Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
wallpaper Bob Hairstyles For Round Faces
gvenkat
10-17 10:52 AM
I know this issue is still a grey area and certainly no one seems to know a concrete answer to this.
If i have my H-1 Visa and EAD as well. Can i continue to Work on my H1-visa for the primary employer and take up a part-time job with the EAD.
I have hear ppl say that H1 becomes void once EAD is used. Is there any kind of document advocating this? I have not seen any. Lawyers have conflicting opinoin. Has anyone thought about this. I have decided to take an infopass appointment and ask the IO to show me a document that states that H1-becomes void or The other way around.
Can anyone shed more light in to this. Thanks
If i have my H-1 Visa and EAD as well. Can i continue to Work on my H1-visa for the primary employer and take up a part-time job with the EAD.
I have hear ppl say that H1 becomes void once EAD is used. Is there any kind of document advocating this? I have not seen any. Lawyers have conflicting opinoin. Has anyone thought about this. I have decided to take an infopass appointment and ask the IO to show me a document that states that H1-becomes void or The other way around.
Can anyone shed more light in to this. Thanks
kirupa
07-08 12:09 PM
Hey Jason,
You can't use lines, but you can use text instead. For a line, use an underscore _ or - or | or \ or / or >, and so on. for a circle, you can use an 'o'.
You can't use lines, but you can use text instead. For a line, use an underscore _ or - or | or \ or / or >, and so on. for a circle, you can use an 'o'.
2011 Childlike Short Hairstyle
badluk13
08-25 06:39 PM
All you have to do is...while in the preview and export editor click Fill Options in the output options box and then pick Mesh Gradiant shading from the fill style dropdown menu. That should solve the problem because it is probably rendering with cartoon average fill as default.
more...
marcus12
01-26 09:40 PM
I got a email from school today that because of my unability to attend the school for 1 sem I have been dropped off of the school
I have a question. How many days I can stay in USA after my sevis is terminated.
i want to stay within limits so in future I dont have any problems in visa
I have a question. How many days I can stay in USA after my sevis is terminated.
i want to stay within limits so in future I dont have any problems in visa
GCBy3000
07-19 05:11 PM
Can you contriute $64,000 is exactly same as this one.
more...
Blog Feeds
01-30 06:40 AM
Last week, White House adviser David Axelrod noted that immigration reform would not happen in the near term unless there was bipartisan support. That's really always been the case, but the comment seems consistent with something said this week by Senate Democratic leaders (as noted in an email alert sent by America's Voice today): During a news conference held by Senate Democratic leaders yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) both made clear their unequivocal support for comprehensive immigration reform and outlined their efforts...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/two-plus-two.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/two-plus-two.html)
2010 house short hairstyles oval
Blog Feeds
02-08 06:10 PM
One of the stumbling blocks in the behind the scenes negotiations to craft a bipartisan immigration reform bill that also has the support of business and labor unions has been a proposal to create a commission that would basically determine quotas for all employment-based immigration categories. The business community and many Republicans have expressed concerns that the commission would be politicized. Labor unions have not been compromising on this issue and that has caused delays in working out a final deal that will allow Senator Schumer to introduce his bill. According to journalist Jeffrey Kaye, however, a compromise may be...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/labor-appears-ready-to-compromise-on-commission-proposal.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/labor-appears-ready-to-compromise-on-commission-proposal.html)
more...
drirshad
04-07 12:30 PM
no news yet, i m kinda breaking ........
hair Rihanna#39;s short sexy hairstyle
terryc
02-07 12:34 PM
Hi All,
With my HTC Mozart, I can download app called 'Stocks' which basically look after stocks (nasdaq etc...).
The charts/graph looks very nice and I wonder how they do that ?
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5169/5305059802_427180205b_z.jpg
I see 3 colors:
- first above the curve
- second the curve itself
- third below the curve
I wonder if there are free/open ressource which can help to start to draw so nice graph. Any blog or hyperlink are welcome :ch:
With my HTC Mozart, I can download app called 'Stocks' which basically look after stocks (nasdaq etc...).
The charts/graph looks very nice and I wonder how they do that ?
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5169/5305059802_427180205b_z.jpg
I see 3 colors:
- first above the curve
- second the curve itself
- third below the curve
I wonder if there are free/open ressource which can help to start to draw so nice graph. Any blog or hyperlink are welcome :ch:
more...
HV000
07-07 06:50 PM
Anyone please??
hot short hair for Long face
iamlost
07-24 09:57 PM
Hi all,
My I-140 was approved 2.5 years back and I-485 was also approved more than an year back.
But, today the status on my I-140 got changed to "REQUEST FOR INITIAL EVIDENCE SENT, CASE PLACED ON HOLD". I am not sure, why did they reopen the case again. I checked with my company and they assured me that they didn't revoke my I-140.
