When news crossed our desk yesterday evening that Rand Paul - not RON Paul, but RAND Paul, Mr. Aqua Buddha himself - is considering a run for president on the Republican ticket, we had to take a moment and shake our collective heads.
It's not that we think everything President Obama does is great. We've been critical of him more than once here, and we expect we'll be critical of him again as time goes on.
We're also not so blind as to think that Mr. Obama is politically invincible. There are some polls that say he's got a tight race ahead. Still, the only polls that will really matter are the ones the voters will head to in the autumn of 2012. If the rest of America is too busy bitching, sniping, or whining to be bothered to vote, while the only people who show up to vote are folks whose family tree resembles a telephone pole, then yes - those other polls could be right, and we could see Mr. Obama losing.
Of course, that would also require the current GOP to put up someone as a candidate for president in 2012 who has his/her dignity intact, who isn't insane, and can still garner both the nutjob vote and the quiet, sane, traditional Republican vote.
Since Ronald Reagan is long gone, and the image of him that many on the right keep trying to deify never really existed, we'd say that right now the Republican lineup for presidential candidates looks more empty than a cross-country skiing trail in Nebraska in July.
Still… there are more than a few folks on the right who appear to be feeling around for hats to throw into the ring.
We doubt Rand Paul will actually run for president in 2012, although former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty did kind-of announce this week. Mitt Romney is almost certain to run - although since he passed universal health care in Massachusetts when he was governor, he's certain to lose the corporatist right. And since he's still a Mormon, he'll also lose the nutjob right. So he'll never win the nomination either way.
Then there's Mike Huckabee, who has lately seemed like he's been trying hard to lose the nomination. Even conservative pundit/columnist George Will called Huckabee a "vibrator" recently - and we're certain that wasn't an accident.
We're not going to mention some of those on the right who have uttered the whispers of longing for the Presidency, like Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana, or former Sen. Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania. There are obvious problems with both men that will keep them from running - or winning.
If we keep looking, we run into the seriously crazy part of the Republican field of hopefuls. No one knows crazy quite like Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, and Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi needs to put away his white robe and pointy hat before he thinks about seriously entering the race.
We haven't even mentioned two of the biggest political washups who somehow have found ways to appear successful. One was responsible for losing Congress for the Republicans in spectacular fashion in the late 90s, and one is a half-term governor who more people in her own party hate than love, according to recent polling.
We're not saying it's impossible for the GOP to find a candidate to run against President Obama in the 2012 Presidential Race. What we will say is what we've been warning Republicans about for many years now: You will never find a candidate who will satisfy all the different fanatical factions in your base AND have that person be someone who can win over enough moderates and independents to win the general election.
If nothing else, the upcoming presidential race should be a never-ending gaffe-fest.
Vice President Biden, eat your heart out.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Superman And Magic Bullets
We're probably not going to give you any answers today you didn't already know. But we may generate a few questions - for you and for us - by the time we're done.
That tends to happen when we discuss a subject that we're all heavily invested in, like education.
The documentary film "Waiting for Superman" was recently released on DVD and we recommend you see it, if you haven't already. While we don’t agree with everything this film says about education in America, we agree fully with its general idea: that America needs to do something to improve its educational system, right away.
Unfortunately, in the ongoing race to the bottom in state and local budgeting, many folks remain myopically focused on teachers' unions as a drain on state and local budgets. They never seem to look to those in schools who eat up a far greater share of educational budgets - namely, the administrators and their fat salary and compensation packages.
The Omaha World Herald began a short series last weekend on school administrators – or to use their term, "school CEOs" - throughout Nebraska. If Nebraska voters think they're getting worked over on paying for teachers, we're willing to bet their eyes popped out of their heads when they saw what Nebraska school administrators are earning.
It isn't just a Nebraska issue, however.
From California to New York, and everywhere in-between, school administrators often earn some shockingly large pay and benefit packages these days.
We're not saying what many anti-administrator/pro-teacher advocates do. That is, that administrators don't do nearly the level or intensity of work that their paychecks would make you believe they should earn. Just as there are great teachers who should be paid more, and lousy teachers who should be paid less (or simply not teach), there are many kinds of administrators as well. Some of them do work that could never be paid highly enough, wearing more hats than a hat rack, and often in districts we'd never want to teach in or even live in.
Of all the things "Waiting for Superman" teaches those who watch it, one of the most important takeaway lessons should be that there is no magic bullet, no one solution that will fix all problems.
