by fairleft2, Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 02:22:12 PM EDT
Yet some folks today are still drawn to cults and anti-cults of personality, and still need to learn the basics.
Krugman (and Cockburn, who compares Teddy and Tricky on health care politics to Teddy's great detriment below fold) writes well on this 'obvious except to the deliberately deluding themselves' matter, and agrees with me (his second reason) on why. Nixon was a product of different, mildly more liberal, times. And Kennedy and Obama are products of these times, when politics with great purity involves serving a mountain of self-interested corporate money and bamboozling and toying with we the people.
If people get my comment header below, then looking back on Tricky Dick is enlightening about the primary problem of our time, the nearly complete loss of power by everyone except big corporations and the wealthy. (Why do some of you take our eyes off that, or (selectively) pretend it is not happening even when your favorites take huge quantities of corporate dough?)
Nixon the most liberal president we've had since Nixon
Those were different times: EPA, wage-and-price controls, detente with China/USSR, and even got us out of Vietnam.
'Sock it to me!'
by: fairleft @ Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 15:21:05 PM EDT
No doubt Nixon would've been a Dick (Cheney) in these times, no doubt about it, but, well read on, it's good Krugman:
Missing Richard Nixon
by Paul Krugman
. . .
by tarheel74, Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 08:26:28 PM EDT
Once again I was and never am big on bipartisanship and high Broderism. Bipartisanship works when you have honest partners, not some manipulative lunatics who see the defeat of a marquee and much needed legislation as a way back to power. Pursuit of bipartisanship today is self-defeating and to quote Howard Dean "The earlier the White House realizes it's negotiating against itself, the quicker it can produce a bill that better satisfies the people who actually got the president elected."
But on to Krugman
by tietack, Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 05:48:33 AM EST
It's time to continue our look at the Cabinet in the upcoming Obama administration. Second - Secretary of the Treasury, perhaps the most important appointment President-elect Obama will make, given the current economic circumstances.
There are several excellent options - some who served in the Clinton Administration - some outsiders - and even some paradigm breaking choices. For convenience, I've taken the list from a betting site (yes, it is in the order of the oddsmakers' favorite).
There were Republicans on the list, and I've left out the "I don't believe it" names still on the betting lines such as Phil Gramm and Bob Zoellick. There's also some chatter about keeping Paulson on, temporarily to administer the bailout. So as distasteful as it seems, I kept his name on the list.
Perhaps one key criteria (which you're free to throw to the side of the road) is whether the candidate would inspire confidence in the markets.
(X posted at OpenLeft - will X post at DK, as soon as the clock allows me to post another diary there)
by the mollusk, Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:25:52 AM EDT
The latest CBS poll has George Walker Bush at 25 % approval rating. These polls sometimes come back with a bogus answer or two, but in the CBS poll, Bush appears to be consistently under 30 % these days. To state the obvious, that is remarkably bad.
Living in these times, it is easy to forget just what an awful eight years this has been. In the interest of being honest, I never liked Bush, even when 90 % of the country did, but when he ran against Gore, I didn't see the real harm in electing this guy. His 2000 campaign was predicated on being a centrist Republican. This was back when I was naive enough to think that there was such a thing. It seemed to me like it would be good for the Republican party to be pulled toward the center by this young, vibrant sleazeball. I figured - "Give him his four years. It'll look a lot like Clinton's third term plus a few extra bungles."
As it turned out, he was quite possibly the worst person to put in that position (other than me, of course) for what followed. For what had to follow.
by citizen53, Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:55:46 PM EDT
A short diary about the Clinton RFK remark.
The fact that Clinton even had to apologize shows just how ridiculous and cynical the partisans of hope are.
The feigned outrage is a farce. And Olbermann will have a special comment tonight?