Restitutor Orbis

When Did Joe Liebermann Become President?

2009-12-17T17:29:00.005-05:00

I may be remembering incorrectly, but I cast my vote last November for Barack Obama, not Joe Liebermann. So why is it this not-really-a-Democrat senator is calling the shots? Why is it that the President - the man I did vote for - is kow-towing to a man who really isn't even a Democrat - not even nominally, whatever he may claim?

It's an interesting development. At the time Mr. Obama took office, you'll remember, there was a lot of talk about Liebermann and his role and his potential usefulness, given that he often voted in rank with the Democrats.

All that looks like speculative fiction today, as likely as finding a dragon in the Rose Garden.

Reuters is reporting that Obama faces healthcare insurrection from left flank

That should come as no surprise. Some of us are pretty upset about what looks more and more like a betrayal of one of his central campaign promises, to give us quality healthcare.

Leading the grousing from the left has been Howard Dean, a former Democratic National Committee chairman who ran unsuccessfully for his party's presidential nomination in 2004.

Dean, a medical doctor and former governor of Vermont, in recent days has said a Senate healthcare bill that Obama supports and which is lurching toward a possible vote in coming days should be killed.

"If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current healthcare bill," Dean wrote in a Washington Post opinion article on Thursday, his latest broadside on the matter.

The White House - and presumably Obama himself - is seeming more and more out of touch with the American people. Is it possible that Mr. Obama has forgotten his promise?

Obama's senior adviser, David Axelrod, went on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program on Thursday to fire back at Dean, saying his argument is "predicated on a bunch of erroneous conclusions" and that the legislation does meet most Democratic goals.

Axelrod found himself challenged on the program by Ed Schultz, a liberal anchor on MSNBC's evening programing.

"They key is, people in this country right now don't believe that the White House has stood up to the insurance industry," Schultz said.

It's also looking more and more like it's time for a progressive revolution to put the Democratic Party back on track, if not replace it altogether. We have clearly been betrayed by some of our representatives in Washington, D.C., and our President, whom we elected on a ticket for Change, has apparently decided that the status quo is more comfortable.

Progressives need to realize that we won't get what we want, we won't get what we were promised, we won't get what this country needs, by being better informed and more cognizant of the facts than our conservative opponents. We need some passion as well, and we need to turn this passion - and our command of the facts - on our representatives in Washington, D.C., and on our President.

Al Franken Goes After Republican Liars in Congress

2009-12-15T09:50:00.000-05:00

Most Absurd Story of the Year

2009-12-11T21:39:00.003-05:00

This whole story reads like a Monty Python sketch. If you don't laugh and shake your head for an hour afterward, I don't know what's wrong with you:

Tea Partiers to Dem: Change offices so we can protest you

Palin Praises Obama But Wishes He Would Act Like a Moron

2009-12-10T19:45:00.006-05:00

Sarah Palin actually praised President Obama on Thursday. She apparently liked his Nobel Prize acceptance speech in Oslo.

But she also said she'd like to see Obama act more like George W. Bush. Yes, she wants our President to act like a complete buffoon, not to say moron.

"I liked what he said," Palin told USAToday in an interview after the speech.

Then Palin seemed to imply that Obama had cribbed her book: "I thumbed through my book quickly this morning to say 'Wow! That really sounded familiar.' because I talked in book too about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times."

Incredible. How intellectually destitute would a man have to be to steal words from the likes of Sarah Palin? She's barely more coherent than Bush.

Speaking of which, she suggested Obama could learn a few things from former President Bush.

Like how to be a moron, apparently.

2009-12-10T19:45:00.001-05:00

Back to the 30’s: National Socialist and Republican Discourse

2009-12-08T19:27:00.003-05:00

(Note: This post has been put up as a mirror by the author to the site where the original article is hosted due to server problems)

Part I: Storm Troopers and Tea Partiers

Interestingly, while the Republicans invoke Godwin’s Law at every opportunity, engaging in cries of “Hitler! Nazism!” (also, “Stalin! Communism!”) when referring to liberals, Democrats, and Obama, it is the Republicans, and not the liberals, who have adopted and embraced the language and street-fighting tactics of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism.

It is my intent here to show here where the rhetoric and the tactics overlap. What is important to note, first off, is that for purposes of this discourse, there is no essential difference between “communism” and “socialism.” For the Right-wing’s worst ideological babblers (and there are too many to list here) there is also no difference between communism, socialism, and Nazism – it is perhaps no surprise that in the party opposed to science that political science would not be one of their top subjects.

But as in National Socialist discourse, the idea is not to mount arguments that make sense, or that address the issues on a point-by-point basis, but to use arguments that appeal emotionally and which generate fear, xenophobia, outrage, and hate. The central tactic of National Socialist discourse was to fix blame on another group, to absolve the outraged from personal responsibility through creation of an “Other.” For the National Socialists, this was the Jews/communists; for the Republicans, liberals/communists. I will return to this point presently.

The National Socialist Workers Party (NSDAP) – or Nazi Party for short – was, or those who don’t know, a Right-wing organization - an extreme Right-wing organization. The Republican Party is, not coincidentally, also a Right-wing organization and it has grown more extreme over the past two decades, particularly as the so-called Religious Right has become the dominant force behind the GOP.[1] This extremism was especially evident during the presidency of George W. Bush and again following the election of 2008, which put Barack Obama into the White House. The increasing polarization of American politics is too well documented to require a repeated examination here.

In fact, fears of Right-wing violence have become so pervasive that a Homeland Security report dated 7 April 2009[2] warned of an increased likelihood of terror attacks by these groups. The reaction of these groups – and of the extreme Right-wing in general – was to cry foul and declare that they would kill anyone who tried to take their guns. This reaction seems to reinforce the original warning, as does growing secessionist rhetoric - and racism.

This report makes for interesting reading. It notes that “the historical election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization.” Hitler disparaged not only Jews but Blacks, for example (in a quote we will revisit below) criticizing the possibility that a “negro can sit as president in the sessions of the League of Nations.”[3] This racism is all-too evidence in Right-wing rhetoric. One might protest that the Republican leadership is not responsible for this but the rhetoric of its leading ideologues suggests otherwise. Rush Limbaugh, for example, has referred to President Obama as a "halfrican American" and playing the parody song "Barack the Magic Negro" repeatedly and that is not all:

On his October 27 radio show, Rush Limbaugh referred to President Obama as "this little boy, this little man-child president." Limbaugh has repeatedly referred to Obama as a "boy" and as a "man-child", including calling him "the little boy president" and claiming that Democrats and the media criticize "so-called 'ferocious attacks' " on Obama because "you can't criticize the little black man-child."[4]

It will be made quite obvious even from the small collection of examples provided here, that there is very little to choose between National Socialist and Republican racism.

America was treated to the spectacle of National Socialist-style rabble-rousing during the 2008 presidential elections. Again and again the Republican candidates rallied the troops, not by attacking Democratic policies with cogent arguments but with ad hominem attacks and childish insults, by appealing not to the issues but to the fears of voters. In the first year of President Obama’s administration, this has escalated to fantasies, prayers, and hopes of death, not just for ordinary liberals, but for the President himself, and even calls for revolt.[5]

It will be seen below that groups like the Family Research Council (FRC), a radical conservative Christian group, which hosts a yearly hate-fest called the “Value Voters Summit” also supports the so-called “Tea Party Movement” which itself seems to be an embodiment of this warning that policy changes are “driving rightwing recruitment and radicalization.”

The Tea Party Movement, it should be stressed, is an Astroturf movement masquerading as a grass roots populist rebellion. In reality, it is “the action arm” of the Republican Party, much like the Brown Shirts were the action arm of the NSDAP. As Paul Krugman, economist and columnist of the New York Times writes, the Tea Party movement was “manufactured by the usual suspects.” And he names names: “In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. [6] And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News” and “Fox News contributors are listed as "Tea Party Sponsor[s]" on TaxDayTeaParty.com.”[7]

This is not the first time the GOP has resorted to strong-arm tactics by Astroturf mobs:

But that’s nothing new, and AstroTurf has worked well for Republicans in the past. The most notable example was the “spontaneous” riot back in 2000 — actually orchestrated by G.O.P. strategists — that shut down the presidential vote recount in Florida’s Miami-Dade County.[8]

On June 12 2009 the New York Times published a column by economist Paul Krugman who wrote that "right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment." He observed also that "the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. ... have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric, just as they did the last time a Democrat held the White House."

