His comments to Maddow about how the things the "hard right" likes; "traditional values, strong foreign policy, all that's over". Do those who view from the left think this true, and a good thing?
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/04/senator-schumer-traditional-values.html
You can view the entire interview on youtube, which adds much needed context. Schumer did not say that the days of family values and strong national defense are over, he said the days of campaigning and winning on these themes (as the air quotes emphasized) are over. And he’s probably right. As far as “traditional” family values as a campaign issue goes, yes, I hope that’s the case. Do you really want elections decided over who is pro-choice or anti-abortion, or who supports civil unions and who doesn’t, given the breadth and weight of issues we’re dealing with?
As far as the strong foreign policy reference, same situation. Do you think Schumer and the Democrats prefer a “weak” (however that would be defined) foreign policy? It’s clear he’s drawing a contrast between the themes of Reagan era politics, and the political reality of our time.
I hope he’s right, and I hope the Republican party eventually comes to realize this, for everyone’s benefit. One party rule isn’t good for anyone.
**Do you think Schumer and the Democrats prefer a “weak” (however that would be defined) foreign policy? It’s clear he’s drawing a contrast between the themes of Reagan era politics, and the political reality of our time. **
I will not speak to what Schumer in particular prefers or thinks, but I think that there is a segment that would prefer the U.S. have a “weak” foreign policy. These people abhor the idea that the U.S. is a super-power much less the lone super-power. Also, Reagan’s ideas were “big picture” ideas. They would work as well today as they did on the 80’s.
**I hope he’s right, and I hope the Republican party eventually comes to realize this, for everyone’s benefit. One party rule isn’t good for anyone. **
You say this, yet your hope is to narrow the differences between Republican and the Democrat parties, in effect making it (ideologically if not nominally) one party.
Bernie
The right believes it too but won’t say so. It’s time we stop hoping for a perfect world that we made up in our little heads and look around.
Reagan’s ideas were “big picture” ideas. They would work as well today as they did on the 80’s.
I think the election of Senator Obama proves that to be true. But Schumer seemed to be referring to the Culture War issues, which also took root during the Shining City on the Hill era. It’s a dead end street, in his opinion. I don’t disagree. Obama took the big picture approach, and left the divisive cultural issues aside during his campaign. There’s no arguing the success of his approach, and I think that’s what Schumer was referring to.
I think that there is a segment that would prefer the U.S. have a “weak” foreign policy.
You can have a strong foreign policy that projects strength, or might - a hard-line approach where the stick dwarfs the carrot; or you can have a strong foreign policy that puts more emphasis on diplomacy, coalition-building, and multilateral approaches to problem solving. Or you can have a “weak” foreign policy initiative, where little effort is made in either direction. Which do you think he was referring to?
Most on the left would prefer the strong diplomatic approach; that doesn’t make it a weak foreign policy. His use of air quotes when referencing “strong foreign policy” probably referred to the cold-war era mentality of spend, build, stockpile, rinse and repeat; look at how much criticism Gates is now receiving for his budget proposal (even though it actually increases spending), because it’s portrayed by some on the right as an attack on our military’s strength. I can’t speak for Schumer, obviously, but I don’t view his comments as welcoming the death of family values or a strong foreign policy.
your hope is to narrow the differences between Republican and the Democrat parties, in effect making it (ideologically if not nominally) one party.
I hope the Republicans move away from the Limbaugh/Dobson/Palin/Brownback wing of the party, and place a higher priority on issues that deserve more attention. The GOP, in its present state, remind me of PETA; all of the good intentions and supportable ideas get buried in the avalance of BS they trot out in appeal to their base. They’re their own worst enemies, and the sooner they unload thier dead weight, the sooner their worthwhile ideas will be heard.
But yes, I would prefer two moderate parties that function as two wings of the same centrist party. Guilty as charged.
I think that there is a segment that would prefer the U.S. have a “weak” foreign policy. These people abhor the idea that the U.S. is a super-power much less the lone super-power.
IMO a strong foreign policy would have been one in which the US used it’s power (lone superpower) to help create a better world of peace and prosperity. This would have been an easy thing to do after 9/11 when we had the world’s sympathy. Instead we militarily abused that power for special interest gain, against the the wishes of countries that were previously our allies. On top of that we fucked up the worlds finances via fraud and looting. We are universally viewed as the world’s bully and cheat rather than it’s savior.
So what do we do now?
not so fast smart guy. Sure the dems got their way during the last election because essentially GWB and his republican colleagues were blamed for running the economy into a ditch and masterminding an upopular and to some an unnecessary war. But lets not confuse that for one second with a broad acceptance of people supporting baby killing hard left and alternative lifestyle policies that come along with some of the Dems who took office during the last cycle.