For example, there is a school in St. Paul, Minnesota that has NO administrators, and it works fine - for them. There are schools with multiple Principals, and some of those work well too.
What doesn't work, though, is the fact that as states and cities try to cut their budgets - too often by demonizing and firing front-line professionals in the classroom - many of those same districts continue to turn a blind eye to the comparatively ridiculous salary and benefit packages they provide some of their administrators.
One look at the administrator salary and benefits list, when compared to the average salaries and benefits of Nebraska teachers, should tell even the most fervent school administration supporters that something is weighing the system down - and it isn't pay and benefits for teachers, union or no union.
If politicians and school administrators are going to be honest about their budget homework, they need to consider ALL the variables in the problems that confront them. If they refuse to do so, they'll just be spinning their oars. Meanwhile, education in America will continue to be up the creek, without a paddle.
That tends to happen when we discuss a subject that we're all heavily invested in, like education.
The documentary film "Waiting for Superman" was recently released on DVD and we recommend you see it, if you haven't already. While we don’t agree with everything this film says about education in America, we agree fully with its general idea: that America needs to do something to improve its educational system, right away.
Unfortunately, in the ongoing race to the bottom in state and local budgeting, many folks remain myopically focused on teachers' unions as a drain on state and local budgets. They never seem to look to those in schools who eat up a far greater share of educational budgets - namely, the administrators and their fat salary and compensation packages.
The Omaha World Herald began a short series last weekend on school administrators – or to use their term, "school CEOs" - throughout Nebraska. If Nebraska voters think they're getting worked over on paying for teachers, we're willing to bet their eyes popped out of their heads when they saw what Nebraska school administrators are earning.
It isn't just a Nebraska issue, however.
From California to New York, and everywhere in-between, school administrators often earn some shockingly large pay and benefit packages these days.
We're not saying what many anti-administrator/pro-teacher advocates do. That is, that administrators don't do nearly the level or intensity of work that their paychecks would make you believe they should earn. Just as there are great teachers who should be paid more, and lousy teachers who should be paid less (or simply not teach), there are many kinds of administrators as well. Some of them do work that could never be paid highly enough, wearing more hats than a hat rack, and often in districts we'd never want to teach in or even live in.
Of all the things "Waiting for Superman" teaches those who watch it, one of the most important takeaway lessons should be that there is no magic bullet, no one solution that will fix all problems.
For example, there is a school in St. Paul, Minnesota that has NO administrators, and it works fine - for them. There are schools with multiple Principals, and some of those work well too.
What doesn't work, though, is the fact that as states and cities try to cut their budgets - too often by demonizing and firing front-line professionals in the classroom - many of those same districts continue to turn a blind eye to the comparatively ridiculous salary and benefit packages they provide some of their administrators.
One look at the administrator salary and benefits list, when compared to the average salaries and benefits of Nebraska teachers, should tell even the most fervent school administration supporters that something is weighing the system down - and it isn't pay and benefits for teachers, union or no union.
If politicians and school administrators are going to be honest about their budget homework, they need to consider ALL the variables in the problems that confront them. If they refuse to do so, they'll just be spinning their oars. Meanwhile, education in America will continue to be up the creek, without a paddle.
Monday, March 21, 2011
This Is Not A New War - Or A New Perspective
For all the howling from the left, and the unhidden gleeful mischaracterizations on the right, the actions that President Obama directed the U.S. military to take over the weekend regarding Libya, were something that U.S. presidents, from BOTH parties, have missed the opportunity to do for many, many years.
We're not saying President Obama should put together another "Why We Fight" film series like those that were used to ramp up public support of World War II. However, we think Americans on both sides need to step back, look, and listen to the facts regarding the United States involvement in Libya, before they start hollering.
Of course, this is America, so our plea for getting the facts first has already fallen on deaf years.
From the right, there are already folks jumping up and down, trying to blast their propaganda about President Obama's motives in a vain attempt to paint him with the same brush as his predecessor. Their desperate attempts to twist the facts in order to defend George W. Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq are sadly obvious to anyone with basic brain function. There are no U.S. military troops on the ground in Libya, nor are there plans for American troops to take that role, but the right-wing media echo chambers will be in full cry this entire week about how this is "Obama's New War". That's in spite of the reality that this is a U.N. effort, led by someone other than the U.S.
Sadly, the situation on the left is no better.
