Copyright © 2009 Frank Lynch.
Copyright © 2009 Frank Lynch.
Me: Frank Lynch Home These are my mundane daily ramblings.
Email: |
Small stuff of zero (or less) importance.
All for tonight.
"I'm not dead yet." In fact, I bet Governor Jindal feels like taking a walk. While I've been busy with other things, I've been reading and listening to people talk about how abysmal Jindal's response to Obama's Tuesday night speech was. For the most part, I don't disagree, let's just not get started down a well-worn path. It's Saturday, after all, and the Jindal bit was Tuesday. But I think the element which most surprised me is the belief that Jindal's Presidential hopes are over. For instance, the first February 25 clip from "MSNBC's Countdown With Keith Olbermann" (which I can't seem to properly embed, but the Web site is here). In it, both Olbermann and Newsweek's Richard Wolff seem to figure it's over for Jindal. I'm honestly surprised at how short some people's memories are: as if they don't remember how low McCain's fortunes had sunk while actively campaigning against active competitors, how the punditry had declared him dead, only to see him ultimately win his party's nomination for the Presidency. Jindal out? Not yet. Way too early to tell. I mean, think how big a change would be represented just by not wearing a necktie that made him look like a barber pole! (Same tie, different setting, so he must like it.)
Powerline's over the deep edge. Defending decisions to drop out, if you can believe it. Referring to last night's speech, Paul Mirengoff writes:
You know, maybe Obama can't inspire people to stay in school, but you shouldn't fault him for trying, right? And wouldn't it makes sense to bemoan a world where it no longer makes sense to stay in school rather than invest the final couple years in getting that HS diploma? Seriously, reread what Mirengoff wrote. Rather than fault an economy where it's better to drop out, or the wisdom of getting pregnant, he faults Obama for trying to make potential drop outs look to the longer term. What kind of mentality is Mirengoff trying to promote, exactly?
The Republicans' fork in the road. When Al Gore was running against Bush... when John Kerry was running against Bush... one of GOP arguments (but only one of them) was that neither Gore nor Kerry had really served in an executive capacity, and that being the governor of a state trumps years of experience in the Senate. As the GOP seeks to reestablish itself after losing both chambers of Congress in 2006, more seats in those chambers in 2008, and the White House (oh yeah), it's interesting to watch the path they're taking. The election of their party chair was something out of the Keystone Cops, but they did finally settle on one, the former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, Michael Steele. He's the first African-American to head the RNC, and I think it's safe to say that he'll be better at reaching out to minorities and bringing them to the Republican party than either Alan Keyes was or Bush's race-based arguments for restructuring Social Security. But regarding that Senate vs. Gubernatorial thing, we all know that only three GOP senators broke ranks from the party line to vote in favor of the Democratic stimulus plan (it's still not clear who wrote it, whether it was the Senators, the House members, the WH, or a dead chimp in a misguided New York Post cartoon). But in spite of the crossed arms among the GOP members of Congress, the GOP governors are having different reactions. And the more evenly split reactions among GOP governors is telling. The GOP governors who are arguing for Obama and the stimulus aren't just Florida's Charlie Crist (who introduced Obama at an appearance last week), but also California's Arnold Schwarzenegger. On the other hand, you have governors from Louisiana and South Carolina who are saying they won't accept the stimulus (while Michigan's governor says "great, more for us"). I'll presume the governors who claim they won't accept the stimulus are doing it on the basis of principle and not partisanship. And of course the tax payers in their states won't have their taxes lowered as a result, they just won't see the benefits in their states. They're welcome to their principled stand, and they're welcome to the public outrage which may or may not occur as a result. But if it's governors who are better able to run for President, thanks to executive responsibilities, it's an obvious point that the stimulus package is more popular among GOP governors than GOP legislators, and that should be food for GOP thought. Of course, it could also all be show, a cross between kabuki and Br'er Rabbit begging not to be thrown into the briar patch. It's their move, it will be interesting to see.
I hate when bloggers do this. Sometimes those who are practiced at being astute try too hard at being astute; it's the everything starts to look like a nail phenomenon. Kevin Drum provides the latest example. He notes, mostly approvingly, that Obama is hiding less in the budget, giving us a truer perspective of the deficit because he's including items like Iraq and Afghanistan in the calculation. But then, he "on the other hands":
It's an odd note to sound: as if an administration that reduces costs in the hidden areas shouldn't get credit for those dollar reductions? It seems like Drum wants too withhold credit where it's due, for the sake of a playing field which, while incorrect, would be more "level." Oh, but wait, he's got an out. He didn't say this was how he feels, he's merely supposing that "the cynical among us" might feel this way, whoever these straw men are. Yet if he really felt unnamed-others might feel this way, and he disagreed, that he would have decimated the argument. Like I said, I hate it when bloggers work extra hard to sound thoughtful and, uh, don't. I expect better from Drum.
|
|
