than half ($250 billion) will be for tax cuts for small businesses, the ones most likely to create new jobs with enough incentive. It will also extend the payroll tax cuts for another year, as well as unemployment insurance and infrastructure programs that add jobs -- but only for projects that are already approved: "No more earmarks. No more boondoggles. No more bridges to nowhere," he said in the speech.
Some memorable lines:
"While they’re adding teachers in places like South Korea, we’re laying them off in droves. It’s unfair to our kids. It undermines their future and ours. And it has to stop."
Quoting Warren Buffet that he pays a lower income tax rate than his secretary, Obama said, "And he has asked us to change it." Later he said, about asking the wealthy to pay more: "This isn’t class warfare. This is simple math. These are real choices we have to make." There were some boos from the Republican side.
On regulatory reform, he acknowledged that some regulations did need to be reduced, but he rejected the notion that we had to trade off the health, safety, and welfare of the American people; so he intends to keep regulations that meet the test of those standards. And he added:
"I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy."
As he moved to conclude, he said:
"I know there’s been a lot of skepticism about whether the politics of the moment will allow us to pass this jobs plan – or any jobs plan. Already . . . the media has proclaimed that it’s impossible to bridge our differences. And maybe some of you have decided that those differences are so great that we can only resolve them at the ballot box.But know this: the next election is fourteen months away. And the people who sent us here – the people who hired us to work for them -- they don’t have the luxury of waiting fourteen months. Some of them are living week to week; paycheck to paycheck; even day to day. They need help, and they need it now."
It was after this that he said he would take that message to every corner of this country.
Good speech, excellent deliver: impassioned, forceful, and crisp.
Ralph
Where is Gaddafi?
He has not appeared in public or on video in several months, but only in audio tapes. He claims that he is still in Libya and that he will never leave the land of his birth.
Libyan forces now in control of 90% of the country have put out conflicting reports: that they have him surrounded or that they don't know where he is.
Gaddafi is such a liar and such a manipulator -- but also such a megalomaniac that I think anything is possible. So my guess is that either:
(1) He escaped Libya months ago and is living well in another country, probably one that does not have treaties of extradition so that he can live out his life comfortably in exile. His family members who recently crossed over into Algeria will eventually join him there.
Or:
(2) That he intends to become a martyr and provoke a last-ditch battlefield assassination.
My hunch is #1 because I think ultimately he is more of a coward than a martyr.
Ralph
Libyan forces now in control of 90% of the country have put out conflicting reports: that they have him surrounded or that they don't know where he is.
Gaddafi is such a liar and such a manipulator -- but also such a megalomaniac that I think anything is possible. So my guess is that either:
(1) He escaped Libya months ago and is living well in another country, probably one that does not have treaties of extradition so that he can live out his life comfortably in exile. His family members who recently crossed over into Algeria will eventually join him there.
Or:
(2) That he intends to become a martyr and provoke a last-ditch battlefield assassination.
My hunch is #1 because I think ultimately he is more of a coward than a martyr.
Ralph
Newt was there; yes, he was.
Newt's irrelevance to this process was confirmed in this morning's New York Times.
An article about last night's debate focused largely on the battle between Perry and Romney. Buried in the story was this paragraph:
Let's see if Newt demands a correction and if he gets it.
Ralph
An article about last night's debate focused largely on the battle between Perry and Romney. Buried in the story was this paragraph:
"The debate organizers . . . placed Mr. Perry at the center of the debate stage. He was surrounded on either side by Mr. Romney and Michele Bachmann. The other candidates on hand were Representative Ron Paul of Texas, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and Herman Cain, a retired business executive."'Get it? They left Newt out completely. Which, for a narcissist like Newt, is the unkindest cut of all. Of course, he's not a serious candidate at this point. He just craves the attention and the boost for his book/video/DVD empire. Sarah Palin's dark twin.
Let's see if Newt demands a correction and if he gets it.
Ralph
GOP debate reflections
There will be many more, but this was the first debate that included Rick Perry -- and he jumped in with both guns blazing, like the Texas bronco he is. He and Mitt Romney tried to turn it into the two many race it may eventually become. Perry is scary. Romney is just bland; sane, but about as consistent as a revolving door. He continuously changes but is consistent in his constant changing.
