Stickybuffalo.com

In spite of my best intentions, I can’t help thinking about the 2012 presidential election and the incumbent Barack Obama fairly often. In combination, the two seem to make up about 75% of news coverage, after all.

And mostly, what I think about these two subjects all points to the single question “should I vote for Obama?” Obviously, this question has nothing to do with a choice between Obama and a Republican opponent. The best argument I could come up with in favor of even the most allegedly “liberal” Republicans is that, maybe, if one of them was faced with a solidly-Democratic congress, we might actually get some more progressive reforms than Obama could get with a similar congress just because a Romney, e.g., might prefer signing a cap-and-dividend law, e.g., to getting absolutely nothing whatsoever done, and a Republican majority might decide that a given reform isn’t apocalyptian socialism after all if it’s a Republican president signing it into law rather than a Democrat.

And even that’s pretty unconvincing, for various reasons. One, it will be a big surprise if we get solid Democrat majorities in congress again in the next few years. Two, even if we do, the idea that Republicans would be more cooperative (or at least less obstructionist) toward negotiated reforms, if there’s a Republican president involved, is very much open to question in the era of hyper-radicalized GOP politics. Recall how John Boehner agreed in principle to a “grand bargain” with Obama on the budget, then had to withdraw his agreement in the face of backbencher outrage. Meanwhile, three, a president still has tremendous control over foreign policy, and a Republican president could do a loooot of damage (again) as commander-in-chief which I simply would not risk, even if I thought we might break up the legislative logjam a bit, in return. (more…)

I should be doing various things with these fleeting moments of “discretionary time” here at the end of the day. Making another white russian, perhaps, e.g. But I’ve read a few things which I feel compelled to make note of, here. (Clearly my sense of self-importance is getting out of hand; please stage an intervention if I start holding fund-raisers.)

First, the latest from Ohio: this item in today’s Plain Dealer suggests that maybe the Ohio Democratic Party is short on cash and struggling to get enough signatures to place Republicans’ gerrymandered congressional district map on the ballot as a referendum. Frankly, this is what I was afraid of, i.e. that the costly victory over SB5 would exhaust Democrat reserves, rather than energize them. We’ll see. There are also hints that maybe a deal on congressional districts is within reach, but in the meantime I’d better find a petition and sign it, no matter how busy I am.

Second, a professor at dear auld ISU stirred up a minor controversy when he wrote to the Iowa State Daily (god, remember…?) responding critically to “a feel-good feature about College Republicans from across the state who hoped to spark some cheer in those spending the holidays thousands of miles away from home,” i.e. “the troops.” Frankly, Thomas Walker’s points are so obviously sound it’s practically appalling that they even need to be made. This isn’t the Civil War. “The troops” are practically showered with largesse (at least while in service, and aside from occasional minor details like body armor) just from the federal budget, and ongoing “hey let’s do something nice for the troops” efforts are so numerous that the idea of claiming this as some special, novel idea is ridiculous. Meanwhile, there are plenty of more-deserving causes here at home, including unemployed veterans, and we could really help all parties most by recalling the troops from ill-defined, utterly futile missions and redirecting some of those funds to projects which actually benefit people other than Halliburton execs. But god forbid you point this out, especially with “a partisan flair,” given that American society obviously places such great value on well-mannered mildness and decorum.

Finally, there’s another one of those interminable climate change conferences going on. At this point, I’m pretty convinced that if we’re not doomed, the avoidance of doom isn’t going to be the result of diplomacy and negotiated legislation. Still, there’s something interesting in the large number of nations finally getting together to call out the foot-dragging usual suspects, i.e. us, China, India, et al. In fact, maybe there’s a deal to be made here. If I can offer a suggestion, how about the U.S. agrees to back the EU and its pals on a serious, binding emissions reduction treaty if the EU agrees to get its financial shit together instead of dragging our economy over a cliff again? Honestly, that sounds like it would be awfully attractive from our perspective, so much so that I can almost imagine it even being ratified by the Senate.

Not really, of course.* But it might be a good idea because, I know we aren’t supposed to draw specific connections like this but, Scotland is being hit with 165mph winds. Uh. Maybe we really should stop tampering with the climate, here…

* Update: After all, why would Senate Republicans want to support any kind of deal in order to prevent another recession, now, less than a year before a Democratic president is up for re-election? Honestly, what was I thinking. I must have been tired last night.

Okay, there are these awful ads running lately; I’ve only seen them on Fox, unsurprisingly, but the Y insists on putting Fox News on one of the TVs in the evening. And I’ve seen these dumb ads one time too many. So I took their advice, and contacted Senator Sherrod Brown, to convey the complete opposite of the message promoted in those godawful propaganda spots.

Dear Senator,

I’ve seen a couple of television ads, lately, blasting you for support of “raising energy taxes” and urging constituents to complain to you. I’m not sure what the ads actually refer to [indeed, this is the same Sherrod seemingly in the pocket of the coal industry and supportive of a weaker Clean Air Act; apparently he's still not quite fervent enough in fossil fuel boosterism!], but in case they’ve prompted anyone to make the desired complaints, I felt that I should write to make it clear: not everyone feels that way.

Personally, I do not want energy policies written by the American Petroleum Institute (or the US Chamber of Commerce). We absolutely should have higher taxes on unsustainable, polluting fuels, like oil and, yes, coal as well.

The fossil fuel industry sees no way that it can benefit from acknowledging this, but the fact is that there is no longer any cheap-and-easy option for energy in the medium term. Renewable energy will require costly investment and adjustment, but continued dependence on fossil fuels is already costing us. Aside from the environmental toll, “cheap” oil is dear enough to act as a constant drag on our oil-reliant economy, and that’s unlikely to change no matter how many tax breaks are handed out or safety regulations rolled back. [Ahem, ahem, Senator.] Withdrawl from a harmful addiction is painful, but rehab is still the solution.

Please, work for a “rehab” energy policy for America. Not the “dealer-approved” policies sought by the oil and coal pushers.

Sincerely,
Your Pal, Matt