Could anyone suggest me what's happening to my case. Has anyone seen an similar kind of an issue and wat shd I do further ?
Thanks in advance !
My I-140 was approved 2.5 years back and I-485 was also approved more than an year back.
But, today the status on my I-140 got changed to "REQUEST FOR INITIAL EVIDENCE SENT, CASE PLACED ON HOLD". I am not sure, why did they reopen the case again. I checked with my company and they assured me that they didn't revoke my I-140.
Could anyone suggest me what's happening to my case. Has anyone seen an similar kind of an issue and wat shd I do further ?
Thanks in advance !
more...
house Hairstyles For Oval Shaped
GCwaitforever
07-03 07:32 AM
Please write to the ombudsman. See the report thread for e-mail.
tattoo Trendy Updo Short Hairstyles
minimalist
07-30 11:40 AM
Searched the forums , didn't find it. Sorry if it is repost.
This may only benefit undocumented immigrants.
Obama Administration Considers Bypassing Congress on Immigration Reform - ProPublica (http://www.propublica.org/article/obama-administration-considers-bypassing-congress-on-immigration-reform)
This may only benefit undocumented immigrants.
Obama Administration Considers Bypassing Congress on Immigration Reform - ProPublica (http://www.propublica.org/article/obama-administration-considers-bypassing-congress-on-immigration-reform)
more...
pictures The short haircut fit for
rohit1812
01-08 12:30 PM
Hi !
I have I-140 approved with PD of Aug-2007. I-485 is not yet applied. My 6 years on H1b are over. I got 3 more years of extension till 2011 on H1B based on I-140. I have also got the extended H1b (till 2011) stamped on my passport. Now I am looking to change my company before lay offs happen.
What are my options :
1. Can the new company transfer my H1B and I-140 ?
2. If they can just transfer my H1B, what happens to my PD of I-140 ? And what I may need to provide or tell the new company in case of transfer ?
3. How many years of maximum extension should I expect from the new company on H1B ?
4. Do the new company has to start GC processing ASAP ?
Thanks in advance for your help.
I have I-140 approved with PD of Aug-2007. I-485 is not yet applied. My 6 years on H1b are over. I got 3 more years of extension till 2011 on H1B based on I-140. I have also got the extended H1b (till 2011) stamped on my passport. Now I am looking to change my company before lay offs happen.
What are my options :
1. Can the new company transfer my H1B and I-140 ?
2. If they can just transfer my H1B, what happens to my PD of I-140 ? And what I may need to provide or tell the new company in case of transfer ?
3. How many years of maximum extension should I expect from the new company on H1B ?
4. Do the new company has to start GC processing ASAP ?
Thanks in advance for your help.
dresses hairstyles for oblong face
kirupa
06-25 08:01 PM
Hey Marigold,
I really don't know much about Poser. Post in the good old Flashkit Swift 3D forum: board.flashkit.com/board/...forumid=20 (http://board.flashkit.com/board/forumdisplay.php?forumid=20)
I'm sure the good guys there will be able to help you out!
I really don't know much about Poser. Post in the good old Flashkit Swift 3D forum: board.flashkit.com/board/...forumid=20 (http://board.flashkit.com/board/forumdisplay.php?forumid=20)
I'm sure the good guys there will be able to help you out!
more...
makeup hairstyles for oblong faces.
lecter
February 29th, 2004, 09:24 PM
B53,000
300D B 44,000
so the D70's a bit more expensive.
1USD = 39B
300D B 44,000
so the D70's a bit more expensive.
1USD = 39B
girlfriend short hairstyles
anilsal
08-06 01:00 AM
and the core. 25K is quite close?
hairstyles short hairstyles oval face.
number30
11-18 07:37 PM
Hi,
I am currently on H1B and I am marrying a US citizen in January. Please guide me which documents I need to file for GC.
Thanks
Once you get married and get your License your spouse can file for I-130, I485 concurrently. You can file for EAD and Advance parole also along with this you need affidavit of support I-824
I am currently on H1B and I am marrying a US citizen in January. Please guide me which documents I need to file for GC.
Thanks
Once you get married and get your License your spouse can file for I-130, I485 concurrently. You can file for EAD and Advance parole also along with this you need affidavit of support I-824
pr02
06-25 10:52 AM
I may be ignorant here but why do you have 2 I-94s? Your I94 is invalid once you leave the country. So I would think the number on the latest and current I94 is the number you would use.
hnordberg
August 29th, 2005, 05:44 PM
If you think you got a couple of keepers, then why not link them into the post here? I think you will get more comments that way. 67 photos is a lot...
No comments:
Post a Comment