Naysayers and detractors continue to scratch their heads in amazement at President Obama's ability to pull significant Republican support. But if they looked at the president's 13 plus years as a politician, they would see that he's always worked closely and substantively with them. Remember his friendship with Illinois State Senator Kirk Dillard? Though a conservative, he so admired Obama's pragmatic, bi-partisan approach to politics, and his standing as an action-oriented visionary. That admiration landed him an appearance in an Obama TV ad in early 2007.That is but one example of Obama's clear outreach to Republicans. We can look at his selection of Republicans like Ray LaHood as Secretary of Transportation or Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense for his administration. We can also look at his incredible 50 State Strategy, which had him campaigning in and/or setting up offices in states like Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Georgia, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Nebraska. A more recent and dramatic example, however, is his naming of Gov. Jon Huntsman as the new Ambassador to China.This one is awesome. Why? Well, Huntsman has a very impressive record on international affairs, and, he speaks mandarin Chinese from his days as a missionary, so he's perfect. Also, by most accounts, Huntsman has been a very good Governor of Utah, which is literally America's Reddest State. Utah resident and progressive blogger Bryan Young wrote a piece in the Huffington Post that all but confirms this. He described him as "level-headed, even-handed, well read, and well respected". He continued:"...[Gov. Huntsman's] not afraid to veto the idiotic bills brought to him by a legislature that by and large has only a tenuous grip on reality. He's even worked hard to liberalize the liquor laws that have strangled tourism (as well as my social life) in the state, against the will of his party and a majority of his supporters, simply because it's the right thing to do. He's vetoed a lot of legislation that's come across his desk and has one of the most progressive records on the environment in the west... He's even come out in support of civil unions for same sex couples... Add to that, the fact that he's actually kept Utah's head largely above water through the economic crisis and you'll agree that he's actually a pretty good Governor... It's no wonder he was tapped by the Obama team for any job and he deserves our support and encouragement... He really is a stand-up act."
Being associated with yet another moderate, centrist Republican allows President Obama to continue occupying 65%-70% of the country in poll after poll. These types of approval ratings give President Obama a powerful consensus for most of his policies. Huntsman only helps to solidify his numbers.
Huntsman's appointment may not play well with self-styled "true progressives", but for most Americans, he is fulfilling his role as "President of the United States", not "President of particular Democratic constituencies". President Obama is the man: BLUE STATE credentials, for sure, but also...RED STATE credibility!
2morrowknight is an internet strategist and community organizer who blogs at 2morrowknight.blogspot.com, and is author of a forthcoming children's book. You can follow him at Twitter.com/2morrowknight and friend him at Myspace.com/2morrowknight.
It amazes me how the Bush administration has made lying the norm - a strategy McCain and Palin have adopted aggressively.
Do they think aggressive dishonesty will satisfy our hard-hearted cynicism, and capture our votes? Do lying politicians appeal to our sense of reality and pragmatism?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8aT7zuPJ1k
It's His Party
Dana Goldstein and Ezra Klein | August 18, 2008
..Most outsider candidates for the presidency recruit an outsider team to deliver it. Bill Clinton's main strategists in 1992 were the little-known Paul Begala and James Carville. His first chief of staff was Mack McLarty, a childhood friend who had risen to become chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party. It was a team untainted by Washington but also unschooled in how Washington worked. The Obama campaign and Senate staff, by contrast, are full of Daschle and Gephardt veterans--an unexpected rebirth of the power bases and reputations of two politicians who had long been written off....Before Clinton could build a new image of the party, however, he had to get elected. That meant not strengthening the party but holding it at arm's length, except as a useful vehicle for fundraising....In sharp contrast to the early 1990s, it is Republicans who now have a nominee best known for his apostasies against his own party. Democrats don't have to run from their party anymore. And so Obama hasn't. Rather, he has run against polarization, against legislative gridlock, against special interests. This is why he could bring the DNC to Chicago: The problem isn't Democrats. It's the atmosphere and working relationships that impede their work in Washington....His rhetoric has often signaled an appetite for compromise that has left some wondering about what, exactly, Obama's core policy commitments would be in office. But less attention was given to what Obama seemed to think would attract folks from across the aisle: real policy-making, which Obama's campaign believes requires a Democratic Party infrastructure strong enough to pass the president's priorities. In other words, strong parties aren't the problem; they're the solution. And now that he has one of his own, Obama is determined to prove it.
