"American Experience" on PBS broadcast its latest in a series of documentaries on U.S. Presidents. It was another good offering, this time on Bill Clinton.
Two thoughts came to mind while watching:
1. Dick Morris sure is impressed with himself. He was about the only self-serving expert to be interviewed in the four-hour program. And that includes a great many members of the Clinton Administration, who obviously had a stake in an historical look back.
2. What happened during the Clinton years to start the cycle of absolute hatred between the two sides of politics?
It's the second issue that deserves the most attention. For whatever reason, Clinton turned into a polarizing figure in record time. It's almost as if our politics got off the tracks right there.
Yes, Clinton was a man of huge appetites, with a tendency toward self-destruction. I'll never understand the relationship between Bill and Hillary along those lines. He took some steps in office that worked, and some that didn't. That happens in the Presidential business; you just have to hope that you win more than you lose.
But, jeesh, somewhere in there we went over the line of rationality. Clinton was no longer the political opposition, he was the enemy. The level of rhetoric went over the top.
And where has that led us? When Democrats lost the White House in 2000, they obviously remembered what had happened in the previous eight years. So ... George Bush wasn't merely wrong, he was an idiot. The man couldn't even put a sentence together, went the argument. There are still those who can't understand how John Kerry lost to "that man" in 2004.
Then things flipped again in 2008, when Barack Obama won. It was the right's turn to attack again, and they have answered the call. That has carried over to the 2012 campaign, with a couple of new wrinkles raising the stakes.
First, the rise of the Tea Party crowd has led to Republican candidates raising their rhetorical levels of disagreement to new heights. Obama isn't just wrong on issues, he's declaring war against our religious institutions, values, etc. I'm not sure how you win a general election that way, but that's an issue for down the road.
Then there's the case of the superpacks. Philosophically, it's hard to quarrel too much with the idea that the use of money is covered under free speech. But its consequences aren't exactly constructive.
In other words, if one of Newt Gingrich's rich pals wants to spend $10 million funding nasty television advertisements that rip the other candidates to shreds, he's welcome to do so. That doesn't make it a good idea. We all could make a long, long list of better things that could be done with that $10 million, but except for those in television ad sales, we probably agree that it's not helping the level of political discourse.
It's tough to guess where elements of the media fit in to all of this. From the right, people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity keep raising the stakes of what idiocy comes from the other side. On the other side, Keith Olbermann and Ed Schulz just reverse the arguments. They all have a stake at raising their voices louder and nastier, in an effort to keep their viewers energized. It's just tough to know how genuine it all is.
A great many people don't vote in this country. There are a number of reasons for that, such as difficult registration laws and inconvenient voting hours (why aren't we voting on the weekend, anyway?). There's also a feeling among some that there isn't much difference between the candidates in practical terms, so why bother?
But you'd have to think that some people are getting turned off by the entire process. Too often, after hearing a political ad or speech, those people must feel the urge to take a very hot shower and wash away the stain.
It would be nice to see someone take the high road once in a while. But I'm not holding my breath.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, February 24, 2012
Friday, August 12, 2011
The August blues
It sure has been a great August so far for a nation's leaders, eh? Think they want to go back to July for a do-over?
We've had the debt ceiling debate, the credit rating drop, the death of 30 soldiers in Afghanistan, and the stock market bounces for starters. For those of you adding up the winners and losers here, a winner is tough to find.
Recapping, President Obama tried his best to be the adult in the room when it came to the debt limit. He even gave in on raising taxes as part of a broader settlement, and essentially got nowhere in the talks. Then again, he walked out of one session saying he was taking the matter to the American people, which didn't exactly look Presidential.
Then earlier this week, he made a speech that tied together, at least within the confines of his remarks, the Afghanistan tragedy and the credit rating cut. Not sure who had that idea, but there was no way to make it look graceful. Bad idea there.
(For the record, Obama's speech came in early afternoon, and the stock market continued its plunge for the rest of that day. The New York Post implied there was a connection in its stories and headlines for Tuesday's paper, which was silly and unfair. Tough to defend that, speaking as a fellow journalist.)
Most people don't realize that a President can't do much about the economy. If Greece and Italy have problems, the Americans don't have much control. But the casualties from the Afghan occupation and reconstruction (it's really that more than a war in most ways) is a reminder that we've been there for 10 years, and little seems to change from the eye of a distant observer.
