Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
wallpaper efore leaving feedback,
right_boy
04-27 01:22 PM
Hi,
I was working for a telecom company. I passed 6 years and then was on 1 year extension. Meanwhile my I140 was approved. Lately i was given pink slip and then transfer my H1 to another company. i couldn't join the company since i was waiting for approval notice for my H1 Transfer. Today i received the denial notice for my H1 transfer and extension. I called to the lawyer and they told me to file for B2 as they haven't received the notice as of yet. So the reason of denial is still unknown. I was wondering what are my current options? Should i wait and file a motion for the H1 transfer denial or should i go ahead with B2? Please advise.
Thanks
I was working for a telecom company. I passed 6 years and then was on 1 year extension. Meanwhile my I140 was approved. Lately i was given pink slip and then transfer my H1 to another company. i couldn't join the company since i was waiting for approval notice for my H1 Transfer. Today i received the denial notice for my H1 transfer and extension. I called to the lawyer and they told me to file for B2 as they haven't received the notice as of yet. So the reason of denial is still unknown. I was wondering what are my current options? Should i wait and file a motion for the H1 transfer denial or should i go ahead with B2? Please advise.
Thanks
justsomeguy
11-01 12:10 AM
Folks,
Here's one question I have which I haven't see in any forums so far (perhaps its lurking somewhere .. who knows) ... let me get to the point.
When filing for AOS/485, if the I-140 that was filed prior to filing AOS was pending and gets approved AFTER 485 was filed... should we explicitly inform USCIS that that 140 was appoved ?
I guess USCIS should have that information (of course!) but I am not sure if we should be pro-active and make sure we inform the service center that the 140 was approved ?!
Thanks for your time.
Here's one question I have which I haven't see in any forums so far (perhaps its lurking somewhere .. who knows) ... let me get to the point.
When filing for AOS/485, if the I-140 that was filed prior to filing AOS was pending and gets approved AFTER 485 was filed... should we explicitly inform USCIS that that 140 was appoved ?
I guess USCIS should have that information (of course!) but I am not sure if we should be pro-active and make sure we inform the service center that the 140 was approved ?!
Thanks for your time.
2011 After twickling color hue,
vk2082
07-22 01:24 PM
Hi,
I was on H4 and had applied for H1B in 2008. After long processing and being pending for a long time it finally got approved in July 2009.
My question is, does my H1B start from oct 2008 or oct 2009? Can someone reply me on this.
Thanks
I was on H4 and had applied for H1B in 2008. After long processing and being pending for a long time it finally got approved in July 2009.
My question is, does my H1B start from oct 2008 or oct 2009? Can someone reply me on this.
Thanks
more...
Blog Feeds
07-22 11:30 AM
Wow. From The Washington Blade: Applicants for Justice Department internships and honors programs may have been rejected based on their membership in LGBT groups during the Bush administration, the Blade has learned. Numerous applicants were denied entry to the department�s Honors Program and the summer intern program starting in 2006 because of their previous work in what were deemed to be liberal organizations, according to an internal Justice Department report issued last year. The practice occurred while Attorney General Alberto Gonzales led the department. The Blade recently learned that among the blacklisted groups was Immigration Equality, which focuses on LGBT-related...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/bush-justice-department-blacklisted-samesex-immigration-rights-groups.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/bush-justice-department-blacklisted-samesex-immigration-rights-groups.html)
MYGC2008
02-25 10:29 PM
Hello,
Please let me know if anybody is travelling from BLR(Bangalore) to BOS (Boston) by British Airways on Mar 1 2011.
Because my mother-in-law is visiting US and she is travelling alone. If some travel companion is there it will be helpful as she does't speak english.
Thanks in advance.
^Anybody.....
Please let me know if anybody is travelling from BLR(Bangalore) to BOS (Boston) by British Airways on Mar 1 2011.
Because my mother-in-law is visiting US and she is travelling alone. If some travel companion is there it will be helpful as she does't speak english.
Thanks in advance.
^Anybody.....
more...
SkilledWorker4GC
06-14 04:40 PM
Hi,
I have a question regarding the I765 form. In the I 765 form it says Have you ever before applied for EAD to USCIS. I did my MS from US University and got OPT also known as EAD and worked on it for an year. Now my question is do i check yes or no? Do i consider that as EAD or just OPT.
I have a question regarding the I765 form. In the I 765 form it says Have you ever before applied for EAD to USCIS. I did my MS from US University and got OPT also known as EAD and worked on it for an year. Now my question is do i check yes or no? Do i consider that as EAD or just OPT.
2010 on an old UV filter.
natrajs
08-13 10:23 PM
My I - 140 was filed in TSC and approved and I-485 also sent to TSC
more...
san_visa
06-01 02:21 PM
Is there a option to track the I-140 status on the USCIS website using Application Receipt Number ?
Thanks,
San
Thanks,
San
hair Before and after of IR/UV
Blog Feeds
04-26 11:30 AM
Kudos to my colleague Elissa Taub who pointed out something rather interesting that none of the supporters of the Arizona law have told Arizonans. Under federal immigration law, a removal proceeding is a civil proceeding and one is not entitled to a public defender or any assistance in paying for help from an immigration lawyer. However, the new Arizona law makes it a state crime to be illegally present in the state. What this means is that any person charged under the new law is entitled to a taxpayer funded public defender or taxpayer funded private lawyer. And we lawyers...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/arizona-taxpayers-will-now-have-to-pay-for-lawyers-for-immigrants.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/arizona-taxpayers-will-now-have-to-pay-for-lawyers-for-immigrants.html)
more...
k3GC
04-13 09:31 AM
From Immigration Law
On 04/11/2007, Senator Hagel introduced this special bill for a relief from the current H-1B visa crisis. The bill is now in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The full text of the bill has yet to be made available to the public. As soon as the bill, S. 1092 is available, we will post the detail. Please stay tuned to this web site.
