Judicial Activism

The National Review posted a finely researched article about the ways Democrats and Republicans enjoy decrying and utilizing judicial activism.  It's worth a look as we prepare for a "whale of a fight" over whomever President Obama chooses to nominate to replace Justice Stevens.

What the Affordable Care Act Does

I should have posted this a month ago, but since the topic is back in the news cycle, here's a breakdown of what the Affordable Care Act does, and when.  Everyone should read it if they want to know what to expect from insurance companies in the next decade.

"No Duh" of the Day

In no realistic scenario can Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act.  This one-dimensional thinking is what you get from a party that basis its existence on absolutes.

On Parties and Philosophies

Since my last post, I've continued to dwell on the current state of American conservatism and the Republican Party.  For months, the public has watched in stupefied awe as the sorry soldiers of the political right impotently lash out at the new political and cultural realities that have begun to eclipse their own.  Tea Party protests, crooked publicity stunts from Sarah Palin, and threats against Democratic lawmakers have made it easy for people to wonder: "What the hell is wrong with these people?"  

However, the increasing frequency of this question’s proposition has produced a minor backlash from people who would otherwise sympathize with Republican values.  These people do not condone the signs carried by Tea Party protesters, often dislike Sarah Palin, and stand aghast at the intimidation being used against Democratic politicians.  More than these things however, these Lost Conservatives do not appreciate (and often take offense at) the smug boastings of Democratic—or more specifically, Obama—supporters who are certain of their righteousness in the face of GOP absurdity.

The Republican Party would like everyone to believe it is not related to the Tea Party movement, but this proposition continues to confuse outside observers.  The GOP seems to be making no attempts to differentiate itself, and to many people, the relationship seems too much like the hands of a puppeteer: one is drawing your attention with a suit and tie while the other engages in vandalism and political bullying.  They may be playing different characters, but they're putting on the same show.


This is where the Lost Conservatives become very important.  They see the Republican Party in disarray, the lunatic fringe getting highlighted because sanity doesn't sell.  Lost Conservatives do not believe the Tea Party fits the image of the Republican Party, and that the upstart movement, as unseemly as it may be, does not justify a complete dismissal of the Republican Party’s dignity and integrity.  They give Republican lawmakers slack because they understand that it is difficult for politicians to break the group-think that plagues our two-party system and criticize allies, especially in the face of losing votes for fear of not being conservative enough.  For Lost Conservatives, "the heart of the party" is still with Reagan and the glory days of American conservatism, and Republicans will, by default, right their ways once this storm has passed.  It irks them to see the Republican Party painted with such a broad brush because they used to support it and would like to support it again.


What, then, should the public be paying attention to when searching for the identity of the Republican Party?  The outlandishness of the GOP cannot, by itself, be enough reason to look elsewhere since, by definition, a party’s identity can only be determined by… well, the party.  To understand the GOP, the public must begin to separate conservatism from the Republican Party—we must differentiate between parties and philosophies.  The basic tenets of classic American conservatism—low taxes, minimal government bureaucracy, financial stability, etc.—either do not exist as part of the current Republican Party's philosophy, or are cynically used as tools for securing reelection.


It is important to acknowledge that there are many groups with vastly different objectives in most political parties; neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are always unified bodies.  The whole point of having a political party is that people can represent their interests in larger numbers, thus earning individuals more bargaining power and consideration.  But in an effort to salvage the image of the Republican Party, Republicans (and, to a lesser extent, Lost Conservatives) would like us to ignore the basic purpose of a political party simply because blatantly radical elements are now the primary motivators of GOP policy creation and activism.


I've said this before, and it remains true: it is up to the people who feel they have been affronted—the Lost Conservatives—to stand up and make clear who we should be listening to when we inform ourselves about Republican identity. It cannot possibly be that difficult.  We live in an age where media outlets broadcast Tweets and Facebook updates as news; how hard can it really be for moderates to step up, if only momentarily, to say, "We wholly reject the paradigm of the current Republican Party, and you should not think of us this way?"