On the far left, they're listening to the histrionics of the right, and beginning some of their own. The militant anti-war crowd is furious at Obama - as they would be at anyone who used military force for anything more authoritative than tossing teddy bears and tulips. What they really fear is American military involvement in yet another war, especially after the disastrous misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove got us into. We understand their concerns and fears - but Libya is not Iraq, now matter how much their political polar opposites wish it were.
The simple truth is one that neither side seems willing to hear.
America is providing missile support, and a couple of Stealth bombers, as well as intelligence, and other various types of support to the French, British, and Spanish, who have taken the lead roles in enforcing the U.N. no-fly zone over Libya. For those who spent much of the early 2000s dismissing the French as effete sissies, they should be happy to know that the French are the ones now doing most of the bombing and heavy lifting in Libya. This is primarily because Americans currently will not tolerate our country's participation in helping Libya's "quest for democracy", thanks to the degree that our nation is still involved in Afghanistan and Iraq.
For those on both sides of the aisle who have for years - for their own reasons - criticized America's role as World Cop, they should understand that the need for such a position will never disappear, even if America no longer holds that title. Throughout history, the British, French, the Holy Roman Empire (basically Germans), the Spanish, the Romans, the Greeks, and the Egyptians have all played the role of worldwide enforcer.
In order for America to step back from that role, someone else must be allowed to step forward. If we don't want to forever be locked into the role of supercop, it is in our own best interest to support other countries that do take the lead in actions like stopping a crazed dictator from committing genocide on his own people.
Because America has made commitments to stop the kind of violence now occurring in Libya, we agree that America must help in some way, to stop Gaddafi's destructive behavior.
The role that President Obama and his advisors like Sec. Clinton have chosen for us to play this time in Libya achieves that goal, without getting America involved in yet another all-out war. Obama's actions are exactly the right role for the U.S. at this time - a fact that won't make either fanatical conservatives or liberals very happy.
We're not saying President Obama should put together another "Why We Fight" film series like those that were used to ramp up public support of World War II. However, we think Americans on both sides need to step back, look, and listen to the facts regarding the United States involvement in Libya, before they start hollering.
Of course, this is America, so our plea for getting the facts first has already fallen on deaf years.
From the right, there are already folks jumping up and down, trying to blast their propaganda about President Obama's motives in a vain attempt to paint him with the same brush as his predecessor. Their desperate attempts to twist the facts in order to defend George W. Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq are sadly obvious to anyone with basic brain function. There are no U.S. military troops on the ground in Libya, nor are there plans for American troops to take that role, but the right-wing media echo chambers will be in full cry this entire week about how this is "Obama's New War". That's in spite of the reality that this is a U.N. effort, led by someone other than the U.S.
Sadly, the situation on the left is no better.
On the far left, they're listening to the histrionics of the right, and beginning some of their own. The militant anti-war crowd is furious at Obama - as they would be at anyone who used military force for anything more authoritative than tossing teddy bears and tulips. What they really fear is American military involvement in yet another war, especially after the disastrous misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove got us into. We understand their concerns and fears - but Libya is not Iraq, now matter how much their political polar opposites wish it were.
The simple truth is one that neither side seems willing to hear.
America is providing missile support, and a couple of Stealth bombers, as well as intelligence, and other various types of support to the French, British, and Spanish, who have taken the lead roles in enforcing the U.N. no-fly zone over Libya. For those who spent much of the early 2000s dismissing the French as effete sissies, they should be happy to know that the French are the ones now doing most of the bombing and heavy lifting in Libya. This is primarily because Americans currently will not tolerate our country's participation in helping Libya's "quest for democracy", thanks to the degree that our nation is still involved in Afghanistan and Iraq.
For those on both sides of the aisle who have for years - for their own reasons - criticized America's role as World Cop, they should understand that the need for such a position will never disappear, even if America no longer holds that title. Throughout history, the British, French, the Holy Roman Empire (basically Germans), the Spanish, the Romans, the Greeks, and the Egyptians have all played the role of worldwide enforcer.
In order for America to step back from that role, someone else must be allowed to step forward. If we don't want to forever be locked into the role of supercop, it is in our own best interest to support other countries that do take the lead in actions like stopping a crazed dictator from committing genocide on his own people.
Because America has made commitments to stop the kind of violence now occurring in Libya, we agree that America must help in some way, to stop Gaddafi's destructive behavior.
The role that President Obama and his advisors like Sec. Clinton have chosen for us to play this time in Libya achieves that goal, without getting America involved in yet another all-out war. Obama's actions are exactly the right role for the U.S. at this time - a fact that won't make either fanatical conservatives or liberals very happy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)