Our Savior Who Art in Washington

Perhaps Obama’s contribution will be that more people stay engaged for a longer period beyond the national election.  Time will tell.

Mr. Kirsch,  Who did you vote for?  I sense a tone of remorse in your post that I don’t share.  I’m very happy to work with President Obama who is much more likely to listen than the alternative offered by the Republican brand.  I think he will be a good President, and that the Republican Party will take several generations to fool a majority again.
Cheers here! 
Scott

Mr. Wicklund,

You apparently fail to appreciate the nuance I attempted, suffering as you seem to be with Demophilia. 

Your vision of the political world being represented by competing “brands” is rich.  You are in fact on to something.  The primary political parties have been reduced to little more than marketing enterprises peddling a product in order to reap the profits of elective victory. 

They have ceased to be institutions refining and improving political philosophies.  They offer a false choice.  Like the choice between McDonalds and BurgerKing, neither offers the alternative of real nourishment. 

And I note that you seem to accept a choice between the lesser of evils rather than lament a system that can not produce healthy alternatives.

Until people like yourself are willing to risk thinking that the system really isn’t working, and we need to actually change the institutions by which we’re governed (not just who sits in the seats), there will not be any real change.

In the meantime, like the lemmings at the drive thru, enjoy your happy meal and be satisfied with getting change back.

Mr. Pontificator, Just tell me who you voted for and I think much more will be explained.  Just let me know.  That is not too much to ask from someone who suffered through your whinning prose.
Scott

Greg Kirsch,

With the possible exception of Doug Karlberg, yours are the most entertaining posts on this website.

Your latest, with responses, is no exception.  You manage to deliver advocacy and perspective laced with good humor.  Ralph Nader meets Mark Steyn. Thanks.

I voted for John McCain, but I’m OK with President Obama.  Image sells on the world stage, and Obama certainly delivers the image the world, and the U.S. electorate wants—an articulate, youthful, intelligent leader.  And, like John Kennedy, very good looking. In today’s political culture, looks matter.  If the determinant of transformational political change were limited to color, Obama would have been overshadowed by presidential candidates Al Sharpton (more experience) or Alan Keyes (more articulate).  Instead, we elected someone with arguably less experience than anyone in the history of the U.S. Presidency. (name one with less)

My fears about the state of the economy have been put to rest with the selection of Paul Volcker to sort out the current financial mess. Didn’t he serve as Fed Chairman under Reagan? Carter? Lincoln?  Still, it’s the image that counts.  And having an 81-year old, cigar smoking,  6’ 5”, 300 pound colossus/financial genius at the helm will surely send a positive signal to world markets.

Since I was not an Obama partisan, I am not currently suffering from expectation deflation.

In fact, I am relieved that President Obama is not likely to:
1.  Pull out of Iraq anytime soon
2.  Pull out of Afghanistan anytime soon
3.  Follow up on campaign promises to tax the rich (and that includes the UAW members pulling down $75 per hour)
4.  socialize our health care system
5.  allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons
6.  abandon military support for Israel
7.  take any guff from Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi

Barack Obama could be an excellent president.  There is an old saying in politics,  “The people have spoken, and the people are always right”.

I think the people may well have gotten it right in this past election.

John Lesow

John,

I agree with your conclusions.  My concern is, his choices for lieutenants do not seem to fulfill the promise.

And oh how I hope Volcker’s still got the stuff—and lives to be a hundred.

But where’s the new blood?  Anything would have been a change from Bush.  I thought the promise was real change.

Greg,

Rookies do poorly in Washington. Particularly in new Presidential administrations.  Remember Nixon’s team?
Haldeman, Erlichman, etc.  A disaster.
Same for Carter, arguably the worst president of the 20th Century. Turfed out after one term by an aging movie actor.  Ham Jordan and Jody Powell thought administrating Carter’s presidency would be as easy as winning the presidential campaign.  They were wrong.

Barack Obama is not going to make that same mistake.  Unlike Carter, Obama would like to finish two terms. He needs those seasoned Washington insiders with practical experience.  Move On.org and the George Soros crowd expects payback, but they are likely to be disappointed with the centrist administration by a very savvy President-elect Obama. 

