MOB RULE

After reading this article in the NY Times called, "Mob Rule", I was struck by one of the comments posted after it.

The article referenced above tried to make sense of the shift of "the mob" rooting for Obama to "the mob" choosing Scott Brown, a republican.

Here is the comment. I think it's noteworthy because it's written by someone in Seol, Korea, so this is an outsider's view of what's going on in American Politics.

Obama was elected on his own slogan of "change you can believe in." He got a substantial majority (by American standards) and a mandate to do just that. He didn't use that energy, and made myriad ill-advised decisions and choices. It is of course absurd that those who choose him for the changes he proffered would now shift to a Republican right-winger, but so it is, it was the alternative available. If Obama does not rapidly commence enacting the changes he promised, he'll have a very unhappy 3/4s of a presidency on his hands.

www.jonjost.wordpress.com
www.cinemaelectronica.wordpress.com

CHANGING TIDE

Both in economic and foreign policy, the tide seems to be turning a bit, in so far as the vocal dissatisfaction of people who previously had signed onto Obama's agenda.

Here is a blog entry by Richard Haass that is a signal that people who formally approved of Obama's strategy for foreign diplomacy are now rethinking it:

RICHARD HAASS: Regime Change Is The Only Way To Stop Iran.

Here is an excerpts showing his change of opinion:

Diplomacy and negotiations are seen not as favors to bestow but as tools to employ. The other options—using military force against Iranian nuclear facilities or living with an Iranian nuclear bomb—were judged to be tremendously unattractive. And if diplomacy failed, Obama reasoned, it would be easier to build domestic and international support for more robust sanctions. At the time, I agreed with him."

"I've changed my mind. The nuclear talks are going nowhere. The Iranians appear intent on developing the means to produce a nuclear weapon; there is no other explanation for the secret uranium-enrichment facility discovered near the holy city of Qum. Fortunately, their nuclear program appears to have hit some technical snags, which puts off the need to decide whether to launch a preventive strike. Instead we should be focusing on another fact: Iran may be closer to profound political change than at any time since the revolution that ousted the shah 30 years ago.

I have not thoroughly thought through Richard Haass' new opinion of the U.S.'s approach to Iran, but I do find it telling that he has made a very significant shift. I wonder how many others will follow?

THIS IS GREAT

I love this; I'm still smiling. It's YouTube video. I bet it'll be well circulated. Take the time. It's worth it.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

I did not watch the entire speech that Obama gave at an Ohio Town Hall, today, but I did see a snippet and one declaration really caught my attention. He said,

"Because of all of the things we've done, the the worst of the economic disaster is over."

I interpreted this statement as declaring his policies as success. The sacrifice did its job. He has declared that his policies have rescued the economy from its free fall and things will only get better now. I think it is a "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" moment. If Obama is right, he'll bounce back a bit. If he's wrong, get ready for another free fall.

TRYING TO UNDERSTAND

I'm trying to understand more fully about what this latest Supreme Court decision means. It's another case of the same facts leading to completely diametrical conclusions:

From the NY Times:

"With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding. Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy."

But, then from "TheFutureOfCapitalism.com":

"The Supreme Court today issued a decision (pdf) that may, in the long run, be an even bigger victory for individual freedom and defeat for government power than Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate election."

I'll have to keep reading to understand this more fully. Comments would be appreciated.

CONFUSED

I am truly confused by the following issue:

NEW YORK TIMES: Corporations shouldn’t have free speech rights, unless they’re us.

It regards a Supreme Court decision about the constitutionality of blocking the film documentary, "Hillary" from being viewed, b/c of its political nature, and its corporate backers....or something like that.

They decided that it is obstructing free speech to block a film like that. That makes sense, but then, the above NY Times article speaks of how this decision allows for corporations, lobbyists, and unions to spend as much as they want to on a campaign. The fear being, of course, that the little guy's $10 donation gets severely dwarfed by the millions that a Corporation could contribute to a candidate. (or the unions' power to influence elections, who have less money than a corporation, would be dwarfed as well).

Regardless of how you come down on the court's decision, I'm not certain about how these two conclusions have to be related and congruent. Is this an incidence of unintended consequences, i.e., protecting free speech in the media, regardless of its backers, but at the same time unintentionally giving more power back to Wallstreet and Unions in influencing elections by contributing to campaigns?

I'm just confused on the implications of this decision.

TRYING TO KEEP THE BASE

GALLUP: In U.S., Majority Favors Suspending Work on Healthcare Bill.

The above article shows that 39% of Americans think that Congress should continue and try to push through the bill they have. Whereas 55% of Americans think they should suspend work on this bill and consider alternatives.

From what I've heard on the news, my sense is that the Obama Administration is inclined toward continuing to push it through. It's hard to understand their logic but, there seems to be a core number of people - around 39% - that continue to like this legislation.

He can't afford to lose his devotees. He' already lost a bunch of them, b/c he's backed off some of his most radical promises such as gay marriage, closing Gitmo by the end of the year, public option in health care, and bringing the troops home. He's never going to convince the Right or even the Center-Right that he's got what it takes to re-elect him in 2012, but if he loses his entire base, he's a goner. His campaign support for Democrat Congress members and governors in trouble in elections has proved to be unfruitful anyways. Therefore, he can throw them under the bus and push through whatever he can during this limited tenure. After all, he thinks he still has the typical SEIU, and ACORN types to strong arm for him, and control of his message in the MSM. But, he's out of touch there, too, b/c even those ranks are weakening.

So, I predict he pushes harder than ever, trying to please his most radical followers, who truly are in line with his objectives. He'll have to throw a bone or two to the other dems, who are waking up, and even some republican's now that Scott Brown is in there, but he's not going to back off and move to the center like Clinton did.

The best news is that he doesn't have the support of the majority anymore, and in America, the majority does have the voice...eventually. With 2010 elections not far off, he's not going to have the full support of the democratic caucus anymore, now that they've seen how unhappy the majority of the electorate is with their policies. Apparently what they'd been fed about the opposition being dummy tea baggers on the radical fringe has come to light as the garbage that was.