Restitutor Orbis

I've been very clear about how I feel about this particular trap. It's my biggest and most enduring gripe about the Obama Administration. Unfortunately, it won't be getting any better and the situation will likely keep Obama's grade (to the right) below an A for the foreseeable future.

A recent release by Americans United for Separation of Church and State has focused my attention on these unhealthy policies again:

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today expressed disappointment at the Obama administration’s decision to ask former football coach Tony Dungy to serve on the president’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

“God & Country,” the religion blog of U.S. News & World Report, said today that Dungy has been asked to serve on the council, but he has not yet decided whether to do so.

Dungy, former coach of the Indianapolis Colts football team, has well-known ties with intolerant Religious Right groups. In 2007, for example, he spoke at a fund-raising dinner for the Indiana Family Institute, a James Dobson-affiliated group that opposes gay rights, reproductive rights and separation of church and state.

Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United’s executive director, “I am surprised and disappointed that Dungy has been asked to serve on the council. His view that civil-marriage law should reflect religious doctrine is not in keeping with the Constitution.”

While I respect Tony Dungy as an NFL Coach, and while he comes across as a very positive, kind and compassionate man, associations with such groups as Dobson's should raise alarms. These are hate groups. We do not need government support (tacit or otherwise) for hate groups.

I share AU.org's disappointment with this decision. Any attempt that was serious about uniting Americans of all religious persuasions would have chosen a non-Christian instead, as plenty of Christians of all types have already been appointed to this council, but few if any religious minorities.

I cannot denounce this move strongly enough.

For the full press release, go here.

A Tale of Two Revolutions
The Republican Party has launched an all out crusade against any New Deal redux by attacking the New Deal on two fronts: that it is socialism and that it does not work. But is either charge true?
http://www.associatedcontent.comarticle/1582363/a_tale_of_two_revolutions.html

Politico is reporting that Obama has demanded that the chairman and CEO of GM, Rick Wagoner, resign. And according to Politico, he has.

Why?

Because GM wants more government money. Accusations of socialism aside, fears of government encroachment into industry aside, this should have happened at the outset of the stimulus crisis, while Bush was still in office. The fact that these people ran their businesses into the ground, the fact that it is OUR tax dollars that are being tossed at them, led me to the early conclusion that the management of any corporation that accepted our money should have to go. CEO, Board, all of them. Go. Replace them with competent people.

Everything that has followed that initial bailout has convinced me I was right. Unbridled greed, corruption and a refusal to change an entrenched philosophy that panders to further enriching the already grotesquely overpaid executives, have demonstrated that these people have not made and will not make the necessary changes for their companies to survive. They cannot continue to suck up our tax dollars and bankrupt our nation in the process while continuing with the same failed policies. Somebody had to do this. Since they wouldn't do it themselves, the government has.

It's unfortunate that it had to be, but that's the way it goes, sometimes. Nobody wanted it. Doesn't mean we don't have to do it. Today,

President Barack Obama is to unveil his plans for the auto industry, including a response to a request for additional funds by GM and Chrysler. The plan is based on recommendations from the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, headed by the Treasury Department.

The White House confirmed Wagoner was leaving at the government's behest after The Associated Press reported his immediate departure, without giving a reason.

Here is a history of the auto industries failings:

• GM and Chrysler first requested billions in federal aid in November, warning that they could run out of cash in a matter of months if they didn't receive it.


• In December, President Bush agreed to loan $9.4 billion to GM and $4 billion to Chrysler.


• Last month, GM asked for $16.6 billion more and Chrysler requested an additional $5 billion.


• Earlier this month, Obama agreed to loan $5 billion to American auto parts manufacturers to help them weather the steep drop in new vehicle orders and the financial uncertainty at the Big Three.

Why Waggoner? Politico offers two reasons:

1. First, his company is asking for the most in total federal aid: $26 billion, a figure administration officials fear could grow even larger.


2. Second, the GM chief was tied more directly to the ill-fated decisions that that brought much of the American auto industry to the brink of collapse.

According to the New York Times the government "has also instructed Chrysler to form a partnership with the Italian automaker Fiat within 30 days as conditions for receiving another much-needed round of government aid...If a deal is reached between Chrysler and Fiat, the administration says it would consider another loan of $6 billion to Chrysler."

We are a month out from the end of President Obama's first 100 days. Clearly, the American people are for the most part satisfied with his progress as a recent CNN poll demonstrates.

