Politics

If you haven't already, read the text of today's "race speech" from Obama (link).  No matter your political persuasion, you'll find much there that you agree with.

This speech is the essence of what is so attractive about his message.  Unity not division. Hope not fear. And not or. Americans not Republicans or Democrats. This I can support wholeheartedly.

The other thing that has struck me in recent days is how prevalent the impression is that our racial issues are so far behind us that they are irrelevant to today's reality.  And that Tiger Woods, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, a governor or two, are evidence that all is hunky dory.  Come on.  There is no disputing the fact that, relative to their percentage of the population, blacks are underrepresented in positions of power (government, Fortune 500 CEOs, etc.), behind in economic advancement, behind in academic achievement, but drastically over-represented in prison.

As I figure it, faced with that evidence as well as even a superficial knowledge of our racial history (slavery, lynching, sundown towns, segregation, discrimination, bigotry, etc.), what explanations do we have other than 1) the blatantly racist view that blacks are naturally inferior in terms of morality, intellect, etc. or 2) the conclusion that the effects of our tragic racial history are still felt today?  This is no excuse for any individual to shirk responsibility for his own actions, but it does help us understand why some people might still feel angry and that there is still work to be done.

With all the recent discussion of race in American politics (e.g. Obama taking heat for the high racial content of his church's message; Bill and Hillary Clinton taking heat for playing racial politics, etc.), it was great timing for me to hear the "Babies Buying Babies" segment of the 18 January 2008, installment of the This American Life radio show.

I won't go into any more detail so that I don't spoil it, but let me simply say that it was fantastic!!! Here is the teaser from TAL's site:

Elna Baker reads her story about the time she worked at the giant toy store, FAO Schwartz. Her job was to sell these lifelike “newborns” which were displayed in a “nursery” inside the store. When the toys become the hot new present, they begin to fly off the shelves. When the white babies sell out, white parents are faced with a choice: will they go for an Asian, Latino, or African-American baby instead? What happens is so disturbing that Elna has a hard time even telling it. (16 minutes)

Have a listen online.  Here is a link to the web page where you can listen to it in your web browser: link

Another good listen that is somewhat-related (deals with race in America) was the 23 January 2008 installment of the "Democracy in America" segment of The Economist's podcast.  It features a conversation with Michael Dawson of the University of Chicago who discusses...

...what's at stake for African Americans in this election, and whether Barack Obama has a chance

Here is a link to the mp3: link

Today was the presidential primary in Michigan.  I wasn't too excited to vote because voting uncommitted against Hillary wasn't too motivating...so if I had made it to the polls I would have voted in the Republican primary.  I would have voted for McCain.  I like that he's generally moderate and isn't afraid to go against the party base to do what he thinks is right.  Romney could be interesting as generally competent and a successful businessman, but I can't get past his desire to "double Guantanamo".  More on Romney later.  In a similar way, I could have been interested in Giuliani as a competent administrator, but he seems to be too much of a warmonger.  Huckabee appears to be likeable and can at least admit that waterboarding is torture, but I'm afraid there isn't enough substance behind his likeable tv personality and am disturbed by talk of amending the constitution to God's standards (link).  Thompson?  Whatever.  Paul?  Could be interesting if he weren't so extreme.

An article in today's Washington Post by Juliet Eilperin and Michael D. Shear contrasts McCain's and Romney's approaches to campaigning in Michigan.  Not that McCain has never pandered, but Romney is over the top:

Mitt Romney said Monday that as president he would ease fuel-efficiency standards and spend billions more in federal money to bolster struggling automakers...

McCain, on the other hand,

...took a different approach, continuing to deliver the kind of hard truths he believes are essential to mobilizing the independents...

At every stop, he went out of his way to make comments unpopular with many Republicans, saying he does not support drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and giving them "straight talk" by vowing that if elected he would never allow torture. The audience applauded heartily at that, even though his position runs counter to the way many in his party view controversial interrogation tactics.

McCain also told reporters that any candidate who says traditional auto manufacturing jobs "are coming back is either naive or is not talking straight with the people of Michigan and America." Instead, he said, business and political leaders should "embrace green technologies," adding: "That's the future. That's what we want."

Obama has recently come under attack from folks like Stephen Schlesinger and Paul Krugman.  I take it as a sign that Hillary is scared.  From Schlesinger's "The Problem with Obama":

There are a number of weaknesses in the Obama candidacy that make his effort seem both inadequate and even perilous for the Democratic Party and ultimately for the country.

First is the effort by the candidate to portray himself foremost as a conciliator. What Democrats want today is a fighter, not simply a mediator. They have suffered enough from the vicious blows of President Bush and the Republicans. What the party needs is a nominee who will take the battle directly to the opposition. Come the fall contest, a candidacy of "friendly persuasion" will be swiftboated into oblivion.

My hope and prayer is that the politics advocated by Schlesinger will be rejected.

I wrote previously about why I'm so cynical about politics.  The occasion then was how the new Democratic congress was going back on all their promises about how they were going to bring courtesy back to the capital, etc.

My feelings have only been reinforced this week:

From an article titled "Hoyer Is Proof of Earmarks' Endurance" by Mary Beth Sheridan in The Washington Post:

Even as House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer has joined in steps to clean up pork-barrel spending, the Maryland congressman has tucked $96 million worth of pet projects into next year's federal budget, including $450,000 for a campaign donor's foundation.

Hoyer (D) is one of the top 10 earmarkers in the House for 2008, based on budget requests in bills so far, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent watchdog group.