John Lesow

John,

And there you have it.  Your “seasoned insiders” are that same group of aspirants I suggest would become a “master class.”  What have they been doing the last eight years?

Largely enjoying generous fees as insiders.  Which will again become their occupations when they rotate back into the private sector.  “Centrist” is too kind.  I believe in moderation in most things, but what I expect will be far more slavish to the status quo. 

In the area of the economy particularly, the last sixteen years have seen an extraordinary manipulation of government to intercede in the economy for special interests.  The last eight being a wholesale repudiation of basic conservative principles; in the last three months we’ve witnessed the <i>coup de grace<>.

So will it be this cadre of insiders with visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads who force the needed changes? 

These folks expect to retire to the Hamptons and enjoy seven digit incomes as consultants to and lobbyists for their fellow elites.  (At least the Treasury won’t be run by a Wall Streeter!)

Will it be our 80 year old Lazarus?  Or will it be our savior himself who throws the money handlers out of the temple?

“Moderation in <u>all<> things” just will not do Mr. Emerson.

Oh, and Mr. Wicklund,

If you were unable to deduce it from my writing, I did not dine at McDonalds or BurgerKing.

Mr. Kirsch (“pontificator”), I find some irony reading your comments.  In ‘68, I voted for the Socialist Workers Party and shunned the Democratic Party nominee after the bloody Convention in Chicago.  We got Nixon!  After that, I decided to go with the Democratic Party candidates even if I did not accept every position in the interest of winning and the hope of better government policy.
Here I read of social conservatives who now claim to have sat this election out or maybe voted for (Nader? Larouche? Ron Paul write-in?) and the Republican Party lost.  Maybe they should have worked harder for the Republican candidates who might have won, ha ha.
I learned my lesson long ago and now faithfully work for my candidates who are most likely to provide good governance and policy.  Your “concern troll” type post leaves me deaf because of what I learned long ago.  Try your thread on dailykos.com if you want to attempt to get progressives to cry about Obama’s choices.  Most of us who backed a winner are happy we got change from the last eight years which we would not have got if we had sat this election out….

Mr. Wicklund,

You clearly miss the point of the article.  It is not so much critical of our savior as it is advice that the problems we face require more change than your hero seems ready to bring. 

Democrats, who really have achieved office by something like default, will soon wish they still had Bush to blame.  If we have two more years of your party groping for a direction your nemeses will, unfortunately, soon rebound. 

It was not that long ago the D’s were destined for the dustbin of history.  Oh that both parties would be gone and smaller parties would organize around more singular principles.  You have hopefully picked up on my frustration with and disdain for the two party system.

What I hoped thoughtful readers would consider, is the magnitude of the challenge presently faced by this nation and the minimal probability that a reheated Clinton administration would be up to the task. 

We are on the brink of real pain and suffering for very real people.  Half measures, and little steps will not do.  If we are to suffer let it not be to preserve the status quo. 

In the interim I tire of debating dogmaniacs and other breeds of pedestrian ideologues.  If you believe the apostles he has chosen will save him from being crucified, who am I to question your faith.

You acknowledge you are, “deaf because of what I learned long ago.”  This reminds me of an old Greek’s observation, “It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.?

Actually, Scott, this is the place for such opinions.  Your suggestion that Greg’s comments belong on the Daily Kos is quite misguided.  Seems like there are a lot of screwing ideas out there about what this site is all about. 

Briefly, this site is not trying to garner lots of approving visits.  It is not trying to be progressive.  It does reflect the perspectives of those who write here - and makes no apologies.  Links on the right give you other options for other perspectives. 

Personally, I share the concerns with Greg.  Democrats are adept at losing sure winner races - and, having won, Obama almost seems to me to be trying to screw up the victory.  We voted for change - not a return to the past.  Obama says he will be in control and will direct change but that seems a bit naive to me when he is choosing people who have more vested interests in their own futures than the success of his administration.  Time will tell and I remain hopeful and optimistic. 

Greg’s comments are right on and appropriate to this website.  And how he voted is none of our business.