So the Tea Party Movement in some respects bears a resemblance to the NSDAP’s Brown Shirts, the SA (Sturmabteilung) – better known as Storm Troopers (i.e. thugs). Like the Brown Shirts, the Tea Partiers can be mobilized at a moment’s notice (just as FreedomWorks says) to intimidate opponents and to shout down opposing view, as we saw in Krugman’s example above. As Media Matters for America points out,

Fox News has adopted the Tax Day "tea parties" as its own, urging its audience to organize and attend what it characterizes as protests of Obama administration tax and economic policies; the network's promotions of these tea-party protests have been largely devoid of meaningful and truthful discussion of the actual merits and flaws in the administration's proposals for reform.[9]

Is there an association between the Homeland Security warning and the tea partiers? Yes. And yes, the people and Right-wing militias targeted by this report are Republicans, and Glenn Beck even brags about these associations in speaking of his 9/12 Project, "912project.com”: You know, are they militia members? Yes. Yes, sure they are, along with all the other people that are now on the tea parties nationwide.”[10] Those in doubt might consult the Tea Party widget from TaxDayTeaParty endorsing revolution.

The GOP’s ideological standard bearers celebrate the Tea Party in the same way that the NSDAP celebrated the SA. These are heroes, we are told, average, everyday folks who have risen up to combat the enemy and preserve our Nation and our values.[11] If it not unreasonable to suppose that we might someday, under a Right-wing administration, see postage stamps dedicated to the Tea Party Movement just as the National Socialist era saw stamps dedicated to the SA, but the GOP use of NSDAP propaganda is another article altogether.

Similarly, the NSDAP showed little regard for the actual merits and flaws in the arguments, positions, platforms, organizations and programs they opposed. Like the Republican Party, the Nazis answered with insults, jibes, threats of violence – but seldom with a comprehensive or cogent rebuttal of opposing positions. Bullying was the order of the day, as we have seen it to be here.

The National Socialist Party was a party of fear and hate. It inculcated fear and hate among those who listened to its message. Fear of conspiracies to destroy Germany, to destroy all that is good in Germany, to destroy German values, the German nation. Fear of the same. The result: demonization of all who stand against this idealized Germany, and I say “idealized” because Hitler wasn’t representing a real Germany at all, but a Germany that existed only in nationalist fantasies, much like the mythical America appealed to by Republican demagogues today. Hate and fear: a potent combination, and wielded with great skill. This same hate and fear has reared its head again in politics. In the United States this brew is found in Republican rhetoric.

The Brownshirts (Storm Troopers) were infamous for their own rhetoric – violence against their opponents – intimidation, threats of physical violence, etc. Extremist rhetoric at Tea Parties is commonplace. Again, we have seen this in Krugman’s example above. But there are other, more recent examples of these tactics being used:

Tea Party Insanity: "Burn The Books!" (VIDEO) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/12/tea-party-insanity-burn-a_n_185991.html

Treatment of a counter protester who is advocating a public health insurance option for health care http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tZtEqYGT18

Teabaggers Try To Shout Down Health Care Reform At Town Halls http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/teabaggers-try-to-shout-down-health-care-reform-at-town-halls.php

Those were the thugs – the mob tactics used in the streets today, copied from the Brown Shirt playbook. It is hardly surprising to read a report that “The White Supremacist group StormFront is encouraging its members to join the tea party.” Yes, real Nazis feel right at home with this Republican Party-endorsed movement.
As the Homeland Security report informs us in relation to the killing of three Pittsburg police officers on April 4, 2009: “The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled “one world government.”

Yes, the killer was a fan of the Glenn Beck/We Surround Them project and the StormFront movements. Glenn Beck’s National Socialist-friendly rhetoric helped kill those three police officers.

Significantly, the alleged “liberal media elite” avoids reporting on these fringe groups and their connections to the Republican Party.

Notes:

[1] William A. Galston & Pietro S. Nivola, “The Great Divide: Polarization in American Politics,” The American Interest (2006): “All else equal, the more often individuals attend church, the more likely they are to regard themselves as conservatives and vote Republican.”

[2] Prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division. Coordinated with the FBI.

[3] Adolf Hitler, January 27, 1932, Speech to the Industry Club, Dusseldorf.

[4] http://mediamatters.org/research/200910270044

[5] Most recently Rush Limbaugh’s November 25, 2009 remarks on the Rush Limbaugh Show, expressing homes that the military will detain Obama while he is at West Point giving a speech. http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911250024

[6] New York Times, April 12, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html According to FreedomWorks: “FreedomWorks recruits, educates, trains and mobilizes hundreds of thousands of volunteer activists to fight for less government, lower taxes, and more freedom.” (emphasis mine) http://www.freedomworks.org/about/about-freedomworks

[7] Media Matters for America, April 8, 2009, http://mediamatters.org/reports/200904080025

[8] Paul Krugman, “Tea Parties Forever,” New York Times, April 12, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html

[9] “REPORT: Emerging Culture of Paranoia: Obama Derangement Syndrome epidemic on conservative airwaves Media Matters for America, April 13, 2009 http://mediamatters.org/research/200904130024

[10] The Glenn Beck Program, March 20, 2009. See http://mediamatters.org/reports/200904080025

[11] Former Rep. John Kasich (R-OH) on FOX News, March 12, 2009.

Mythical America

2009-12-08T18:23:00.007-05:00

We’ve heard it all said a hundred times – that America is a Christian nation, that it was founded as a Christian nation, that the Founding Fathers were Bible-believing, God-fearing Christian men, that there is no Wall of Separation between Church and State.

The only problem is, none of it is true.

And the 18th century’s own Evangelicals signed off on the system of government those very secular-minded Founding Fathers established.

Back in the 18th century, you see, people were a lot closer to the events that shaped the new nation. They had close personal experience with the dangers of Church and State meddling in each other’s business. They knew what it was to be persecuted, not by a secular government but by a government under the control of another denomination.

They wanted protection. From each other.

And our new system of government, promised by the Declaration of Independence and come to fruition in the Constitution, gave them what they asked for.

Of course, none of these facts have stopped our own century’s Evangelicals from telling an entirely different story, one founded not in fact, not in history, but in wishful thinking, in history as it should have been – but wasn’t.

And they have big money backing them up. They have glossy websites, glossy publications, book clubs, brochures, even entire series’ of books, including the “Politically Incorrect Guide to…” series, which would be better named, “Factually Inaccurate Guide” or “Historically Inaccurate Guide.”

These books play to the base. Like any works of apologia – and that is what they are – they comfort believers, convincing them, reassuring them, that all is well, that the lies they’ve been told are safe to believe – and to go on believing.

But this mythical Christian America has no more solid a foundation than Creation Science – both are contradictions in terms.

It is true that most of the citizens of the new United States were Christians of one kind or another, many of them, especially following the successful conclusion of the War for Independence, refugees from oppressive religious environments in the Old World. They came here precisely because there WAS separation between church and state, precisely because here, they could be free of government-sponsored religion.
The problem for today’s Evangelicals is that the government itself was secular in nature, founded by men grounded in science and reason and disciples – and products – of the Age of European Enlightenment.

These men had the opportunity to form any sort of government they wished. ANY. They could have made a monarchy of our new nation – it was considered and the idea dismissed. They could have established a theocracy – but no one gave that idea any thought at all. It was never even a possibility. The motto of the new nation was, significantly, “E Pluribus Unum” – Out of Many, One. It was not, equally significantly, “In God We Trust.”

Instead, they gave us a nation founded on ancient principles of democracy, a product of ancient polytheistic Greece, and freedom of speech and thought – also products of the ancient polytheistic world – and human rights, a product of the European Enlightenment so heartily condemned by the Church. Nothing in the new nation was based on biblical principles. The Founding Fathers took more from the Iroquois Federation than they did Old Testament Israel.

There too, facts have not stopped today’s Evangelicals, who ardently insist that our nation was founded on Biblical principles. I would like to inquire where in ancient Israel there existed ideas of Democracy and Free Speech and thought. In ancient Israel, free thought and free speech got you stoned. Nor was there Democracy; there was monarchy and theocracy. There were no human rights. Exercising human rights would get you stoned. It was a society built on exclusion and enforced behavior. There was no liberty anywhere in sight.

So what we have today as the heart and soul of the Republican Base is a Mythical America, an American history of the imagination, one of wishful thinking but not of fact. Just as is much of the Bible, this Mythical America is pious history.

Look at some of the assertions made by the Mythicists:

The American “revolutionaries” were actually conservatives

The Puritans didn’t steal Indian lands

The Bible promotes human freedom

The enemies of the Bible are enemies of true reason and tolerance

The Bible made modern science possible (which is why it started in the Middle Ages)

The Middle Ages were the real “Age of Reason”

The “Enlightenment” yielded tyranny and war.

It is no surprise that these “talking points” are aped on social networking sites, on FOX News and anywhere else conservatives gather. They’re said as if they’re true. The specious reasoning that goes behind them is repeated as if it even made sense (which it doesn’t).

