Yes, Spitzer will be gone by the end of the week. Unlike past sex scandals, there was almost certainly legal wrong doing because of the nature in which he paid for the services. He could be facing criminal charges and even jail time. Remember, the only reason he was caught was because the FBI was doing routine examinations of financial documents and found irregularities that eventually led to all this. Add to that the irony and hypocrisy of a man who made his name by attacking shady financial dealings and cracking down on things like prostitution and he has absolutely no credibility or political capital (especially after the debacles of the past year in Albany) with which to work with. Frankly, this is one of the most shocking things that has happened in politics in recent memory.
Does Obama's Win Show US Is Colorblind?
No the US isn't colorblind, but race isn't the end all be all either. I think Obama has a very good chance of winning the nomination and that means he will win a few southern states, and probably some very white western ones as well. Look, if he can win in Iowa with a 93% white population, he can do it elsewhere as well.
Outsourcing is just another side effect of a global economy, where comparative advantage reigns. It does help give people in the 3rd world a chance to benefit from globalization and improve their lot, but in general the possibilities of outsourcing are somewhat limited for some of the reasons that kaciaener mentioned. People don't like talking to someone they can't understand, and a lot of jobs will never be able to be done remotely, likely dentistry, construction etc. In fact, I recently read that some of the biggest Indian outsourcing companies are actually looking to establish offices in the US and Europe! America needs to stop being so fearful of change and realize that it does benefit from outsourcing and can do so even more if displaced workers are able to retrain and become more productive or move up the corporate ladder with hard work and some assistance from the federal government.
Energy Independence suffers from poor marketing
Poor marketing? Nah, the past year and a half have been chock full of media stories about global warming this, and energy independence that. The bottom line is that the incentives are not in place on an individual basis to encourage a more energy-efficient economy, and that is becuase the political will is lacking. Politicians know that some sacrifice and taxes will be necessary for meaningful progress, which will kill them at the ballot box. I don't think anything big will happen until we have a major oil shortage (a la 1973) which really hurts people in the pocket book and a series of major natural disasters clearly tied to global warming to make people realize they have some "skin in the game" so to speak.
Yeah kate, I also heard about the private sector thing. Apparently new ethics rules go into place next year so that people who leave the Senate have to wait two years before they can become lobbyists. By stepping down this year, Lott can be a lobbyist after just 1 year of retirement, so that probably weighed in his decision. He mentioned that there have been offers but that he didn't have anything set. There was some speculation he would be the new chancellor of the University of Mississippi but he denied that, so we'll see what happens.
I don't know if anyone has been paying attention, but Trent Lott will be stepping down by year's end. He was one of the old Republican stalwarts in the Senate and by some counts a dealer, not a strict partisan. He claims that he is stepping down for the usual reasons, family etc. but especially because of what he characterized as an impossible political environment in Washington, saying that deals are too hard to broker nowadays. To a certain extent that makes sense to me, but my cynical side also says that with the Republicans heading for an even worse year in '08 than '06 maybe he just doesn't want to deal with the backlash that the Democrats will be dishing out once they have the White House AND Congress firmly in their control. What do you think?
What I've heard from pundits and Washington reporters is that there are two groups within the Bush administration right now, split over the Iran nuclear issue. One camp, with Rice and others is trying to emphasize diplomacy with Iran and wants to avoid military action at all cost. The other camp, led by Cheney and what's left of the neocons want a military strike on Iran's nuclear AND government facilities. I don't think Cheney has much sway left within the administration but I could be wrong and the bombs could be falling before the end of Bush's term. Does anyone else think Condi can stave off another disaster?
I think Edwards is trying to ride a rising wave of populism in the U.S. today, but it won't be enough to get him the Democratic nomination. Iowa is the best place for that kind of strategy early in the primaries, but right now I can't see him pulling off a victory there which is a must for the continued viability of his campaign. Outside of the rust belt and certain parts of rural America, I don't think the backlash against globalization/free trade is a standalone issue to run on, especially for a one-dimensional candidate who can't really try to be a legit anti-war candidate considering his "yes" vote in Oct. 2002.
Ron Paul as Vice President For Barack Obama
No way, but its sounds funny. A libertarian with a liberal Democrat ticket would be the end of the modern political system as we know it!
A trash filled moat? A novel, but unworkable solution. I don't know how the immigration issue will get worked out politically but the sooner the better in my opinion. This nation needs immigrants, especially with our looming problems related to the aging of the Boomers.
