You demonstrate one of the worst traits of this BBS D and D area in your referenced quote. First of all, Krauthammer is obviously not an idiot. The man was a highly respected medical doctor, and a Carter administration appointee. Secondly, he was making an obvious OBSERVATION. John McCain wants to replace the UN with a league of democracies. While I prefer the League of Justice (Green Lantern would take care of Iran, and then go have a leisurely breakfast), a league of democracies is a wonderful idea. However, it wasn't Krauthammer's idea- it was McCain's.
I love your sig. But I hope you've got the creditials to back that "blithering idiot" crap up...(name calling? good grief)
You've done it Stanley, the one editorial posted here in the last several years that transcends political ideology and hits the nail on the head. Congratulations. Quick, someone post some Chomsky to top Krauthammer.
LOL. Krauthammer has a national audience. The last film I saw with Chomsky, about 30 nutjobs showed up a major university to hear him drone on about the evils of American foreign policy and how the Iraqi surge was doomed to failure. Chomsky is irrelevant (outside of linguistics).
So basically, we're using one current crisis as momentum to try and fix the gaping holes in our society and avoid three or four others...terrible indeed, impeach him now!
This would indeed be problematic, except this was the very platform Obama ran (and was elected) on and Krauthammer opposed, before (and during) the onset of financial collapse. Krauthammer appears to be throwing in with the lot who claims Obama should not move forward on any legislation until the financial downturn subsides; however, they oppose Obama's reforms already, absent this argument. One could argue this is a means to delay the fight over long-term reforms to our country in favor of focusing (forever) on the short term. Most presidencies push forward major reforms in their initial months in office (notably, FDR). If Obama wants to reform the areas Krauthammer mentions, he should indeed make that case now. And by claiming Obama blames only/largely healthcare, energy and education as the causes of the recession (ignoring the many other speeches about needed credit/ financial sector reforms and sundry bailouts), Krauthammer distorts Obama's rhetoric and record on this issue. Less on topic, does anyone else find "He shoots, he scores," with respect to a decades-long paraplegic, unintentionally enlightening?
Obama wants to get all his agenda underway asap, since there are senate elections in 2010. He has the majority support right now. It's probable that the economy is not going to right itself before that time, so an unlikely economic victory can't be counted on to insure democrat power. Obama, democrats, and republicans know this.
This would be a good theory if it weren't so wrong. The Senate field looks abysmal for Republicans in 2010. The chances of Dems going over 60 are good.
Hit the bird in hand, with the iron while the iron's still hot, methinks, before any scandals (real & imagined) /ennui attach themselves to the new administration, before the Blue Dogs have further rationalizations to stray. Clinton didn't do much, policy-wise, in the last six years of his term. After Patriot Act / Iraq, GWB too. If the economy continues further down the spiral, in another year the GOP will be able to say, "We voted against xyz ruinous Obama policies. Vote for us." Gingrich Revolution II.
Do you think the majority of voters look at anything but the "R" or the "D"? If the economy is still in the toilet (or worse) at election time, people will simply look at who is in power at the time, and vote opposite. It's a chance that is real, and Obama doesn't want to take that chance. Unless you can guarantee the chances of the Dems, you can't blame Obama for rushing his change through the system.
You're apparently as ignorant of Chomsky's work as you are of the point I was making but thanks for reinforcing it.
