PSB: Progressive Illinois Politics - Recent Comments

GOP Trial Balloon

unagidon — Sun, 18 May 2008 00:33:09 GMT

"By all odds, this is the most important innovation since Woodrow Wilson made the decision to revive the tradition, begun by George Washington, to personally appear before a joint session of Congress for the State of the Union. It is a brilliant innovation that will change the nature of the presidency enormously and for the better."

Do we have to elect McBush to tap into this nonsense?

I especially like the last sentence with "brilliant innovation" and "change the nature of" and all of that. You guys are really thrashing around looking for a way to get McCain to distance himself from this disaster that Bush (whom on this very blog you have characterized as the most progressive man in America) has created for the United States.

McBush is toast. He's going to make Oberweis look like Reagan.

Israel and Palestine have exactly the same rights to exactly the same land.

unagidon — Sat, 17 May 2008 20:28:20 GMT

That's the crux of the problem. Since neither side will admit this, they can't move on.

In the meantime, under the US umbrella, Israel keeps expanding. But it can't go on forever. The neo-cons keep fantasizing that we will somehow rebuild the surrounding Muslim countries into democracies that will also somehow allow Israel to have its way with the Palestinians. While I think it is likely that the surrounding countries will achieve some sort of democratic development, since the issue is that both the Israelis and Palestinians have the same right to the same land, Muslim countries will continue to rightfully support the Palestinians against an Israel that thinks that it has all the rights.

Don't back revolution. Just back off.

unagidon — Sat, 17 May 2008 20:12:41 GMT

"I'd rather back subversion and revolution in Ahmadinejad's Iran then launch a war or attempt to deter them with nuclear retaliation should Iran launch a first strike."

You are assuming that Ahmadinejad is so unpopular that there is a major popular movement that would allow a foreign invader to enter the country to help them. Same stupid assumption we made in Iraq. Yes, Ahmadinejad is unpopular. But Bush is just as unpopular in the US. So do you think that in principle progressives should support foreign support for subversion against Bush in the United States?

Silly question. Of course not. But in your neo-con world, the towel heads are all just slavering for the US to come in and establish our form of government.

So what's the neo-con plan? Foment internal revolution? And while we are supposed to believe that the internal desire for revolution is so strong that we might be able to do limited air strikes against Iranian targets, we still have to support it from the outside. In other words, we have to do in Iran what you are complaining that Iran is doing in Lebanon. But while there are a lot of Shiites in Lebanon that might be sympathetic to Iran, where are the Christians in Iran that would be sympathetic to the US that we could use for this third column.

How about Iranian nationalists? How many are there? You claim to be some sort of student of socialism. So tell the class, Bill, what happened to the socialist parties of Europe when WW 1 started. Did they overthrow their governments and establish socialist democracies? Or when the drums started playing, did they all follow the flag?
So we have to assume that when it comes to foreign interventions of either the subversive kind, the limited kind, or the total war kind, when the first US soldier steps over the border, they are going to find the entire country against them. Unless one rather minor faction tries to use us against everyone else (as happened under the Shah... and in Iraq right this moment).

There will be no revolution in Iran started by us. They already threw us out about 30 years ago. I don't see any movement for the restoration of the Shah. What you are selling here is just the old "the democrat is a pussy" line that your little god-king has spouted in the last two elections.

Politics By Other Means

CarlDavidson — Sat, 17 May 2008 19:49:34 GMT

First, let's get a few matters out of the way with a little Clinton-style parsing.

'O'Bomb 'em' was a term that came in relation to an interview Obama had with the Trib on Iran, not on Iraq. Also, it's not my term, but came up on Chicago Indymedia. I didn't like his stand on Iran, but I didn't care to use this term myself, save for describing how some on the Chicago left had turned on him, if they ever supported him at all.

My advice to Obama or any politician is to stop talking about war when it comes to dealing with the Salafists (Bin Laden & crew). I argued back in 2001 that Bush blew it on 9/12 when he declared 'War of Terror,' handing the Salafists just the political victory they wanted, to be seen as holy warriors rather than criminals engaging in crimes against humanity. With the later, you can build a global collective security response to put them out of business; with the former, you get Bush's 'Coalition of the Willing' and all the ensuing failures.