Obviously, any single poll cannot be used to demonstrate anything, but CNN is hardly alone. Gallup, a more substantial, and highly respected poll, shows the following:

Things still look good in March. Using the same period as the CNN poll above, Gallup shows the following:

In a comparison with Bush and Clinton we can get a better picture of how Obama is faring:

The following comes as no surprise:

As is the case for most presidents, there are sharp partisan differences in Obama's job approval rating. Among Republicans, Obama's average approval for the past week (March 9-15) is 26%, among independents it is 59%, and among his fellow Democrats, 91%.

Even the Rasmussen poll, the only poll cited by conservative sources, shows Obama at over 50%:

Overall, 56% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. The President’s overall ratings have been within a point of the 56% level every day but one over the past three weeks. Forty-three percent (43%) now disapprove.

Rasmussen essentially finds the same as Gallup where by-party approval comes in: 90% of Democrats approve and 24% of Republicans.

What seems clear to this observer is that Obama has a mandate from the American people and that he is fulfilling their expectations under the most terrible of circumstances: two wars and an economy in shambles, not to mention the social issues that divide the Nation. And he is carrying on despite an obstructionist, reactionary Republican Party forming a not-so-loyal opposition.

My own grade for Obama remains a "B". The only thing that really mars his performance so far is his catering to the intolerant and bigoted "Religious Right". Fortunately, he has balanced this flaw with support of science over superstition. I do believe he is trying to cater to everybody and I do also believe that his attempts to find support on the Right are doomed to failure. The poll numbers from every source demonstrate the accuracy of this statement. The Right, which, as most of you remember, lost the elections in 2008, will accept nothing but unconditional surrender. That this is a flawed and delusional understand of the facts as they exist, scarce needs mentioning.

I suspect that come Day 100, we will find Obama still at around 60% approval and that the percentages in each party who favor him will remain unchanged unless more moderate Republicans, offended by the intransigence and do-nothingness of their compatriots, shift.

President Obama held a virtual town hall meeting today, answering questions posted to the White House site (link below).

From CNN:

The virtual meeting, a new take on President Franklin Roosevelt's fireside chats, was another sign that Obama is reaching out to online followers as he tries to rally an anxious country in support of his solutions to the economic crisis.

After the call for questions closed at 9:30 a.m., more than 90,000 people had submitted more than 104,000 questions for the president. The questions largely focused on the economy but spread across several categories. Online users ranked the questions more than 3.6 million times, according to WhiteHouse.gov.

Full transcript here

Below is the link for submitting questions:

Open For Questions

The Huffington Post is reporting that Obama is speaking his mind with regards to Republican intransigence. I think he's nailed it:

"I do think that the Republican Party right now hasn't sort of figured out what it's for," Obama said in a White House interview with The Courier-Journal and reporters from five other newspapers. "And so, as a proxy, they've just decided 'we're going to be against whatever the other side is for.' That's not what's needed in an economic crisis."

With a big budget battle coming up and the Republicans just saying "no" to everything Obama backs, he has no choice but to accept the gauntlet that has been thrown at his feet. Remaining passive is the wrong course, and I'm glad he understands that now. He needs to get out there and rally the troops, to let America know that the Republican brand is the do-nothing brand, a brand of reactionary contrariness. As Obama put it, "you could play that game maybe in the early '90s, when basically we were pretty prosperous. Right now, everybody's got to pull together."

On a broader economic front, CNN reports that "President Obama reached out to citizens of the world Tuesday, saying in an op-ed piece that ran in 31 newspapers around the globe that there is an urgent need for worldwide economic cooperation."

Obama's move comes ahead of next week's Group of 20 meeting in London, England, in which leaders of the world's richest nations will discuss the global economic downturn.

"My message is clear," Obama wrote. "The United States is ready to lead, and we call upon our partners to join us with a sense of urgency and common purpose. Much good work has been done, but much more remains."

"Once and for all, we have learned that the success of the American economy is inextricably linked to the global economy," Obama said. "There is no line between action that restores growth within our borders and action that supports it beyond."

Last night, 60 Minutes aired an interview with Barack Obama, which gave the president an opportunity to fire back at Dick Cheney. It is brilliant. And it's about time. Bush's "war on terror" has not made the US safer, and it has provided a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda:



Obama says we must remain true to our traditions, and I agree. If we destroy our country to save our country, what have we fought for? What have we saved?

