Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias clearly doesn't like the American system. Over the years, he has pointed out time and again that if we had a different system, things would be better (or, at least, more liberal).
Here's his most recent criticism of our system:
"It's worth taking a moment to appreciate the fact that in a unicameral United States of America, we would now have passed both a comprehensive health care reform bill and also the most important piece of environmental legislation in the history of the world. Now that's not the world we live in. Instead we live in a world where neither of those things have passed and where their prospects aren't clear. But think back on this point the next time you hear someone say Obama is struggling with his agenda because he's not centrist enough, or else that Obama is struggling with his agenda because he's not left-wing enough. The reality is that he's struggling with his agenda because of the way our political institutions are structured."This is a frustrating argument to continually hear, primarily because one can always make the argument that if things were different, things would be different.
I mean, if the World Series were a best of 13 instead of a best of seven, the Phillies might have won. Did the Phillies lose because of the Yankees were better, or because of the way "our baseball institutions are structured"?
... If elections were held September -- instead of the arbitrarily decided-upon November -- John McCain might have won the election. Did John McCain lose merely because the way our political calendar is structured?
... And if we didn't have any pesky Members of Congress -- if Presidents could act as dictators -- we would have a "comprehensive health reform system," as well...
If, If, If, If, If ... What's your point? Do you really want to abolish the U.S. Senate?
The fact that Cao represents a horrible district and will probably not be re-elected should have liberated him to do the right thing -- without regard for political considerations. The fact that he will probably not be re-elected should have reinforced his decision to vote "no" -- instead, it persuaded him to vote "aye".
Appeasement, of course, never works. Does Cao really think Democrats will reward him for this? Does he really think Democrats in Louisiana will prefer a squishy Republican over a real liberal Democrat?
Cao's vote has serious implications, inasmuch as it provides Democrats with the rhetorical cover to argue this was a bipartisan bill.
Make no mistake, this was a legacy vote. Cao had one term to make his legacy. ... And he has.
More Kincaid on Wright's comments ...... praising Marxism and discussing his ties to communists in El Salvador and Nicaragua and the Libyan government. Equally important, Wright is being introduced in the video by Robert W. McChesney, co-founder of Free Press, an organization which has come under scrutiny for its links to the Obama Administration and dedication to the transformation and control of the private media in the U.S.
He called America "land of the greed and home of the slave."
Also please note this:
*Editor's Note: The Wright video linked to in Cliff Kincaid's column, Controversial New Video of Obama's Pastor, has been deleted. But the same video can still be viewed on YouTube in three parts. Here are part one, part two, and part three. We do not know why the original video was taken down, but have our suspicions.
I've got a column up titled, "NY-23: How Sarah Palin Stands to Win (and Charlie Crist Stands to Lose)."
There were a few lines which I thought would be important to share here. The first is this:
In reality, this race is about much more than one House seat. It is a proxy battle in the long-running war between establishment Republicans and grassroots conservatives.
... And then this,
If conservatives have their way, Dede Scozzafava is merely the first casualty of this war.
Finally, I conclude with looking to future races where conservatives may seek to replicate the NY-23 game plan,
As RedState's Erickson told me, "The establishment has now learned it can be beaten from within its own base . . . If the GOP wants to fight the base in California and Florida, game on."Read the whole thing.
You can listen below ...
(Emphasis mine)...This delay, this months-long dithering is dangerous. The Soviets watched very carefully when Ronald Reagan fired the air traffic controllers for striking illegally. They were impressed by his swift and sure decisiveness. With Reagan, the KGB reported to the Kremlin party bosses, “words are deeds.” Obama’s Hamlet act is growing stale.
President Kennedy knew how important the presidency is. He eloquently said: “I do not shrink from this responsibility. I welcome it.”
Could it be that Obama’s very public shrinking from the responsibility of decision is what is causing his own shrinking in the American public’s support? We don’t need a president who, in the words of Newsweek editor Evan Thomas “hovers above us all, sort of a god.” What we need is a president who understands what Harry Truman meant when he posted that now-famous sign on his desk in the Oval Office: “The buck stops here.”
Obama's "dithering" has worked, so far, because it was in stark contrast to Bush's decisiveness. The public had grown tired of Bush, so the opposite of Bush seemed refreshing. At the end of the day, though, good leaders tend to be decisive. Obama should focus more on being a good leader and less on being the antiBush ...