Up until Bush2, US policy has always been against pre-emptive war, and we should return to it as very sound and pragmatic. And don't give me a bunch of 'What Ifs.' As one pundit said the other day, 'if my aunt had a male appendage, she'd be my uncle, but she doesn't.' If you want to wage a war on just grounds, assuming there is such, read St Thomas Aquinas on the subject before going off like you've watched too many cowboy movies or too many episodes of '24.' He holds up pretty well over the centuries. If you want other countries to abstain from nuclear weapons, stop threatening them with exporting 'regime change' and reduce our nuclear arsenals. Otherwise, get used to it, because in nation-state-craft, the main effective defense against a nuclear bully is to get some nuclear capacity yourself. Ask the Chinese. We need some chess players like Richardson in charge on these things, not checker players like Bush, Cheney and crew.

So, the Dems don't have what it takes...

razorgirl — Sat, 17 May 2008 19:38:46 GMT

...to just say NO to continued funding of a war crime. And I have little hope that a Dem president with a Dem Congress will have the spine and moral clarity to put an immediate end to the looting of our treasury and the continued destruction either.

And to Mr. Baar: We're not funding "the troops". We're funding their maiming and dying. Along with the destruction of millions of Iraqi lives.

War as first resort

Bill_Baar — Sat, 17 May 2008 17:37:49 GMT

Don't know where you can find me arguing that... but I don't think we should wait until war is the only resort.

We win those but they mean anniliating the foe.

I'd rather fight the limited war rather than wait for the total war.

I'd rather back subervision and revolution in Akmenijad's Iran then launch a war or attempt to deter them with nuclear retaliation should Iran launch a first strike.

You and Bill...

Bill_Baar — Sat, 17 May 2008 17:27:50 GMT

...are the only ones who seem to thing this is a legit, progressive notion....

Welcome

wegerje — Sat, 17 May 2008 16:33:57 GMT

Since you bring a reputation as someone who has championed progressive values, we are extending to you the ability to post directly to the front page should that be of interest to you.

If you choose to post an article and you do not wish it to go to the front page you will need to un-check the default front page box. Since we are an Illinois Blog generally the front page is for articles about Illinois. Of course, Obama, kinda blurs the lines, being from Illinois and all.

I don't believe that the Bush regime

wegerje — Sat, 17 May 2008 16:16:57 GMT

would stoop to using our fighters pay in such a shamelessly political manner. So no way their pay gets delayed. And further I can't believe that you believe it either.

But it appears that you are not above using the threat of delayed pay yourself here for your own political agenda. I expect better of you Bill. I may not agree with you much but I expect you not to pander or bait. They are beneath you an I know you know better.

Bullies only understand force. And when they don't get their way, one of their tactics is attempting to shame their opponents.

Perhaps so

wathomasson — Sat, 17 May 2008 15:48:17 GMT

Given the nature of American government, and how it differs from British parliamentary government, it's hard to believe that these appearances will not be carefully scripted. And I don't think the effects would be quite that revolutionary even if there is real give-and-take. But it's still an attractive idea that I hope Obama adopts.

Welcome back.

unagidon — Sat, 17 May 2008 15:34:21 GMT

Now that you have done some sort of little stint at playing soldier in Baghdad, do we get to hear a bunch of "I was there and I know everything about the war" stuff from you for the next year or two?

If you love your good and brave friends back in Baghdad, then you will know that the shameful thing is this endless war itself. Do you really think that the Pentagon is going to miss a payroll?

My 2 cents

wathomasson — Sat, 17 May 2008 15:29:06 GMT

I haven't checked the date of your earlier post that is being discussed, but by spring (maybe late spring or early summer) of 2007 Obama was saying essentially what he is today. That's when I checked the candidates' stands and decided the difference between Obama's one-year timeline and Richardson's six-month timeline was too small to matter.

I agree that campaign style and the greater sense of participation Obama offers is one of the most conspicuous differences between the two remaining candidates. To those of us who first got actively involved in politics through Dean -- in my case, quite late in life -- that is an important distinction.