Earmarks are spending items inserted into bills to benefit designated companies or projects, often in the sponsoring lawmaker's district. They make up a small percentage of the federal budget. But because the grants often aren't subject to competitive bidding or much scrutiny, they can go to projects that are wasteful or reward campaign contributors, watchdog groups say.

Republicans had come under fire as earmarks tripled during their 12 years of congressional control, to nearly 13,000 in 2006. Some projects, such as a $223 million bridge to a sparsely populated Alaskan island -- dubbed a "bridge to nowhere" -- stirred public ridicule.

Since assuming control of Congress, Democrats have taken some important steps to clean up the practice, watchdog groups say. Lawmakers are now required to disclose their earmarks. And House and Senate leaders have agreed to cut earmark spending by 40 percent in the 2008 budget bills, most of which are being wrapped into a giant package to be presented this week.

"We made very substantial progress in making sure that earmarks, which I support, are transparent," Hoyer said in an interview.

And yet, pet projects can still be slipped into bills with little scrutiny.

From an article titled "Clinton rolls a sizable pork barrel" by Tom Hamburger and Dan Morain in the LA Times:

From the beginning of her Senate career, Clinton saw earmarks -- which enable lawmakers to bypass the normal budget process and insert narrowly drafted spending provisions directly into legislation -- as a key to funneling aid to a depressed area and building political power among normally Republican-leaning voters.

Since taking office in 2001, Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefited 59 corporations. About 64% of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by employees, executives, board members or lobbyists, a review by the Los Angeles Times shows.

All told, Clinton has earmarked more than $2.3 billion in federal appropriations for projects in her state since her election to the Senate, much of it for public works projects funded in conjunction with fellow Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer and others in the New York congressional delegation.

Clinton is not the biggest earmarker in Congress; senior congressional leaders and members of the appropriations committees can and do write many more such provisions into the huge spending bills they draft. But Clinton does significantly more earmarking than most others with her relatively low level of seniority.

Her record stands in contrast with others in the Senate seeking the presidency, particularly John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.). McCain, who has long opposed earmarks, does not write them. Obama has used the device, but now declines to earmark funds for private companies; he uses earmarks only to secure funds for government projects such as road building and hospital construction. Other senators seeking the presidency provide earmarks to home-state constituents and collect donations from recipients of the federal largesse. But The Times review found that Clinton does it on a different scale.

From an article by Matt Kelley titled "'Earmark' cash aids Dem freshmen" in USA Today:

A year ago, Democrats won control of Congress in part by criticizing billions of dollars spent on pet projects. Now, freshmen Democrats are benefiting from the same kind of spending, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

All 49 of the new Democratic lawmakers sponsored or co-sponsored at least one project — known as an "earmark" — inserted into the House and Senate spending bills, the analysis found. Freshmen Democrats were the sole sponsors on projects worth $351 million, an average of $7.6 million. Republicans got approval for projects worth $65 million, or $5 million each.

The analysis found that some of the most vulnerable freshmen Democrats in next year's election were among those who got the most money: Eight of the top 10 House freshmen earmark sponsors defeated Republican incumbents, and five won in districts carried by President Bush in 2004.

Democratic candidates criticized Republican incumbents last year for abusing earmarks. Patrick Murphy attacked then-representative Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., during a debate for failing to make the "tough decisions" on a transportation bill heavy with earmarks, the Bucks County Courier Times reported. Now a representative, Murphy sponsored $11.8 million for local projects and businesses — fourth-highest among House and Senate freshmen.

And, finally, from an article titled "Muscle Flexing in Senate: G.O.P. Defends Strategy" by David Herszehnorn in the NY Times:

Mr. McConnell and his fellow Republicans are playing such tight defense, blocking nearly every bill proposed by the slim Democratic majority that they are increasingly able to dictate what they want, much to the dismay of the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, and frustrated Democrats in the House.

In fact, the Senate Republicans are so accustomed to blocking measures that when the Democrats finally agreed last week to their demands on a bill to repair the alternative minimum tax, the Republicans still objected, briefly blocking the version of the bill that they wanted before scrambling to approve it later.

For the Democrats, it was a perfect example of why they have taken to calling the G.O.P. the “grand obstructionist party.” The Democrats send out daily tallies of the number of Republican filibusters, which the Democrats say will set a record.

It also explains why so little is getting done in Congress right now. With a crush of legislation pending ahead of the Christmas holiday recess, it should be one of the busiest times of the year.

This is why I'm intrigued by Obama and his promise to be a transformational candidate, through whom we could leave all of this B.S. behind.

Update 13 Dec 07:
From an article titled "Democrats Blaming Each Other For Failures" by Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane in The Washington Post:

When Democrats took control of Congress in January, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) pledged to jointly push an ambitious agenda to counter 12 years of Republican control. Now, as Congress struggles to adjourn for Christmas, relations between House Democrats and their colleagues in the Senate have devolved into finger-pointing. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) accuses Senate Democratic leaders of developing "Stockholm syndrome," showing sympathy to their Republican captors by caving in on legislation to provide middle-class tax cuts paid for with tax increases on the super-rich, tying war funding to troop withdrawal timelines, and mandating renewable energy quotas. If Republicans want to filibuster a bill, Rangel said, Reid should keep the bill on the Senate floor and force the Republicans to talk it to death. Reid, in turn, has taken to the Senate floor to criticize what he called the speaker's "iron hand" style of governance. Democrats in each chamber are now blaming their colleagues in the other for the mess in which they find themselves. The predicament caused the majority party yesterday surrender to President Bush on domestic spending levels, drop a cherished renewable-energy mandate and move toward leaving a raft of high-profile legislation, from addressing the mortgage crisis to providing middle-class tax relief, undone or incomplete.