As a somewhat centrist, you're sure invested heavily in Obama. If you truly keep an even view of developments, I'll be muy interested to see what you think of where we are in six months.
Six months won’t tell us much of anything, given the nature and number of the challenges he’s facing, and the solutions he’s offering. People looking to take the measure of his initiatives six months from now will either be sorely disappointed, or giddy at the opportunity to say I told you so. Either way, it will be premature.
Four years from now, when we’re asking ourselves if we’re better off than we were four years ago, I’ll be prepared to render my verdict.
He's at his apex, as far as power to push his agenda, right now. If he does not get the bulk of his fairly radical agenda through in short order, it ain't happenin'. I think that in a case like this, we'll know early...
Is Obama (or any president) successful only if “his agenda” is pushed through or if he uses his agenda to spark dialogue and discussion with, hopefully, a plan/budget/policy/measure or whatnot of some form gets passed/effected such that those measures are put into action?
Personally, I have never seen an administration that was totally right or totally wrong, though obviously there are degrees of success involved.
For example, Reagan did a great job waking the country up from the funk of the '70’s and “fighting” the cold war but he totally lost it on the back-end, with no post-cold war plan and a misunderstanding of the economy. Clinton, on the otherhand, did an excellent job managing the economy and a period of prosperity but totally blew it in terms of long-range planning and his swarthiness undermined the prestige of the oval office.
Who knows what history will think of Obama but GWB set the bar pretty low.
strong foreign policy
if by this he means the myopic foreign policly of the last eight years, I hope so.
Agreed, most presidents only get some of what they shoot for, largely because they have to compromise some things to get others. Obama is the closest we've had in a long time to a POTUS that can truly get most of an agenda passed. The current argument is more between dems, and comes down to a left, or way left, fight. (I do see Obama as on the "way left" side)
GWB was largely on his own, even in several years he had a pub congress, his guys were nutless, and he ended up doing far more by executive order, etc than he should have had to. Remember he had serious SS reform, tort reform, etc policies that went nowhere, because all his capital was spent on keeping funding (if not support) going to Iraq. Currently, Obama (and the dem congress) is still in the driver’s seat on the whole gamut of his policies.
I think that there is a segment that would prefer the U.S. have a “weak” foreign policy. These people abhor the idea that the U.S. is a super-power much less the lone super-power.
IMO a strong foreign policy would have been one in which the US used it’s power (lone superpower) to help create a better world of peace and prosperity. This would have been an easy thing to do after 9/11 when we had the world’s sympathy. Instead we militarily abused that power for special interest gain, against the the wishes of countries that were previously our allies. On top of that we fucked up the worlds finances via fraud and looting. We are universally viewed as the world’s bully and cheat rather than it’s savior.
So what do we do now?
Do you have any actual facts to back up this nearly completely fact-free post?
First, I think its quite the exaggeration (to put it mildly) to say that the US could have easily created peace and prosperity in the world. Do you have any actual ideas on that front as to how we should have proceeded, specifically? Its like saying we should end disease…easy to say, quite impossible to actually do. Second, peace and prosperity have zero to do with why were attacked in the first place…almost all of the terrorists came from solidly middle class back grounds, and OBL himself came from a very wealthy family. Their reasons for attacking us had absolutely nothing to do with the level of peace and prosperity in the world. I also fail to see how we abused our power for special interest gain by invading Afghanistan…pray tell, what was the gain to be had there, other than eradicating a terrorist haven?
I’m going to assume you will come back by saying we invaded Iraq for the oil against the wishes of our allies, but you conveniently leave out Britain and Australia, who invaded with us. I’ll also note that other countries who were against the invasion (France and Germany) were also up to their eyeballs in the oil-for-food scandal, and had an interest in maintaining the status quo with Saddam.
Your statement on the world’s finances is, well, ridiculous. While there has been some corporate malfeasance, it certainly doesn’t rise to the level of wrecking the world’s finances by fraud and looting, but rather getting over-extended on perfectly legal credit default swaps.
Lastly, I think that your very last statement represents mainly your opinion about the US, and not necessarily the rest of the world’s.
Spot
First, I think its quite the exaggeration (to put it mildly) to say that the US could have easily created peace and prosperity in the world.
Reading comprehension anyone?
Do you have any actual ideas on that front as to how we should have proceeded, specifically?
I sure do. A massive stike against terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Do not attack the government or take over the country.
Their reasons for attacking us had absolutely nothing to do with the level of peace and prosperity in the world.
They attacked us for our freedom… obviously.