An excellent piece by Rachel Maddow of MSNBC from March 19, 2009:

President Obama was a beacon of hope to the gay-lesbian community. Naturally, there was disappointment in his selection of Rick Warren to deliver the benediction at his inauguration, given Warren's belief that gay marriage is akin to pedophilia. I shared the outrage. I thought it was a mistake, and a wasted gesture as well. The Religious Right is not interested in compromise. Warren was castigated by the Right for endorsing a "pro-abortion" President. Nothing was accomplished. And Obama walked away with his image tarnished to a degree. He had said he would stand up for the gay-lesbian community, but if so, this was an awkward first step to say the least.

Now he has taken a step in the right direction by stating that the United States will reverse the stance of the Bush Administration on gay rights. According to the Chicago Tribune

The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.

U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration's French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.

The move is largely symbolic. The declaration has no force. We have no right to force other countries to adopt our point of view. But refusing to sign the declaration sent a message. Obama's reversal of Bush's position also sends a message; a positive one. "When it was voted on in December, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with anti-gay discrimination."

Of course, there is opposition, most of it from where we would expect it to originate:

But 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality — and in several, homosexual acts can be punished by execution. More than 50 nations, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, opposed the declaration.

Some Islamic countries said at the time that protecting sexual orientation could lead to "the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts" such as pedophilia and incest. The declaration was also opposed by the Vatican.

Of course, we have to take into account the fact that the Catholic Church has opposed any human rights for anyone for approaching twenty centuries. They have a 2,000 year record of intolerance and bigotry. They're not about to change now. Their opinion might have more value, however, if they'd seriously address the issue of pedophilia among their clerical ranks. Apparently it's permissible to bugger children for god but not permissible for adults to bugger each other. And Islam? They have sex with little girls already. How will civil rights for homosexuals lead to pedophilia? They're already engaged in it.

Deregulation was an important cause in the Bush Administration. Deregulation and the safety of the environment and of the public be damned. It cost the big businesses a lot of money to actually have to worry about what they put into circulation, after all, and nobody was a friend to the wealthy big business owners like Dubya. Obama is changing that.

On Saturday, according to Reuters, President Barack Obama chose public health and biological threat expert Dr. Margaret Hamburg to run the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "He also announced a Cabinet-level food safety group. He selected Baltimore Health Commissioner Dr. Joshua Sharfstein to serve as Hamburg's principal deputy."

Obama also outlined measures to keep diseased cows from entering the food supply and promised to increase the number of FDA food inspectors and modernize food safety labs.

This is an important move and I am certain it is something many people are happy to see. The news of the day remains the economy, but there are many other problems that need to be addressed, many areas in which Bush's attack on the American people need to be turned back. As Reuters reports,

If confirmed by the Senate, Hamburg will take over an agency battered by a string of often deadly food poisoning and drug safety issues, including an ongoing outbreak of salmonella in peanut products that forced the largest food recall in U.S. history.

The choice signals the FDA's priority under the Obama administration will be safety and not necessarily speeding through drug approvals.

The salmonella outbreak has made 683 people in 46 states sick, killed as many as nine and forced the recall of more than 3,000 products.

Obama said outdated food safety laws were in part to blame. "Inspection and enforcement is spread out so widely among so many people that it's difficult for different parts of our government to share information, work together, and solve problems," he said.

The FDA "has been underfunded and understaffed in recent years, leaving the agency with the resources to inspect just 7,000 of our 150,000 food-processing plants and warehouses each year. That means roughly 95 percent of them go uninspected."

On an unrelated note, Obama expressed outrage at the use of stimulus funds by AIG to provide bonuses:

"This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed," Obama told politicians and reporters in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, where he and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner were unveiling a package to aid the nation's small businesses.

The president expressed dismay and anger over the bonuses to executives at AIG, which has received $173 billion in U.S. government bailouts over the past six months.

"Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"

Great news, obviously. AIG doesn't get it. They seem unaware that the mob is preparing to storm the Bastille. "Let them eat cake" doesn't come close to describing their arrogance. But Obama, fortunately, does. He has asked Geithner to "pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole." He also said he would work with Congress to change the laws so that such a situation cannot recur.

Welcome to pre-socialist America, back in the day when the federal government pretty much kept to itself. Or, in another way of putting it, neglected the country it had been put in place to govern. Evidence of this neglect is, to the left, Iowa, but this photo is illustrative of the entire country just before the First World War. Dirt tracks. Some 2.5 million miles of roads, most of them looking exactly like this when it rained (a mere 150 miles of roads were actually paved).

Many roads went nowhere. Nobody was responsible for building them, really, and nobody was responsible for repairing them. There was no rhyme or reason to them; they just developed over time as need demanded. Some were built by states for various reasons. Military roads, mostly. All in all, it is safe to say that travel across the United States had not progressed much since the days of the covered wagon.

