Dear Mr. Olbermann,
Although I think you made some good points in your Special Comment tonight, you really goofed up on your Civil War History. John Pope did not replace George McClellan atop the Union Army after Antietam. Here are the ways that is incorrect:
1) After Antietam, McClellan was replaced by Ambrose Burnside, not John Pope. Pope was on his way to the frontier of Minnesota by that time, as he had lost the disastrous battle of 2nd Manassas.
2) When Pope was brought East, he wasn't technically replacing McClellan. They both had independent commands. Effectively Pope's command became the primary focus of maneuvers against the Army of Northern Virginia, and he was bolstered by plenty of McClellan's troops. After Lee, Longstreet, Jackson and their troops humiliated Pope, McClellan regained control of the theater.
3) The battle of Antietam was not a "disaster". It was a strategic victory for the Union that was tactically a draw. True, it is arguable that had McClellan sent in the V Corps in the center of the line, they might have won a victory. However, that is a debatable point, and is hardly a disaster. Lincoln didn't remove McClellan because of the result of the battle, he removed McClellan because he refused to move against Lee before winter would shut down campaigning.
I know your point didn't care about the success of Pope, but it wasn't the best example. Pope was an awful general, and Lincoln's aides were right to be skeptical. I suppose Joe Hooker, who had his own little controversy over civilian control of the military when he was named to replace Ambrose Burnside, would be a better example. In that case Lincoln kept him on the job after his comments about the necessity of a military dictator, while chastising him for those words.
You are better than that, Mr. Olbermann. What's more, YOU KNOW YOU ARE BETTER THAN THAT.
Its been 1,592 days since something happened 1,592 days ago. Good night and good luck. Don't stay tuned for the Rachel Maddow Show, as she is on MSNBC and not this infrequently updated blog.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
A Very Controversial Comic
WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING
BELOW THIS MESSAGE IS A VERY CONTROVERSIAL COMIC.
I WARNED YOU....
TURN AWAY IF YOU WISH...
HERE IT IS. DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU.
OMG, did I just do that?
Man, that was so controversial.
BELOW THIS MESSAGE IS A VERY CONTROVERSIAL COMIC.
I WARNED YOU....
TURN AWAY IF YOU WISH...
HERE IT IS. DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU.
OMG, did I just do that?
Man, that was so controversial.
Monday, April 12, 2010
On Memorializing the Largest Insurrection in the History of the United States
"As governor of Virginia, I declare April to be American Civil War History Month. The American Civil War is our nation's great tragedy, a terrible conflict that left our state and our nation in tatters. To understand the Commonwealth of Virginia you must understand the causes, events, and consequences of that brutal affair. "
That's all Governor McDonnell had to say to make his recent proclamation relevant, helpful, and non-controversial. Instead he chose to name the month Confederate History Month, which is most controversial. At best it was a horribly misguided attempt by a governor to score points with his political base. At worst it was the intentional perpetuation of the "The Lost Cause", a nod to the fact that he felt the wrong side one at Appomattox.
I'm not here as an "Enlightened" Yankee trying to show how much better than he is than those damn Southerners. The Union states weren't much better than Southern states in regards to racial equality, and many in the North certainly profited from the slave-based southern economy. For the reprehensible Jim Crow laws in the south, the north had plenty of their own shameful acts (Sunset Laws, Black Laws, etc...). One cannot forget some of the harshest racism this side of Mississippi during the Civil Rights era took place in Chicago and Boston. No part of this country is excused from the dark parts of our history.
Before I go any further, however, I must state that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. Sure, the conversation can be much more complicated, incorporating minute and archaic debates of state rights, tariffs, and the Industrial Revolution. The fact still remains all of those arguments are related to the fact that the South was built upon a land heavy, cash light economy that worked solely because of slave labor. Every one of the other issues exclusive of slavery would never have led to war.
While the U.S. Constitution never mentioned slavery by name, the Confederate constitution made sure it wasn't ambiguous on the subject, most explicitly in the following text:
"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]"
Other than making the presidency a six year single term, and giving the president a line item veto, this was the largest difference between it and the U.S. Constitution. Slavery was essential to the the existence of the Confederacy, and to argue otherwise is wrong. Sure, some southerners such as Patrick Cleburne suggested enlisting slaves in exchange for their freedom. However, the policy didn't gain any steam in the Richmond until the desperate end of the war.
