Lucius' Musings

the irreverend Warren

Lucius — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:27:14 EST

If Barack Obama really wanted to reach out, then why isn't the Dali Lama speaking? Did Obama run as a world historical figure (cf, his speech in Berlin), or did I miss something? Why then is a divisive, delusional fundamentalist christer being given the opening spotlight, when a true man of peace isn't? Are we that insular, xenophobic and blinkered that a home grown fundamentalist christer preacher whose intolerance hearkens back to Jim Crow and who accepts biblical inerrancy must "bless" the inaugural proceedings? Must I embrace a christer who would spit in my face? Is this the man who will usher in the new day, the change that Obama promised?

There are any number of moderate, inclusive preachers Obama might have chosen, any number of 'holy' persons who might have delivered the opening benediction. Instead, he chose the current version of Jimmy Swaggert or Billy Graham? Yeech....

Sorry, but count me among those who see this not as reaching out to the lunatic fringe, but political expedience of the most Rovian kind. I understand the intent and tactic, I do not understand the choice.

Afghanistan?

Lucius — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:00:59 EST

Interminable war in Afghanistan? Is that really what Obama wants? A transfer of the destruction and carnage of Iraq to Afghanistan?

Did Obama check in with the Russians and take a lesson from their experience there? Or read up on the bleak history of warfare in that neck of the woods? Is the Pentagon the best resource to fight the Taliban? Really? Is Osama bin Laden forcing Obama's hand to leverage the military and increase its presence there? Really? Is there a viable military solution to the problem of religious extremism? Is paying off militant religious extremists in Iraq really the long term solution to centuries of internecine divisiveness born of opposition, distrust and outright hositility?

None of this makes a whole lot of sense. And for Obama to perpetuate the conventional military response in this prefabricated "war on terror" is to cave in to the the Powers That Be and continue to allow the Pentagon to dictate foreign policy in the Middle East. Apparently, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Alas.

Economic reform?

Lucius — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:05:06 EST

Am I the only one troubled by Obama's picks for his economic advisory team? Well, no, actually. Inititally, I was struck by the choice of Clinton administration retreads, but it was only after listening to Kevin Phillips observe that this team was comprised of multi-millionaire CEOs and DC insiders, but not a single voice to represent "labor", that I became somewhat concerned. Then, after listening to Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill on CSPAN2 this weeekend, I became convinced that having menmbers of the financial "Establishment" comprise this team - the very people like Lawrence Summers who aided and abetted the financial meltdown - I began to think that the change I voted for was being co-opted by the very "Establishment" we voted overwhelmingly AGAINST. And this will simply not do. I didn't vote for Clinton administration economic advisors and I certainly didn't vote because I want the financial wizards who caused this meltdown to have any say whatsoever in how we extricate ourselves from this calamity. As Klein and Scahill pointed out, the seeds for this collapse were planted during the Clinton Administration. Having the foxes in charge of the henhouse is no way to reform business as usual.

And then, of course, the appointment of warhawk and consumate "Establishment" spokesperson Madeleine Albright to represent the US at the farcical G20 economic summit demonstrated a commitment to expediency and not progressive ideals.

Barack Obama represented himself to the electorate as the agent of change. So far, the only change is the exchange of one political establishment for another. So far, Obama is meekly following the dictate of Nancy Pelosi who demanded that he lead from the center. No thank you, Ms Pelosi. After 8 years of GOP extremism, I would welcome some Progressive extremism. I vote NO to reconciliation and YES to the Truth regardless where it leads. If the Buzsh administration committed crimes, they must be exposed by an Independent Prosecutorial team and court (it that is what it takes) to hold these miscreants accountable to the American people.

Under new management?

Lucius — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:32:55 EDT

The Obama campaign seems to have become more 'managed' now that he is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.

During the primary he would give a speech and people would flock to listen. He was on his own, not supported by the Party. He was supported by people who liked what he said. We contributed and organized and voted. He appealed to us because his message was about transcending partisan party politics and do-nothing at best, and tragically mismanaged at worse, Government. He was inspirational because he held out the hope that We the People could change the Government DESPITE the Establishment, the Party, the entrenched Interests. We weren't going to vote for him because he was a Democrat, but because he said he would transform the Democratic Party into something We had in mind. A shift in Paradigm. Change. That is what we voted for.

But now, the Party is in charge of his campaign. The Corporation. The Obama family now poses for pictures waving little flags (so much for the flag pin hullabaloo). Obama has to give press confrences to clarify his "evolving" platform. Suddenly, it is no longer Senator Obama who wants my vote, but the Party; and just as suddenly Obama is charged with "pandering" and "two-stepping" on some issues. (Bob Herbert, NYTimes, 7/8/08).

Now he has the Party Establishment supporting him, and We (secularlists? progressives? liberals? greens? alternative types?....) seem to be taken for granted as Buzsh inspired "faith-based initiatives" suddenly become a plank of the Obama candidacy (or is it part of a Party platform that Barack finds conducive to his election?)

If Barack Obama is the Democratic Party, let's hope it does not take those who rallied to support him for granted as Party politics comes to the fore and reform politics fades into the background. Indeed, some of the statements and positions he has apparently taken in recent days certainly come as a surprize to those who supported him in the primary. Can Obama really support immunity for un-Constitutional telecom activities? Smells like dirty politics to me.