Alexander Winton, who made cars for a living, became famous for a failed attempt in 1901. He managed to escape California but his wheels spun to a stop in the deserts of Nevada. National Geographic reports on a later attempt:

Two years later, Dutch reporter Marius Krarup successfully crossed the same stretch of sand. He rode in a 1903 Packard driven by Tom Fetch, one of three teams that left San Francisco for New York City to claim records in cross-country driving.

The pair failed in their bid to be first, but they did chart the most treacherous route.

Upon reaching Colorado Springs, Colorado, Krarup spoke of the conditions that preceded: "Nevada is awful, but Utah is the worst I ever saw. We carry a pick and shovel along, and we found it necessary in more than one instance to use them when we had to build roads ourselves, cutting along the sides of hills."

Colorado provided a brief respite. After Denver, Krarup and Fetch wouldn't see another surfaced road until Illinois.

The first driver to make it from coast to coast was Dr. Horatio Nelson Jackson, who drove out of San Francisco in a 20-horsepower Winton touring car in the Spring of 1903. The America Jackson encountered was frozen in time. As recounted by Ken Burns

Traveling with his co-driver Sewall K. Crocker and a bulldog named Bud (who wore goggles, just like his master, to keep the dust from his eyes), Jackson had the adventure of his life. He encountered pioneers in wagon trains, cowboys who used their lariats to tow him out of sand drifts, ranch wives who traded homecooked meals for a brief ride on the "Go-Like-Hell Machine," and people who deliberately sent him miles out of his way just so their relatives could get their first glimpse of an automobile.

If America was to have roads worthy of the name, transportation arteries that encouraged travel, private citizens would have to build them. The first such highway was the Lincoln Highway, organized by Carl Fisher, the man who created the Indianpolis 500 and who developed Miami Beach. His dream came about in 1912, almost a decade after Jackson's fabled trip. The estimated cost was $10 million.

John Ford declined to donate to the project. He was one of those rich men from whom wealth is supposed to trickle down. In this case, as in so many others, it did not. He thought the public should pay for the roads, not private industry. In other words, the average working man, the middle class, should bear the brunt. Not the class from whom Republicans believe today will provide prosperity and development if we but decline to tax or regulate them heavily.Funding for the almost 4,000-mile-long highway came from a variety of sources. He sought donations from auto manufacturers like Ford, and automobile accessory companies (he himself owned a company that made headlights) of 1 percent of their revenues. Members of the general public was able members of the highway organization for a five dollar donation. The Federal Government, presided over by a Republican president, William Howard Taft, was spending $1.7 million on a statue to Lincoln but was not building any highways to improve the nation's infrastructure.

That said, it is useful here to note that Taft would have found little support among today's Republicans. For one thing, he considered himself a progressive. Among his sins was a strong regulatory bent: strengthening the Interstate Commerce Commission, expanding the civil service, establishing a better postal system, and promoting world peace. A socialist if there ever was one, by today's standards. We would do well to steer clear of the assumption that today's Republicans are not those of yesteryear, whatever claims they make today.

But back to our highway and funding. Carl Fisher lamented that "the highways of America are built chiefly of politics". It is interesting that today, our infrastructure maintained in largely the same manner - by Congressional earmarks. And Henry Ford had his wish in a way: the Interstate system is largely maintained by tolls paid for by the public and by gasoline taxes, also paid for by the public. Even so, it was the federal government that finally build a highway system.

The Lincoln Highway was the pre-war's Route 66. It had a mystique about it that persisted long after the highway had become US Highway 30. The loss of its name was part of a process begun in March 1925, when the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) began to set up the by now familiar US highway system. Every highway got a number. Every named highway lost its name - including the Lincoln, when in November of that year, the secretary of agriculture approved AASHO's plan.

In 1919 an army convoy followed the Lincoln Highway. One of the members of the expedition was a young lieutenant, Dwight D. Eisenhower. In 1956 Eisenhower, by then a Republican President, would remember that trip and the German autobahns built by Hitler's Third Reich. As a result, the federal government, under the auspices of a Republican administration, undertook one of the biggest socialist building projects in America's history. The Interstate System is not only the largest highway system in the world but the largest public works project in history. And let us reiterate here: It was built by a Republican administration.Given the extent of Eisenhower's crime against everything the Republican Party stands for, should we give it back? Should Republicans refuse to drive on it, or perhaps be banned altogether? Or should they simply drop the hypocrisy and shut up?