This well-intentioned quest does not bode well for our representative democracy.  By forsaking their own interests while they wait for the Republican Party to welcome them back, Lost Conservatives release themselves of the burdens of their principles at a time when it would do them the most good to push these ideals as hard as possible.  This behavior is irrational and hinders the recovery of the GOP.  No one benefits when moderates sit back and sigh, "This too shall pass."  Democracies thrive on internal conflicts driven by the self interests of various groups, and if people are willing to surrender that, I find it difficult to sympathize with them.


Democrats gain nothing from providing a home to the Lost Conservatives.  Their core goals and philosophies are too different to result in a stable party.  For the Lost Conservatives to regain their voice, they must retake the Republican Party.  Until that happens, the stagnation of the GOP will continue, and the Lost Conservatives will be left to hold their nose and watch the Democrats fumble their way towards liberal policies that the Lost Conservatives could shape and improve if they had a larger voice.

The Lunatic is in the Hall, Again

In college, I studied the growth of the militias in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s, which culminated in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.  Security specialists can tell you that these people have not gone away or changed their methods, and I wonder what will have to happen before Republican party members decide that they should turn down the heat on the pot of domestic resentment and violence that they brought to a boil, and now choose to conveniently leave unattended on the stove.  A recent article by John Marshall states that "thankfully, nobody has been injured or killed."  I wonder what the workers and victims of the February 18th attack on IRS offices in Austin, TX would say to that?  Maybe we should ask for the opinions of doctors who have been killed by (ironically) pro-life activists for providing controversial--but legal--services to patients?  Perhaps Marshall was referring to those who haven't been killed yet, like Tom Perrielo's brother.  What will it take for people to realize that things have already gone too far?

We all know that both sides of the political spectrum have radicals and people who act out inappropriately (ELF and certain WTO protest organizations would be reasonable comparisons), and all who participate in such thuggery should be condemned.  That said, the moral equivocating of the modern GOP is disgusting, and deserves to be ridiculed not only because its leaders refuse to speak up, but because they were actively engaging in the incitement of these lunatics.  We've all heard countless examples of GOP members touting ridiculous claims since the 2008 presidential race and this behavior is what differentiates the actions of current conservatives from the actions of a group like ELF: one is mainstream, and the other is not.

Christopher Hitchens, when discussing radical Islam, once asked, "Why is it that we can't get condemnation easily, or at all, when, for example, Shiaa mosques and funeral processions in Iraq are blown up Muslim fascists?"  The comparison is no doubt hyperbolic, but the principle can still be applied: Public officials bear the very serious responsibility of loudly rejecting repugnant acts, regardless of how unpleasant it may be to do so, or how disconnected the acts are from a political platform.  Nothing is more damaging to a democracy's political institutions and processes than misinformation, and it is for this reason that the Republican party will suffer for its alignment with the Tea Party movement.

I continue to hear GOP leaders and friends question the necessity or benefits to speaking out against violence, and it saddens me to think that they really don't feel the urgency behind quelling the outrage of their political friends.  What's going on right now is not political activism--it's Quixotic intimidation disguised as patriotic rebellion against the windmill of federal government:

Successful governing (that is, the creation and enforcement of public policies) requires all parties involved in the process to maintain a certain level of sincerity in order to be taken seriously.  In America, there is currently no such agreement between the left and right.  Until that basic trust has been re-established, (starting with a mass renunciation of violence and vandalism by Republican politicians) the GOP will continue to be a party that bases its entire existence on the infantile tantrum it has thrown over being out of power.  In the mean time, the pot continues to boil.

If There's One Thing I've Learned...