I don't doubt that there were plenty of people who fought in the South who didn't give a damn about the slaves. I am aware that people in those days viewed themselves as Virginians, Alabamans, or Georgians first, and Americans second. In their mind they weren't committing treason, and may have considered those (like George Thomas) who chose country over state to be the true traitors. That doesn't change the fact that secession has been determined to be illegal, and against the nature of this country. Its treason, through and through. Even if the difference between treason and fighting for freedom is which side won.
I also don't believe that those who fought in gray, even many of those who were generals, were not evil people, even if they had wrong beliefs. It cannot be denied that thousands of soldiers from Texas to Virginia were honorable soldiers who committed many acts of valor. To paraphrase General Grant they fought very well for a cause they believed in, even though that cause was certainly wrong. It was right to treat them honorably after their surrender at Appomattox, as they were, and still are, our countrymen.
Unfortunately, too many Southerners took the benevolence of Northerners to be an admission that the Confederacy was right, and that things could go back to the antebellum state of the region. Some, like James Longstreet took the right approach. Others, such as the founders of the Ku Klux Klan, clearly felt they hadn't lost. Some headway was made during Reconstruction, but it all unraveled as the troops moved out, and Jim Crow came into play. For the next eighty or ninety years, the bulk of American historians seemed to buy this view as well, at the expense of the freemen.
Thus the disgusting cockroach of a myth known as the Lost Cause became intertwined in the South. The myth that the North didn't win, it just smothered the Confederacy with carpetbags and Springfield rifles was perpetuated, and states in Dixie celebrated memorial days for the Confederacy. You can bet a fifth grade class in Huntsville, Alabama had a different "education" about the Civil War than one in Champaign, Illinois. Movies like Birth of a Nation (that nation isn't the reunified United States) and Gone with the Wind pined for the lost south of plantations and balls, and excoriated those awful "carpetbaggers" and "black Republicans" who ruined their fun.
Fortunately, with the Civil Rights movement came a more realistic approach to the history of the Civil War. Of course, with this shift in historical focus came a reaction that clung, and still clings, hard to the myths of the past. Organizations like the Confederate Sons of America have done their damn best to make sure their version of the history remains intact, and far too many Americans (including a disturbing amount of Northerners) fly the rebel battle flag proudly.
Let me be clear that I am saying the faults and atrocities of the Union should be ignored. The hell of Camp Douglas should be remembered as much as Andersonville. There is no problem remembering the tenacity of the troops in Pickett's Charge, or remembering how well your great great grandfather fought at Chickamauga. Want to show his rifle or pistol in your den in remembrance of him? Fine.
All I am saying is remember the entirety of the story. Remember the sacrifices and struggles of those who fought for the preservation of our union. Remember the valor of the men who made that charge at Marye's Heights, and the heroism of the Iron Brigade at Gettysburg. Remember the struggle of African Americans, both free and slave, who fought and struggled for their freedom from that most undemocratic institution. Most of all, remember the horrors of the Shiloh, Antietam, and the Spotsylvania, and make sure that tragedy doesn't repeat itself.
I have no doubt the right side won the Civil War. A strong and united country stretching from Maine to Florida, Massachusetts to California is much better than the alternative. Had the Confederacy won its freedom, whether in September 1862, July 1863, or August 1864, it wouldn't have been the last war between the two countries. What's worse, the French and the British would have been our enemies instead of our friends, and the world may very well have been a much meaner place. The thought that I wouldn't be able to visit the Smoky Mountains, or Mississippians wouldn't be able to go to Yellowstone, without a passport and/or visa is not a good thought.
I know the vast majority of Americans also believe in the strength of our union. Sure, a few whackjobs still believe that their state should secede (not all of them in the south), but they still remain on the fringe. Of course, the Teabaggers in some states have jumped up the rhetoric, with even some prominent Republicans (see Rick Perry) supporting secession in some hypothetical future. However, I believe that most Americans aren't willing to begin another Civil War. At least they would if they know the story of our first Civil War. Promoting the history of our nation's most traumatic event is a noble and laudable goal. However, limiting it to that one misguided side is neither noble nor laudable. Its beneath any American, whether they live in Richmond, VA, or Washington, DC.
