Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Civilized?
Lest we feel too comfortable in our civility, let's remember that a Wal Mart worker was trampled to death on the day after Thanksgiving. Not in the Third World. Long Island.
An orderly process
The election is history (some say historic, but let's not go there yet) and the President-elect is busily assembling his cabinet. I've been meaning to comment on all the old-timers that have appeared in what was supposed to be an All About Change administration, but that's all been written, commented, and blogged to death. But in today's news there are a couple items that make me realize what a remarkable process we have for changing governments.
And there's not doubt we're changing governments. All talk of moderation aside, and despite the few Bush loyalists burrowing into the career ranks at their agencies, there's going to be a serious change of direction in most of the regulatory establishment. Fine. The unions, enviros, and other self-proclaimed progressives have been shut out for a while, so it's time for them to have a go at running things. That's how we do it.
Unlike, say, Thailand, where the country's constitutional court has disbanded three coalition parties and declared that the prime minister is banned from politics for five years. Think that's too far afield to be relevant? How about something closer to home, like Canada? There the three minority parties in Parliament have ganged up on the ruling Conservative Party and Prime Minister Howard, declaring that they'll force a no-confidence vote and organize a ruling coalition. No matter that none of the coalition partners got much support in the last election, or that the presumptive prime minister, Stéphane Dion, is described as the Globe and Mail as a "defeated party leader" who "has never earned the right to govern." This, by the way, is quoted from an editorial calling for Primer Minister Harper to step down.
Maybe I'm making too big a deal of this. After all, the articles in the US papers about the Thailand situation focus on whether protesters will allow the airport to reopen, and let tourists come and go. And it's hard to find anything about the Canada situation. But I thought it was worth a mention nevertheless, as a contrast to the calm and civilized transfer of power that's been the way we've done things since 1789.
And there's not doubt we're changing governments. All talk of moderation aside, and despite the few Bush loyalists burrowing into the career ranks at their agencies, there's going to be a serious change of direction in most of the regulatory establishment. Fine. The unions, enviros, and other self-proclaimed progressives have been shut out for a while, so it's time for them to have a go at running things. That's how we do it.
Unlike, say, Thailand, where the country's constitutional court has disbanded three coalition parties and declared that the prime minister is banned from politics for five years. Think that's too far afield to be relevant? How about something closer to home, like Canada? There the three minority parties in Parliament have ganged up on the ruling Conservative Party and Prime Minister Howard, declaring that they'll force a no-confidence vote and organize a ruling coalition. No matter that none of the coalition partners got much support in the last election, or that the presumptive prime minister, Stéphane Dion, is described as the Globe and Mail as a "defeated party leader" who "has never earned the right to govern." This, by the way, is quoted from an editorial calling for Primer Minister Harper to step down.
Maybe I'm making too big a deal of this. After all, the articles in the US papers about the Thailand situation focus on whether protesters will allow the airport to reopen, and let tourists come and go. And it's hard to find anything about the Canada situation. But I thought it was worth a mention nevertheless, as a contrast to the calm and civilized transfer of power that's been the way we've done things since 1789.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Reconciliation
Those who gain from reconciliation - the losers - will be extending their hands. Business interests, thought to be predictably Republican, actually work very well with whoever is running things. But don't expect the winners to offer the handshake of reconciliation that easily. They won, after all, and you know who gets the spoils. I have scant hope for a new era of good feeling. Listening to the talkback commentary on news radio this morning, we're still divided, and the invigorated Democrats in Congress won't give a damn about bipartisanship. They don't need to.
Special interests. The labor unions and trial lawyers backed their money wagons up to the Obama camp, as they do for most Democrats. Don't tell me they're not "special interests," or that the O-campaign was entirely funded by small contributions. For all the small dollar internet contributors, there were plenty of folks who gave $70,000 each, and who will be looking for more than a hearty handshake in return. An AP article in Sunday's Washington Post reported that "individuals have been credited with giving tens of thousands of dollars to the Obama campaign, far more than the $2,300 limit. Obama has reported more than $17,000 in contributions from a donor identified as "Doodad Pro" and more than $11,000 from one identified as "Good Will." Hmmm...
But I was impressed that the Obama campaign seemed relatively free of the obvious pandering to all "progressive" groups that I think characterized the last few Democrat national campaigns. Of course, he knew he was going to have their support anyway.
Special interests. The labor unions and trial lawyers backed their money wagons up to the Obama camp, as they do for most Democrats. Don't tell me they're not "special interests," or that the O-campaign was entirely funded by small contributions. For all the small dollar internet contributors, there were plenty of folks who gave $70,000 each, and who will be looking for more than a hearty handshake in return. An AP article in Sunday's Washington Post reported that "individuals have been credited with giving tens of thousands of dollars to the Obama campaign, far more than the $2,300 limit. Obama has reported more than $17,000 in contributions from a donor identified as "Doodad Pro" and more than $11,000 from one identified as "Good Will." Hmmm...
But I was impressed that the Obama campaign seemed relatively free of the obvious pandering to all "progressive" groups that I think characterized the last few Democrat national campaigns. Of course, he knew he was going to have their support anyway.
Are we blue?
More than yesterday, certainly. Looking at the map, there are blue states that were red four years ago. But check out this one, that shows more subtle coloration based on the strength of party support. Or this one from the Washington Post. Be patient and let it load. Check out the blue spikes in the cities, and the sea of red across more sparsely populated areas. This suggests that we're not close to reconciliation. And despite Oprah's pronouncement, there's no purple there.
Back again
OK. Clearly I didn't know what I was doing. I started this blog but only used it for my editorials (and occasional family postings). Started with a bang after the 2004 election, but didn't add anything after Katrina and discovered today that the Web host had shut me down. Got that straightened out (it's Total Choice Hosting, and they were quick and responsive in getting me back on line) so here I am again.
Ready to start some more post-election blah blah.
Ready to start some more post-election blah blah.