Let's take a look at the expense. Begun in 1956, finished in 1991, the actual Cost to build the Interstate Highway System was $114 Billion over 35 years ago, and $500 billion in 2008 dollars.

What was the cost of FDR's New Deal, in comparison? According to The Nation, "During the New Deal, the Roosevelt administration spent about $250 billion (in today's dollars) on public-works projects, building about 8,000 parks, 40,000 public buildings, 72,000 schools and 80,000 bridges. The entire cost of all the New Deal programs (in today's dollars) was about $500 billion."

It is safe to say the Interstate System transformed America. But it cost $500 billion. The same price as the New Deal. Identical in value. Both transformed America. Is it hypocrisy to condemn the one and laud the other? I am unaware of any Republican criticism of the Interstate System. Republicans use it as much as Democrats. But Republicans detest the New Deal with a religious fervor. Yet both projects came from government spending. An identical amount of government spending. Why is one evil, and the other not?

If, as Republicans say, government spending is itself the sin, then they must shut their mouths or be hypocrites. There seems to be no other option. That, or they can stay off our Interstates and out of our libraries and away from every thing else government spending has provided for our benefit.

For more information, please see also The New Deal Worked

It is not at all surprising that the economy remains the single most important issue in the minds of Americans. Unemployment is higher than at any other time in a quarter century, and CNN, not necessarily the most balanced media outlet, suggests that there is a rift in Democratic ranks as to how the crisis should be addressed. Clearly, the myth of a "liberal media elite" touted by McCain and Palin is just that, a myth, and the media is not particularly friendly to Obama. The hate groups are out in force, and Republicans are still lining up behind Rush Limbaugh, who refuses compromise, who's motto is "stay the course". Republicans are blaming everybody for the economic crisis but themselves. Inexplicably, Bush is innocent and the blame falls squarely on a man who has been president for less than two months.

AP echoes CNN, saying

Confronting misgivings, even in his own party, President Barack Obama mounted a stout defense of his blueprint to overhaul the economy Thursday, declaring the national crisis is "not as bad as we think" and his plans will speed recovery.

Obama has gone on record as saying that the recent stimulus package would not be the last, that more would be needed. But according to AP, Nancy Pelosi refuses to make any commitment:

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., played down talk that Democrats would consider a second economic stimulus bill.

"I know that people have made suggestions that we should be ready to do something, but I really would like to see this stimulus package play out," Pelosi said. "It's just not something that, right now, is in the cards," she added later.

The Republicans are feeding fears about mounting deficits, and the burden placed on our children and on their children. Roosevelt famously said "the only thing to fear is fear itself" and I am afraid his words are still accurate. It is this fear that may prevent our government from doing what it takes to pull us out of the depression we find ourselves in.

On top of that, Obama wants to overhaul health care, reduce greenhouse-gas pollution and undertake major changes in energy policy. He's projecting a federal deficit of $1.75 trillion this year, by far the largest in history, but says he can get it down to $533 billion by 2013.

"I am not choosing to address these additional challenges just because I feel like it, or because I'm a glutton for punishment," Obama told the Business Roundtable, a group of top business executives. "I am doing so because they are fundamental to our economic growth, and to ensuring that we don't have more crises like this in the future."

I believe Obama is right. I agree with Paul Krugman that we need to be more pro-active, more aggressive, not less so, and that to date our response has been too tame, too cautious. If you start fighting a fire by pissing on it, you will soon discover that it is too late to put it out even with a firehouse, because while you were pissing, it was burning out of control.

The Administration has made clear that the stimulus already voted will be spent appropriately, and dire threats have been uttered:

Vice President Joe Biden opened the meeting by warning state officials that if they misuse money from the stimulus package, they should not expect more help from the federal government for a long time.

"If we don't get this right, folks, this is the end of the ability to convince Congress that anything should go to the states," Biden said.

Added Obama: "If we see money being misspent, we're going to put a stop to it."

I hope they are good at their word. I hope that we do not keep throwing money at Wall Street CEOs who horde it or spend it on expensive trips or to redecorate their offices. I do not think the people will put up with this for long. And I think it is quite possible that populist rage has not yet peaked.

The future is science. The past is superstition. The so-called Religious Right wants to take us all back in time to the wonderful world of the 13th century. They'll do it with us kicking and screaming if they can. We saw how the Republican Base treated science under Bush. It was discarded, discredited, and politicized to fit an agenda that favored development and big business and the destruction of our environment. It was also an agenda that put medical research on a back burner.