The revolutionaries were liberals. They founded our nation on the liberal principles of the European Enlightenment – not upon the conservative principles of the Old World.

The Puritans did steal Indian lands. Shamelessly.

The Bible nowhere promotes human freedom. Evangelicals can repeat the myth of Christian egalitarianism and slavery all they want but the truth is, Christianity did not promote egalitarianism and it did not free the slaves.
The statement that enemies of the Bible are enemies of reason and tolerance proves itself wrong.

Science did not start in the Middle Ages. It started in the ancient polytheistic world – and, significantly, not in Biblical Israel but in Greece, which promoted freedom of thought and speech. When science saw the light of day again, it was not because of Christianity, but despite it, as the historical record clearly demonstrates.

The Middle Ages were not the Age of Reason. One has only to look at the rampant superstition, the crusades, the wars against heretics, the inquisition, the witch-burnings, the anti-Jewish pogroms, the forced conversion of Pagan peoples in Northern and Eastern Europe…no, not much Reason but a whole lot of slaughter in God’s name.

The Enlightenment did not stop war, but it did not yield war as a consequence. It did, however, put a stop to crusades, wars against heretics, the inquisition, witch-burnings, and rampant anti-Jewish pogroms. It was not quite able to stop forced conversion of Pagan peoples but at least we stopped slaughtering them in “God’s” name.

Our society is diverse and free to a degree that has never been possible before in history. Diversity and plurality are a blessing. But to the Evangelicals, it is a threat. It threatens the status quo. It threatens them with loss of power and loss of influence. The more diverse our society becomes, the more resistant they become. The more reactionary they become. They become more intolerant, more hateful, and more inclined to use fear as a weapon to browbeat others into servitude to “their” Bible.

And the more inclined they are to embrace an imaginary, Mythical America. As a result, we are introduced to ideas that have no basis in historical fact, like the points discussed briefly above. We have conservative Christians making blind, unsupported assertions about this Mythical America as though it really existed, without a thought being given to the facts.

And why bother with the facts when talking points are so handy - when apologetic works abound, demonstrating these myths to be fact and denouncing fact as myth? It’s all very comforting to them, and all very damaging, not only for them, but for all of us. They want to impose on the United States a return to the 13th century, to that imaginary “Age of Reason” they talk about, when they – and they alone – were free to do what they wanted – to everyone else. And let not a word be raised in protest.

Because as you all by now know, they can damn and condemn and it’s their God-given right, but should anyone raise a word in protest, it’s a “war against Christianity” or “hate” or “intolerance.” Because it isn’t freedom they really want. It’s the privileging of their myth, of their own beliefs, at the expense of everyone else. It’s the freedom to persecute, without apology or thought, everyone different from them, and like their 13th century brethren, justify it in their god’s name.

But America didn’t exist in the 13th century. It could not have existed in the 13th century. It took a genuine Age of Reason to make America possible, and going back to the 13th century would skip right over it. It’s pretty obvious to anyone living in an evidence-based world, but as the Politically Incorrect guide series of books make clear, their interest isn’t in evidence – it’s in wishful thinking.

(Author's Note: I have granted permission for this essay to be cross-posted on God's Own Party http://godsownparty.com/blog/ and thanks go to Leah for reviewing it before publication)

Back to the 30’s: National Socialist and Republican Discourse 1

2009-12-08T05:36:00.003-05:00

My new piece, "Back to the 30’s: National Socialist and Republican Discourse 1" has been published by ProgressiveNation. It is the first in a series of articles examining the similarities between National Socialist and Republican discourse and making a comparison between tactics used by the Brownshirts (Storm Troopers) and the Tea Party movement.

Surge II: Or 'Here We Go Again'

2009-12-06T07:37:00.003-05:00

President Obama has made his long-awaited decision about Afghanistan. The question never really was whether or not to leave, but came down to how many additional troops were we going to send, and how long were they going to stay. There were vague demands that we fight to win from such stalwarts as John McCain, but what constitutes victory?

In modern American wars, that idea seems to be little considered. Take Korea. In the just-concluded Second World War, the United States knew just what it wanted to do: destroy Hitler; destroy Japan. Easy. We knew what we wanted, we knew what the public demanded, and we did it.

But then Korea came along, a war nobody really wanted, except perhaps Douglas MacArthur. And nobody really knew how to win the damn thing. It was in many ways a precursor to Vietnam. Both wars took place in Asia, far away from home, in areas the American public knew little about and cared about even less. And both wars put us in position of creating bigger wars - World Wars - if we tried our WWII strategy of total annihilation.

We couldn't invade North Korea without triggering a Chinese response (as events proved) and we couldn't invade North Vietnam without...you got it, triggering a response, either from China or from Russia, which was busily supplying the North Vietnamese army and even providing, as we had done in the 60's, military advisers.

Afghanistan is different. Again, it is far away. Again, it is in Asia. Again, it is a country the public doesn't really know much about and doesn't seem to care about. Add to that the fact that in all of history, only Alexander the Great seems to have had any luck there, and that was more than two millennia ago.

Not promising.

And here, even if we wanted to, there is nobody to invade. We're already IN the country. Coming to grips with the enemy and destroying him has proved difficult. Promoting the local government and infrastructure seems to be the way to go. We can't just role over the enemy with superior numbers or fire power. "Shock and awe" don't mean much in that remote country. The enemy is neither shocked, nor awed.

The decision could not have been easy for President Obama. The New York Times tells us,

On the afternoon he held the eighth meeting of his Afghanistan review, President Obama arrived in the White House Situation Room ruminating about war. He had come from Arlington National Cemetery, where he had wandered among the chalky white tombstones of those who had fallen in the rugged mountains of Central Asia.

That visit must have made for a sobering period of reflection. "How much their sacrifice weighed on him that Veterans Day last month, he did not say. But his advisers say he was haunted by the human toll as he wrestled with what to do about the eight-year-old war."

Think about it: eight years. We were in WWI for just two years; in WWII for just four. We fought two world wars in a period of just six years. We have been in Afghanistan for eight. And we're still not entirely done with Iraq.

And Mr. Obama made Afghanistan of central importance during his presidential run. He constantly harped on President Bush's mistake in invading Iraq, saying Afghanistan was where the war should have been fought. You have to wonder, knowing what he knows now, how President Obama feels about those words. He committed himself; now, as president, it was time to put his money where his mouth was.

Now as his top military adviser ran through a slide show of options, Mr. Obama expressed frustration. He held up a chart showing how reinforcements would flow into Afghanistan over 18 months and eventually begin to pull out, a bell curve that meant American forces would be there for years to come.

“I want this pushed to the left,” he told advisers, pointing to the bell curve. In other words, the troops should be in sooner, then out sooner.

The new plan in a nutshell? Mr. Obama seems to be hoping for a little shock and awe, getting 30,000 additional troops (Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the man on the spot, made a request for 40,000) there as quickly as possible (within the next six months - not exactly Hitler's invasion of Poland or France) in the hopes that we can regain the initiative (if we ever had it to begin with) not to win a crushing victory on the ground, but to buy time. Time in which to permit the Afghan government to establish itself and for their forces to pick up the slack so that our boys and girls can come home, starting in a year.

We have a huge stake in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama has a lot to gain (he can win a war the Republicans didn't even try to prosecute, let alone win) and a lot to lose (though the Democrats didn't start the war, they'll certainly take the blame for losing it). And he had already sent additional troops: Even before this decision for a surge he had "ordered the military to send 21,000 more troops there, bringing the force to 68,000."

We already have more men there than Alexander did; and we've been there a lot longer. Of course, Mr. Obama can't cement local alliances by marrying a chieftain's daughter and the enemy is no longer foolish enough to fort up on a convenient mountain top to give us the victories Alexander so often gained.

And, of course, the United States is sadly lacking in spare Alexanders. We haven't had one of those, or even anything close, since WWII.

How will it all end? Can we win the victory we want and need? An end to terrorism? Even if we put a strong Afghan government in place, will the United States have succeeded in its goal?

It's impossible to say.

As the New York Times says, "When the history of the Obama presidency is written, that day with the chart may prove to be a turning point, the moment a young commander in chief set in motion a high-stakes gamble to turn around a losing war."

Let them eat cake...and we'll...er, eat it too!

2009-12-05T09:32:00.000-05:00

The Nation is reporting a brilliant little piece of statesmanship by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). I haven't gotten too much into the healthcare debate here but something this precious can really make your morning.

The story concerns two Republican senators outsmarting themselves. It's like the plot from a novel. Intended to put Democrats who support the Public Option on the spot, they instead put themselves on the spot thanks to the quick with of Sherrod Brown, who was Johnny-on-the-spot when the idiocy hit the floor.