That's all Governor McDonnell had to say to make his recent proclamation relevant, helpful, and non-controversial. Instead he chose to name the month Confederate History Month, which is most controversial. At best it was a horribly misguided attempt by a governor to score points with his political base. At worst it was the intentional perpetuation of the "The Lost Cause", a nod to the fact that he felt the wrong side one at Appomattox.
I'm not here as an "Enlightened" Yankee trying to show how much better than he is than those damn Southerners. The Union states weren't much better than Southern states in regards to racial equality, and many in the North certainly profited from the slave-based southern economy. For the reprehensible Jim Crow laws in the south, the north had plenty of their own shameful acts (Sunset Laws, Black Laws, etc...). One cannot forget some of the harshest racism this side of Mississippi during the Civil Rights era took place in Chicago and Boston. No part of this country is excused from the dark parts of our history.
Before I go any further, however, I must state that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. Sure, the conversation can be much more complicated, incorporating minute and archaic debates of state rights, tariffs, and the Industrial Revolution. The fact still remains all of those arguments are related to the fact that the South was built upon a land heavy, cash light economy that worked solely because of slave labor. Every one of the other issues exclusive of slavery would never have led to war.
While the U.S. Constitution never mentioned slavery by name, the Confederate constitution made sure it wasn't ambiguous on the subject, most explicitly in the following text:
"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]"
Other than making the presidency a six year single term, and giving the president a line item veto, this was the largest difference between it and the U.S. Constitution. Slavery was essential to the the existence of the Confederacy, and to argue otherwise is wrong. Sure, some southerners such as Patrick Cleburne suggested enlisting slaves in exchange for their freedom. However, the policy didn't gain any steam in the Richmond until the desperate end of the war.
I don't doubt that there were plenty of people who fought in the South who didn't give a damn about the slaves. I am aware that people in those days viewed themselves as Virginians, Alabamans, or Georgians first, and Americans second. In their mind they weren't committing treason, and may have considered those (like George Thomas) who chose country over state to be the true traitors. That doesn't change the fact that secession has been determined to be illegal, and against the nature of this country. Its treason, through and through. Even if the difference between treason and fighting for freedom is which side won.
I also don't believe that those who fought in gray, even many of those who were generals, were not evil people, even if they had wrong beliefs. It cannot be denied that thousands of soldiers from Texas to Virginia were honorable soldiers who committed many acts of valor. To paraphrase General Grant they fought very well for a cause they believed in, even though that cause was certainly wrong. It was right to treat them honorably after their surrender at Appomattox, as they were, and still are, our countrymen.
Unfortunately, too many Southerners took the benevolence of Northerners to be an admission that the Confederacy was right, and that things could go back to the antebellum state of the region. Some, like James Longstreet took the right approach. Others, such as the founders of the Ku Klux Klan, clearly felt they hadn't lost. Some headway was made during Reconstruction, but it all unraveled as the troops moved out, and Jim Crow came into play. For the next eighty or ninety years, the bulk of American historians seemed to buy this view as well, at the expense of the freemen.
Thus the disgusting cockroach of a myth known as the Lost Cause became intertwined in the South. The myth that the North didn't win, it just smothered the Confederacy with carpetbags and Springfield rifles was perpetuated, and states in Dixie celebrated memorial days for the Confederacy. You can bet a fifth grade class in Huntsville, Alabama had a different "education" about the Civil War than one in Champaign, Illinois. Movies like Birth of a Nation (that nation isn't the reunified United States) and Gone with the Wind pined for the lost south of plantations and balls, and excoriated those awful "carpetbaggers" and "black Republicans" who ruined their fun.
Fortunately, with the Civil Rights movement came a more realistic approach to the history of the Civil War. Of course, with this shift in historical focus came a reaction that clung, and still clings, hard to the myths of the past. Organizations like the Confederate Sons of America have done their damn best to make sure their version of the history remains intact, and far too many Americans (including a disturbing amount of Northerners) fly the rebel battle flag proudly.
Let me be clear that I am saying the faults and atrocities of the Union should be ignored. The hell of Camp Douglas should be remembered as much as Andersonville. There is no problem remembering the tenacity of the troops in Pickett's Charge, or remembering how well your great great grandfather fought at Chickamauga. Want to show his rifle or pistol in your den in remembrance of him? Fine.
