The view outside my house.
Archive for January, 2010
30
Jan
10
The Return of Snowpocolypse
No, seriously. I did.
A Kansas jury deliberated just 37 minutes before convicting an anti-abortion activist of first-degree murder in the fatal shooting of an abortion provider.
The jury found Scott Roeder, 51, guilty of gunning down Dr. George Tiller, who operated a clinic in Wichita where late-term abortions were performed. Roeder, 51, faces life in prison when he is sentenced on March 9.
Tiller’s family said the jury reached a “just” verdict.
“At this time we hope that George can be remembered for his legacy of service to women, the help he provided for those who needed it and the love and happiness he provided us as a husband, father and grandfather,” the family said in a written statement.
A day earlier, Roeder told jurors he had shot Tiller in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church as Sunday services began. Testifying as his only defense witness, he said he believed he had to kill Tiller to save lives. He said he had no regrets.
I think there’s a fair case to be made that George Tiller’s killing was an act of terrorism; it was a calculated use of violence in service of a political goal, namely, to keep doctors from offering legitimate medical services to women in need. With that in mind, I think liberals should trot out Scott Roeder whenever conservatives rail against trying terrorism suspects in civilian courts — if we can successfully put a domestic terrorist away for life, why not a foreign-born one?
Photo credit: Jeff Tuttle/Associated Press
I only caught the last fifteen minutes or so of President Obama’s Q&A with House Republicans, but I think I can safely conclude two things.
First, this is a masterful performance. Not only did Obama show a lot of confidence in his command of his proposals, but he also showed a surprising command of Republican alternatives. As far as I can tell, it wasn’t much work fo him to defend his policies and completely dismantle the opposition’s. What’s more, he wasn’t remotely afraid to call out Republicans for repeatedly and hypocritically misleading the public.
Second, there is no reason why this shouldn’t become a regular part of the political culture. In the UK, they have the “question hour,” where the prime minister is forced to answer questions from Parliament. The occasion is rawkus and a little disorderly, but it’s also very informative, and a great way for the opposition to challenge the government, and vice versa. A monthly, televised Q&A between President Obama and the House Republicans could be entertaining, informative, and political advantageous for Obama, as it gives him an opportunity to show Americans how utterly unserious the GOP is about governing.
All in all, when you get the chance, it’s worth sitting down and listening to as much as you can. It might be the most important political performance of the week (and that includes the State of the Union).
Update: C-Span has the video up. Go watch it!.
Photo credit: Luke Sharrett/The New York Times
Besides complicating electoral oversight, the other downside to have a large number of elected officials is that it makes voting in any given election much less likely. Even excluding Australia — where voting is compulsory — the United States falls well behind most other English-speaking democracies when it comes to voter turnout (And that’s only considering lower house elections. The numbers drop steadily as you add in other elections).
That said, the problem isn’t that Americans are lazy or disinterested in voting. Rather, and as you probably learned in your high school government class, the reason for low overall turnout lot to do with the sheer frequency of elections in the United States. As Matt points out in his post, Americans are expected to vote in national, state and local elections. To use a recent example, between 2008 and 2009, Virginians were expected to vote for a: president, a senator, a House representative, a governor, a lieutenant governor, an attorney general, a state representative, a state senator, city council members, mayors and school board members. And since most of these are held every two to four years, it is entirely conceivable that in a single five year period, the average Virginian will have been expected to cast 22 different votes. By contrast, the average Londoner might — at most — cast seven or eight votes. Most Americans have neither the time or interest to keep track with dozens of elected officials, and tend to only vote in national or state wide elections, which are higher profile and more concrete in a way that local elections aren’t (although local governance has a far more immediate impact on everyday life).
We could probably go a long way towards boosting voter turnout if we simply reduced the number of elections each American is responsible for. Charlottesville, for instance, has made some progress towards that goal; city council members are elected district-by-district and serve staggered terms, while the mayor is elected by the city council and not the individual voters. Not only does this reduce the number of local elections each resident is responsible for, but it has the advantage of giving the mayor a bit more political leeway.
It was held in the hall where Confederate president Jefferson Davis was inaugurated .
Let’s hope no one else picks up on that.
28
Jan
10
Please Show, Don’t Tell
As much as I like President Obama, my initial response to last night’s State of the Union was fairly tepid, if not a little hostile, “Show me some progress and then, maybe then, I’ll be a bit less cynical and a bit more hopeful.”
I stand by that.
This isn’t a new observation, but right now, Obama’s core weakness is that he hasn’t passed a single piece of significant legislation. On the core issues of his presidency — health care, financial reform, the environment — he has yet to secure a single victory. Which, as Ned points out, makes it very difficult to embrace Obama’s rhetoric, even when you want to. And pace Obama, it’s not that liberals or young people or any other part of his coalition believed that he would wave the magical change wand and solve America’s problems. But we did expect Obama to use his gifts — as an orator and a leader — to push and fight for the policies he promised to deliver. That he hasn’t, that he effectively allowed Democrats “to run for the hills” following the Massachusetts election, has made many liberals uneasy about Obama’s commitment to his own agenda.
That said, there is some cause for hope. Obama hit all of the right notes in last night’s speech. He pushed against Republican obstructionism, called out the Senate for its self-interested timidity, criticized Democratic skittishness and reminded his party that they “still have the largest majority in decades.” I think it’s fair to say that Barack Obama devoted last night to laying out his vision, and daring Democrats to abandon him. This is a serious gamble, and for it to succeed, Obama needs to run with the momentum and finally act like the leader that he is.
Picture credit: Linda Davidson, Washington Post
When you strip away the policy proposals, the jokes and the asides, President Obama is presenting the American people with a clear argument for why they should trust him. Simply put, he’s arguing that the GOP has put the United States on the path to a lost decade, where the middle class stagnates — or even falls behind — and the United States throws away the possibility of an elegant, graceful decline, for short-term gratification. Infrastructure investment, financial reform, and health care reform are all part and parcel of an attempt to put the United States on a more stable footing for the future.
I think that this is a successful message (if a lackluster speech). The American people understand that the most serious of our problems are the product of George W. Bush’s disastrous presidency, and for the most part, they have patiently held off on blaming President Obama for the problems they elected him to resolve. But that won’t last forever. Indeed, I don’t know if the Obama administration has the conviction or wherewithal to push the policies and approaches that do what needs to be done. I hate to use this phrase, but right now, Obama is simply offering us “words,” and for this message to even have an ounce of success, he needs to give us results.
Recent Comments