The U.S should be a part of Kyoto
Kyoto is an outdated treaty which hasn't done one thing to curb GHG emissions in meaningful way. If we are serious about climate change we need a market based system of incentives, not some pie-in-the-sky accord, that will enable continued economic growth for both us and the developing world. China is poised to surpass the United States in emissions this year, so any future action has to take into account the fact that whatever the EU and US do it will be more than offset by NIC's. Domestic policy that funds or encourages the adoption of new energy products and infrastructure is a better way to go. We need to have green technology that is cheap and readily available so that up and coming economies like India and China can grow in a more clean and sustainable way.
I also love the Daily Show and Colbert, but for some more typical political tv fare try some of my other favorites. The McLaughlin Group is on public television on Saturday nights, usually at 6 on the west coast. Meet the Press on NBC is pretty solid as far as the Sunday morning shows go. I try to avoid the cable tv crap like msnbc's hardball and the fox fodder. Hope those will be useful for ya.
I agree this issue doesn't get enough attention but for different reasons. I have to say that getting the government involved could be a double edged sword. Just look at the FCC and the harm they do in regulating TV and radio. Net Neutrality would be a nice idea in theory, but is it fair for those who own the bandwidth to have their property rights restricted? And Dave has a good point, if co's like Amazon, Google and Youtube use more they should pay more too. That's what they don't want to do becuase it would add costs to their business model, but hey that's the way a free market is supposed to work.
Although this is a bit dated now, I think this discussion on NPR's Talk of the Nation is really useful for those who are interested:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5578594
A little Roll call: Were you convinced by Bush Co. in ~2003?
I never fell for the Al-Qaeda/Saddam connection, but I did believe the WMD issue was important at the time. Unfortunately Saddam did a good job of convincing everyone he still had them to protect his regime and we mostly took him at face value without doing real hard intelligence work to discover the truth. On the other hand it didn't really matter because it was a red herring, war was coming no matter what and I for one was supportive of a liberation effort to foster democracy.
However, I also think the politicians were not fooled by the terrorist/Saddam connection but had to go along with the war because public opinion was on the side of the president at the time. Most of them probably thought that WMD's would be found anyhow, so there would at least be some concrete justification for them to fall back on later on.
China could be a threat especially if you are viewing it through the classic realist lens of international relations, but in reality for the short term it doesn't make alot of sense. As the other posters have pointed out, China is extremely dependent on continued US consumption of their cheap manufactured goods, that's why they loan us money so we can buy their stuff! It would be disastrous for them to dump their Treasury holdings rapidly, because they would lose money but also destabilize the international economy. That isn't in their interests. As far as claiming US property or companies etc. They don't have the power projection capability (ie carriers, supply chains, etc.) to seize our assets militarily, and as far as hostile takeovers go in business, Uncle Sam always gets the last word (see CNOOC and Unocal). Your point about nuclear carriers is valid to a point, but building and training a CBG to project power is a huge, expensive trial and error process which means Chinese carriers won't be a threat anytime within the next 10-15 years I think. Overtime though (ca. 2080), China may have the economic power to challenge our hegemony and their goals and actions will be telling. They can choose to be a major stake holder/leader in the current international order or create their own via hard and/or soft power. I for one hope both our leaders and theirs see that war over hegemony isn't worth it.
Will a Democratic Tide Sweep Away Blunt?
Sam, are you from Missouri or just a curious observer? If you are, I would love to hear what you are observing about the feelings on the ground, so to speak.
Americans are beginning to wake up I would argue. The 2006 midterms at least proved that the Dems could mount an (somewhat) effective opposition and that Americans did not approve of the Republicans policies totally, and even though they haven't been able to override Bush's veto power I don't think there is much of a chance we will have another GOP admin. in '09. I can understand your frustration, what with global warming, entitlement's looming collapse, Iraq, and the civil liberty infringements just to name a few problems but once effective leadership is in place I think you will see more involvement than the previous decade.
I assume you believe he should be impeached? I don't think its gonna happen, despite whatever problems he has gotten the US into in Iraq and around the world. On the one hand maybe you could assert the fact he did nefarious things domestically, but barring the destruction of Executive Privilege I don't think hard, concrete evidence would be available to impeach him.
A monarchy? No. Meritocratic dynasties? Maybe. I can sympathize with the frustratin of seeing the same damn last names on your ballots all the time. Now, that being said people do vote for them after a brutal general and primary campaign which is somewhat competitive. The primary system may have its flaws but I for one think that for the most part (Bush being an outlier) the candidates are more talented than we give them credit for. To manage a nationwide campaign, especially while in office, is quite a feat of management, PR, and vision. Keep your hopes up though, Hillary isn't a lock (at least not yet!).