As the Nation reports, "Regal Republicans Senators who willingly accept government pay, government staff and government-organized and funded health care benefits are so sure that Americans would not want to enjoy the perks they have come to expect are sponsoring an amendment that would require members of Congress to sign up for whatever public option that is developed under health care reform legislation."

Fair enough. They seem to be saying, "put your money where your mouth is." It never occured to either of the bill's sponsors, Oklahoma's Tom Coburn and Louisiana David Vitter, that they might be the ones forced to stick their feet in their mouths.

They just figured that the Public Health option "would suck so horribly that no senator or congressman would want to be a part of it."

Riiiiiight.

Here's what Vitter said: "The idea, broad-brush, is that whatever government option is in the bill, every senator and every representative should be enrolled in it. No other possibilities, no other choices."

And Coburn: "It's called leadership. If it's good enough for everybody else, we ought to be leading by example."

Enter from stage left, Sherrod Brown: "A key Democratic senator, Ohio's Sherrod Brown, contacted the two Republicans and said he would be delighted to cosponsor their bill and live by its requirements."

He's not alone. Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden said "he was inclined to do the same."

As The Nation reports, "Coburn and Vitter weren't counting on that kind of support."

"I've called their offices four times (trying to sign on as a supporter of the amendment)," Brown said Thursday. "I'm proud of the public option, I think it would be great and we ought to join it and show the country how good it is. I think my interest may be more genuine than theirs, but I'd like to work with them if they'll let me. If they just want to score partisan points, I still want to work with them."

You can bet they wish they'd never opened their mouths. They were too sure of themselves, and now the best they can do is to try to pretend Brown doesn't exist. Being studiously ignored, Brown did the only thing he could do:

On Friday, Brown went to the floor of the Senate and asked for unanimous consent to have his name added to the Coburn-Vitter amendment as a co-sponsor.

The Republican masterminds who had so deftly outsmarted themselves were forced to accept him. As The Nation says,if the other Democrat senators jump on board, we will be gauranteed a "robust, well-operated and closely scrutinized by policymakers."

Sometimes life throws you these little gems. It's left to us to savor them.

They're After Our TV's!

2009-11-30T07:33:00.003-05:00

Environmentalism impacts our lives in many ways - sometimes unexpected. We many of us recycle - some more than others, with it being understood that different communities can hinder or advance efforts at recycling. It can be particularly difficult in apartment buildings, as I've discovered. Where I am now, recycling reduces my garbage output by a good 33%. It makes a noticeable dent in what I throw out, even being limited to type 1 and 2 plastics.

We're also all familiar with the need to not leave all our lights on, and vampire-energy and so forth, and the evils of big SUV's and other gas-guzzlers.

But now they're after our TVs. I just read on Saturday that "California assails TV power usage" and that a "one-third cut" has been mandated by 2011.

The problem is that the big new flat-panel TVs, though lighter and easier on my back, suck up more power than the old fashioned cathode-ray tubes of yesteryear. TV's account, they say, for 10% of household electrical use if you include "related devices" like digital recorders and game consoles.

Egads, they'll be after our games next, and my gods' given right to record programming for later viewing. The Consumer Electronics Association, as might be expected as an outfit representing manufacturers, disagrees with the 10% figure and says 3% is more reasonable.

Personally, I'm more worried about my back than the power.

Even so, I wasn't consulted and California has decided that there be limits on TVs over 58 inches wide.

So they're shooting for a one-third reduction by 2011 and a one-half reduction by 2013. Those that can't meet the standards won't be allowed in CA. I wonder if they'll stop you at the border when you're moving into the state and make you throw your TV into the desert if it's too big.

And that's not all. Washington, Oregon, and Massachusetts, along with Canada and Australia, are considering similar measures.

My biggest TV is 42 inches. Just upgraded from 27. So I'm set even in California, but it's not about me.

Well, okay, it's about me, but it's about a lot of other things as well - where do we draw the line, for instance, between consumer rights and the needs of the environment? What becomes necessary? And how much can we justify in the way of government interference?

The environment is a precious thing. We only have one. I'm a Heathen - a Pagan if you will - and Pagan religions are nature religions, as all original religions were. We have a good healthy respect for the environment. That's perhaps natural when you understand that we live in a world filled with the divine.

As such, I try to be careful. I try not to drive when I don't have to. I don't leave unnecessary lights on. In short, I follow Solon's advice: Nothing in excess. Or, as it is put in the Icelandic Sagas, "A wise man does all things in moderation" (Thorkel in Gisli Sursson's Saga).

If everybody lived according to these rules, we could go a long way towards voluntarily resolving some of the problems we are now seeing legislated against. As we go on, we may see more extreme measures taken to protect the environment.

And they will likely be necessary. The problem is, most of the burden falls on the individual in this country. Very little in the way of regulations control what industry does to our environment. They have power lobbyists in Washington. They practically own members of Congress.

So industry pollutes and we lose our big TVs.

Now being a moderate guy, I can probably live without a TV bigger than 58 inches. Honestly, I don't have the wall space for more than that unless I finish my basement.

Will that be next? You can't finish basements because the construction process pollutes? Or will it harm some heretofore unknown microbe that dwells in the cracks of the concrete.

Excess, you see, can go many ways, not only in individuals who might be careless environmentally, or in businesses which remain unregulated, but in governments - even environmentalists, who resort to extreme solutions where moderation might suffice.

I've seen some crazy things over recent years. Crazier even than wanting to take away our TVs (and you don't see an NRA-like group protecting our TVs do you?). I would just like to see common-sense, moderation prevail.

I don't think that's too much to ask, or to expect - from all sides.

Obama and Promises Kept

2009-11-24T07:11:00.003-05:00

The Right has made a lot of fuss about President Obama being a liar, about breaking his campaign promises. If you go ahead and fact check these claims, you don't get the same result the Right insists on. What you get instead is a mixed bag. Less than a year into office, I really don't think it's all that bad. Yes, I'm disappointed about some things, but I'm happy about others. But as Odin says in the Words of the High One, "don't praise a day 'till it's over." Until President Obama has had his chance, it's really not right to issue a verdict.

If you're interested, go to PolitiFact.com's Obameter. Here is a brief peek at their findings:

Tracking Obama’s promises
55
Promise Kept
14
Compromise
7
Promise Broken
17
Stalled
156
In the Works
266
Not yet rated

A Prayer for Obama

2009-11-20T07:15:00.001-05:00

I have seen some pretty low and reprehensible things in my time. Christians, and Christianity as a whole, have been responsible for some of them. But this recent development is so disgusting that it makes you wonder why people aren't being hauled off to jail:

Christian Conservatives Pray for God to Kill President Obama

Psalm 109 is not a happy Psalm. The prayer is not one for Obama's health or for his continued long life. It is a prayer for his death:

"Let his days be few; and let another take his office."

The article encourages you to read on when you come to this Psalm, and for good reason:

6 Appoint [a] an evil man [b] to oppose him;
let an accuser [c] stand at his right hand.

7 When he is tried, let him be found guilty,
and may his prayers condemn him.

8 May his days be few;
may another take his place of leadership.

9 May his children be fatherless
and his wife a widow.

10 May his children be wandering beggars;
may they be driven [d] from their ruined homes.

11 May a creditor seize all he has;
may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor.

12 May no one extend kindness to him
or take pity on his fatherless children.

13 May his descendants be cut off,
their names blotted out from the next generation.

14 May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD;
may the sin of his mother never be blotted out.

Where is the Secret Service in all this? You have to wonder. Laugh as somebody might that their god could strike somebody down if asked to do so, the people who came up with this scheme, the people who buy the t-shirts, think that it will work. Worse, they want it to work.

I hope the consequences for their actions will not be happy ones.

Meanwhile, if you are on Facebook there is a Boycott Cafe Press group. Join this. And there are other things you can do. The following is taken from their FB page:

Cafe Press originally pulled their product but replaced all of it within 24 hours, stating that they believe it is typical political commentary - the likes of which they have sold for years.

We disagree. Given the current state of race relations and the growing number of hate groups in the U.S., we believe that allowing such merchandise to be hosted on Cafe Press' website amounts to tacit approval of the potential for violence against the POTUS.

It is not appropriate for us to remain silent on this. Should something actually happen to the president because of the hatred being fanned, wouldn't we all bear some responsibility?

PLEASE ACT NOW:
1. Boycott Cafe Press until they pull the products.
2. File a complaint with them letting them know that you will no longer be shopping with them.
3. Let them know you're going to pass the word.
4. Do it.

