Jason DeParle in American Dream used the lives of three interconnected women to discuss the real life effects of "welfare reform." His ultimate conclusion was mixed -- the women was able to survive before and after said reform, the push to work arguably had some effect, but a lot less (especially on familial well being) than one might think. Ending "welfare as we know it" alone surely is not the road to the promise land.
Brad Plumer has some good dubious remarks on the subject. I'd add that some suggest the reform, whatever it might have entailed, was a "Republican victory," even if it came under Clinton's watch. I'd say this is not totally true -- as with "free trade," it was important that some major Democrats signed on. Also, it just underlines the Republican-lite nature of many of Clinton's policies. The fact he is smeared as some leftist liberal sort only underlines how far right things have shifted.
Apparently, the editors of what is deemed by some to be "Joe Lieberman Weekly" want to take the Clintonian approach on the subject. As to JL, a comment a few days ago to my post about a week back on why I don't think blogs are giving too much emphasis to the battle in Connecticut noted that he is campaigning with Republicans. I read about this after I wrote my original post and referenced it later on. Now, some suggest that this really shows that he should be stripped of his committee ranking member positions.
This might very well require more than Sen. Reid, since others would have to step into his place, and some probably will be loathe to do so. Still, I am with the critics -- he campaigns with Republicans, doesn't support those Democrats running in Connecticut (not his party after all), and is a fifth columnist for the Republican Party. Why should he retain Democratic positions?
The comment also suggested that the biggest fear that JL is angling to be the next Secretary of Defense ("Is Joe Lieberman going to replace me? Maybe. Is he a schmuck? Sure."), leading to the Republican governor replacing him, dropping one vote from the Democratic Caucus. I really don't know how much truth is to this talk, so have decided not to go into it. Anyway, if Senate control relied on his vote (this suggests pretty good success in November), if he would resign even with a possible shift in control, would he not vote for the party who secured his job in the first place? I don't know why he would be chosen anyway, since so many people despise him to such a degree that JL simply would not serve as much cover. And, he too is so hard on the ears.
Some voices in the administration at least seem on some level to be rational souls that are not knee-jerk Bushies. In practice, see Powell and Rice, this turns out to be a lot of image over substance. But, on some level, it is true. Thus, many respected Richard Armitage as a professional among hacks. We now hear -- though many suggested it as a possibility for some time -- that he somehow accidentally or something leaked Plame's status. The co-author of the piece reassured critics that everything hasn't changed -- the Bush White House still is guilty of a morally disgusting smear campaign with clear criminal overtones.
Still, Richard here is no "political gunslinger" (though still an interested party), and (eventually) saw the error of his ways, telling the proper authorities at State. Now, various blogs are wary about the story and point out to troubling questions and unanswered questions. I'm tired of the whole thing, personally, and getting caught in unclear details might be a fun parlor game, but it really gets tedious. I focus on the wider picture. For instance, yet again, long after the events, the press tells us important facts. They knew this long before now. Also, if RA was so concerned, why didn't he firmly and publicly come clean before now? Guess, he wasn't that worried about making things right. Finally, a LAT story about a year ago that provided a good timeline of the case until then noted:
After a June 12 [2003] Washington Post story made reference to the Niger uranium inquiry, Armitage asked intelligence officers in the State Department for more information. He was forwarded a copy of a memo classified "Secret" that included a description of Wilson's trip for the CIA, his findings, a brief description of the origin of the trip and a reference to "Wilson's wife."
So, how exactly did RA "innocently" do anything here? The guy was a Deputy Secretary of State. We are left to relying on the "well he was in no way as wrong." Uh huh. This is the sort of thing that led people to try to separate Michael Cooper from Judith Miller, since the latter was not a family man or someone who avoided being a Bushie stooge. Avoid targeting the assault, since there are so many murders going on. Doesn't quite do it for me. And, yeah, this will be used by some to try to get the others off the hook. So, on some level, the "good guy" is an enabler, which is itself fairly reprehensible. These people are no Claude Raines -- haven't seen any joining the Free French yet.
Talking about idealistic things from the past, I found a nice book in the library with a companion CD-ROM entitled Let Every Nation Know: John F. Kennedy in His Own Words. It provides a look at JFK via his speeches, excerpts provided on the CD-Rom. JFK comes off as conservative on various issues -- he was a Cold War Warrior, for instance, who actually honestly thought fallout shelters would protect us while his hesitance on civil rights has been noted by many -- but charms because of his idealism and expectation that the U.S. and its citizens could serve as a forceful leader in the fight for freedom. Someone to believe in.
Bush has the freedom talk, but not much else. Thus, the collection has a Bay of Pigs period warning to the press to be more wary about printing things that are threats to national security ... but joined it with a statement on the danger of secrecy ("repugnant in a free and open society") overall. The remarks left something to be desired, but even then there were shades of why people respected him.
Other stuff included: remarks on the "so-called religious issue" of his Catholicism, promoting the Peace Corps and the space race, the power of the presidency, and remarks the day before he died. There are now various ways to hear voices from the past ... including Johnson and Nixon tapes. It is a remarkable taste of history, and the companion book here by Robert Dallek and Terry Golway (who wrote an interesting book on Washington's General, Nathaniel Greene) is well done too.
Oh, Alberto Gonzalez was sent over to Iraq to discuss the rule of law. No seriously. As to the murder case and the weirdo, I guess I was right to toss in a comment at the end of my post on the matter that we shouldn't assume anything yet. Talking about soap operas ...