a tale of two speeches
“Obama’s is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor–platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way. [...] He’s president. He’s not just a guy participating in a debate. But he’s more comfortable as a debater, not as someone who takes responsibility for decisions. [...] Cheney’s is the speech of a grownup, of a chief executive, of a statesman. He’s sober, realistic and concrete, stands up for his country and its public officials, and has an acute awareness of the consequences of the choices one makes as a public official and a willingness to take responsibility for those choices.” ~ William Kristol
Fleetingly, I thought I should just write: ROTFLMAO but it seemed too trite. Something this vapid and delusional deserves more of a response than mere internet jargon can provide. Obama’s speech is here, and Cheney’s here. Read them both – and bear in mind, Josh Marshall’s quip as he live-blogged Cheney’s oratory – “11:45 AM … Wondering how long it took Bill Kristol to write this speech.”
My questions are manifold. Why are the Republicans letting Cheney shoot off his “sober, realistic and concrete” mouth? Hasn’t anyone learned yet that within the ranks of either party there simply does not exist a public speaker who can take on the President? This person does not (yet) exist. Any attempt to outshine or counter Obama will fall short, and this is only a magnified truth when the speaker in question is Dick Cheney, a man who is – despite the adoration of 21% of the American populace – despised even more than his former boss by the vast majority of Americans. As Greenwald notes, Cheney’s speech was “just the same recycled, extremist neoconservative pablum that drove the U.S. into the deep ditch in which it currently finds itself.” Just another sign of cancer in the fast-decaying conservative movement. [Read more →]
May 21, 2009 13 Comments
the imperial presidency (again)
I read I, Claudius and Claudius the God recently. In Rome after Julius Caesar, the winds of fortune changed with the Emperor. Under Augustus and Claudius, times were good. Under Tiberius and Caligula, times were bad. The problem was that at no point did the Senate seem capable of re-asserting its authority or even of operating with any shred of competence.
Claudius, an anti-monarchist to the core and a staunch supporter of the Republic, wanted nothing more than to turn the reigns of government back over to the Senate…until he discovered just how corrupt, self-interested, and pathetic the Senate actually was, and how the more powerful members didn’t really want a return to Senatorial rule, but rather wanted the throne for themselves. Then again, the decision not to return the power back to the Senate was followed by the reign of Nero…
Similarly, President Obama’s about face on releasing the torture photos can be seen as an example of a poor decision by an otherwise good man with good intentions that might have very, very bad results in the long run, further shoring up power in one single branch of government. Claudius ended many of the abuses his predecessors had instituted – the “informers” of Tiberius; the blasphemy and basically total craziness of Caligula. So too, Obama has ended some of the worst abuses his predecessor began. But in the end, he has done nothing substantive to reduce the power of the office he holds. And, of course, he can’t. Because the Senate is full of fools, and there is so much to do to clean up the mess he’s been left with.
And that leaves me worried not so much about Obama, but about the Nero who might follow him.
May 13, 2009 23 Comments