...it's that politics is exhausting.  It takes a certain level of stamina to follow the details of multiple stories as complex as health care reform, the daily grind of Congress, or the Obama administration's fluctuating feelings on where to try terror suspects for their crimes.  The internet has made it extremely easy to find other people's analyses, but finding raw information and synthesizing it to create meaningful posts on a regular basis is something I just haven't gotten the grip of yet.  Duties and desires exist outside of the blogosphere, and I'm still trying to find the proper balance between the things I need to do and the things I'd like to get better at.


In short, my apologies for going on an unexpected hiatus for a whole week.


My goals for this blog have changed since it began several months ago.  Originally, it was a way for me to organize my thoughts about current events while trying to train myself to write in a professional way on a more regular basis.  Now I find that this blog is more of a cathartic thing, allowing me to release energy built up over the course of a day or week as I follow the news.  There are a lot of things I'd like to be an expert on: Congressional procedures, political prospects for 2010 and 2012, the Torture Memos, the Arab-Israeli conflict... the list goes on and on.


Over the course of the coming months, my schedule will become increasingly busy, and my time to sift through the hundreds of stories brought to me by Google Reader will diminish further.  When I do write, however, I hope to do so as an expert about the topic, even if that means I don't have something posted the day an event takes place.  I'm not a newspaper, and blogs suffer when the writers try to be things they are not.


My golden rule--never get too personal!--will still stand, but I (and as a consequence, my blog) will benefit from not forcing myself to write about dreary, serious things all the time.  Thus far, I have been quite passionate about the topics this blog has addressed, and I will continue to be attached to them, but I hope to inject my personal interests into more of my posts from now on.  


I hope everyone continues to read and enjoy The Baltimore Soloist as I try to retool my writing habits.  And, as always, please pass this site on to your friends and family if you feel I deserve it.

Statistics of the Day

I know I'm a little late with this, but my initial skepticism of the Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll that made such a splash among internet commentators last week kept me from talking about it until today.  After examining the methodology behind the study, I'm much more comfortable accepting it as legitimate.  Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com provides some great analysis.

If nothing else, this study proves once again how good the Republican party was at controlling its brand and its message.  As silly as some of these responses may seem, they stem from strict party discipline among Republican lawmakers and a desire to gain an advantage over President Obama by any means necessary.  The Republican modus operandi continues to be peddling demonstrably false statements.

Even more telling than the responses are the questions.  That Republicans overwhelmingly believe some of the things being asked is simply mind-boggling.  (One note--make sure to look at the scale of the Y-axis when looking at each graph on Nate Silver's page.  The graphs can be misleading without careful reading.)  Overall, the differences in responses from one GOP supporter to the next are negligible.  Only non-White persons answering questions about racism or Obama's birthplace had significantly different answers than their White counterparts.  And this is where things get complicated.

Since the presidential race in 2008, the GOP has been desperately trying to change the way it looks to the American people, but this survey shows how badly it is failing.  Republican opinion is now a feedback loop built on paranoia and stereotypes.  The irony of course is that, like anyone else, GOP members resent being stereotyped because it detracts from their ability to look like a party that truly fits the entire country.  This survey has exposed (again) how much Republican concentration goes into keeping cultural norms and social mores in place, and how unconcerned party members are with formulating policy that does anything else.

Until the Republican party gets serious about solving problems and not chasing figments of its imagination, it will continue to be a miserable afterthought in the minds of serious problem solvers.

The Law: 2 Assholes: 0

Good news from the court system this week. First, a military appeals court found "no reversible errors in the decision of the lower court" in the convictions of two perpetrators of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.  Then, yet another terrorist was brought to justice in civilian court.  Two points for the good guys.

The courts can handle these cases--they've been doing so for many years.  That some people can't bring themselves to trust the court system they live under doesn't mean the United States shouldn't default to civilian trials for these thugs.

And Last, but Not Least...

...A nice bedtime story that will smash your hopes for cooperative government like a six-year old with a baseball bat in a field of fireflies.  I can't say this is unexpected, but it still hurts to read.

Wait, There's a Game on Next Sunday?