..Most outsider candidates for the presidency recruit an outsider team to deliver it. Bill Clinton's main strategists in 1992 were the little-known Paul Begala and James Carville. His first chief of staff was Mack McLarty, a childhood friend who had risen to become chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party. It was a team untainted by Washington but also unschooled in how Washington worked. The Obama campaign and Senate staff, by contrast, are full of Daschle and Gephardt veterans--an unexpected rebirth of the power bases and reputations of two politicians who had long been written off..
..Before Clinton could build a new image of the party, however, he had to get elected. That meant not strengthening the party but holding it at arm's length, except as a useful vehicle for fundraising..
..In sharp contrast to the early 1990s, it is Republicans who now have a nominee best known for his apostasies against his own party. Democrats don't have to run from their party anymore. And so Obama hasn't. Rather, he has run against polarization, against legislative gridlock, against special interests. This is why he could bring the DNC to Chicago: The problem isn't Democrats. It's the atmosphere and working relationships that impede their work in Washington..
..His rhetoric has often signaled an appetite for compromise that has left some wondering about what, exactly, Obama's core policy commitments would be in office. But less attention was given to what Obama seemed to think would attract folks from across the aisle: real policy-making, which Obama's campaign believes requires a Democratic Party infrastructure strong enough to pass the president's priorities. In other words, strong parties aren't the problem; they're the solution. And now that he has one of his own, Obama is determined to prove it.
Crossposted at MyDD and DailyKOS
We are in the fourth year of an unprecedented change in political registration. Never before has there been as sustained a pattern of decrease in one party's registration and increase in the other's. Jennifer Steinhauer today in the New York Times discusses this significant trend.
When Obama declared independence from the public financing system it was apparently seen as hypocrisy by some. Personally I would define hypocrisy somewhat differently, for instance pretending you want peace and security then starting a string of wars. But in a segment on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart”, Wyatt Cenac used the phrase “Pragmatism we can believe in” to explain Obama’s action (June 23, “Obama is rich” segment). I’m not sure how much of a joke they meant for it to be but it struck a chord with me.
There’s currently a fierce debate raging in my home country of Sweden. It concerns a new law that passed a few weeks ago, which allows for surveillance of all communication by all citizens; e-mails, phone calls etc. This has sparked a storm of passionate protests, angry emails and sophisticated websites, all designed to object to a law that no one really cared about in the months and years it took to develop it.
As far as I can tell there is really only one reason for this uproar; trust, or more accurately the lack of trust in our own government. Surely no one actually believes there will be time for the assigned agents to listen in on our private conversations just for fun. Only a very few will ever be effected by this law, and a vast majority of those will actually be guilty and dangerous to our country. The problem with these kinds of laws however is the perceived power it gives to the sitting government. It is the fear of political gain that drives most protesters, the fear that their phones will be bugged simply because they disagree with the political leaders. It’s a scary thing when such concerns are raised in a country I have always felt to be one of the safest in the world.
Yesterday Barack Obama took the time to write a response to a discussion on the new FISA bill (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). I didn’t even know there was such a bill until I read the post, nor did I realize how similar the discussions were to the once we have here. Obviously when America does something it always has to bigger and better, or in this case worse, than everyone else. In practice there is obviously no comparison between what my government can do to infringe on our civil liberties and what the American government can do to the American people. But as Obama tried to explain his position; maintaining it was a bad bill but an acceptable compromise for now, I couldn’t help but feel comforted by the pragmatism in his reasoning. (In contrast, our own Head of State, Mr. Reinfeldt, just suggested people should cool off and get over it).
Crossposted at DailyKos
Reading Reaper0bot0's diary tonight reminded me very much of all the Internet Security debates I have been involved with since the early nineties. I invented one of the early firewalls (BorderWare), and since that time it has been my mixed pleasure and angst to engage in heated debates that are very very similar to this one.
The people who know a lot about Internet security are by and large very smart technical geeks who spend all their time thinking and worrying about keeping bad folks from doing nasty things. We get really passionate about it - if we screw up people are harmed. In some areas of our profession like Critical Infrastructure (which I focused on 2005-2007), when we screw up, people die.
Tempers get very sharp about the specific things we should do, and how we can do them. The worst part? I never know whether what I believe to be the right thing to do is not horribly wrong, and may lead to horrible consequences. But since the alternative is doing nothing, I have to do the best I can and live with the results.
