32 posts tagged “politics”

So I've been a bit MIA lately. I have no excuses. Shame, shame.

Basically, most of my time online anymore is spent on my writing, and frankly, I haven't come across much in the news that's fired me up politically. I'll say this much, it is much easier to stay up to date on the news around the world when you have cable, which right now, I don't. (That's right - I'm going to miss the 24 finale tomorrow night. GRRR.) Yes, the internet is a far more exhaustive and helpful tool with regard to the news and politics than television, but it's not what I'm used to. I've missed all of the debates - I'm sorry, YouTube with its maddening skippage is painful, and I'd rather read blurbs than torture myself there - and I hardly feel as if I'm qualified to comment anymore unless it's some mildly abstract principled issue rather than a hot-button, up to the minute issue. It may also be that I'm mildly burned out.

But I'll be back in my groove soon enough. Frankly, I'd rather let this blog waste away for a little while than just answer Qotd's and bore everyone with inane details about my life (or the lack thereof).

One word on the 24 finale: if the spoilers I've read are true, oh my God, I am going to cry both tears of fangirl joy and tears of utter devastation for not being able to watch it myself. I mean, we are talking the greatest ending to a season ever. You may never hear from me on this blog ever again because I'll be too busy furiously writing my dream version of Day 7 to notice anything else happening in the world. It's that good.

See? This is why I should step away for awhile. I'm already boring everyone.

EDIT: I should also mention that I am absolutely keeping up with my neighborhood. I love each & every one of you and you all brighten my day. I'll probably end up leaving more comments than writing actual posts for a little while. But you all are awesome, and I shall keep up with you, burned out or not. :)

Now that Blair is expected to step down around the end of June, questions about his legacy already floating around the political climate for months will now have ro be taken seriously and analyzed. I don't expect him to be fully understood or fairly evaluated as a leader until much further down the road, but that's just the nature of politics. Americans, in general, do not understand Blair, his political character, or his governmental system. Casual conservatives love the man for his support of Bush and the war, but they know of little else he stands for, and they certainly wouldn't vote Labour if they lived in Britain. Liberals despise him for the same reason conservatives love him, but I fall in line with neither side. I admire his (and Gordon Brown's) anti-poverty work and internationalist policies. Obviously I would have opposed his decision to go to war, but there was little debate in Britain at the time, at least between the two major parties, and his decision would have hardly been unique to other politicians'. It's sad that he has to leave office with such a cloud hanging over his head, but in time I believe history will view him as the largely positive leader that he was. Taken from this article, from realclearpolitics.com, as always:

"When anger fades and regret settles in, historians will judge the Iraq war a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions. Blair is not the first leader to disregard the complicated political history of the Middle East, but Britons expected better of this deeply intelligent man. Despite all the evidence of perfidy, he seems to have had a noble purpose, but that makes his failure all the more tragic. He believed that Britain, because of its historical status, was duty bound to intervene and that it was uniquely placed to act as a moderating influence on President Bush. Mr. Bush, however, was immune to moderation. British statecraft was crushed by American adventurism."

The article sums up with this:

"In years to come, historians will argue whether Blair was an architect of destiny or a floater on the tide of circumstance. History students will assess his credentials as a great man. No one, however, will doubt his status as a harbinger of an age when ideology is nothing and power everything."

Now, of course, Gordon Brown finally gets his shot as prime minister. I for one like his grumpy demeanor, among other things. But he has a lot to live up to, a party to fix, and a lot of supporters who are counting on him to keep Labour from disappearing into 1980's limbo status. I have a feeling he'll pull it off.

It would be pointless of me to express outrage over this, because I would hope that it's obvious that selling guns to suspected terrorists is not a good idea. Now, I fully understand that most terrorists are not going to go through legal channels to obtain weapons, but that is beside the point. The NRA has never held much credibility with me, but this merely puts them in the category of irrelevant at best and dangerous at worst. The best part is, it's coming from the so called pro-defense, anti-terror far right. Talk about your hypocrites.