Based on discussions about the anti-abortion ad featuring Tim Tebow scheduled to air during the upcoming Superbowl, it's hard to believe that the New Orleans Saints and the Indianapolis Colts had such memorable seasons this year.  Nobody seems to remember.  Commentary shifted from "Which high-quality quarterback will win a ring for their team?" to "HOLY SHIT, ABORTION!" in less than a week. Jason Fagone of Slate.com posted a fantastic profile of Tebow yesterday, and it reminded me of just how bizarre "discussions" about abortion are in this country.

Like so many other things in America, the topic of abortion tends to act like a full moon shining on someone afflicted by lycanthropy: it changes sane and rational people, capable of sympathy and empathy, into rapacious creatures that lash out at whoever crosses their path. An ounce of credibility or attention given to one side over the other demands retribution by the opposing faction, and any trend towards civility is an affront to their dignity.  The issue at hand has already been blown a bit out of proportion--Facebook and Twitter feeds are piled high with angry comments about CBS's decision to run the ad, so it's important to remember that the scope of this affair is really much narrower than people would like to think.

Tim Tebow had an exceptional career in college football, and attention has been split between his stats and the bible verses he writes into his eye black.  Tebow's future in passive proselytizing may be in question, but he is unconcerned with the controversy surrounding the ad that he helped create.  And why should he be?  According to CBS, the ad will not "mention the word abortion."  But that hasn't stopped pro-choice groups from campaigning against CBS.  Jemhu Greene, president of the Women's Media Center, told EPSN that "An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year -- an event designed to bring Americans together."


Don't get me wrong.  I'm a pro-choice liberal born and raised in the suburbs outside Washington, D.C., and understand (but disagree with) the impulse to decry this ad as an all-out assault on the traditions of neutral advertising, especially since CBS has chosen to run Tebow's ad, but rejected an ad for a gay dating site.  Pro-choice supporters seem oblivious to the incredible irony of their uncontrollable urge to act like their homes have been set on fire by a 30-second commercial addressing a choice someone made about a pregnancy.  Being pro-choice does not mean that someone concerned about their pregnancy must have it terminated.  Pro-choice supporters everywhere are doing a disservice to their cause by reacting negatively to an ad that utilizes their ideas.  More seriously, pro-choice advocates risk depicting themselves as being in favor of abortion as the only viable option for a pregnancy.


CBS may have made the wrong decision about running Tebow's ad, but that's a completely different discussion than the one most people are having.  Indeed, I think it's a discussion most people don't feel like putting much effort into.  It's fair to assume that the message in the ad is fairly passive, and that's probably why the ad was allowed to run.  CBS is well aware of the consequences of letting "offensive" material get on the air, especially after the furor over the infamous 2004 Superbowl nip-slip and this Snickers ad from 2007.  The network knows it's audience, and is choosing what it shows accordingly.

The temptation to oversimplify abortion is immense, but when you're discussing the benefits and drawbacks of a process that involves cleaning out the contents of a woman's uterus, it's vital that people refuse to shy away from the gritty details that make them uncomfortable.  Abortion often ends up getting discussed in the abstract, resulting in a series of bizarre analogies that never effectively address the specific details that need to be hammered out for each side to understand where the other is coming from.  If we ever expect to be civil with each other, people on both sides of the debate need to stop showing their fangs every time someone with different ideas is opening their mouths to talk.  


The commercial being shown during the Superbowl will draw no more than a shrug from the vast majority of viewers.  If pro-choice activists want to turn this into a fight, they'll  get one, but it will be an uphill battle.  The general public doesn't want to politicize the Superbowl, and people will be irritated if pro-choice antagonists press the issue hard enough to ruin the fun for the rest of us.


I'll end with a quick tip for everyone.  Calm down, have a seat, grow up, and pass the chips.  The game is on.

Words Matter

FiveThirtyEight.com's Nate Silver posted several charts detailing the language used in State of the Union speeches going back to President Kennedy. It's a gold mine for people nerdy enough to be interested in such things, and it says a great deal about what each speaker thought was important at the time. 


