I was reading the WaPo today, and I noticed this story on how the Federal Budget Deficit is about to reach a new record in the neighborhood of $400 billion dollars. McCain would have the voters believe that this (and an additional amount caused by his tax cuts!) can be gotten rid of simply by cutting out earmarks. I propose to show how this is completely nonsensical below the fold.
(Worth a closer look. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
In This diary, Chris Bowers laid out his argument against the classical notion of nominating a Vice Presidential candidate that "balances" out the perceived weakness of the Presidential candidate, and instead argues that we should be looking for a Vice Presidential candidate for Obama that reinforces the best arguments in his favor. So, instead of someone who points out all the things that Obama is not, we instead have someone who should emphasize all of the reasons we would support him.
Chris then goes on to look for a candidate through a vetting process that almost seems as if he is looking for a candidate who is largely a mirror image of Obama, choosing Kathleen Sebelius "by elimination"
The more I think about it, the more I keep coming back to the "reinforcement" argument that Obama needs to choose a running mate who strengthens his campaign argument of change, unity and judgment rather than a "balancing" candidate who helps him out on experience, turning out the base, or military hawkish-ness. Any "balance" candidate will only emphasize Obama's personal flaws, rather than shoring up any of his perceived weaknesses. That is simply a bad strategy, even if it is so deeply ingrained in the Democratic psyche that it might be impossible to remove even via a lobotomy at this point.
I very much understood the logic of Chris's points then, and I think most of them are just as valid now, but reading Paul Rosenberg's series (123) on Edwards as Vice-President, combined with this post of Chris's from today on what, exactly is at stake in this election has had me thinking of this entire thing in a different light: in particular, there is more than one way for a candidate to be reinforcing, and while having a candidate that is very similar to Obama in messaging and ideology is a very good first order way to reemphasize and reinforce Obama's message, it might not be the best way to either get him elected or to forge a progressive governing coalition when and if Obama is elected. I've pretty much come to believe that Edwards is a very good example of a Vice Presidential candidate that isn't really reinforcing so much as he is supplementary. I will go on to explain what I mean by this below the fold.
There's More...
:: (38
Comments, 935 words in story)
digg it
At least for now, it's looking like the house dems are standing up on retroactive immunity. They are now proposing a compromise that maintains liability of the telecoms, but enables them to have their trials behind closed doors.
I wonder if holding secret trials might be partially undermining the ability to actually conduct oversight of the president, but this seems like a good effort on their part--they haven't surrendered the principle that the telecoms be held accountable, and they have offered a compromise now that is still unpalatable to the President.
I am sincerely still shocked at the ability of the house to stand firm on this, especially after how casually the Senate gave up. That is still looking like our biggest problem. From the above article:
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid yesterday called the House Democrats' proposal "a tremendous step forward," but an aide said the Nevada Democrat is not planning to take it to the floor soon. "Since Republicans have refused to participate in the negotiations that led to this bill, it seems unlikely to achieve 60 votes in the Senate," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "Republicans should stop playing games on this important issue."
Come on, Harry. You don't have to be afraid of Bush any more. Stand firm. Make him veto this, and explain to the American people how the telecom's cash is worth more than the common person's privacy. Please.
With all of the (deserved) flak that the US congress in general, and the senate in particular, has been receiving around these parts, I just wanted to give the Senate kudos for extending the federal hate crime law to GLBT individuals, and for attaching it to the Iraq spending bill, where it will be less likely to be vetoed. Now let's see if it stays on the house version. Good job for today, dems.
Roll call here
Dems voting against: none
Reps voting for: Coleman (MN), Collins (ME), Gregg (NH), Smith (OR), Snowe (ME), Specter (PA), Voinovich (OH), Warner (VA).