Nevertheless, of the two I would pick Romney without second thoughts. Perry calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme (it definitely is not; it is a securities-backed insurance program that would be solvent if our government would stop stealing it's reserves). He wants to get rid of the people electing their Senators directly. He has never "struggled with the risk of executing an innocent man," even though that very likely happened at least once since he's been governor.
Even more than his policies, it's his braggadocio swagger that puts me off. There is one picture from last night's debate that says it all in body language. Romney is standing tall and straight, smiling pleasantly, looking (for him) loose but contained, actually "presidential."
Perry stands to the side with some distance between them. His body language shouts COCKY. Chest thrust forward. Legs apart like he just got off a horse. Knees slightly bent in that ready-for-action stance. Bad-boy grin on his face. Arms out from his body with elbows bent, hands poised ready to draw his pistols from their holsters and shoot you dead. It shouts LOOK AT ME !!! I'M THE ONE !!!! I'M A BIG BRAVE MAN !!!! READY TO FIGHT THEM CATTLE RUSTLERS !!!!! It's the exaggerated way a comedian would stand if he was trying to caricature George W. . . Ugh.
Michele Bachmann sort of was lost in all this. She repeated her mantras, without a shred of back-up. Ron Paul ranted as usual. Cain preached.
Jon Hunstman -- for my money -- won hands down. He sounded like the adult in the room. And he was forceful for a change. He chastised the others, saying Republicans can't afford to ignore science and other evidence in forming policies. He touted his own accomplishments as governor of Utah, which are in fact impressive, to counter the volley between Perry and Romney about who accomplished more as governor. He's the only one with any foreign policy and international trade experience, having been ambassador to China.
Further, Huntsman gains points for exceeding expectations. Will it be enough for the nomination? No, but he will probably rise some in the polls as people take a second look. And it positions him well for a VP nomination in 2012 or for president in 2016. But this nomination is going to the one who can sound just sane enough to seem safe to the more reasonable voter and yet pander enough to the far right enough to be their second choice. Sounds like Romney.
Newt? The non-news about him deserves its own post.
Ralph
Nevertheless, of the two I would pick Romney without second thoughts. Perry calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme (it definitely is not; it is a securities-backed insurance program that would be solvent if our government would stop stealing it's reserves). He wants to get rid of the people electing their Senators directly. He has never "struggled with the risk of executing an innocent man," even though that very likely happened at least once since he's been governor.
Even more than his policies, it's his braggadocio swagger that puts me off. There is one picture from last night's debate that says it all in body language. Romney is standing tall and straight, smiling pleasantly, looking (for him) loose but contained, actually "presidential."
Perry stands to the side with some distance between them. His body language shouts COCKY. Chest thrust forward. Legs apart like he just got off a horse. Knees slightly bent in that ready-for-action stance. Bad-boy grin on his face. Arms out from his body with elbows bent, hands poised ready to draw his pistols from their holsters and shoot you dead. It shouts LOOK AT ME !!! I'M THE ONE !!!! I'M A BIG BRAVE MAN !!!! READY TO FIGHT THEM CATTLE RUSTLERS !!!!! It's the exaggerated way a comedian would stand if he was trying to caricature George W. . . Ugh.
Michele Bachmann sort of was lost in all this. She repeated her mantras, without a shred of back-up. Ron Paul ranted as usual. Cain preached.
Jon Hunstman -- for my money -- won hands down. He sounded like the adult in the room. And he was forceful for a change. He chastised the others, saying Republicans can't afford to ignore science and other evidence in forming policies. He touted his own accomplishments as governor of Utah, which are in fact impressive, to counter the volley between Perry and Romney about who accomplished more as governor. He's the only one with any foreign policy and international trade experience, having been ambassador to China.
Further, Huntsman gains points for exceeding expectations. Will it be enough for the nomination? No, but he will probably rise some in the polls as people take a second look. And it positions him well for a VP nomination in 2012 or for president in 2016. But this nomination is going to the one who can sound just sane enough to seem safe to the more reasonable voter and yet pander enough to the far right enough to be their second choice. Sounds like Romney.
Newt? The non-news about him deserves its own post.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