I particularly enjoy the numbers shown in the "Process" chart.  Even with the gaps in data, it's safe to say the terms Democrat, Republican, and bipartisan were practically absent from State of the Union speeches until 1994, when Bill Clinton was faced with the prospect of a very hostile Congress.  Funny how the potential for conflict with another party tends to change your tone.

It's About Time

Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic posted a great piece today that helps re-focus the discussion over health care reform. His excerpt from the New York Times fact check of Obama's discussion with GOP members yesterday was particularly interesting:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the Republican bill would extend insurance coverage to about 3 million people by 2019, while leaving about 52 million uninsured (PDF). (Find the original Prescriptions blog post on the cost analysis of the House Republicans’ bill here.)

The House Democrats’ bill, by contrast, would extend health benefits to roughly 36 million people over the same time period, leaving about 18 million uninsured (PDF), according to the budget office. The cost of the insurance coverage provisions in the House Democrats’ bill was about $1.05 trillion over 10 years, according to the budget office, while the cost of coverage provisions in the Republicans’ bill would be just $61 billion.

Republican leaders had said all along that expanding health insurance coverage was not a main goal of their bill, because they viewed it as unaffordable. Instead, they had focused on narrowly tailoring their bill to reduce health care costs.

The debate over health insurance has really gotten away from people, and this piece deserves to be read.

"Sunshine is the Best Disinfectant"

Watch this video.  All of it.  And pass it on to all your friends.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

President Obama was in Baltimore today to take questions from GOP party members about a variety of issues.  I'd be willing to bet my job that Republicans are trying to develop a time machine that allows them to go back and remove the cameras from the room.  For the GOP, this event ended with results similar to a no-holds-barred street brawl between an infant and Mickey from "Snatch."

In approximately 70 minutes, Barack Obama reinforced three things many people already know, but rarely get much press:

• He is incredibly smart.  Smarter than his opponents (and often allies) understand or appreciate.
• He is a pragmatist first, and a Democrat second.
• He will not suffer simpletons who skew reality to prevent him from moving forward with an agenda that they could otherwise be helping with.

What the president needs, is to do this sort of thing as often as possible, in front of larger audiences.  In an era where Fox news is hands down the most trusted media outlet in the country (specifically "because of its lack of neutrality"), it's pretty clear that the GOP establishment has a stranglehold on the resources needed to craft and broadcast a message that people adhere to for long periods of time.

Thought his instincts may tell him to shun it, Obama needs to begin using the celebrity status he holds with the American public.  In my view, he is the best option the Democrats have of getting an undiluted message to voters who want to see progress.  As president, he can hold talks like this or give speeches during prime viewing hours to talk directly with the people through a venue they won't shy away from.  I think this is an unfortunate necessity given what I've discussed before about Obama's attempts to get Congress to do its job without the Executive Branch coddling it every step of the way.

Americans don't watch C-SPAN, where a majority of the debates over health care reform legislation have been shown.  They don't read the White House blog, or keep up with where the funds from the stimulus bill are being spent.  Americans watch the people who stir up the most controversy.  Obama's cool dismemberment of the GOP today is something Americans would love to see, but not something that would force him to sacrifice his scaled-back view of managing the legislative process.  

Since the rise of the Tea Party protests, Republicans have profited politically on the feedback loop of anger they create.  The tactic works like this: 

1. Republican talking heads run with a sound bite about health care reform being a mortal threat to grandmothers everywhere.
2. People across the country rush into the streets with angry signs and slogans with considerable help from Republican organizations.
3. Republican politicians stonewall legislation on the basis that they're doing what voters want them to do.
4. Repeat steps 1-3 ad nauseum.