All I am saying is remember the entirety of the story. Remember the sacrifices and struggles of those who fought for the preservation of our union. Remember the valor of the men who made that charge at Marye's Heights, and the heroism of the Iron Brigade at Gettysburg. Remember the struggle of African Americans, both free and slave, who fought and struggled for their freedom from that most undemocratic institution. Most of all, remember the horrors of the Shiloh, Antietam, and the Spotsylvania, and make sure that tragedy doesn't repeat itself.
I have no doubt the right side won the Civil War. A strong and united country stretching from Maine to Florida, Massachusetts to California is much better than the alternative. Had the Confederacy won its freedom, whether in September 1862, July 1863, or August 1864, it wouldn't have been the last war between the two countries. What's worse, the French and the British would have been our enemies instead of our friends, and the world may very well have been a much meaner place. The thought that I wouldn't be able to visit the Smoky Mountains, or Mississippians wouldn't be able to go to Yellowstone, without a passport and/or visa is not a good thought.
I know the vast majority of Americans also believe in the strength of our union. Sure, a few whackjobs still believe that their state should secede (not all of them in the south), but they still remain on the fringe. Of course, the Teabaggers in some states have jumped up the rhetoric, with even some prominent Republicans (see Rick Perry) supporting secession in some hypothetical future. However, I believe that most Americans aren't willing to begin another Civil War. At least they would if they know the story of our first Civil War. Promoting the history of our nation's most traumatic event is a noble and laudable goal. However, limiting it to that one misguided side is neither noble nor laudable. Its beneath any American, whether they live in Richmond, VA, or Washington, DC.
Monday, March 22, 2010
John McCain Threatens to Take his Ball and Go Home
John McCain and his "reasonable" GOP friends have decided to roll up the welcome mat on working with President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Why? Because the Democratic majority in both houses, and the Democratic President used their constitutional prerogative to pass the largest health care reform bill since Medicare. I suppose passing a moderate, sensible bill that is chock full of ideas Republicans have liked and suggested in the past now counts as a thwarting of the will of the people (despite very mixed evidence at best). Therefore, despite some Democrats bending over backwards to appease some Republicans, the so called "maverick" is going to put petty politics above legitimate governing. I'm not surprised, considering his complete abandonment of his "maverickness" in 2008.
The fact is, time and time again, Democrats from Max Baucus to Harry Reid to President Obama have gladly shown a willingness to work with Republicans. Unfortunately, the Republicans decided back when Obama took office to be the party of "NO". They stomp their feet, spout heinous lies about death panels and socialist plots, and do everything in their power to spit on the other side. When the Democrats get wise, the GOP then bitches about a lack of "bipartisanship", and use their mouthpieces over at Fox to make them look like victims of an evil takeover by SOCIALISTCOMMUNOFASCIAMUSLIMTHUGGISHDEATHPANELERS.
I understand why Republicans wouldn't want the opposition party to be handed victories. I understand the politics of being obstructionist tools. I'm not saying they don't have a right to do that. I just wish they were honest about it. If only because so many people eat up their bullshit like it is cotton candy.
But of course they aren't honest about it, because that would spell doom come November. Like it or not, bipartisanship is a positive word to most people. Nevermind that the GOP flavor of compromise is "screw your beliefs, accept ours and maybe we won't kick you in the nuts". This momentous and sensible reform bill was passed without a single vote by a Republican in the Senate, and only one GOP vote on the initial House bill. Believe me, Obama and company will figure out a way to get other things done while McCain, Graham, and the rest pout like fat spoiled brats who didn't get that third scoop of ice cream.
Go ahead and not work with the Democrats on immigration reform, and get used to losing in New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona. Go ahead and refuse to work on financial reform, and lose your already slipping hold in the rural Midwest. Continue to bitch and moan and not do a damn thing. Let the bible thumpers, the Randites, and the Palinbots run the asylum. Go ahead and force yourself into being the bigoted and pathetic regional party found only in the South. We'll continue working on fixing our problems, and will be glad to share our solutions with you. After all, its only neighborly.
