Comments on: Field Hearing Notes

By: Garvey

Garvey — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 12:10:29 +0000

“LBJ got more shit done than just about any pol in American history…and many of his programs are still around in some form or the other and beneficial.”

Wow. You’ve completely bought into the myth. Keep ignoring the hard data which prove otherwise, you Reality Based Community, you! What benefits have a trillion dollars of largesse produced, exactly?

By: chrissieroux

chrissieroux — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:24:33 +0000

I won’t beat the sincerity horse too much here, but I think you’re overlooking what I consider an important task of effective leaders: to bring comfort and hope to the people. Many disagree with me on this, but I believe strongly in the power of a leader to instill hope, to mitigate rampant cynicism. If we live in a cynical society, it is in large part because we have gone a long time without true leadership. Sincere leadership.

By: Editor B

Editor B — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:56:36 +0000

Great food for thought in these comments. I wanted to answer Therese’s question directly: I don’t know about the petition. The protester who spoke at the beginning of the hearing said he had a petition with some number of signatures, and Sen. Lieberman said they’d be glad to accept the petition, but that’s all I know.

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:53:23 +0000

And one more thing (sorry): The ultimate correct judge of a pol in our system is not “words vs. actions” (Isn’t judging words vs. actions that true for everyone you know, or who you may call a friend or significant other or not, etc.?) but, Does that person get shit done, is her or she competent in regard to governance in the US, and does the person get said shit done without screwing over the general public in the process?

But getting shit done in this country has little to do with sincerity or charm. There is so much grey in there. At least within the domestic arena, for instance, the smarmy LBJ got more shit done than just about any pol in American history, certainly more than the more seemingly sincere JFK, and many of his programs are still around in some form or the other and beneficial. With foreign policy, of course, we can judge him harshly for the majority of the shit he did (and his apparently sincerely expressed reasons for doing so–to help the little people in little countries). To go further back, how would we judge Abe Lincoln if the South had won the war? As sincere, maybe, but just not good enough and a man who trampled over civil rights whilst losing the war?

I could probably be a little more precise, but that’s about sums it up.

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:24:36 +0000

Well, make that … if you expect one politician to get as much done as those mentioned expect, you’re naive as hell.

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:23:44 +0000

Skepticism of all politicians, regardless of charm, is a very good thing. And people should be skeptical of Obama, if only given the fact that he’s received so much media attention despite having even less experience in government than John Edwards, who has received comparatively minuscule attention (probably because the potential woman vs. black man race is sexier, I don’t know). However, immediate distrust of all politicians in the lack of any compelling information to the contrary is cynical by definition and counter-productive. Our system makes getting much done very difficult, and if you expect any one politician (be he or she the prez, a senator, whatever) here to get as much change as anyone, himself or herself or his fans/constituency, the media or what have you, ever expects. Such immediate distrust makes one no better than the people at Fox going off in hysterical tones about how Obama went to an Islamic school (not particularly true), etc.

By: Sophmom

Sophmom — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:28:01 +0000

LOL. I was thinking that as I was typing. He certainly has a commanding voice. It really struck me listening to the hearings. I am very excited about the coming national election cycle and I believe that what’s happened (or not happened) in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast will be a very important part of it. Thanks, Bart.

By: liprap

liprap — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:03:49 +0000

Sophmom: BO, the most unfortunate initials a candidate could have.

I hope “BO” can get beyond the “I.T.” with his actions, myself.

By: Therese

Therese — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:41:09 +0000

Bart, Did a petition to probe the White House get submitted Monday? I signed one that was supposed to be presented Monday.
Thank you for being there and for the summary!

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 04:26:46 +0000

The issue with the SBA/Road Home grants is this: The Stafford Act prohibits double dipping. So if you get reimbursed for a loss from one source, you can’t claim it again for benefits elsewhere. This is why the Road Home has to deduct all isurance payments from potential grants. In the case of SBA, they don’t do grants–only low interest loans. Well the lawyers looked at that and said that if you have a loan with SBA and then you get grant money from Road Home, the money must first be used to pay off the loan. Government lawyers do this all the time–they take the most restrictive interpretation of any law or regulation. So that’s the thing I think Senator Landrieu was talking about when she said, ““duplication of benefits” with SBA was intended. Was meant to be double-dipped.”

Thanks for your on-going service, Bart!

Peace,

Tim