And incidentally, what attracted me to Dean even more than "You have the power!" was his call for a great restoration of American values. In my ears, that sounds a lot like Obama's call for brining us all together.

But since you are a war of first resort sort of person...

unagidon — Sat, 17 May 2008 15:27:32 GMT

you also end up in the same place. Bush fights an illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq and now, because that war is going nowhere at all he (and his clone McCain) want another war in Iran, and on the same terms. And they are willing to "nuke the bastards" too.

However tough it will be with Obama, who is going to have to untangle the mess that Bush created and tools like you are still supporting, it would be even a tougher future should some utter miracle happen and McBush get into power. McBush would keep the same dirty game going that we have going now.

It's a dramatic swing though Carl...

Bill_Baar — Sat, 17 May 2008 14:51:22 GMT

...from Barack Obomb'em to end-the-war.

My problem with the Kerry style only fight-wars-of-last resort doctrine, is I think it ends up with the only option, the last option, becomes Obomb'em in wars of anniliation. It's the odd way anti-war becomes nuke the bastards.

If that's the doctrine Obama is headed for, I think it's going to be a tough future.

I know you don't fit pigeon holes by the way which is why I read you.

What's to Debate?

CarlDavidson — Sat, 17 May 2008 14:14:05 GMT

I'm happy to discuss politics.

I'll warn you, though. I don't fit in all the pigeon holes.

There was a time-spread between my 'Barack the triangulator' missive and today.

For my part, at the earlier time, I was still backing Kucinich and Richardson as better options. And in that context, I stand by the comment.

(I still think if we picked Presidents by their resume, Richardson would win hands down)

For Obama's part, he wasn't yet going around the country asserting he'd end the war in 2009. He is now, to standing ovations from working-class audiences when he does it. It'll be hard for him to back-pedal without igniting some social dynamite among those of us who will press the White House to end the war no matter who is in it.

So he's shifted a bit, and the field's changed. So I'm comfortable urging people to give him their vote as the current best option.

By the way, by putting it that way, I'm not ENDORSING him, his party or his platform. That's a lawyer's distinction to some, but its important to me. I have my own platform, which has a few points in common with his. It may be important to him as well, seeing how the far right is trying to re-invigorate redbaiting for the 21st century.

Obama tacks left and right, forward and backward, like any politician. 'Proving' that is rather ho-hum. But he does best when he speaks from the heart on his core values, which are decent and small 'd' democratic, for the most part.

In fact, the main impression I get contrasting his speeches with Hillary is that he weaves in participatory democracy, whereas she's selling herself mainly as the best product to voters as passive consumers, save for a few minutes on election day.

That's an interesting topic that takes you back to a debate between John Dewey and Walter Lippmann in the 1920s, where Dewey coined the term 'participatory democracy', later taken up by us 1960s SDSers. It's still quite relevant today.

A shameful vote

Bill_Baar — Sat, 17 May 2008 10:30:12 GMT

I left some good and brave friends both Iraqi and American back in Bhagdad. It is shameful if they get their pay stalled to their families back home because of this.

I don't know about Carl....

Bill_Baar — Sat, 17 May 2008 10:16:18 GMT

...we'll have to see where he wants (or if he wants) to continue dialogue.

As for me, I think it's just easier to say: there is the Obama you read, the Obama you hear, and the Obama who votes (often just present), and they can be awfully different. From Carl's Barack OBomb'em to Barack the 'soft power' multipolar globalist.

Only Borah's ghost may be know the real Barack right now, although Carl hit awfully close with triangulator par excellence I think.

That's about as densely a packed word-set

wegerje — Sat, 17 May 2008 04:23:14 GMT

as I've seen describing the three. I don't have any argument with the descriptions either.

I here-by extend to you this blog as a forum for your debate. If you are comfortable with our ability to mediate and as a neutral ground then by all means take us up on it. We have the best software to do the job and a pretty good readership that spans a decent swath of progressive stances.

Sad

poemless — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:23:40 GMT

I heard about this last night. Larry was not only my Rep, but his office was right around the corner from my apt., separated by a laundrette. He had a dog that he'd bring into the office, and he'd sometimes come into the laundrette and wash the dog's blankets.

I know this is not a political comment. But ... I'm sad for the dog.