Andrew’s Photos – Blog

In an article the The Atlantic Matthew Yglesias writes that:

Democrats no doubt see that more clearly today. Since 2006, when they won majorities in both the House and the Senate, their approval ratings have plummeted, in large part because moderates and liberals have noticed their inability to get much of anything done. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to blame “the obstructionism of the Republicans,” but realistically, one can hardly blame Senate Republicans for obstructing legislation they oppose. The fault lies not with the obstructionists, but with the procedural rule that facilitates obstruction. In short, with the filibuster—a dubious tradition that encourages senators to act as spoilers rather than legislators, and that has locked the political system into semipermanent paralysis by ensuring that important decisions are endlessly deferred. It should be done away with.

In short, I agree with him here. Congressional leaders accomplish far too little during their years in office and I think that removing any incentive for them to delay legislation and become even more unproductive ought to be removed. In addition, we as a populous need to be more demanding of our congressmen (and women) and hold them accountable for not accomplishing anything.

Read the original Yglesias article (which is very good, and short for an Atlantic piece) here.

From a story posted a little while ago on The Guardian about Obama’s chief speech writer:

When Barack Obama steps up to the podium to deliver his inaugural address, one man standing anonymously in the crowd will be paying especially close attention. With his cropped hair, five o’clock shadow and boyish face, he might look out of place among the dignitaries, though as co-author of the speech this man has more claim than most to be a witness to this moment of history.

Jon Favreau, 27, is, as Obama himself puts it, the president’s mind reader. He is one of the youngest chief speechwriters on record in the White House, and, despite such youth, was at the centre of discussions of the content of today’s speech, one which has so much riding on it.

For a politician whose rise to prominence was largely built upon his powers as an orator, Obama is well versed in the arts of speech-making. But today’s effort will tower over all previous ones.

Reading about the people that President Obama has surrounded himself with just fascinates me. His ability to find talent and surround himself with it is just astounding. Regardless of how the next four years go I do hope that someone composes a book a la “Team of Rivals” about his campaign and his presidency.

Link via Barack Obama’s inauguration speech … crafted by 27-year-old in Starbucks | World news | The Guardian .

Found this today on YouTube. It appears as though companies are jumping on the themes of President Obama’s campaign and trying to use them to drive consumerism. As great as I think it is that a company like Starbucks is encouraging involvement in the community I find myself a little disgusted that they are using a moment like this as another reason to consume. I also am a little perplexed as to how Starbucks can legitimately claim to encourage consumers to be sustainable (which they try to do in the video). Drinking $3 coffee in a paper cup is about as unsustainable as it gets in my opinion.

On a slightly related sidenote the design in this video is just great. The colors, animation, and music is amazing.

In an article posted this morning the Daily Kos quote Washington Post writer David Ignatius who wrote:

Obama’s speech showed us, once again, that the new president really means it when he says that he wants to create a new kind of politics for a “postpartisan” America. This has been difficult for some of his supporters to accept, in their rage against the Bush presidency and their understandable desire to settle scores with those who took the country into a dark and painful time. But Obama wants none of it. “On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.” Did that cause a moment of self-reflection at Rush Limbaugh’s offices, or at the Daily Kos? I doubt it, but one can always hope.

Hunter at the Daily Kos then preceded to rail against Ignatius and wrote that:

I would feel better about these pointed words towards us (and by direct extension, me) if I knew which things counted as the “petty grievances” that a radical voice like mine should be “reflecting” upon. Which were they? Was it speaking too loudly of the devolution of the United States into unapologetic torture? Was it complaining of the lives lost in Iraq, or making petty noises that even the president should follow the Constitution when it came to spying upon certain Americans, or making the case for their internment?

It’s views like this that make me sick to consider myself a liberal, or a Democrat. Hunter here seized on the phrase “petty grievances” and yet somehow largely ignored that which came after. As part of that Obama quote he talks about “the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.” I’m sorry Hunter, you’re a great writer and your blog has some great content, but here you’re simply perpetuating those dogmas that have created such a partisan divide and created the context in which it has become exceedingly difficult to actually accomplish anything.

I will not disagree with you nor try to argue that your stances on torture, the Iraq War, etc. are wrong or misguided; in fact, I agree with you wholeheartedly. What I disagree with is you presumption that these views are moderate, correct, and ought to be put into practice as they are. The fact is that these are the views of a significantly liberal blogger and represent just one worldview. Now, granted, your worldview is probably a little more encompassing than Limbaugh’s, O’Reily’s, or Hannity’s but that doesn’t give you or your ideas the power to simply be the unquestioned proper way of handling something. What you and other liberal and conservative bloggers fail to realize is that the views and opinions that the other side hold are just as apparent, natural, and “right” as you believe yours to be. By believing that you are the voice of reason and logic you are pushing the opposing population out of the political arena. By delegitimatizing the politics of the Limbaugh’s, O’Reily’s, and Hannity’s of the nation you are strengthening their conviction to stand up for what they see as right and natural too.

If you, and your opposites on the right, cannot set aside your ideals and work to incorporate the views and people of the opposition, then it will be exponentially more difficult to accomplish anything of substance in these next four years. President Obama desires to move past party politics in order to incorporate the entire population of the nation. Yes, he probably does believe that the ideas of Limbaugh are ludicrous, but he does not simply write them off as such. He gives the appearance of thoughtfulness and challenges those who disagree to speak up and present their ideas to him (notably, Krugman with the stimulus package). By acknowledging that the opposing views are legitimate and working toward incorporating the entire population of the United States into the political arena President Obama is putting this nation first. I would only like to see the political commentators on each side do the same.

Interesting story on The Plank that examines Obama’s evocation of George Washington in his address. From the article:

But the most interesting thing about Obama’s use of George Washington in his speech is how differently these two political figures — the Washington of history, that is, and the Obama of the campaign — are perceived. Obama ran as a transformer, a “change agent,” and liked to drop the phrase “new birth” in reference to his political project. I got the sense this idea then galloped away from him, and he became irritated with the ensuing assumption that a Prez BHO would radically overhaul the country. But he was always seen, nevertheless, as a politician in the mold of Reagan or Lincoln (from whom, of course, the idea of a “new birth” for the country originates), and not of Washington, who made himself out as the opposite of transformative.

Washington resisted (if feebly) the early impulse to turn him into a Mosaic figure. His own First Inaugural begins in a sort of frantic lather of humility: “The magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with despondence one who (inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpracticed in the duties of civil administration) ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies …” It was Washington who established the model of the president as a humble caretaker of the Republic, not its reshaper. He was widely seen in his day not as the most brilliantly clever man around, but as the one with the most unquestionable integrity, the kind of doorman (to use a crude analogy) you can leave your most precious jewelry with when you go away on vacation.

Link via Why’d Obama Talk About George Washington? – The Plank .