The fact is, time and time again, Democrats from Max Baucus to Harry Reid to President Obama have gladly shown a willingness to work with Republicans. Unfortunately, the Republicans decided back when Obama took office to be the party of "NO". They stomp their feet, spout heinous lies about death panels and socialist plots, and do everything in their power to spit on the other side. When the Democrats get wise, the GOP then bitches about a lack of "bipartisanship", and use their mouthpieces over at Fox to make them look like victims of an evil takeover by SOCIALISTCOMMUNOFASCIAMUSLIMTHUGGISHDEATHPANELERS.
I understand why Republicans wouldn't want the opposition party to be handed victories. I understand the politics of being obstructionist tools. I'm not saying they don't have a right to do that. I just wish they were honest about it. If only because so many people eat up their bullshit like it is cotton candy.
But of course they aren't honest about it, because that would spell doom come November. Like it or not, bipartisanship is a positive word to most people. Nevermind that the GOP flavor of compromise is "screw your beliefs, accept ours and maybe we won't kick you in the nuts". This momentous and sensible reform bill was passed without a single vote by a Republican in the Senate, and only one GOP vote on the initial House bill. Believe me, Obama and company will figure out a way to get other things done while McCain, Graham, and the rest pout like fat spoiled brats who didn't get that third scoop of ice cream.
Go ahead and not work with the Democrats on immigration reform, and get used to losing in New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona. Go ahead and refuse to work on financial reform, and lose your already slipping hold in the rural Midwest. Continue to bitch and moan and not do a damn thing. Let the bible thumpers, the Randites, and the Palinbots run the asylum. Go ahead and force yourself into being the bigoted and pathetic regional party found only in the South. We'll continue working on fixing our problems, and will be glad to share our solutions with you. After all, its only neighborly.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The Sausage Works: Health Care Bills pass the House
The Health Care bill, first passed by the Senate in December, has been passed by the House 219-212. That bill then goes to President Obama. In addition, they've passed the Reconciliation package on to the Senate, with 217 votes currently.
I'll have more to say on this subject later. All I have to say right now is history has once been made, this time historic law. The fight that began with TR and the Progressive movement of the early 20th century has won a major victory. Whether or not the Senate drops the ball on the reconciliation package, health care reform is heading to the White House. It's history, and not a damn Republican has signed on to it.
I'll have more to say on this subject later. All I have to say right now is history has once been made, this time historic law. The fight that began with TR and the Progressive movement of the early 20th century has won a major victory. Whether or not the Senate drops the ball on the reconciliation package, health care reform is heading to the White House. It's history, and not a damn Republican has signed on to it.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The Role of Moderates in American Politics
If you get a chance, read this post by Tom Schaller at fivethirtyeight.com about Evan Bayh and the hypocrisy of "moderates" in the Senate. I think it sums up very well the role so-called moderates such as Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, or Joe Lieberman should play in our legislative process. This goes for the guys on the other side of the aisle as well, although they seem to keep their "moderates" in line better, partially because they have far fewer of them.
For what it's worth, I consider myself a moderate. Granted, my idea of moderation sits far to the left of what Susan Collins, Joe Lieberman, or Evan Bayh would call moderation. My views and ideals run well to the left, and on things such as GLBT issues and the first amendment I am very adamant about my positions. However, from an operational standpoint I am flexible on most issues.
What the Republicans seem to understand better than the Democrats is the value of a perception of uniformity. That isn't to say that every body must toe the party line, or not try to influence policy. What it means is that those on the fringes in a party must respect the will of the majority. It is one thing to argue for, and get, concessions or changes to protect your viewpoint or your constituency. It is another thing entirely, however, to expect your position to be the majorities postion, and torpedo their efforts if you don't get your way.
Above all, once a decision has been made, or a bill is in place, it is your job as a moderate to get behind it. Support it enthusiastically yet honestly. Be willing to explain that it isn't your idea of perfect, or possibly even great. But also explain how it is best for the nation at large, while also saying why it helps your constituents. Never go on Meet the Press, Hardball, or any other bloviation station, unless it is to offer your support for the measure. I am sure that if "moderates" such as Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln had taken this approach, real health reform would have been done well before the debacle in Massachusetts happened. Of course, that assumes these senators actually care about real reform, and not just the perception of reform.
