The main impact of Iowa on the Democratic side is that the party is digging in for a competitive race and, more importantly, the media coverage of Sanders was as infrequent as they could get away with, which has to change and has so far. Voters nationally that haven't heard Sanders explain his positions are tuning in. Reporters are taking dictation from Clinton propagandists in newspapers, Politico, etc, to the effect that Sanders is unelectable without noting in even the last paragraphs that head to head polls, usually unfavorable to candidates with lower name recognition, place Sanders clearly ahead of Republican rivals while Hillary is losing them. These papers do mention in other articles Clinton's false statements about emails and some of her fundraising conflicts of interest, but rarely mention that Bill Clinton is on over a dozen captain's logs flying on a private jet with a trafficker of underage sex slaves and the slaves themselves, which perhaps they're saving for the general election.
The two Cuban exiles had a bounce from Iowa and squandered it before the week was out - Cruz, trying to win the evangelical 'lane' nationally, would I think have won the state without robocalling that Carson had dropped out, but gave his rivals a talking point against him which appears to be combining with New Hamphire's resistance to sanctimonious Iowa victors to make for low poll numbers up there. Rubio's perf in Iowa seemed to put him much more within reach of claiming to be the figure the establishment and the victory-seeking rank and file would unite around but the debate blew the lid off the denial that he was a lightweight, as Christie and Bush began to shout that long-held belief that insiders had whispered.
I actually like what Cruz is saying about not fighting both Assad and ISUS at the same time, suggesting he thinks out his own positions instead of fronting for covert proxy wars - sometimes (!). I oppose him for the obvious policy reasons. He will stay in the race for a while, bankrolled by Texas oil money despite Republican insiders' hatred of him. I believe it is possible for a conservative Cuban exile to transcend a nostalgia for the corruption of Batista-era Havana. In Rubio's case, being a opportunist puppet of an organized crime linked casino owner (Adelson) with "some very, very curious and disturbing political bedfellows" doesn't seem to be the way to do that, and I am quite relieved by any news of his demise. Rubio's similarities to W. Bush are also striking - a lightweight who cuts a good media figure in choreographed moments and cedes US foreign policy to the most extreme Neocons, but may actually be good on immigration. Likewise I get relief from simple blessings like Rick Santorum dropping out - think of all the children of the world living under people like him..
Kasich seems primed for a big night, close to winning the whole thing, and Sanders' NH lead has increased in polls since Iowa. Sanders and Kasich would be a gift to the country from the Granite State - in addition to representing the left option of each party's linear spectrum, Kasich as the nominee significantly reduces the bogeyman factor compared to his GOP rivals. Based on his past statements, it's likely he'd discourage congress from voting again to overturn Obamacare, and if they ignored him, he'd probably veto it. His own imprint on health policy would likely follow his call for a Medicare expansion, defending Obamacare by saying "when you die.. St. Peter.. is going to ask you what you did for the poor." He can be expected to perform better on this as president than Hillary. Both Kasich and Hillary are Wall Street linked free traders that combine an acknowledgment of the human impact on the ozone layer with a resistance to active regulation - as the Clinton-Gore administration classified SUVs as light trucks to circumvent emissions standards. Kasich's statements on virtually every aspect of US foreign policy have been less hawkish than Hillary's.
Monday, February 8, 2016
Sunday, January 31, 2016
I have plunged into 2016 Presidential off and on and haven't decided how much to blog it. One thing I will say the night before Iowa is that Clinton and Sanders both appear to be afraid to lose tomorrow. I read somewhere that both campaigns have their resources directed at the early primaries and Hillary especially has concentrated her organization on preventing a loss in Iowa rather than developing the national organization to soften the blow of one. So a Sanders win there would be a major psychological blow for the Clinton campaign, going a long way towards leveling the organizational playing field.
I didn't begin with a preconceived notion of whom I'd support but am impressed by Bernie's organization and his ability to mobilize an electorate behind his policy positions. I intend to support this contention in more depth, but I agree strongly with those who say Bernie has the best chance in the general election, though O'Malley would also run strong there should he, with a website full of policy papers, make a longshot surge. O'Malley's so good gov that they were trying to make a big deal out of an ongoing practice of buying Maryland government furniture - Bernie's even more of a boy scout. Hillary is complaining about Sanders' "attacks" as she would do in any case disingenuously, but the Democratic challengers are doing their party a disservice by not previewing how Hillary can't bear the scrutiny of Republican attacks - as Obama had mostly done before them. Before any of that begins she starts with more than half the country knowing her and disapproving, and the elites of the majority party are running too scared to call out how that's unacceptable in their potential standardbearer.
