Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Liberal hand-wringing over Obama appointments
I am a liberal progressive sushi-eating anti-war Democrat and I like Barack Obama's appointments to-date.
There. I needed it stated somewhere.
Am I the only self-described progressive who is OK with the Obama-admin-to-be? I keep hearing the commentariate talk about how all of us are just groaning with each new nomination. Are you groaning? Are you wailing about how Obama is abandoning the movement? Are you lamenting that Obama is ignoring the progressive MANDATE that his election proves?
If you are, I think A) you're a little bit full of crap, and B) you do not speak for me.
Yes, Barack Obama's election was a rejection of the Bush administration. It does not follow that his election is an embrace of progressive ideology. There are not two choices: Bush or Progressive. In this election, there was Bush and Other. The country chose Other.
Certainly the string of Democratic victories (can two cycles be called a "string of victories"?) can be seen as a continuing rejection of Bush. But what exactly about Bush are the voters rejecting? Fundamentalism in government? Neoconservativism? Free-market capitalism?
See, I've been hearing the punditocracy speaking for Progressives. They say that we say that Obama's election means that voters reject all of it. I think that's dumb.
Some voters are rejecting capitalism without regulation. Not capitalism in toto.
Some voters are rejecting evangelical ideology in place of policy. Not religion in government.
Some voters are rejecting cowboy interventionist policy. They've not become peaceniks.
Barack Obama and John McCain became the nominees of their respective parties because they promised to move away from partisan politics. They did not promise to reverse the polarity of the current brand of partisanship in Washington. Obama is making sense-based nominations. (Imagine: nominating an Ambassador to the UN who thinks it is a relevant body!) He is not balancing one Republican for every Democrat.
In general, I'm happy and comfortable and comforted by the decisions the President-Elect is making.
And while we're at it, let us remember that the man isn't actually President yet. Let's refrain from piling on what we think he is going to do. Please?
There. I needed it stated somewhere.
Am I the only self-described progressive who is OK with the Obama-admin-to-be? I keep hearing the commentariate talk about how all of us are just groaning with each new nomination. Are you groaning? Are you wailing about how Obama is abandoning the movement? Are you lamenting that Obama is ignoring the progressive MANDATE that his election proves?
If you are, I think A) you're a little bit full of crap, and B) you do not speak for me.
Yes, Barack Obama's election was a rejection of the Bush administration. It does not follow that his election is an embrace of progressive ideology. There are not two choices: Bush or Progressive. In this election, there was Bush and Other. The country chose Other.
Certainly the string of Democratic victories (can two cycles be called a "string of victories"?) can be seen as a continuing rejection of Bush. But what exactly about Bush are the voters rejecting? Fundamentalism in government? Neoconservativism? Free-market capitalism?
See, I've been hearing the punditocracy speaking for Progressives. They say that we say that Obama's election means that voters reject all of it. I think that's dumb.
Some voters are rejecting capitalism without regulation. Not capitalism in toto.
Some voters are rejecting evangelical ideology in place of policy. Not religion in government.
Some voters are rejecting cowboy interventionist policy. They've not become peaceniks.
Barack Obama and John McCain became the nominees of their respective parties because they promised to move away from partisan politics. They did not promise to reverse the polarity of the current brand of partisanship in Washington. Obama is making sense-based nominations. (Imagine: nominating an Ambassador to the UN who thinks it is a relevant body!) He is not balancing one Republican for every Democrat.
In general, I'm happy and comfortable and comforted by the decisions the President-Elect is making.
And while we're at it, let us remember that the man isn't actually President yet. Let's refrain from piling on what we think he is going to do. Please?
New host chosen for Meet the Press
The Huffington Post is reporting that NBC has chosen David Gregory to be the new host of Meet the Press. Incredibly disappointing decision.
I first observed David Gregory in his role as a bland substitute for Matt Lauer on the Today show and have watched him over the course of this election season. His show Race to the White House (now dubbed 1600) was only a temporary relief from Tucker Carlson's hour-long indulgence in self-promotion. In it, Gregory continued to demonstrate his bland demeanor. His occasional flashes of aggression seemed forced, arbitrary, and intended to add sizzle, not value.
Now, despite the (deserved) criticism that Tim Russert engendered from progressives for dropping the ball in the run up to the war, I loved to watch the man . It wasn't that Russert was especially penetrating in his interviews. While obviously well-studied, Russert would never engage in the sort of penetrating journalism that could change the narrative his guests were promoting. Rather, the joy in watching Tim Russert's Meet the Press was in watching a man who clearly LOVED history and politics and America draw out the story of the day and put it into some context. You knew that Russert had that Capraesque sense of patriotism that was informed by education, worldliness and a passionate love of the process. This new appointment suggests that David Gregory is remotely capable of filling those shoes. He is not.
It will be interesting to see if MSNBC replaces Gregory as host of 1600. Mika Brzezninski, the oft-bulldozed sidekick of Morning Joe, has stepped in frequently as a fill in host for Gregory. I like her, though she clearly needs to overcome an aw-sucks persona whose primary goal is apparently to keep her guests from fighting or saying anything too extreme. It comes off as unintelligent and a matronly cliche. She can do better in the host role. Lets hope she delivers, and takes some notes from Rachel Maddow.
I first observed David Gregory in his role as a bland substitute for Matt Lauer on the Today show and have watched him over the course of this election season. His show Race to the White House (now dubbed 1600) was only a temporary relief from Tucker Carlson's hour-long indulgence in self-promotion. In it, Gregory continued to demonstrate his bland demeanor. His occasional flashes of aggression seemed forced, arbitrary, and intended to add sizzle, not value.
Now, despite the (deserved) criticism that Tim Russert engendered from progressives for dropping the ball in the run up to the war, I loved to watch the man . It wasn't that Russert was especially penetrating in his interviews. While obviously well-studied, Russert would never engage in the sort of penetrating journalism that could change the narrative his guests were promoting. Rather, the joy in watching Tim Russert's Meet the Press was in watching a man who clearly LOVED history and politics and America draw out the story of the day and put it into some context. You knew that Russert had that Capraesque sense of patriotism that was informed by education, worldliness and a passionate love of the process. This new appointment suggests that David Gregory is remotely capable of filling those shoes. He is not.
It will be interesting to see if MSNBC replaces Gregory as host of 1600. Mika Brzezninski, the oft-bulldozed sidekick of Morning Joe, has stepped in frequently as a fill in host for Gregory. I like her, though she clearly needs to overcome an aw-sucks persona whose primary goal is apparently to keep her guests from fighting or saying anything too extreme. It comes off as unintelligent and a matronly cliche. She can do better in the host role. Lets hope she delivers, and takes some notes from Rachel Maddow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