I also fail to see how we abused our power for special interest gain by invading Afghanistan…pray tell, what was the gain to be had there, other than eradicating a terrorist haven?
Worked really well… eh?
I’m going to assume you will come back by saying we invaded Iraq for the oil against the wishes of our allies
Nope… had nothing to do with oil.
Your statement on the world’s finances is, well, ridiculous. While there has been some corporate malfeasance, it certainly doesn’t rise to the level of wrecking the world’s finances by fraud and looting, but rather getting over-extended on perfectly legal credit default swaps.
Anyone with an IQ above 60 could see where that ponzi scheme was headed.
Lastly, I think that your very last statement represents mainly your opinion about the US, and not necessarily the rest of the world’s.
It isn’t difficult to look up what the rest of the world thinks of the US. One survey of western European countries determined that they prefered Russia as the sole superpower vs the US.
First, I think its quite the exaggeration (to put it mildly) to say that the US could have easily created peace and prosperity in the world.
*Reading comprehension anyone? * ** Your words from your first post: IMO a strong foreign policy would have been one in which the US used it’s power (lone superpower) to help create a better world of peace and prosperity. This would have been an easy thing to do after 9/11… ****** Reading and writing comprehension, Mr. Ruff?
Do you have any actual ideas on that front as to how we should have proceeded, specifically?
I sure do. A massive stike against terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Do not attack the government or take over the country. Ah yes, that worked so well for Clinton after the African Embassy attacks. Oh wait, no it didn’t…it didn’t do dick. Do you have any clue what you are actually talking about here? You do realize that the people we are fighting are smart enough to know that staying in their camps means certain death?
Their reasons for attacking us had absolutely nothing to do with the level of peace and prosperity in the world.
They attacked us for our freedom… obviously. Since you would rather reply with sarcasm rather than an actual response, I’ll assume you don’t actually know. They attacked us in order to achieve their strategic goal of recreating an Islamic Caliphate, ruled by Sharia law and eventually containing all the previous Muslim land, known as the Dar-al-Islam. The US, known to them as the “far enemy”, was attacked because they thought that would help them topple what they consider apostate Muslim regimes, known as the “near enemy.”
I also fail to see how we abused our power for special interest gain by invading Afghanistan…pray tell, what was the gain to be had there, other than eradicating a terrorist haven?
*Worked really well… eh? *
**
*Do you have the ability of reading comprehension? You said we abused our power by invading Afghanistan for a special interest gain...I asked what that was, and you respond with the above? And yes, considering that we have removed most parts of Afghanistan as terroritory for Al Qaeda to operate freely, yes, it has worked fairly well. The issues we are having today stem more from the fact that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have a sanctuary in Pakistan than with our operations in Afghanistan.
I’m going to assume you will come back by saying we invaded Iraq for the oil against the wishes of our allies
Nope… had nothing to do with oil.
Your statement on the world’s finances is, well, ridiculous. While there has been some corporate malfeasance, it certainly doesn’t rise to the level of wrecking the world’s finances by fraud and looting, but rather getting over-extended on perfectly legal credit default swaps.
*Anyone with an IQ above 60 could see where that ponzi scheme was headed. *
**
Anyone with an IQ above 60 knows that credit default swaps and ponzi schemes aren’t even remotely similar. Its like comparing apples to Buicks.
Lastly, I think that your very last statement represents mainly your opinion about the US, and not necessarily the rest of the world’s.
It isn’t difficult to look up what the rest of the world thinks of the US. One survey of western European countries determined that they prefered Russia as the sole superpower vs the US. ** I took issue with your calling saying that the feeling was universal; now you are backtracking with one survey of Western Europe…big surprise. Spot
I think that there is a segment that would prefer the U.S. have a “weak” foreign policy. These people abhor the idea that the U.S. is a super-power much less the lone super-power.
IMO a strong foreign policy would have been one in which the US used it’s power (lone superpower) to help create a better world of peace and prosperity. This would have been an easy thing to do after 9/11 when we had the world’s sympathy. Instead we militarily abused that power for special interest gain, against the the wishes of countries that were previously our allies. On top of that we fucked up the worlds finances via fraud and looting. We are universally viewed as the world’s bully and cheat rather than it’s savior.
So what do we do now?
Yeah, those European banks lending euros to Eastern block countries so they could hold non-local denomiated mortgages is our fault. If you think the US is the only country to blame for the collapse of this global asset bubble you need to do a little more research. I guess you’re going to also blame us for Dubai building man made islands in the shape of palm tress that nobody wants to live on, or, for China pumping money into their economy and growing GDP at an unsustainable +10% rate.