Part of the fear is that the free trade war hawks antagonistic to financial regulation have only a small group of puppets to parade out, because in keeping with democracy, most Democratic legislators elected in the last 20 years don't support their positions, despite their timid endorsements of HRC. Obama was uniquely not antagonistic to NAFTA out of the new Senators of his freshman class, ditto Hillary. Few, if any, leading Dems are more hawkish than Hillary on war issues. A win in Iowa would lead them to say Hillary is inevitable, a loss would send them into disarray.
The polls being as close as they are in a caucus state favors the candidate with more passionate and persuasive supporters to overcome lower name recognition and brand confidence, which would seem to favor Bernie.
I didn't begin with a preconceived notion of whom I'd support but am impressed by Bernie's organization and his ability to mobilize an electorate behind his policy positions. I intend to support this contention in more depth, but I agree strongly with those who say Bernie has the best chance in the general election, though O'Malley would also run strong there should he, with a website full of policy papers, make a longshot surge. O'Malley's so good gov that they were trying to make a big deal out of an ongoing practice of buying Maryland government furniture - Bernie's even more of a boy scout. Hillary is complaining about Sanders' "attacks" as she would do in any case disingenuously, but the Democratic challengers are doing their party a disservice by not previewing how Hillary can't bear the scrutiny of Republican attacks - as Obama had mostly done before them. Before any of that begins she starts with more than half the country knowing her and disapproving, and the elites of the majority party are running too scared to call out how that's unacceptable in their potential standardbearer.
Part of the fear is that the free trade war hawks antagonistic to financial regulation have only a small group of puppets to parade out, because in keeping with democracy, most Democratic legislators elected in the last 20 years don't support their positions, despite their timid endorsements of HRC. Obama was uniquely not antagonistic to NAFTA out of the new Senators of his freshman class, ditto Hillary. Few, if any, leading Dems are more hawkish than Hillary on war issues. A win in Iowa would lead them to say Hillary is inevitable, a loss would send them into disarray.
The polls being as close as they are in a caucus state favors the candidate with more passionate and persuasive supporters to overcome lower name recognition and brand confidence, which would seem to favor Bernie.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Today's beatification of Archbishop Oscar Romero and he Pope's declaration that Romero is a martyr has brought on a historical argument as to whether the previous, conservative Pope had already 'unblocked' 'his entry into the sainthood process,' while the conservative Catholic First Things reports that Romero "stood apart from liberation theology" and "Few know that Romero received spiritual direction from an Opus Dei priest," referring to the historically conservative prelature. The first part is patently inaccurate - for the last two years of his life he worked on his pastoral letters with liberation theologian Jon Sobrano and his homily six weeks before his murder included "Liberation will arrive only when the poor are the controllers of, and protagonists in, their own struggle and liberation." Michael Löwy recounts "he had sympathized with Opus Dei in his youth" and "would later say to friends, he was chosen as the one most able to neutralize the 'Marxist priests.'"
What followed was a snowballing effect of radicalization in response to violence with the Archbishop in the center. The murders of two priests in early 1977 began his "'conversion'" and he would begin to consult with Sobrano the following year. The "liberation" sermon came a few days before he wrote an open letter to President Carter asking him "to forbid that military aid be given to the Salvadoran government." (pdf) The letter led to rumors he was in danger and he told an interviewer "if God accepts the sacrifice of my life, let my blood be a seed of freedom and the sign that hope will be reality." The UN concluded in 1993 that Romero's assassination was carried out by Major Roberto D’Aubuisson, who once praised the Holocaust and who "worked with the CIA for years.." a fellow major told Allan Nairn. Romero's funeral saw an estimated 250,000 convene around Plaza Gerardo Barrios, only to have the military junta open fire on them.
This scene, followed by an even larger massacre on the Sumpul River six weeks later and the National Guard's rape of four nuns seven months later, all during the end of the Carter administration, turned the apolitical like Romero into activists and activists into militants, swelling the ranks of the newly formed FMLN to wage a twelve year war.
What followed was a snowballing effect of radicalization in response to violence with the Archbishop in the center. The murders of two priests in early 1977 began his "'conversion'" and he would begin to consult with Sobrano the following year. The "liberation" sermon came a few days before he wrote an open letter to President Carter asking him "to forbid that military aid be given to the Salvadoran government." (pdf) The letter led to rumors he was in danger and he told an interviewer "if God accepts the sacrifice of my life, let my blood be a seed of freedom and the sign that hope will be reality." The UN concluded in 1993 that Romero's assassination was carried out by Major Roberto D’Aubuisson, who once praised the Holocaust and who "worked with the CIA for years.." a fellow major told Allan Nairn. Romero's funeral saw an estimated 250,000 convene around Plaza Gerardo Barrios, only to have the military junta open fire on them.
This scene, followed by an even larger massacre on the Sumpul River six weeks later and the National Guard's rape of four nuns seven months later, all during the end of the Carter administration, turned the apolitical like Romero into activists and activists into militants, swelling the ranks of the newly formed FMLN to wage a twelve year war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)