File your complaint with Cafe Press here:
http://help.cafepress.com/hc/s-74058960/cmd/kbresource/kb-3031644499937843668/escalate!PAGETYPE?VisitorProfile=cafepress

Call to lodge your complaint:
1-877-809-1659
Mon-Sat, 9:00a til 9:00p EST

And by the way, this hasn't been the first prayer for Obama's death:

Rev. Wiley Drake Prays for Obama's Death

And another,

The Baptist pastor who prayed for Obama's death has been interviewed by the Secret Service

For Rachel Maddow's condemnation, see here. Her comments on this subject come about four minutes into the broadcast, so don't give up.

I'll give you some of the highlights here: Rachel Maddow spoke to Patience With God author and Huffington Post blogger Frank Schaeffer and asked him if the citation of this Biblical text "means something less threatening to people hearing this in a Biblical context. Schaeffer responded that this is "trawling for assassins":

SCHAEFFER: No. Actually, it means something more threatening. I think that the situation that I find genuinely frightening right now is that you have a ramping up of Biblical language, language from the anti-abortion movement for instance, death panels and this sort of thing, and what it's coalescing into is branding Obama as Hitler, as they have already called him. And something foreign to our shores, we're reminded of that, he's born in Kenya. As brown, as black, above all, as not us. He is Sarah Palin's "not a real American." But now, it turns out, he joins the ranks of the unjust kings of ancient Israel, unjust rulers to which all these Biblical allusions are directed who should be slaughtered, if not by God, then by just men. So there's a parallel here with Timothy McVeigh's t-shirt on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing. He said the tree of liberty had to be watered by the blood of tyrants. That quote, we saw at a meeting where Obama was present carried on a placard by someone with a loaded weapon.

What we're looking at right now is two things going on. We see the evangelical groups I talked about in my new book, Patience With God, enthralled by an apocalyptic vision that I go into in some detail there. They represent the millions of people who have turned the Left Behind series into best sellers. Most of them are not crazy, they're just deluded. But there is a crazy fringe to whom all these little messages that have been pouring out of Fox News, now on a bumper sticker, talking about doing away with Obama, asking God to kill him. Really, this is trolling for assassins. This is serious business.

It's un-American. It's unpatriotic. And it goes to show that the religious right, the Republican far right have coalesced into a group who truly want American revolution. If it turns out to be blood in the streets and death, so be it. It's not funny stuff anymore. They cannot be dismissed as just crazies on the fringe. It only takes one. You know, look at the Boston Globe article from a few weeks ago that says the threat level faced by the Secret Service has gone up 400%, higher than any other time in 52 years, for any president, Democrat or Republican. These are no jokes.

Schaeffer added, "Look, this is the American version of the Taliban... this is the Old Testament Biblical equivalent of calling for holy war."

Take it seriously, my friends. The Religious Right is a terrorist organization, no less so than the Christian radicals in the Roman Empire. They have declared war on our system of government, on American democracy. They could not make their feelings or their intentions more plain.

As Schaeffer points out, the moderates do not speak out. Where is the outrage? Or as he says, "Where the hell are you?" I join him in this. We're always told most Christians are moderates, but let's see their outrage. As Schaeffer says, "this is serious stuff" and I'll add this: Time to decide which side you're on. You may not want to have sides, but sometimes they're forced upon you, and as Schaeffer warns, "There are not many steps left on this insane path."

I will add a prayer of my own: Thor protect you, Barack Obama.

Day 110 - Addressing Hate Crimes

2009-05-09T10:03:00.003-04:00

Reuters reported on April 29th that

The Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday approved an expansion of federal "hate crime" laws -- an effort that former Republican President George W. Bush had opposed.

On a vote of 249-175, the House passed and sent to the Senate a bill backed by the new Democratic White House to broaden such laws by classifying as "hate crimes" those attacks based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender identity or mental or physical disability.

President Bush had helped derail a similar bill but President Obama came down strongly in favor of this legislation: "I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance," Obama said in a statement before the vote.

"Hate crimes motivated by race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and identity or disability not only injure individual victims, but also terrorize entire segments of our population and tear at our nation's social fabric," House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer said.

- race
- religion
- national origin
- gender
- sexual orientation
- identity
- disability

I fail to see a problem with protecting these groups. Let's look at history for a moment. In this country alone, the Irish were treated like filth ("No Irish need apply") and they were not alone. Nobody was beating up Anglo-Saxons for being Anglo-Saxons. It was the Anglo-Saxons who were beating up Irishmen, blacks, Native Americans and other groups listed above. White Americans do not require special protections under the law, and I say this as a White American.

The law has signally failed to protect minority groups of every type. Yes, the law of the land is supposed to apply to all equally - and technically, it does. But in practice, it does not. We see countless stories here on Digg about small towns in Texas and elsewhere that make it unsafe for blacks and others to even drive down the street. My grandfather was a policeman in Red Wing, Minnesota, back in the 20s and 30s. At that time, if a black man was seen walking down the street, they would pick him up and escort him to the edge of town, a la the film Rambo. Even today, blacks and other minorities walking through white neighborhoods are treated like criminals.

Mexicans are another favorite target, as we see here on Digg on a daily basis. As are homosexuals. As are Muslims or anybody who looks like a Muslim. To my knowledge, it isn't the physically disabled lesbian Muslims who are mistreating "Anglo-Saxons".

Anybody who thinks things are equal now needs to rethink their position. They're not. Right now, things are slanted in favor of the majority white population - especially the white majority MALE population. The people who are complaining about this are the same lower class, uneducated, poor whites living in the south who insist THEY are the real Americans. The problem for them isn't making other groups special in terms of the law. Their problem is that this law takes away THEIR special status they've enjoyed for half a millennium.

Racism? You betcha. And by golly, folks, it's time it ends.

Marking 100 Days

2009-04-30T06:39:00.001-04:00

It's been a hundred days - and though largely symbolic, they do represent a benchmark of sorts. And I've missed most of the past two weeks with various computer issues, now hopefully and lastingly resolved.

The Republicans, fronted by FOX and various other extreme right groups, have done their best to belittle President Obama and his accomplishments, accusing him of being a man without substance. They can say this until they're blue in the face, but the polls tell a different story. A small, sometimes lunatic fringe, claims to be the "silent majority" of the American people, but clearly they do not speak for us.

My own grade for President Obama stands at a "B". He has been generally successful in repositioning America, both domestically and overseas. We cannot expect miracles in one hundred days, but I think it is inarguable that he has taken positive steps forward, whatever the naysayers claim to the contrary.

As Reuters reports:

"We are off to a good start. But it is just a start," Obama told a White House news conference as he assessed his first 100 days in office and promised to keep up the whirlwind pace. "I am pleased with our progress, but I am not satisfied."

Day 86 - The Rise of Extremism

2009-04-15T06:28:00.003-04:00

Anyone who has spent any time at all on places like Digg are well aware of the rise of extremism in this country. Until recently, you might not have seen it talked about by the major media outlets. This is despite the fact that one major media outlet, FOX News, has for some time now been a source of right wing hate speech. The fringe has become mainstream. It owns its own political party, the GOP, and its own media outlet, FOX News, all the while spreading a myth about some sort of "liberal media elite" that twists facts and slants the news and is out to get them.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reports that

The number of hate groups operating in the United States continued to rise in 2008 and has grown by 54 percent since 2000 — an increase fueled last year by immigration fears, a failing economy and the successful campaign of Barack Obama

"The SPLC identified 926 hate groups active in 2008, up more than 4 percent from the 888 groups in 2007 and far above the 602 groups documented in 2000." This is a frightening trend and it should come as no surprise that a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report warns that right-wing extremism "may be on the rise." According to CNN:

Though the nine-page report said it has "no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence," it said real-estate foreclosures, unemployment and tight credit "could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past."

The report, prepared in coordination with the FBI and published April 7, was distributed to federal, state and local law enforcement officials under the title "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

Of course, the extremists are themselves all up in arms (quite literally, I'm sorry to say) over the release of this report, claiming that "they" are coming to get their guns now, and that the US government has become a repressive regime and that "they" are the true patriots. They're having "tea parties" and pretending witht heir over-inflated egos and imaginations that they are a bunch of 21st century Thomas Paines. It's a sign of how out of touch these people are that while waving their guns around and making terroristic threats they can complain about being labeled as terrorists.

Of course,

A DHS official said the department was not trying to squelch free speech by issuing the report. "There is no link between extremists being talked about in that report and conservative political thinkers, activists and voters," the official said.

Not to be symied by facts, however:

But conservative radio talk show host Roger Hedgecock was not persuaded. "If the Bush administration had done this to left-wing extremists, it would be all over the press as an obvious trampling of the First Amendment rights of folks and dissent," he told CNN.

And the facts? You'll laugh:

In fact, the Obama administration in January did issue a warning about left-wing extremists. Both reports were initiated during the administration of former President George W. Bush.

So once again, Obama is the fall guy for something Bush put into place. But then extremist groups don't care much for facts. Hitler and the Nazis didn't; Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans are no different.