Still, Congress looks even worse midway through the month. No one could agree on much of anything in the debt talks, even within parties. The tea party folks weren't thrilled with Speaking John Boehmer's efforts at "compromise," which the liberals thought the lack of tax cuts made it a bad deal. Not a grown-up to be found among any of the principals there. Even the idea of holding up the debt ceiling for political reasons seems silly. Didn't the country promise to pay its bills when it launched those programs? Don't we have a proverbial solemn obligation to do so now? No one really understands much of what deal was made, and no one has much faith that the 12-member super-committee can figure something out in the current political climate.
And the members of Congress paid the price in the public opinion polls. While Obama's approval rating is in the 40's, Congress' rating is down to about 14 percent. How would you like to manage a reelection campaign for any of those people? "No thanks, I'm busy in 2012."
A commentator appearing on C-SPAN the other day made a great point about the political situation in Washington these days (wasn't taking notes, sorry). He said all of the liberals are Democrats and all the conservatives are Republicans. There are few people in between any more. In the old days, Southern Democrats were conservative on some issues, while Eastern Republicans were rather moderate. Now there's not much room for negotiations.
That has led to the rise of calling people RINO's (Republicans in name only) who try to figure out ways of settling disputes. If you haven't noticed, when one side controls the House and the other side controls the Senate, there are disputes.
As usual, the American people seem to be way ahead of the politicians on the matter of the debt limit. Polls indicate they want a combination of tax hikes that affect the wealthy a bit more and close loopholes, combined with good-sized cuts in spending. They at least intuitively realize that tax rates are historically low, with few people in the bottom half of income brackets paying anything (would something like a co-payment hurt?) and the upper half seemed to do pretty well under President Clinton with a top tax rate at 39.6 percent instead of the current 35.
And that's what some of the arguments have been about -- 4.6 percent points. We're not talking about 35 versus 82 percent, like it was 50 years ago, or even 50, under President Reagan. You'd think reasonable people could reach a happy medium (I know, I know).
Focusing on the top at the moment, you'd think Obama should be in some trouble when it comes to reelection. Still, no one looks ready to gain the nomination in a right-wing party and then then go to win the Presidency. Are anyone besides donors enthusiastic about Mitt Romney? Would you love to campaign against Rick Perry, who shared a podium last week with a preacher who claimed New Orleans was hit by Katrina because it was a city of sin?
I'm not sure if we're going to come out of this with anger or apathy in 2012. But the political landscape is waiting to be shaken if someone or something can provide the energy.
We've had the debt ceiling debate, the credit rating drop, the death of 30 soldiers in Afghanistan, and the stock market bounces for starters. For those of you adding up the winners and losers here, a winner is tough to find.
Recapping, President Obama tried his best to be the adult in the room when it came to the debt limit. He even gave in on raising taxes as part of a broader settlement, and essentially got nowhere in the talks. Then again, he walked out of one session saying he was taking the matter to the American people, which didn't exactly look Presidential.
Then earlier this week, he made a speech that tied together, at least within the confines of his remarks, the Afghanistan tragedy and the credit rating cut. Not sure who had that idea, but there was no way to make it look graceful. Bad idea there.
(For the record, Obama's speech came in early afternoon, and the stock market continued its plunge for the rest of that day. The New York Post implied there was a connection in its stories and headlines for Tuesday's paper, which was silly and unfair. Tough to defend that, speaking as a fellow journalist.)
Most people don't realize that a President can't do much about the economy. If Greece and Italy have problems, the Americans don't have much control. But the casualties from the Afghan occupation and reconstruction (it's really that more than a war in most ways) is a reminder that we've been there for 10 years, and little seems to change from the eye of a distant observer.
Still, Congress looks even worse midway through the month. No one could agree on much of anything in the debt talks, even within parties. The tea party folks weren't thrilled with Speaking John Boehmer's efforts at "compromise," which the liberals thought the lack of tax cuts made it a bad deal. Not a grown-up to be found among any of the principals there. Even the idea of holding up the debt ceiling for political reasons seems silly. Didn't the country promise to pay its bills when it launched those programs? Don't we have a proverbial solemn obligation to do so now? No one really understands much of what deal was made, and no one has much faith that the 12-member super-committee can figure something out in the current political climate.
And the members of Congress paid the price in the public opinion polls. While Obama's approval rating is in the 40's, Congress' rating is down to about 14 percent. How would you like to manage a reelection campaign for any of those people? "No thanks, I'm busy in 2012."