Obama has turned back the attack on science and on our future. CNN reminds us that

Bush twice vetoed legislation that would have expanded federally funded embryonic stem cell research. Those siding with Bush say scientific advances allow researchers to conduct groundbreaking research without destroying human embryos.

But as Huffington Post reports,

From tiny embryonic cells to the large-scale physics of global warming, President Barack Obama urged researchers on Monday to follow science and not ideology as he abolished contentious Bush-era restraints on stem-cell research. "Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama declared as he signed documents changing U.S. science policy and removing what some researchers have said were shackles on their work.

"It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda _ and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology," Obama said.

Scientists are, of course, happy. The Religious Right? Not so much. They call the repeal "a defeat for morality in the most basic questions of life and death."

"The action by the president today will, in effect, allow scientists to create their own guidelines without proper moral restraints," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said.

Ann CNN reports that

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told The Washington Post he thought Obama's policy reversal on stem-cell research was an "ideological sideshow."

That's an amusing comment coming from the most ideologically driven group in this country. In fact, we can never be entirely free of ideology, but I think Obama is coming as close as possible in his action to freeing scientific research from the constraints of ideology.

And the religious fundamentalists who oppose stem cell research are a small minority in this country. Millions more will benefit from the changes and will no doubt be happy with the shift in direction.

Obama is right in saying that promoting science "is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient _ especially when it's inconvenient."

Of course, these changes are just the most recent in Obama's offensive to roll back Bush's anti-environmental and anti-science agenda. As CNN reminds us,

Within a week of taking office, Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to review a California application to regulate greenhouse gases and told his Department of Transportation to begin implementing fuel efficiency standards passed last year but not implemented by the Bush administration.

The Right makes that claim that Obama is uniting his foes to oppose him. Seriously, it is difficult to imagine them mustering more numbers than they have now - and right now, they are nothing but a very vocal minority. They have lost power, they have lost credibility with the American voter, and they are well on their way to changing the GOP's status to that of a far right fringe group, a regional party of uneducated, fundamentalist Christian white males. They are putting themselves on the wrong side of history, and that is never a good idea.

I do not think it is too much to say that for 8 years that torch of the Enlightenment had been reduced to a flickering candle. Obama has fed that flame, and it is a torch once more, bright enough to guide us into an uncertain future, the darkness of superstition, the threat of the 13th century, all around us.

Republicans are desperate to prove FDR's legislation, known as the New Deal, did not work. They are desperate because if it worked, it will work again - for Obama. And they do not want Obama to succeed. So, to discredit his economic plan, they seek to prove the New Deal failed to lift the country out of the Great Depression. It won't work.

Why?

Because the New Deal worked.

From DemocraticUnderground.com:

When Franklyn Roosevelt began his presidency in 1933, our nation was in the midst of the greatest depression in our history. Our annual gross domestic product had been nearly cut in half since the Stock Market Crash of three and a half years previously, and unemployment stood at 25%. Within four years of taking office, GDP rose to about 90% of where it had been prior to the Stock Market Crash. In FDR's first term in office our country experienced a 5.3% increase in jobs, the greatest percent increase in jobs of the past 20 presidential terms, from 1929 to 2009. As a result, the unemployment rate was approximately cut by more than 40% by the end of his first term. By 1941, prior to the onset of World War II, the unemployment rate had declined to below 10%.

And the New Deal was so much more than an economic policy. It was public policy. It was a revolution in thinking. And it changed America. No one questions this latter statement and I think this change is really what is at the heart of conservative hostility. Entrenched interests do not like change. And I think this is what is at the heart of conservative hostility to President Obama. He threatens the status quo. America's white masters were xenophobic, preservationist, and jealous of their position.

As Morton Keller argues ("The New Deal: A New Look," Polity 31 (1999), 657-663) the New Deal "emerged from the Great Depression and felt the need to change a dysfunctional economic order, not from a desire to preserve an older American from new social, political, and economic threats" and that "from the hindsihgt of more than half a century, we can see what emerged from the New Deal...was not renewed xenophobia and standpattism...Rather, the basic New Deal themse of a broad, inclusive, democratic cultural nationalism, and a readiness to use federal programs and deficit financing when necessary to secure prosperity and meet large domestic or international needs."

The New Deal brought positive change. It promoted the end of racism and xenophobia, "eroded anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, and even, gradually, the segregation of blacks in American life." The Great Society legislation sponsored by President Lyndon B. Johnson was a continuation of the process, as Keller calls it, "an extension rather than a fresh and different political movement."