A recommended read: The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right (Paperback)
by David Neiwert

Day 78 - Optimistic About the Economy

2009-04-07T08:50:00.003-04:00

Reuters is reporting that people are becoming more optimistic about the US economy, with "Two-thirds of respondents said they approved of Obama's overall job performance."

Pretty impressive for the first hundred days, and we still have three weeks to go. Obama was handed what most people felt was an impossible job. But we all knew the real trick was changing an attitude of despair into an attitude of hopelessness. This has been Obama's strength all along, and he has once again shown his very real skills in this area. Roosevelt, I think, would be proud.

People won't spend if they're insecure about the economy, and we need to spend to turn things around.

More from the poll:

The number of people who said they thought the United States was headed in the right direction jumped from 15 percent during the final days of Republican President George W. Bush's administration in mid-January, before the inauguration, to 39 percent today, the newspaper said.

The number of respondents who said the country was headed in the wrong direction dropped to 53 percent from 79 percent.

The jump from 15% to 39% is huge, given the current state of affairs. People are still losing their jobs; businesses are still failing, but there is hope that things will get better. The seeds of improvement have been sown. Now we will have to wait to see them take root and grow.

Another telling statistic: "According to the poll, 20 percent of Americans now think the economy is getting better, compared with 7 percent in mid-January."

Also in the news is a CBS poll that shows Obama's approval rating hitting a new high - 66%.

Sixty-seven percent say world leaders respect Mr. Obama, while 18 percent say they do not respect the president. That's a sharp contrast to the response when this question was asked about Mr. Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, in July 2006: Just 30 percent then said the president is respected by the leaders of other countries.

Mr. Obama's overall approval rating, meanwhile, has hit a new high of 66 percent, up from 64 percent last month. His disapproval rating stands at 24 percent. Nearly all Democrats and most independents approve of the way the president is handling his job, while only 31 percent of Republicans approve.

The complete poll is available here as a pdf file.

Day 75 - Clearing the Air

2009-04-04T09:51:00.003-04:00

This comes directly from Media Matters for America's newsletter:

Hopping on the misinformation band-Wagoner, GM-style

The media failed and they failed hard this week when it came to news that General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner had resigned at the request of the Obama administration. ABC's Diane Sawyer claimed

of the resignation: "[S]omebody said it's like The Apprentice, White House-style." We're not sure who Sawyer's "somebody" actually is, though it is worth noting her comments were far from the worst on the subject. Take, for example, Fox News' Andrew Napolitano, who said

that the resignation was "an absolute power grab, and it's the road to fascism" and that "this is Mussolini on the Potomac."

Worse still, many in the media falsely described Wagoner's resignation as unprecedented. A Washington Times editorial labeled

Wagoner's departure from GM just that way -- as "unprecedented." At no point did the editorial mention that the government had required AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac in September 2008 to replace their CEOs as a condition of receiving government funds during the Bush administration. Similarly, the Los Angeles Times and CNN's Lou Dobbs uncritically repeated

Sen. John McCain's false claim that the government's Wagoner decision was "unprecedented." Despite the facts to the contrary, MSNBC's Chris Matthews called

McCain's assessment "very correct," while Fox News' Steve Doocy actually claimed

"the last president who fired a CEO was Putin" and conservative leader Rush Limbaugh said

the White House had sought Wagoner's resignation as "payback for the unions."

As does this, regarding Obama's budget:

Media fail to reconcile facts in coverage of president's budget

Throughout Obama's presidency (and even before it started), media figures have tried to pin the blame

for the current economic situation on Obama by disappearing the Bush administration's role in their reporting of economic issues and repeatedly referencing the "Obama recession" and the "Obama bear market." Nonetheless, a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll

indicates that, as ABCNews.com reported

: "Part of Obama's advantage in dealing with the economy is that, while blame and anger are in great supply, he escapes both. Eight in 10 Americans blame the situation on banks and other financial institutions for taking on too much risk; as many blame large business corporations for poor management decisions. Seventy-two percent blame consumers for taking on too much debt; 70 percent blame the Bush administration for lack of needed regulation. Just 26 percent, though, blame the Obama administration." Media Matters released

a compelling online video this week contrasting the punditry of media figures with the recent poll -- be sure to check it out

.

Additionally, numerous media outlets advanced the false notion that it would be unprecedented for congressional Democrats to use the budget reconciliation process

to pass major policy initiatives, or failed to challenge conservatives making such claims. On Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier, correspondent Molly Henneberg falsely claimed

that "[r]econciliation was last used in 2001 by Republicans to pass the first Bush tax cuts." After Media Matters and others pointed out that Republicans used reconciliation to pass several of President Bush's major initiatives after 2001, Baier apologized

for Henneberg's "error" three days later. The Washington Post also allowed "moderate" Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) to criticize the use of the reconciliation process without noting

his votes to use it to pass Bush's tax cuts. The Hill ignored the GOP's use

of the reconciliation process in forwarding Republicans' complaints that it "was never intended to ram through major legislation."

Because so many media figures and outlets promoted a number of falsehoods about the president's budget

plan, Media Matters released a debunking

of three major myths repeated in coverage of the proposal, including the false suggestion that Obama's proposal would increase taxes on a large percentage of small businesses and the previously mentioned falsehood about reconciliation. The debunking also noted that media outlets have engaged in a pattern of criticizing Obama for addressing health care in the budget or elsewhere given the size of the current and projected U.S. federal debt without addressing the president's response that health-care reform is essential to the long-term economic and fiscal health of the country.

So much (once again) for the myth of a "liberal media elite." This country's media outlets are center-right. The people are center-left. But the Republican Party, especially its base, continue to further the myth of a "liberal media elite" that exists only in their minds. In fact, as Media Matters demonstrated during the 2008 elections, the media was soft on the Republicans. Even now you find more Republicans, more conservatives, being interviewed, even on MSNBC, than Democrats. And the Republican Party even has its own network, FOX. Efforts by Republicans to label MSNBC as a Democrat station fall flat when you consider right-wing clowns like Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough, who belong on FOX, and Pat Buchanon, also a conservative Republican.

Day 72 - Obama Abroad

2009-04-01T06:44:00.004-04:00

After eight years of cowboy diplomacy - that is to say, waving a six-shooter around drunkenly and threatening everybody in the room - it's not easy to get used to the idea of actual diplomacy, that is, a serious attempt to communicate with the others in the room and to find ways to work towards common - as well as sometimes conflicting - goals and aspirations. Rather than vacationing, Obama is working. Rather than relying on hunches and knee-jerk ideological responses, he is getting out there, mixing it up, and informing himself and others. He is, in this respect, doing exactly the right thing.

On Wednesday, Obama flew into Stansted Airport near London. From here he will begin his first major foreign trip since taking office in January. An important part of this trip will be attendance of the Group of 20 major economies this week in London. As Reuters reports, he will also attend "a NATO summit on the French-German border before stopping in the Czech Republic and Turkey" as well as "meetings on the sidelines of the G20 with the leaders of Russia, China and other nations."

It is always interesting to compare Republican rhetoric on Obama's overseas popularity - they continually paint a very negative picture, suggesting that Obama has irritated all our foreign friends - with a more fact-based analysis. For example, Reuters goes on to say:

The Democratic U.S. president hopes to capitalize on a reservoir of goodwill because of the change in policies and style from his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, who was unpopular abroad.

Analysts said enthusiasm for Obama among the public in Europe will make for a positive tone in his meetings with allies such as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

As usual, Republican rhetoric falls far short of accuracy. Obama IS popular overseas. There is great hope among our friends that times have indeed changed. It was Bush who was wildly unpopular, who offended all our friends. This attempt to re-write history, to white-wash Bush and transfer his sins onto Obama's shoulders will not succeed. People are too well informed these days via Internet news sources. The facts are always literally a button away.
Besides dealing with the economic situation, Obama is looking to rally support for his Afghanistan policy:

At the NATO summit in Strasbourg, France, the leaders will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the transatlantic alliance. In a move symbolizing closer Franco-American ties, France is rejoining NATO's military command after decades of self-imposed exile.

Obama will use the NATO summit to further explain a strategy he unveiled this week for Afghanistan that puts a strong focus as well on Pakistan. It sets as the main goal the defeat of al Qaeda and Taliban militants.

Given how far down Bush has put the US in the World's eyes, I wouldn't be surprised if this is a very hard sell. Yet he has no choice but to try. We can't punt on fourth down. We're forced to go for it and hope we get the needed yardage because there is no second chance and we can't count on getting the ball back.

Day 71 - Mixing Religion With Politics

2009-03-31T16:26:00.002-04:00

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

2009-03-30T22:48:00.000-04:00

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

Day 70 - Addressing the Auto Industry

2009-03-30T07:00:00.007-04:00

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:

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

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."