The Obama that came out swinging against the bullshit being pitched to him by GOP lawmakers could easily break the cycle I described above.  Furthermore, he is someone Americans would love to watch (again).  I understand the impetus to stay out of the limelight, but it's time for Obama to show he has some teeth while he's still taken seriously.  The longer he waits to start taking his message directly to the American people, the more time his status will dwindle and wane in the minds of Americans with short attention spans.  That is to say, nearly everyone.

A Quick Point

I'll deal with the all the bullshit being thrown around the airwaves about the election results from Massachusetts some time in the near future—too much going through my head right now to write a coherent post—but if you're desperate to dive into a heap of depressing news, Andrew Sullivan has done a great job of compiling reactions and predictions on the futures of where health care, the Obama administration, and the Democratic majority.  All I'll say about it tonight is regardless of what side of the aisle you're on, know that right now it's best to calm down and wait to see what happens next.

Before the election intruded into everyone's life, I'd been planning to do a post about the music I listen to these days, and how that's changed from my mentality in high school and college.  I followed through with that tonight to get my mind off the election and give you a respite from the mayhem.


Music talk after the jump!

For What It's Worth

My wife got me a copy of Ta-Nehisi Coates's book The Beautiful Struggle for Christmas and I finished it in about 48 hours. It's a great book, and portrays Coates's rough upbringing in West Baltimore through a poetic filter that really helps anyone (even a white kid from Montgomery County) relate to his story.

The book got me thinking about a lot of things, but one passage in particular really hit home:

"Nowadays, I cut on the tube and see the dumbfounded looks, when over some minor violation of name and respect, a black boy is found leaking on the street. The anchors shake their heads. The activists give their stupid speeches, praising mythical days when all disputes were handled down at Ray's Gym. Politicians step up to the mic, claim the young have gone mad, their brains infected, and turned superpredator. Fuck you all who've ever spoken so foolishly, who've opened your mouths like we don't know what this is. We have read the books you own, the scorecards you keep -- done the math and emerged prophetic. We know how we will die -- with cousins in double murder suicides, in wars that are mere theory to you, convalescing in hospitals, slowly choked out by angina and cholesterol. We are the walking lowest rung, and all that stands between us and beast, between us and the local zoo, is respect, the respect you take as natural as sugar and shit. We know what we are, that we walk like we are not long for this world, that this world has never longed for us."

At this point in the book, Coates was about to be in yet another fight, but would find himself overcome by the urge to fight back, the opposite of the clumsy and often unsuccessful escapes he had attempted in the past.

Growing up, Coates didn't only reject the attractions of the street because he feared them; he simply felt that he wasn't made for that world, and avoided it whenever possible. His father forced him to read as much as possible and kept his schedule full. Coates preferred Dungeons and Dragons to the ebb and flow of turf wars and pushing product. But just like everyone else growing up around him Coates had to maintain the appearance of someone who wasn't soft to prevent unwanted attention. The quote above and the ensuing fight are the first time that Coates really lets his frustration show through the filters he eloquently placed over the rest of the story. Though I grew up far from Coates's neighborhood and never came close to the hardship he experienced, I was able to relate to the feelings Coates laid bare.

I've always striven to help others. I briefly taught in two Baltimore public schools and education is the focus of my current job. I did plenty of service projects in high school and college, many of which brought me face to face with addicts, criminals, or homeless people. Throughout all of these experiences, my parents and teachers constantly reminded me of the importance of empathy. People should be treated with respect. No matter what they look like, which chemicals they lust after, which crimes they've committed, or what kind of environment they live in, people deserve your full attention when they talk to you and eye contact when you interact.

The necessity of that last sentence embarrasses me, but I feel people need to be reminded of that.

Friends and family know that I like to discuss politics, and race relations has always been a point of particular interest to me. Starting in eighth grade, I made a point to become well-versed in the similarities, differences, and connections between the white and black experience in America and today I feel, perhaps incorrectly, that I have a good sense of the troubles that continue to plague those around me.