It is impossible to call the New Deal a failure unless you are part of the entrenched, xenophobic interests now represented by the Republican Party. Just as it did 60 years or more ago, the small town native-American hostility to the immigrant-filled big cities came to the fore - stoked by xenophobes like McCain and Palin and their talk of a "real" America - which is the rural, backwoods, small-town as opposed to the alien and evil big city. There were even good and bad parts of various states, according to the Republican Party, or "real" and "unreal" parts of America. This attitude is the antithesis of the New Deal.

We can argue the merits of the New Deal backwards and forwards, but we must first understand the issues. And the issue here is that the Republicans of today represent entrenched, largely white interests and the old status quo. Republican attitudes today are a reaction against the New Deal, reaction against the Great Society, and a reaction against Obama as another reformer in the mold of FDR and Johnson.

But Keller points out that the New Deal has not been a "one-party inheritance." We can look at Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System, which would have been unthinkable without the New Deal. Does anybody oppose our interstate system? Anyone? Anyone? The Space Program is another child of the New Deal - even the arms buildup of Reagan, so adored by Republicans today. You can claim he defeated the Red Menace but he defeated the Red Menace only because of a paradigm shift put into place by a progressive Democratic leadership. Reagan, too, is unthinkable in pre-New Deal terms.

Keller points out that "American politics and government in the second half of the twentieth century has been dominated not only by a rejected of the New Deal legacy, but rather by a continuing adaption, in its spirit, to the demands of a changing American society."

Of course, we have seen how Republicans even now hearken back to the halcyon days of pre-Depression America, to a yearning for small town values (and vice) over the alien landscape of the immigrant-filled big cities, to the old xenophobia which bread isolationism, and it is no surprise that it appeals mostly to white voters who feel threatened and who sense a loss of control. Opposition to the New Deal is reactionary. It always has been. The alternatives in the 30's were totalitarianism - either left or right. And of course, it is to the totalitarian model that conservatives seem to lean even today. They embraced Bush and his imperial presidency, for example. They reject Obama and accuse him of being the true totalitarian but we all know that the real reason for this is not a rejection of totalitarianism but the fact that Obama is not THEIR totalitarian. This is their chance, they seem to think, to turn back the clock and reclaim America for the white voter, for entrenched interests, and to restore some mythical golden age that never was - the myth of a Christian America with "real" values.

But that was an age when race and religion were prime determinants in whether a person deserved to be part of the community. We see this today in the Republican Party and the appeal to "small town" or "real American" values. Reject alienism, reject what is foreign and that which threatens to overturn the status quo. Is it any surprise that blacks are predominantly Democrats and that Hispanic/Latino voters abandoned the Republican cause en masse in 2008?

The New Deal saved us from this conservative pipe dream - a paradise for them but hell for anyone who fits into the category of the "Other". It was, as Keller says, not an episode but a defining moment like the Revolution "or the establishment of the new nation". It is a moment we should embrace and protect, not reject. And short-sighted conservative opponents today do not realize how much their own policies and have depended upon New Deal legislation and the paradigm shift that went with it. 1920 is gone folks. Good and gone. And good riddance. We have moved on. The world has moved on. We can't go back in time. We can't undo the New Deal - it has become part of American life. And it is so much more than economic policy. So much more.

For Further Reading: Mitch McConnell Is Wrong – The New Deal DID Work, and it Still Does

President Obama today appointed a new head for FEMA and he's certainly to be an improvement over anything we had under Bush. Craig Fugate, director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management, is the next administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

"From his experience as a first responder to his strong leadership as Florida's emergency manager, Craig has what it takes to help us improve our preparedness, response and recovery efforts, and I can think of no one better to lead FEMA," Obama said in a statement.

He should be, to judge from his record.

Rush Limbaugh seems to have assumed control of the Republican Party as of Michael Steele's surrender. Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee had this weekend called Limbaugh an “entertainer” whose comments are “ugly.”

"I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party."

"Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh's whole thing is entertainment," Steele told CNN. "Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly."

Of course, like every other conservative who has criticized Limbaugh, he quickly back-peddled when called to task by the GOP's pope. It took all of 3 minutes. it took Steele about 3 minutes to backpedal; he contacted the radio host to say he was sorry that he had told the truth (that Rush is an entertainer) and that he has enormous respect for Limbaugh.

It turns out that what he actually meant was that a lot of people want to make Limbaugh the “bogeyman” when he’s not. Now the de-testicled Steele says that he has spoken with Pope Rush and “we are all good.”

Nice to know where the buck stops in the GOP hierarchy! We would hate to mistake the party's chairman as somebody who actually has any authority.