To sum it up, a moderates job is not to bend the will of the majority to his point of view, but to smooth out the edges of that majority and stand as a check against government overreach and for transparency. A moderate who calls out his colleagues in public and stands in the way of effective government is not a champion of "bi-partisanship" or "post-partisanship". He's not a profile in courage, or someone to be admired. He is nothing but a hypocritical obstructionist, hell-bent on protecting the interests of his one man party, even at the detriment of his larger party or his nation.
* As if most Democrats in the Senate were wild eyed leftist extremists.
For what it's worth, I consider myself a moderate. Granted, my idea of moderation sits far to the left of what Susan Collins, Joe Lieberman, or Evan Bayh would call moderation. My views and ideals run well to the left, and on things such as GLBT issues and the first amendment I am very adamant about my positions. However, from an operational standpoint I am flexible on most issues.
What the Republicans seem to understand better than the Democrats is the value of a perception of uniformity. That isn't to say that every body must toe the party line, or not try to influence policy. What it means is that those on the fringes in a party must respect the will of the majority. It is one thing to argue for, and get, concessions or changes to protect your viewpoint or your constituency. It is another thing entirely, however, to expect your position to be the majorities postion, and torpedo their efforts if you don't get your way.
Above all, once a decision has been made, or a bill is in place, it is your job as a moderate to get behind it. Support it enthusiastically yet honestly. Be willing to explain that it isn't your idea of perfect, or possibly even great. But also explain how it is best for the nation at large, while also saying why it helps your constituents. Never go on Meet the Press, Hardball, or any other bloviation station, unless it is to offer your support for the measure. I am sure that if "moderates" such as Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln had taken this approach, real health reform would have been done well before the debacle in Massachusetts happened. Of course, that assumes these senators actually care about real reform, and not just the perception of reform.
To sum it up, a moderates job is not to bend the will of the majority to his point of view, but to smooth out the edges of that majority and stand as a check against government overreach and for transparency. A moderate who calls out his colleagues in public and stands in the way of effective government is not a champion of "bi-partisanship" or "post-partisanship". He's not a profile in courage, or someone to be admired. He is nothing but a hypocritical obstructionist, hell-bent on protecting the interests of his one man party, even at the detriment of his larger party or his nation.
* As if most Democrats in the Senate were wild eyed leftist extremists.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Democracy in Action: Demand Question Time
Last week, President Barack Obama visited the House Republican Conference in Baltimore, Maryland to answer questions. It was an excellent meeting, with mostly thoughtful questions from the representatives, and even more thoughtful answers by the President. It was without soundbites, without too much political preening, and thoroughly refreshing. You can view the remarks at CSPAN.
This is something that shouldn't be rare in a supposedly democratic society. Unfortunately this is not a regular part of Washington life, but hopefully this can change. If you are believer in real change, and a believer in better government, or just a fan of the UK Prime Ministers Question Time, please visit the Demand Question Time website.
As Nate Silver explains in this post about the subject, there are an awful lot of questions about how this would work. I agree that it would need to be random, if only to prevent what happened at Obama's meeting with the Senate Democrats this week. In that meeting, all of the questioners were Senators who just happened to be facing reelection this November. Thus, the questions weren't quite as frank as one would hope, and were far too concerned with politics instead of governance.
Will this become a part of our national calendar? I can't tell. Obviously a lot of powerful people on both sides of the aisle would stand to lose out in this scenario. However, the people that should truly matter, all 300 million plus and counting, would win out big. I figure if it can happen, this would be the President to do it.
This is something that shouldn't be rare in a supposedly democratic society. Unfortunately this is not a regular part of Washington life, but hopefully this can change. If you are believer in real change, and a believer in better government, or just a fan of the UK Prime Ministers Question Time, please visit the Demand Question Time website.
As Nate Silver explains in this post about the subject, there are an awful lot of questions about how this would work. I agree that it would need to be random, if only to prevent what happened at Obama's meeting with the Senate Democrats this week. In that meeting, all of the questioners were Senators who just happened to be facing reelection this November. Thus, the questions weren't quite as frank as one would hope, and were far too concerned with politics instead of governance.
Will this become a part of our national calendar? I can't tell. Obviously a lot of powerful people on both sides of the aisle would stand to lose out in this scenario. However, the people that should truly matter, all 300 million plus and counting, would win out big. I figure if it can happen, this would be the President to do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)