Day 67 - The First 100 Days

2009-03-27T06:26:00.000-04:00

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.

Day 66 - The Virtual Town Hall Meeting

2009-03-26T15:05:00.003-04:00

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.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Full transcript here

Below is the link for submitting questions:

Open For Questions

Day 64 - Obama on the Republicans

2009-03-24T14:50:00.006-04:00

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."

Day 63 - Dick Cheney Revisited

2009-03-23T06:24:00.003-04:00

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?

Day 62 - Down Memory Lane

2009-03-22T11:46:00.002-04:00

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

Day 60 - Olberman Tells it Like it Is

2009-03-20T10:07:00.001-04:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Day 58 - Gay Rights

2009-03-18T06:59:00.003-04:00

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.

Day 56 - Protecting the Nation's Food Supply

2009-03-16T12:32:00.005-04:00

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.

Of Hyperbole and Hypocrisy and the Great Socialist Interstate System

2009-03-15T15:59:00.014-04:00

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

Day 52 - Back to the Economy

2009-03-12T21:25:00.003-04:00

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.

Day 50 - Back to the Future

2009-03-10T09:39:00.002-04:00

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.

Day 48 - Against the Religious Right

2009-03-08T16:18:00.002-04:00

Day 47 - The New Deal Worked

2009-03-07T21:41:00.006-05:00

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

Day 44 - A New Direction for FEMA

2009-03-04T14:57:00.004-05:00

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.

Day 43 - Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Party

2009-03-03T20:16:00.007-05:00

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.

Day 42 - Iran

2009-03-02T07:04:00.003-05:00

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

Day 41 - Working for the American People

2009-03-01T06:46:00.007-05:00

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.

Day 40 - Stimulus Mythology

2009-02-28T07:38:00.002-05:00

Lets get informed and rational about this stimulus plan!

read more | digg story

Day 39 - Iraq Revisited

2009-02-27T22:15:00.002-05:00

President Obama has set a deadline of 18 months for US operations in Iraq. But he plans to leave 50,000 US troops there "to provide stability." Democrats are not happy with the decision. According to Reuters,

Congressional Democrats who fought the Bush administration for two years to bring home U.S. forces home expressed disappointment, with Senate leader Harry Reid saying 50,000 troops was "higher than I had anticipated" and Representative Lynn Woolsey calling it "unacceptable."

It is quite possible, as has been claimed by Woolsey, that the Iraqis may consider these 50,000 troops an occupation force. It is possible too that the presence of these US troops will prove to be a catalyst for further recruitment by Al Qaeda. Personally, I am opposed to this decision. US troops should leave. None should remain. Iraq has a government now, after all. And a military and a police force. Yet Obama has, he says, reasons for leaving US troops in place: "Obama said 35,000 to 50,000 troops would stay to train and equip the Iraqi forces, protect civilian reconstruction projects and conduct limited counterterrorism operations." It is hardly surprising that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates favors the move. He is a Republican after all:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would favor a modest U.S. military presence in Iraq even after the end of 2011 to assist Iraqi security forces if requested by Baghdad.

Obama seems to be a bit wishy-washy about what American goals are, and that's an uncomfortable thought, given that we have just ended an eight year reign by King George without any clear direction in our foreign policy. In Obama's words, the U.S. troop drawdown sent a "clear signal that Iraq's future is now its own responsibility."

"We cannot sustain indefinitely a commitment that has put a strain on our military, and will cost the American people nearly a trillion dollars," he said.

Right. So we're leaving 50,000 troops there...why, exactly? If there is no definite timetable to bring them home, we can legitimately question what Obama means by "indefinitely." The opposite of definite is, after all, indefinite. I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed in President Obama.

And while Democrats are unhappy with the plan, Republicans are, unsurprisingly, happy: "Overall it is a reasonable plan and one that can work and I support it," said John McCain, who had earlier criticized his 16-month withdrawal plan.

It is interesting that Obama, who criticized Bush by letting Iraq distract him from the goal of toppling Al Qaeda and capturing Osama bin Laden, now seems himself distracted by Iraq. Yes, it was Bush who made the mistake of attacking a sovereign nation without any justification whatsoever, but it's time to correct that mistake and get out. Staying there is not the answer. Yes, our government is likely worried about the staying power of the Iraqi government and possible destabilization of the region, but they're not seeing the forest for the trees. Our being there is a destabilizing influence. It's time to pull our collective chestnuts out of the fire and go home.

Day 38 - Budget Talk

2009-02-26T19:05:00.002-05:00

We hear from Reuters that "President Barack Obama forecast the biggest U.S. deficit since World War Two in a budget on Thursday that urges a costly overhaul of the healthcare system and would spend billions to arrest the economy's freefall."

While this is not good news, it's not surprising. We must spend to get out of this depression and only the government has the ability to do that spending. Still:

An eye-popping $1.75 trillion deficit for the 2009 fiscal year underlined the heavy blow the deep recession has dealt to the country's finances as Obama unveiled his first budget. That is the highest ever in dollar terms, and amounts to a 12.3 percent share of the economy -- the largest since 1945. In 2010, the deficit would dip to a still-huge $1.17 trillion, Obama predicted.

Reuters also reports:

President Barack Obama requested about $205 billion in war funding through the end of fiscal 2010 on Thursday, as he sought to withdraw tens of thousands of troops from Iraq and boost forces fighting a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.

Obama's first budget proposal asked for $75.5 billion through September, which would bring total war spending to $141.4 billion for the current fiscal year. Obama also requested a slightly smaller $130 billion to fund the wars for fiscal year 2010, which starts on October 1.

Obama asked Congress to increase the Pentagon's regular budget to $533.7 billion next year -- up 4 percent, or $20.4 billion, from its spending plan for the current year, drawn up under the Bush administration.

This will likely not sit well with many on the left who are opposed to both wars. I predicted continued high military spending, however. Clearly, the military, despite ghastly high levels of funding, is worn down. Equipment needs to be replaced, more (and better) equipment is needed and bringing the troops home from Iraq (and sending others to Afghanistan) will not be cheap. In addition, equipment will be left behind because of our accelerated withdrawal and will need to be replaced.

U.S. military spending accounts for roughly half the global total, according to independent experts.

Obama, who took office on January 20, made a campaign promise to bring U.S. troops home from the unpopular Iraq war and was expected to announce his withdrawal plans in a speech on Friday at Camp Lejeune, a Marine Corps base in North Carolina.

But Obama has also authorized the deployment of 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, where insurgent violence is worsening. The costs of pulling out of Iraq and building up in Afghanistan mean the price of the wars will remain high.

The US has 142,000 troops in Iraq and 38,000 in Afghanistan.

This last bit is no surprise at all:

U.S. congressional Republicans, having vowed to return to the conservative ideals of limited government, denounced President Barack Obama's $3.55 trillion budget on Thursday as excessive and misdirected.

Of course, Republican responses are typically amusing: "I have serious concerns with this budget, which demands hard-working American families and job creators turn over more of their hard-earned money to the government to pay for unprecedented spending increases," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. Wow, unprecedented? The Republicans conveniently forget who got us into both of these wars - and who mismanaged them both, and who ran our economy into the ground. Amazing that they become fiscal conservatives only when they're no longer in power.

"I think we just ought to admit we're broke. We can't continue to pile debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids," said House Republican Leader John Boehner. Right, John. And whose fault is this? Being broke wouldn't have anything to do with two wars and a mismanaged economy, would it? Under Republican auspices? Ring a bell?

Day 36 - Address to Congress

2009-02-25T07:36:00.002-05:00

Full transcript here

Day 33 - Weekly Address

2009-02-23T10:37:00.002-05:00

Day 32 - In the History of Stupid Ideas...

2009-02-20T20:48:00.002-05:00

Here is a plan the Obama administration will absolutely NOT support: a mileage tax. Secretary Ray LaHood of the Transportation Department had earlier called it an idea "we should look at." Typically Republican:

Speaking to The Associated Press, Transportation Secretary LaHood, an Illinois Republican, said, "We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled." The remark was part of a discussion about various options to help make up for the highway funding shortfall on the federal level.

Just crazy. Why would anyone think this is a good idea? CNN reports:

In a written statement, the department said, "The policy of taxing motorists based on how many miles they have traveled is not and will not be Obama administration policy."

The idea -- which involves tracking drivers through Global Positioning System (GPS) units in their cars -- is gaining support in some states as a way of making up for a shortfall in highway funding. Oregon carried out a pilot program and deemed it "successful."

This is how it would have worked, according to the report:

Under a VMT (vehicle miles traveled) tax program, GPS units would allow the government to keep track of how much each car is driven and where -- though not necessarily with exact street locations. The government could also track other things, including the time each car enters a certain zone.

