E-mail of the Day

From a dear associate of mine:

Honestly, what scares me the most isn't that the Democrats refuse to act
like the party in power, but the way the American people are responding
right now and how quiet the Democrats are over it.

I mean, read stuff like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/04/voter.anger/index.html

ZOMGZ!?! A couple politicians didn't pay their taxes, properly! And now they
want to spend $900 billion on economic stimulus?! BOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reality is, it is that, or we all start getting in fucking bread lines
in front of Bill Gates house. This is how responsible governments react to
economic crisis and political scandal. Get over it already. Only they can't
because the Democrats are as timid now as they were in 2003, only now they
have a massive majority in both Houses! It scares the bejebus out of me. No
one is talking but the Republicans and lapdog Americans are eating it up
because Keynesian economics, infrastructure spending, and redistribution of
wealth are "big, scary" terms to them.

The Democrats need to be louder, and frankly, they need to do what Bush did to sell the Iraq War, use a little fear-mongering. The difference of course is that there is actually a real threat to this nation and that fact is getting lost in the practically pointless debate about government spending in the stimulus. Fine, attack a few line items as "pork," but you know what, that money is going right into an economy that needs it.

The Republicans have spent decades telling you the government is going to rape you, but now we have no one but the government willing to put money into this economy and the knee-jerk reaction is to flip out about the government spending "your money." If someone doesn't spending money we're going to be much worse off then we are now.

A New Beginning

Since we haven't posted anything in nearly two weeks now... can I get an amen? That is "literally" a beautiful article, to borrow a favorite erroneous phrase from our new Vice President. Seriously. It's almost unbelievable. Just like that, so much hubris, so much deeply felt pain and embarassment, just wiped away...

On another note, the great debate is over. Not that there was ever much disagreement to begin with. My guess is it will be Cuomo. Still another dynasty pick, but at least he has the political background to justify an appointment.

The Vices of Nepotism

Even though it's now apparent Brandon and I do not disagree on the issue of nepotism, I still found this post by Glenn Greenwald interesting and relevant to our Caroline Kennedy discussion. In the radio feature, Greenwald interviews an Indiana University political science professor who has conducted extensive research on dynastic politics. Among his findings: one in four current senators have an immediate family member whose held high office; dynasticism in U.S. politics is growing; and, most surprisingly (and disenchantingly) to me, Democrats engage in this sort of nepotism much more than Republicans do.

The question of Kennedy's appointment becomes a sort of cost-benefit analysis for anti-nepotism New York Democrats: Are the political and campaigning advantages Kennedy brings worth the further entrenchment of our country-- and our party, especially-- in dynastic politics? It's a tough question, and I think both sides have legitimate points. There's little question in my mind Democrats would have a tougher time keeping the seat in 2010 and 2012 with someone other than Kennedy or Cuomo. Ultimately, though, I'm still riding the anti-Kennedy bandwagon. It may be a case of "killing yourself to live," yes. But hey, look what Dean's long-term outlook unexpectedly brought us in the short term in that situation.

RE: Caroline On My Mind

I concur with Greg's hatred of nepotism. I'm no fan either, but in defense of Caroline let me explain my rather tepid support. New York is a big state, it is not cheap to run for statewide office. Media exposure in NYC is expensive and with so much bleed into CT and NJ it's also quite wasteful, add the cost of the media tours upstate and we're talking millions of dollars. Now remember, Clinton's replacement will have to run in the next cycle, 2010, as well as 2012 when Hillary's seat was originally up for re-election. So that's two statewide elections back to back. Both of which will probably face strong Republican competitors. Peter King from Long Island is already hinting at 2010. So basically, in order to win back to back elections the dems will need massive money and for better or worse the Nepotistic characteristics of her last name will help her greatly. The only person who shares name recognition in the same ballpark is Cuomo who I would also be happy to see appointed but he's currently playing the "I don't want it" game, but deep down, everyone knows he does.

Caroline On My Mind

Seeing as I'm a politico, a New Yorker, and (as of late) a blogger, I'm thinking I'm almost obligated to post something about Caroline Kennedy likely becoming my next Senator. So here, adoring fans, is my one cent (seeing as Brandon offered up the other half of this blog's pennies on the issue a month ago, when an opinion was much timelier and appropriate).