Unfortunately, unless I'm citing a statistic, I find that using this knowledge often garners skepticism, disdain, or confusion from my audience. People who hear me speak with confidence about "black" things can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that I'm not an Africana Studies major who wears a dashiki to bed and plays a djembe when nobody's watching. I've all but resigned myself to the fact that using what I know about the black community's ails will most likely never be seen as fully authentic because I'm white, and didn't experience these problems firsthand. I will always be treated as either insincere or trying to "be black." This is where my feelings intersect with Coates's in the quoted passage.

It infuriates me. The complete and total lack of empathy towards people who face the threat of injury or death every day for going about their business. The discussions about them as if they're a dehumanized group of faceless bodies who have chained themselves to the ghettos for the sake of pride. You may hear about what happens in the places you avoid on the news, but you don't know, and most people don't even try to understand. I understand why Coates was so angry.

We may not say it out loud, but Obama's election convinced many of us that, as a country, we are officially beyond racism's evil reach. In a time when racism is becoming a dirty word, fit only for those who wear hoods and burn crosses, it is imperative that anyone with the ability to convey important stories be taken seriously, regardless of their background. We will never be able to pay proper dues for the horrors imposed on the tribes that were here before the Europeans, or the slaves brought here for hundreds of years, but until we empathize with the struggles facing the less fortunate, we will be doomed to pursue a limited national success that, by its nature, prevents many members of our society from sharing in the prosperity.

Don't Cry Over Spilled Milk

I haven't written much on the debate (and I use that term loosely) over health care reform because while I've paid attention, I'm still not sure I understand the current system well enough to imagine what impacts the proposed changes will have. Still, there's no way to escape the bizarre (albeit typical) behavior of congressional Democrats regarding Joe Lieberman. For those who don't know, Lieberman has been threatening to filibuster any bill that includes an expansion of Medicare coverage, or anything resembling a government-run insurance plan... sort of.

Since his threat was issued, the liberals everywhere have flipped their lids, demanding, among other things, that Lieberman be removed of his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Some have reiterated the call for Harry Reid to be replaced, contending that he is weak and incompetent, even when his party is in charge. Still others are blaming the White House for being too laissez faire with the processes at work in Congress.

I can't comment on Lieberman's motives or angle here; I just don't know enough about his political history. In principle, however, it doesn't seem ridiculous for someone who's listed as an Independent to decline falling in line with a major party, even if he has gone back and forth with his support several times. And this can't be completely unexpected! Lieberman actively campaigned against Barack Obama in the 2008 election.

A quick note for all those complaining about a lack of leadership and direction from the White House:

During his campaign and the beginnings of the health care discussions, Obama said that he wanted to be the kind of President that didn't have to lead a flock of 535 immature, incessantly-babbling politicians from one step of the legislative process to the next.

His words were obviously nicer than mine, but Obama's point was that he's purposely trying to pull back the amount of control he has to exert over Congress. He wants Congress (all of it) to grow a spine again. He has stated several times what he wants in the bill, and he'll help wheel'n'deal behind the scenes, but I don't think you're going to see the kind of heavy-handed leaning that we're used to unless something starts to go horribly, horribly wrong. To that end, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will have to make damn sure that they get their party in line so that when they see a chance at success, they can pounce on it.

Whatever you do, don't mistake Obama's reluctance to lean on Congress for an aversion to participating in the legislative process. He wants to make sure that all his speeches and discussions count, and that means being judicious with his time. It's a lot like TNC's oft-repeated advice for himself: don't say anything if you don't know or can't add anything new.

While the administration might not be married to the public option, they have certainly been pushing for deals that make it possible. The White House has made clear that the administration's preference would be to appeal to Olympia Snowe (which would've practically guaranteed an public option in a few years), but bowed to Harry Reid's promise of 60 votes for a public option instead.

We haven't really seen Obama lean on Congress yet. Does anyone really doubt that he could make something good happen if he wanted to spend that kind of political capital? I don't think he's willing to settle for something that can't really be called successful. He knows too much is at stake for his party, his presidency, and the movement that gave him its banner last November.

