411 Politics Fact or Fiction 12.08.08: Week 112

Posted by Brandon Crow on 12.08.2008

Will Barack Obama's ambitious government works plan stabilize the tanking economy? Should the new Justice Department undertake investigations into prisoner abuses under Bush? Is Sarah Palin's suddenly-discovered love for media cameras her political ploy to reinvent herself for 2012? Is ANYONE out there surprised that Laura Bush's memoirs are receiving much more attention from publishers than Georgie's?

Hi all, welcome to Week 112 of Politics Fact or Fiction. Those of you with the keen sense of observation will notice that F or F did not appear last week. Yes, I was, unfortunately, supremely swamped as the end of the semester is rolling down upon us quickly.

Our two participants this week, Dent Kelly and Phillip Newallo were outstanding. They had everything done and ready for me to post even before Thanksgiving rolled around! I want to give them big props for the timely fashion they got their responses to me, and apologize for delaying their "premiere" for a week.

A quick note: for the next couple of weeks, I'll be buried under essays and final grades. The good Andrew Tobolowsky of the politics zone has graciously agreed to step in as guest moderator for a couple of weeks.

Let's get to it.

Ding! Ding

1. Barack Obama unveiled an ambitious jobs creation plan recently. His idea that government can and should step in to help create jobs and stabilize a rapidly-crumbling economy is the right move.

Phillip Newallo: FACT. I am giving a tentative fact to this point. I have absolutely no objection to government stepping in to shore up a crumbling economy. I would liken it to FEMA stepping in when existing local and state mechanisms malfunction or are insufficient to handle catastrophes. Nobody suggests that in those situations the federal government should sit back and allow entire cities to fall into despair. (And before you mention Katrina, let's not pretend that we had a problem with it during its previous 26 years of existence .) We are facing an economic catastrophe at the moment and current credit/financial market solutions are not up to the task of repairing the breach. Obama's initial announcement spoke almost exclusively to public works projects which we can all agree the nation's infrastructure is in dire need of. Who exactly do we expect to build highways, bridges, tunnels, and sewer systems if not the government? Isn't that expressly what taxes are intended for?

The only way I see this as a major problem is if the U.S. is unwilling or unable to properly dial down its commitments in Iraq. Simply stated, with his planned tax cut for the middle class we cannot afford to maintain the current spending levels in Iraq and begin to rebuild the nation. FDR ended the New Deal when we committed our forces to WWII acknowledging we could not do both given the economic realities of the day.

Dent Kelly: FACT. My fellow American here is correct, intervening is welcome but only to a certain degree. Permanent intervention would be a bad idea as most Americans not younger than 20 would see it as Communism (the dreaded Commies, ehhhhh...HOW SCARY), and the Conservatives would use it to damage Obama's creditbility. Also, if it works in the short term, HooRAY!!!!, if not it could backfire and ruin the governments already sinking credibility. It is a risk, will it work, will anything work to save the economy? Obama has to at least try to save the economy, his political future depends on it.

1 for 1. These two have a tentative agreement that a government works program could be beneficial for the dire US economy.

2. Come January 20th, the new Justice Department in this country should launch a major criminal probe into questionable methods of interrogations, the use of torture, and the sanctioning of other cruel abuses exercised by the US under Bush's leadership.

Phillip Newallo: FICTION. This is false for two reasons. Firstly, what would be the likely outcome? Does anybody really believe that any senior administration official would end up in jail? If not, then what's the point? All it would accomplish is to air more of a our nation's dirty laundry and further sully our reputation at a time when the international community is ready to turn the page on the Bush years and once again open their ears to America's message.

The second reason, and the one that I think you'll hear few people admit to, is that I believe the average American is not opposed to the concept of torturing a terrorist regardless of how they answer when polled (Think Bradley Effect). Of all the sins committed by the Bush Administration over the last few years I think the American public has little taste for seeing them investigated over not recognizing the human rights of people the public widely considers inhuman. When was the last time you overheard somebody debating U.S. interrogation/ torture policy who wasn't a legal scholar or a far left extremist? America is facing a lot of challenges, now is not the time for personal score settling, which is what this would likely amount to.