It is difficult to believe all this has taken place, that an entertainer, a radio show host, has taken control of one of our two major political parties. Can you imagine Johnny Carson running things? The man isn't even reputable. He makes John Stewart and Stephen Colbert look like reputable journalist. If you wrote this in a novel, nobody would believe it.

Of course this can only be good news for Obama and the Democratic Party. This is, after all, what Obama wanted. He is the one who appointed Rush, if you will remember. Rush will keep the party so extreme that they will rapidly lose any credibility still remaining to them. The last thing the Democrats need is a reputable figure running things over there.

EDIT (3.4.09): The Democratic Congressional Committee (DCC) has a nifty little DIY "Republican Apology Machine" which allows you to generate a letter of apology to Rush Limbaugh. You can find it here.

They offer the following snippets which I didn't have time to add last night:

Republicans who've dared to criticize Rush only to beg for his forgiveness:

Michael SteeleRNC Chairman Michael Steele:

Rush is not the head of the Republican Party. He's an "entertainer" whose show is "incendiary" and "ugly."

I'm Sorry, Rush
"My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh [...] I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. [...] There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership."

And...

Congressman Phil GingreyCongressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA):

"I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don't have to try to do what's best for your people and your party."

I'm Sorry, Rush
I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth on some of those comments and I just wanted to tell you, Rush, [...] that I regret those stupid comments.

And...

Gov. Mark SanfordGovernor Mark Sanford (R-SC):

"Anybody who wants [President Obama] to fail is an idiot, because it means we're all in trouble..."

I'm Sorry, Rush
Sanford’s Communications Director, said that "the governor was not referring to anyone" in particular.

And to this we can soon add Congressman Eric Cantor. You can be sure of it.

Politico also has a piece on Limbaugh and White House influence on his role as leader of the Republican Party: Rush Job: Inside Dems' Limbaugh Plan

Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.

The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.

Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.

I am going to push an article I wrote a couple weeks back and which was published at Associated Content.

A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Conservative America and Revolutionary Iran
US diplomacy with Iran during the Bush years embraced decades of propaganda and misunderstanding. Improved relations require a new paradigm marked not by ideology but by pragmatism and a willingness to see the world as it is - not how we wish it to be.
http://www.associatedcontent.comarticle/1454813/a_selffulfilling_prophecy_conservative.html

In a refreshing change of pace, President Obama took the offensive yesterday against critics of his budget plan. Rather than leaving the initiative to his opponents and critics, he came right out and accused them of being allies of lobbyists and special interests more interested in preserving corporate tax breaks (part of the Republican platform, IMHO) than reviving the economy.

"I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak." Obama said. "My message to them is this: So am I."

Of course, the lobbyists are acting surprised and shocked. They're innocent victims of course. The bastards have controlled Washington for decades. Bills get passed that favor them, not the environment, them, not the individual. We all suffer so that a few can enrich themselves. I think Obama finally gets it, that populist rage is real and lasting. The lobbyists don't. But they soon will. And I suspect they will see Obama's popularity rise as a result.

"I know that the insurance industry won't like the idea that they'll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage," Obama said. "I know that banks and big student lenders won't like the idea that we're ending their huge taxpayer subsidies. ... I know that oil and gas companies won't like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks."

He wisely named the least popular lobbying groups, and that is sure to rally the troops. It is difficult (unless you are a Republican and therefore too ideologically blinkered to comprehend basic facts) to justify the lobbying efforts of these big corporations. The Right will try of course, because they are owned by these groups as well as by the Fundamentalist Christians, but I don't think they'll have enough support to hurt Obama. The GOP already refuses to work with him. He knows this now. How can they do any worse than they already have by withdrawing from government and taking their toys home?

I think Obama understands that he has a mandate from the people, and that mandate has actually grown since the election, despite a steadily worsening economy. Yet he understands the opposition he faces: "I realize that passing this budget won't be easy," Obama said. "Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington."

And while he will have the American people with him, he will find the Media firmly aligned with the status quo. As Media Matters for America repeatedly points out, there is no liberal media elite, and the American people will have to work hard to get unfiltered, unbiased news.

In other news, CNN reports that "Iraqi leaders are applauding President Obama's plan to withdraw most U.S. troops from the country by August 2010."

raq's Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi's office released a statement Saturday saying he received a call from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informing him of Obama's announcement of the withdrawal.

"Mr. al-Hashimi welcomed the American administration's commitment to withdrawing its troops from Iraq according to the agreed-on schedule and stressed that every possible effort should be exerted to increase the readiness of Iraqi security forces and improve their performance," the statement said.