Commitment Issues Cont'd

The chatter about leaving Iraq and Afghanistan is constant now. I hear it on all the TV news channels, on the radio (yes, even non-NPR stations), and now on the street, too. I just. Don't. Get it.

Look. The debate isn't about which of these wars is "the good war" or "the right war." Those are misleading terms, anyway. The debate should be about how we change what we're doing in both countries to better fit our needs and the needs of these occupied countries. Inevitably, this leads us to the biggest problem we face: the goals we have are still too ambiguous to be helpful. Whether or not we have a moral responsibility to help build these countries up to a point that they remain stable and protect their people should not even be up for discussion. We do bear that burden, and I fear we are on the verge of leaving without fulfilling our obligations.

Before I go any further, let me point out that I am in no way condoning "endless war." That buzz term annoys me, but it's something I'll take flak for if I don't address it. I don't believe that our missions in Afghanistan or Iraq will take decades. Those who tout this argument seem to forget that America waged an almost 50-year long Cold War against another superpower and fought dozens of proxy wars and skirmishes while maintaining overall support from the American public. So let's be clear: the lack of objectives in Afghanistan and the lack of political stability in Iraq are the dominant obstacles to the success of both missions, but they are not the determining factor in whether or not we should stay.

I am in no way trying to trivialize the fact that American blood and treasure will be spent reaching these goals. I have friends in all branches of the military, and many of them are deployed overseas. I would love for the wars to be over tomorrow. However, we're engaged in a war against an enemy that feeds on poverty and misinformation (read: a lack of education), both of which exist on incredible scales in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's simply a fact of life that to help fix these issues, troops need to be there providing security.

Not surprisingly, a recent poll from NBC and the Wall Street Journal proves my point about American opinion on the wars we're mired in. Here's the good stuff:

(Click image for larger version)

Americans want to see a clear victory built on increasing reliance on the governments and armed forces of the countries we invaded. They don't know much else about what they want, but a victory is a must.

It's now up to the Obama administration to take in all the advice it can and make a decision. Time is of the essence, but I think the folks in charge understand that it's more important to make the right choices than to hurry up about making a decision at all. On the other hand, it would seem that we've already got our wires crossed. Fantastic.

The Active Youth Myth and Gatesgate

I've finally returned after a 16-day hiatus which completely shattered my goal of writing every day for 30 days. Thanks to all for your patience! A wife, son, job, and house to take care of sometimes take precedent over the internet. Sometimes. This won't be a full post, but more of a teaser for the posts I intend to write this week. Feel free to comment on this post in an attempt to tease back.

My first post will discuss what I consider to be a rather pervasive (but unsubstantiated) myth about political activism among the 18-24 age bracket. Oddly enough, the subject came to as I drove back to Baltimore this evening. I rediscovered my copy of John Mayer's album Continuum (which is one of the most finely recorded, composed, and performed records of the last 5 years), and put it on for some easy listening. The first track, titled "Waiting on the World to Change", is an unusually political song for Mayer, but it addresses a lot of what I'll write about in more detail later: the 18-24 age bracket has some of the most staunch opinions about contemporary issues, yet young adults tend to be the least politically active age group in the country. Why the myth when the disconnect seems so obvious? More importantly, why is this apathy allowed to slide, especially when it is supported by ridiculous arguments like the one Mayer makes: "We just don't feel like we have the means to rise above and beat it"?

Next up will be my take on the media storm surrounding Gatesgate. President Obama's short and simple answer to a simple question at the end of his press conference the other night completely overshadowed the major points he made on health care. I'll go over what is known about what happened in Cambridge between Mr. Gates and the police, and why the issue is important even though it doesn't seem to have any long-term consequences for the general public.

Thanks again for being patient while I fulfill my duties outside of the blogosphere. Comments made to this post by Tuesday evening will almost certainly be considered as I write my full posts on the subjects described above, so let loose!