Is this going to be just h1 ? or will EB GC related stuff be included ?
Is there any realistic chance that this will get thru ?
On 04/11/2007, Senator Hagel introduced this special bill for a relief from the current H-1B visa crisis. The bill is now in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The full text of the bill has yet to be made available to the public. As soon as the bill, S. 1092 is available, we will post the detail. Please stay tuned to this web site.
Is this going to be just h1 ? or will EB GC related stuff be included ?
Is there any realistic chance that this will get thru ?
hot The polarizing filter was
Blog Feeds
11-10 03:40 AM
My friend Margaret Stock has prepared an excellent report for the Immigration Policy Center entitled ESSENTIAL TO THE FIGHT: IMMIGRANTS IN THE MILITARY EIGHT YEARS AFTER 9/11. Margaret, an officer in the army and the undisputed leading national expert on immigration and the American armed forces, notes a number of key findings in her report: As of June 30, 2009, there were 114,601 foreign-born individuals serving in the armed forces, representing 7.91 percent of the 1.4 million military personnel on active duty. Roughly 80.97 percent of foreign-born service members were naturalized U.S. citizens, while 12.66 percent were not U.S. citizens....
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/immigrants-playing-critical-role-in-military.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/immigrants-playing-critical-role-in-military.html)
more...
house After three days the water was
G
01-25 08:25 AM
I just started my first real site for a local jaguar showroom but I'm looking for more work for a portfolio site I'm working on.
My skills include:-
HTML (advanced)
Javascript (intermediate)
PHP (intermediate)
Flash (intermediate)
Photoshop (intermediate)
Swift 3D (intermediate)
Illustrator (intermediate)
Corel Draw (intermediate)
Please send me an email if you are interested - g_barnettuk@hotmail.com
My skills include:-
HTML (advanced)
Javascript (intermediate)
PHP (intermediate)
Flash (intermediate)
Photoshop (intermediate)
Swift 3D (intermediate)
Illustrator (intermediate)
Corel Draw (intermediate)
Please send me an email if you are interested - g_barnettuk@hotmail.com
tattoo Ineffective Hoya UV filter.
gconmymind
09-28 05:42 PM
I agree...there is no point. People who get it get it, others have to wait much longer....
more...
pictures Before/After Image
paskal
08-23 01:53 PM
this is just the kind of thing we want to fight! terrible situation...
please help iv's efforts to end retrogression for all.
please all come to the rally, volunteer, contribute and spread the word!
i'm closing this thread since there is another one with the same info.
please help iv's efforts to end retrogression for all.
please all come to the rally, volunteer, contribute and spread the word!
i'm closing this thread since there is another one with the same info.
dresses DW1 PRO MC UV Filter
prince_waiting
01-20 03:14 AM
Sorry , please ignore the phrase 'fiscal cap', actually it should be annual H1B cap for that particular year.
more...
makeup (UV) filter on your camera
nee2
03-24 02:53 AM
Hi everyone! I'm Neeti n this is my first post around here. I made this using illustrator and a photo for reference.
I'm looking rather serious :p
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/2249/neeti.jpg
I'm looking rather serious :p
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/2249/neeti.jpg
girlfriend a efore and after of this
sravani
05-02 03:41 PM
You didn't indicate the reason why your friend's H1B got rejected. If the H1 got rejected due to the problems with the company sponsored the H1, then it's highly likely the new H1 will get approved.
hairstyles The pump and UV filter are on
madasu2310
03-10 05:34 PM
Hi all,
I'm on my 5th year of H-1b visa. I had my I-797 approved until 10/30/12. My old passport was due to expire on 2/25/11 so during my recent trip my I-94 was given until 2/25/11, even though my visa is until 10/30/2012. So my lawyer filed I-539 to get a new I-94 on 2/20/11. I still didn't get my case number yet. Now I have another Job offer and the new company's lawyer says that i cannot take another job until this case is complete. I'm totally confused and not sure what to do. Please help. your help is very much appreciated.
Thanks
Mani
I'm on my 5th year of H-1b visa. I had my I-797 approved until 10/30/12. My old passport was due to expire on 2/25/11 so during my recent trip my I-94 was given until 2/25/11, even though my visa is until 10/30/2012. So my lawyer filed I-539 to get a new I-94 on 2/20/11. I still didn't get my case number yet. Now I have another Job offer and the new company's lawyer says that i cannot take another job until this case is complete. I'm totally confused and not sure what to do. Please help. your help is very much appreciated.
Thanks
Mani
webm
10-14 11:46 AM
Just in case:
http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html
http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html
pappu
11-13 08:09 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/TransformationConOps_Mar07.pdf
In case someone is interested in studying the transformation program by USCIS. This document by USCIS is dated March 2007.
The latter pages show a table of comparison.
In case someone is interested in studying the transformation program by USCIS. This document by USCIS is dated March 2007.
The latter pages show a table of comparison.
No comments:
Post a Comment