Dent Kelly: FICTION. The dude above me is right, it would only be a waste of time. You see, Republican principles were not rejected in the election(Prop 8, I rest my case), but the politicians were rejected. The justice department won't do it as most Americans would see it as Liberals piling on Bush's legacy in an attempt to wipe him out(sorry I used Liberals, but the word i was gonna use was forgotten). Bush is no Nixon, Nixon was guility as hell, he admitted it,unless Bush admits his role as the chief offender of this( which he won't), i have to believe Bush was nothing but the fallguy in this attempt to kill his almost forgotten legacy. Does Bush deserve to be wiped off the face of the map, because of his policies, NO. Unlessthere is crushing evidence, i will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt.

2 or 2. If these two reflect the cross section of America, it looks like no investigation whatsoever into Bush's abuses.

Switch!

3. Since the election, Governor Sarah Palin has been going on a major, red-carpet media blitz as a way to position herself as the top-ranking, celebrity candidate for the GOP in 2012. This round of intensive media appearances will help people forget her completely lackluster performances with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric..

Dent Kelly: FACT. You see the only reason this will work is that Palin has a major ally in her corner and that is TIME, not the magazine, but time itself. She has four years to basically remodel her image as the new GOP candidate(although i doubt she will run), and as we all know, Time heals all wounds. Now the anti-Palin folks will hate her forever, but if she can get at least common interest in her character(maybe write a book or go SNL again), she can at least hope that her celebrity can equal more votes in the 2012 election, because if successful, the mothers and young people(which i think would be her best target groups)will vote based on who Palin supports. Do i think it will work? Maybe, but will it work? Only time will tell.

Phillip Newallo: FICTION. I'm not sure Palin will be able to successfully re-brand herself in time for 2012. Let's look at the things that propelled her to success in the last election cycle and how they have changed since then.

Gender: Simple fact, Obama's administration will lead to the creation or elevation of any number of female superstars in the Democratic Party giving Palin quite a run for the affections of female voters. Add to the fact that many of the few independents/liberal female voters who wanted her this time around were moving solely on Hillary angst, a factor which will not be in play 4 years from now.

Lack of record: She had no record to be attacked on due to her lack of national spotlight. This will change over the next years as the media will highlight every single miscue she makes in whatever office she holds. Let's also not forget that the success of her state's finances and her sky high polling numbers rest completely on the shoulders of elevated gas prices. Does she really want to campaign on a record of financial success that comes at the expense of the rest of the nation?

Her ideas: She has none, and to make matters worse the positions she has staked out are not in line with the majority of American's. She was largely shielded this year by the McCain campaign's unwillingness to allow her to speak unscripted for the most part and by the fact that McCain's remaining cache of goodwill from his "Maverick" years automatically made many people assume she was a moderate. She won't have that cover if she steps out on her own.

2 for 3. They split on Palin!

4. George W. Bush is currently gauging interest about his possible memoir. The response has been tepid. His wife, Laura is also shopping her memoir. Publishers are showing a lot of interest in hers, and very little in his. Frankly, you're not the least bit surprised.

Dent Kelly: FICTION. I am not gonna rush to Bush's aid (gas prices angered me pretty badly), but although most think he is a certified failure, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. You see his first term was a success (not a major one, but he was re-elected, and that counts as a successful term in my book), and his second term took a nosedive in 06 (McCain didn't win, so that means Bush's second term was a failure in my book).

However, if there is one thing on the book world that sells is Failure. Even if you hate the man, you would at least buy the book to see how his administration tanked (you college folks agree that this must be read to understand what really happened), and how he really felt about his disastrous second term. You see there is one story that we haven't heard and that is Bush's, now even though he is hated by most (at least on the net), Bush's book would probably sell a huge amount of books, because people love to hear about Misfortune ( Dennis Rodman's book was a huge success, I rest my case). This book will finally tell what really happened to Bush, and then we can have a correct assessment of W's legacy.

Phillip Newallo: FACT. Simply stated, nobody wants to pay $30 for a book written by an author the public largely considers to be stupid. Would you shell that out for Paris Hilton's memoirs? Add in the fact that many Americans consider him a dishonest person and there will be little incentive to buy his memoirs.
Laura, on the other hand, escaped the last 8 years relatively unscathed and with her reputation in tact due to the low profile she assumed as first lady.

2 for 4.

2 for 4 this week. Thanks to Dent and Phillip for their participation and thanks to the readers for hanging out with us for another F or F. As I said earlier, I'll be away from F or F for a couple of weeks (finals time, which means TONS of essays to grade). I'll be back around Christmas. In the meantime, look for Andrew Tobolowsky to step in for a couple of weeks as "guest moderator" of F or F.

See you all around Christmas! And do drop by and give Andrew a shout out!