A commentator appearing on C-SPAN the other day made a great point about the political situation in Washington these days (wasn't taking notes, sorry). He said all of the liberals are Democrats and all the conservatives are Republicans. There are few people in between any more. In the old days, Southern Democrats were conservative on some issues, while Eastern Republicans were rather moderate. Now there's not much room for negotiations.
That has led to the rise of calling people RINO's (Republicans in name only) who try to figure out ways of settling disputes. If you haven't noticed, when one side controls the House and the other side controls the Senate, there are disputes.
As usual, the American people seem to be way ahead of the politicians on the matter of the debt limit. Polls indicate they want a combination of tax hikes that affect the wealthy a bit more and close loopholes, combined with good-sized cuts in spending. They at least intuitively realize that tax rates are historically low, with few people in the bottom half of income brackets paying anything (would something like a co-payment hurt?) and the upper half seemed to do pretty well under President Clinton with a top tax rate at 39.6 percent instead of the current 35.
And that's what some of the arguments have been about -- 4.6 percent points. We're not talking about 35 versus 82 percent, like it was 50 years ago, or even 50, under President Reagan. You'd think reasonable people could reach a happy medium (I know, I know).
Focusing on the top at the moment, you'd think Obama should be in some trouble when it comes to reelection. Still, no one looks ready to gain the nomination in a right-wing party and then then go to win the Presidency. Are anyone besides donors enthusiastic about Mitt Romney? Would you love to campaign against Rick Perry, who shared a podium last week with a preacher who claimed New Orleans was hit by Katrina because it was a city of sin?
I'm not sure if we're going to come out of this with anger or apathy in 2012. But the political landscape is waiting to be shaken if someone or something can provide the energy.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Take Five, mid-convention edition
1. My first reaction to the news that Sarah Palin was going to be the vice presidential choice of the Republicans was "Who?" My second reaction to the news was "Boy, the Democrats will never carry Alaska now." And my third reaction to the news was, "That sure puts a torch to criticism of Obama's lack of experience."
2. I've heard the argument that Palin's choice is an attempt to woo disgruntled Clinton voters who are women, but I can't see that working too well. Palin is anti-choice, a longtime member of the NRA, and someone who wants to teach creationism in schools. Does that sound anything like Clinton's agenda? I could see a handful of Clinton's supporters staying home in disgust, but I don't think said argument gives enough credit to her supporters and their depth of philosophic values.
3. I haven't seen most of Obama's acceptance speech yet, but with the stadium, confetti, fireworks and so forth, it might have provided the most impressive pictures I've ever seen of a political event. You could almost picture them ahead of time in a photo spread in Time or Newsweek.
4. I did see the post-speech analysis for Obama's address on tape delay. I went back and forth between Fox News and MSNBC (one started the analysis a few minutes earlier, making it easier), and it was fascinating. On MSNBC, the commentators were absolutely gushing on how it was the greatest speech since Washington said farewell to the troops. On Fox, the commentators were essentially saying it was the same old Democratic song and dance, nicely packaged for a change. There was some middle ground out there, and it took people like Chuck Todd and Brian Williams to find it, but those who talk a lot about bias in the media would have found ammunition.
5. If you have some extra time, the designated download of the week is Roger Simon's article on Politico.com on the Democratic primary process. It's something like 18,000 words over 24 pages, so read it at your leisure. But there's some great information in there.
2. I've heard the argument that Palin's choice is an attempt to woo disgruntled Clinton voters who are women, but I can't see that working too well. Palin is anti-choice, a longtime member of the NRA, and someone who wants to teach creationism in schools. Does that sound anything like Clinton's agenda? I could see a handful of Clinton's supporters staying home in disgust, but I don't think said argument gives enough credit to her supporters and their depth of philosophic values.
3. I haven't seen most of Obama's acceptance speech yet, but with the stadium, confetti, fireworks and so forth, it might have provided the most impressive pictures I've ever seen of a political event. You could almost picture them ahead of time in a photo spread in Time or Newsweek.
4. I did see the post-speech analysis for Obama's address on tape delay. I went back and forth between Fox News and MSNBC (one started the analysis a few minutes earlier, making it easier), and it was fascinating. On MSNBC, the commentators were absolutely gushing on how it was the greatest speech since Washington said farewell to the troops. On Fox, the commentators were essentially saying it was the same old Democratic song and dance, nicely packaged for a change. There was some middle ground out there, and it took people like Chuck Todd and Brian Williams to find it, but those who talk a lot about bias in the media would have found ammunition.