I wonder: copout or mere statement of fact? I suspect that Senator Durbin is trying to have it both ways with regard to pre-war intelligence, but I highly doubt he actually knew it was faulty at the time. If he knew that it was, and that the United States was about to go to war based on bad information, then for him to sit by and let it happen without a word is quite inexcusable, sworn to secrecy or no.

I also wonder why we're still talking about this when we should be trying to figure out how to get out of the Iraq mess in one piece.

Is it likely that the U.S. will have a female president in the near future? In your lifetime? Why?

Yes, but I for one would hope it is not Hillary Clinton.  That, of course, is a well-known fact, so I'll focus on the questions at hand.

Some have suggested that the American people are fine with the idea of a female president until one actually seeks a nomination. That might be true. It's also true, however, that Hillary is the first female candidate with a real shot at the nod. I think that what we're seeing is unprecedented, and because this is such a unique time in American history, anything is truly possible. Some people will always carry their prejudices close to hearts, whether it's with regard to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Mitt Romney, and that is a shame. But I don't think any of those three candidates are likely to be stopped from gaining their respective nominations or the office because of bias alone. I may be looking through rose colored glasses, but I certainly hope not. Only time will tell, but I would like to think we as a country have progressed beyond the point of this issue.

And if not, well, I'm sure America will be ready by the time I launch my own campaign. (Only 18 years away from eligibility!)

From today's Courier-Journal:

Courier-journal

Though I do not agree with each of its conclusions, I find this article very interesting. I do believe we face unprecedented challenges, mostly with regard to terrorism and our shrinking world, but I suspect that much of the article is quite accurate when it compares our current world to the upheavals of the last century. Though it may also be true we're on the verge of, or perhaps in the midst of, one ourselves. Only time will tell.

Perhaps the most effective point this article makes is it's last, that the first votes of the upcoming election are 9 months away. Anything can happen from now until then, McCain pulling ahead included. He's still my favorite Republican (probably due to the lack of other candidates, at least in my mind), but I can no longer see myself voting for him come '08. I used to say that McCain vs. Hillary would be a no-brainer, and that I'd take him due solely to his integrity over her any day, but now that match up seems like one long headache I don't want to have. Here's to Obama - fresh and headache-free.

He's leading by double digits in the polls for the GOP nomination. He holds a somewhat mythical status in the minds of many Americans. On paper, he'd be a lock. But each time his sometimes interesting personal life is mentioned as his biggest liability, I have to ask myself: can he really win the GOP nomination for president?

Does anyone honestly expect the conservative base to overlook his tendency to see social issues in a reasonable light? Or will he ensure that they do, backpedaling as furiously as he can until he's on the same page as his right-wing competitors? Would the base accept such a turn?

Will his personal history be his downfall in the eyes of  conservatives? I hope not. Though I can't see myself voting for him, I certainly do not want to watch another otherwise respectable national figure be ripped to pieces by the smearing and exploiting of a private life that is none of our business. At the end of the day, if someone's been married 3 times, had a scandalous parting of ways with a spouse in the public eye, isn't currently on good terms with their grown children, or has some other drama going on, I don't care as long as that person can lead this country and fight for its best interests. Yes, a glowingly stereotypical loving wife & 2.5 kids makes for a lovely TV spot, but it doesn't make a leader.  Why do some people still expect our politicians' lives to be perfect when nobody's is?

I imagine the right wing is willing to overlook, and maybe with a few remorseful speeches, accept Rudy's personal history. What will be more difficult to accept is his lacking social conservatism, no matter how hard he tries to change the subject or backpedal on his past positions. Or perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe national security and foreign policy will take precedence over social issues this time around. Perhaps the GOP prioritize itself for once and take a chance on their best shot at '08. The American people are sick of this administration, sick of this party and its tactics & current state of turmoil. I see few people who can prevent a Democrat in the White House in '08, and Rudy is the standout. But the question remains for the Republican conservative base: can Rudy win?

You tell me.

Could someone please explain to me why losing an election instantly makes a man's sense of humor improve? Does anyone remember Kerry's '04 Daily Show appearance and how different it was from this? My, how much more likeable these guys are when they aren't surrounded by paranoid election handlers.