I've gone back and forth on this quite a bit. When Kennedy first surfaced as a possible candidate, my first reaction was yes. I admire her family, from JFK all the way down to RFK Jr. In fact, before RFK Jr. dropped out of consideration, I was rather intrigued by the idea of him nabbing the seat. Then, after hitting the blogosphere and giving it a little more thought, I changed my mind. Nepotism at its finest... no thanks. But THEN I read Brandon's post and it got me thinking again. From a tactical (or is it strategic?) viewpoint, Kennedy is the only potential appointee that makes sense. Her name and fame will carry a lot of cache in Washington, especially in this administration, and we'll need some major sway from that seat with the big stimulus pie soon to be divvied up.

But, at the end of the day, I have to vote "nay" on Caroline. I totally understand the case for her, and I know naming anyone else up for consideration will likely only hurt New York in the short term. I just can't get over the nepotism thing. Bush, Hillary, Gore, Romney, Bayh, Biden's son in Delaware next year... I know it seems somewhat arbitrary to draw the line at Kennedy, but it has to be drawn somewhere. Ask yourself, Democrats: If a GOP governor floated the idea of appointing a Bush or Reagan (the bad kind) with no political experience to a Senate seat, would your reaction not be one of total disgust? Call it simplistic or naive, but I don't think it's good for democracy when surname trumps merit, no matter the personal political costs.

As for who SHOULD be appointed, you got me. I'm embarrassed to admit I don't know much about anyone else being mentioned besides Gillibrand, and even though she's far from ideal, I still prefer her over Kennedy. Any solid Democrat who's worked hard for this state in Congress would be a good start to me. I guess I need to research this further... probably should have thought of that before I posted, huh?

Just a quick recommendation

I watched American Splendor yesterday and cannot recommend it enough. If you have not seen it, go see it right now. Paul Giamatti as a lovable loser (per usual), and insults thrown at David Letterman. The blending of the real life people and the character's in the movie was great. So many times I'm watching a movie based on real people and thinking "there is no way they act like that" and for every odd personality trait portrayed in the film, you see it reflected in their real life counterpart.

Deeply moving about a cranky old curmudgeon. Go see it if you haven't!

Can she really be serious?

Now, I know Ann Coulter is not meant to be taken literally. No one can really be that crazy. She has a great shtick that earns her big bucks. What scares me is that too many people actually take her seriously. Reading her column naming Sarah Palin as Human Events Conservative of the Year makes me cautiously optimistic the conservative in it's current form is dead.

In the wake of 2004, it appeared that Rove's dream of a permanent Republican majority was becoming a reality. The Democrats had been completely eviscerated of the defining issue of the day, the "War on Terror," and were confused and emasculated by an angry and vicious right wing. But how quickly things can change. As the Republicans had no actual policy proposals or competent appointments from Bush, the Republican party soon collapsed in on itself. The politics of hate got them elected, but they couldn't actually govern and this quickly became obvious to the voters who handed them two crushing defeats in a row.

So, the voters have clearly rejected the demagoguery of the right (whether they were accepting the policy proposals of the left is open to debate) because it became clear they were more driven by ideology that practical governing. So, with that in mind who do they choose to lionize as "conservative of the year"? The woman who emobodied that very characteristic and was more instrumental in McCain's lose than they dare acknowledge. In this time of panic the last thing an unemployed father is looking to hear is how Obama is a terrorist, they want to hear about what the government can and will do to fix the situation. As usual, the right throws out tax cuts, but as that is the exact same thing we've always heard from the right, they're not convincing anyone they have a real idea about how to fix the problem. As long as they were sticking to what they know, they decided to call Obama socalist terrorist, no substantive critique just pure mud.

Go ahead dig your heels in and pray that Obama is a terrible president, don't actually provide substantive policy proposals and be vocal about how wrong Obama is. If they double down on Obama's failure and he succeeds, the Republican Party as we know it will no longer exist.

*fingers crossed*