5. If you have some extra time, the designated download of the week is Roger Simon's article on Politico.com on the Democratic primary process. It's something like 18,000 words over 24 pages, so read it at your leisure. But there's some great information in there.
Friday, January 04, 2008
The body politics
A few notes from watching a few hours of coverage of the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3:
* Anyone who wondered why Barack Obama was doing so well only needed to watch his victory speech. He captured the moment beautifully. All of a sudden Hillary Clinton's inevitability seems far less ordained.
* Speaking of Mrs. Clinton, my wife thought it was interesting that she was constantly called "Hillary" by TV commentators while the others were called by their last names. Sexism? Or is it simply recognizing that "Hillary" is all over her signs and other campaign material, no doubt to stop people from thinking her husband is running again?
* Mike Huckabee's victory speech supported my impression of him from one of the debates. This is a friendly, approachable person who knows how to stick to the point. Besides, as Bill Clinton said, he's the only Republican candidate who knows how to tell a joke. I don't know how well he can hold up nationally, but it was nice to see him get a moment in the sun.
* Quick story about Huckabee -- I once wrote the press secretary asking for an interview with the Governor about running. We didn't connect on a time, and then Huckabee started moving up in the polls. Oops -- no time for an interview with a New York State reporter. Can't say I blame them for that decision. Maybe Joe Biden has time for such an interview now.
* If John McCain were a stock, I'd put a "buy" on his chances of winning the Republican nomination ... particularly if he wins in New Hampshire. Mitt Romney's chances seem to be shrinking by the hour. If Fred Thompson isn't too interested in winning, why should anyone else be? And Rudy Giuliani seems to be hitting the wall that we all knew a relatively liberal Republican might hit in the primary process.
* Keith Olbermann was quite restrained and professional during his time on the anchor desk for MSNBC. He gets credit for a William McKinley reference too. Chris Matthews seemed a little obsessed with what the headlines overseas might look like, and he took a few too many sides at times -- acting like he was still on "Hardball." Meanwhile, it's always good to have Tim Russert around.
* CNN certainly misses Jeff Greenfield (now back at CBS), the sharpest commentator in the business in my book, although it is smart to have David Gergen on as often as possible. Meanwhile, Suzanne Malveaux looks like she is being groomed for big things at the outlet, with good reason.
* Anyone who wondered why Barack Obama was doing so well only needed to watch his victory speech. He captured the moment beautifully. All of a sudden Hillary Clinton's inevitability seems far less ordained.
* Speaking of Mrs. Clinton, my wife thought it was interesting that she was constantly called "Hillary" by TV commentators while the others were called by their last names. Sexism? Or is it simply recognizing that "Hillary" is all over her signs and other campaign material, no doubt to stop people from thinking her husband is running again?
* Mike Huckabee's victory speech supported my impression of him from one of the debates. This is a friendly, approachable person who knows how to stick to the point. Besides, as Bill Clinton said, he's the only Republican candidate who knows how to tell a joke. I don't know how well he can hold up nationally, but it was nice to see him get a moment in the sun.
* Quick story about Huckabee -- I once wrote the press secretary asking for an interview with the Governor about running. We didn't connect on a time, and then Huckabee started moving up in the polls. Oops -- no time for an interview with a New York State reporter. Can't say I blame them for that decision. Maybe Joe Biden has time for such an interview now.
* If John McCain were a stock, I'd put a "buy" on his chances of winning the Republican nomination ... particularly if he wins in New Hampshire. Mitt Romney's chances seem to be shrinking by the hour. If Fred Thompson isn't too interested in winning, why should anyone else be? And Rudy Giuliani seems to be hitting the wall that we all knew a relatively liberal Republican might hit in the primary process.
* Keith Olbermann was quite restrained and professional during his time on the anchor desk for MSNBC. He gets credit for a William McKinley reference too. Chris Matthews seemed a little obsessed with what the headlines overseas might look like, and he took a few too many sides at times -- acting like he was still on "Hardball." Meanwhile, it's always good to have Tim Russert around.
* CNN certainly misses Jeff Greenfield (now back at CBS), the sharpest commentator in the business in my book, although it is smart to have David Gergen on as often as possible. Meanwhile, Suzanne Malveaux looks like she is being groomed for big things at the outlet, with good reason.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)