I can understand the reasoning behind a program such as this - funding our infrastructure, and apparently helping the environment and reducing reliance on foreign fuel hurts the cause because with consumers buying less gas, the government takes in less money. "Last fall, Congress approved an $8 billion infusion into the depleted federal highway trust fund," CNN tells us. Unsurprisingly, people were not enthused by the idea. There are privacy issues, for one thing. Do we really need the government looking over our shoulder as we drive and watching our movements?

There has to be a better way, and I'm sure something will be found. Some possible solutions have already been suggested:

tolls

higher registration fees

and other types of taxes

The Republicans complaining about big government will no doubt fail to take notice of this action by the Obama administration. They will find something else to attack and if there is nothing else to attack, they will invent something. Welcome to 2009, my friends. The loyal opposition is not so loyal after all.

Day 31 - Day of Diplomacy

2009-02-19T12:20:00.005-05:00

President Obama has made the first trip of his presidency - to Canada today. He is even more popular in Canada than in the US (they're not burdened with our religious conservatives) - 81%. Canada is a good place to start. Hilary Clinton is in the Far East and Obama has a special envoy in the Middle East, and for too long matters on the American continents have suffered because of Bush's lack of effort in cultivating friends. A dictatorial style does not get you far. There is a lot of ill will to be addressed and mended at this point.

There are some issues between our two countries that will be addressed. As CNN lists them:

The war in Afghanistan: Canada has about 2,800 troops in Afghanistan, but Parliament has voted to pull them out by 2011.

At the same time, Obama has approved a significant increase in U.S. troops in Afghanistan, bringing the total there to 55,000.

Obama said he will take up the issue of Canada's troop withdrawal with Prime Minister Stephen Harper when the two meet in Ottawa.

"My hope is that in conversations that I have with Prime Minister Harper, that he and I end up seeing the importance of a comprehensive strategy, and one that ultimately the people of Canada can support, as well as the people of the United States can support," he told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Tuesday.

A "Buy American" clause in Washington's economic stimulus package: Canadians worry about protectionism because of a provision in the package that requires the use of U.S.-produced iron, steel and other manufactured goods in public works projects paid for by the $787 billion package.

According to Reuters, Obama reassured the Canadians on open trade.

Obama, on his first trip abroad as president, sought in talks with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to allay Canadian concerns raised by a "Buy American" clause in a $787 billion U.S. economic recovery plan he signed this week.

"Now is a time where we have to be very careful about any signals of protectionism," Obama told a joint news conference after several hours of talks with Harper on his one-day visit to Ottawa.

"And as obviously one of the largest economies in the world, it's important for us to make sure that we are showing leadership in the belief that trade ultimately is beneficial to all countries," he said.

He stressed the United States would meet its international trade obligations and told Harper he wanted to "grow trade not contract it."

I believe that free trade is good. I was convinced of that by a macro economics class in college. But what we have had is not really fair trade. We allow all imports but other countries limit ours. That is NOT free trade, and I hope Obama will address that.

And unfortunately, improving the environment does not seem to be high on the agenda: "But with his country facing its worst economic crisis in decades, Obama stressed the importance of Canada as the United States' largest energy provider. Most of the output of the oil sands is destined for U.S. markets." Cleaning up "oil sands in the western province of Alberta, from which oil is extracted in a process that spews out large amounts of greenhouse gases" will have to wait. Obama campaigned on a green ticket but I can understand that there will be limitations on what can be done given the state of the economy. Still, it is unhappy news, if not unexpected.

Day 30 - Stimulus Transparency

2009-02-18T07:37:00.009-05:00

Here is a great new site, further evidence that Obama is returning transparency to government. Despite repeated GOP claims that things are being hidden, Obama is making unprecedented efforts to put information in front of the readers and viewers. There is no reason in the world any American must remain ignorant about what the government is doing. It's not his fault Rush Limbaugh can't figure out how to search a pdf file! As Media Matters reported on February 13th:

Summary: Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that Democrats "have reformatted the [economic recovery] bill -- they've made it a PDF file when they posted it. ... And, so, you can read every page, but you cannot keyword search it. It's not a text file as legislation normally is as posted on these public websites. They don't want anybody knowing what's in this." In fact, as Adobe Systems notes of PDFs: "You can run a search using either the Search window or the Find toolbar. In either case, Reader searches the PDF body text, layers, form fields, and digital signatures."

Yes...incredible, isn't it? The voice of the GOP can't use a pdf file. No surprise given how anti-science and anti-intellectual both Rush and his party are. But on to the great site I mentioned above: Recovery.gov. The site, we are told, will offer:

Education: Explain the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act;

Transparency: Show how, when, and where the money is spent;

Accountability: Provide data that will allow citizens to evaluate the Act’s progress and provide feedback.

The site tells us:

The site will include information about Federal grant awards and contracts as well as formula grant allocations. Federal agencies will provide data on how they are using the money, and eventually, prime recipients of Federal funding will provide information on how they are using their Federal funds. On our end, we will use interactive graphics to illustrate where the money is going, as well as estimates of how many jobs are being created, and where they are located. And there will be search capability to make it easier for you to track the funds.

The first incarnation of Recovery.gov features projections for how, when, and where the funds will be spent -- which states and sectors of the economy are due to receive what proportion of the funds. As money starts to flow, far more data will become available.

I look forward to more information being posted on this site. I wish Bush had thought to put some controls in place before he left office instead of finding new and interesting ways to screw Obama and booby trap his administration. At least there is some accountability now as well as transparency! This is a positive step. It's not that the plan is perfect, it's not that Obama and his team haven't slipped up. But they're under such pressure and the GOP is applying a magnifying glass to every little action, making a stink about everything and lying abundantly about it at the same time.

Day 29 - Vile is in Season

2009-02-17T13:05:00.007-05:00

The Denver Post reports that President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law today in Denver, the city where the Democratic National Convention was held.

"We're putting Americans to work doing the work that America needs done in critical areas that have been neglected too long," Obama said before a crowd of about 250 people at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science. "We are remaking the American landscape."

And Obama is keeping busy. "Just after 3 p.m., Obama departed from Buckley Air Force Base aboard Air Force One. His next stop is Phoenix, where tomorrow he will address the housing crisis."

How much good it will do, now that the GOP has gutted it of its most useful features, only time will tell. Nobody is expecting immediately relief. And everyone is in agreement that it's going to get worse before it gets better. The sad thing is that this is only the first step. It will take more than this single package to right the boat and the Republicans will obstruct every bill that does not consist almost entirely of tax cuts for the rich. I really hope the American people have awoken and remember this betrayal by the GOP come 2010. Speaking of which...

Let's look at something really vile and disgusting. It is well known that only three Republicans voted for the stimulus. Those three have a right to appreciate openly what Obama is trying to do. The others, obviously, are hypocrities if they do. That, however, does not stop them according to this report:

Rep. John Mica was gushing after the House of Representatives voted Friday to pass the big stimulus plan.

"I applaud President Obama's recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America's future," the Florida Republican beamed in a press release.

Yet Mica had just joined every other GOP House member in voting against the $787.2 billion economic recovery plan.

But Mica wasn't alone in touting what he saw as the bill's virtues. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, also had nice things to say in a press release.

Young boasted that he "won a victory for the Alaska Native contracting program and other Alaska small business owners last night in H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act."

One provision would have made it harder for minority businesses to win contracts, and Young explained that he "worked with members on the other side of the aisle to make the case for these programs, and was able to get the provision pulled from the bill."

Their justification is as flimsy as their morals:

Mike Steel, a spokesman for House GOP Leader John Boehner of Ohio, at first ducked when asked about Mica and Young issuing press releases praising the bill they'd opposed.

"I don't work for Mica or Young," Steel said initially.

But then he explained that what Mica and Young did in touting aspects of the bill was in fact consistent with the Republican message.

"Being supportive of one portion of a trillion dollar bill, but voting against the entire trillion dollar bill, is perfectly reasonable," Steel said.

Day 28 - Makes a Week

2009-02-16T06:47:00.004-05:00

Four weeks into the Obama presidency and the new president still has the support of the American people. His approval ratings are still high, demonstrating that Republican propaganda and media disinformation is not taking hold among the people. I suspect in this day and age, with so many "unofficial" media outlets available - the internet for one, including blogs - people are better able to keep track of events and less likely to believe what they're told. For example, Newsweek's big front page announcing "We're all Socialists Now!" Saying it doesn't make it so. They always neglect to point out things that have already taken place, under other administrations, that could equally well have earned that charge. The media is as much the enemy as the GOP in this. Just as guilty. Just as beholden to Joseph Göbbels. How proud he would be!

My grade for Obama must stand at a "B". Recently, it has been announced that with regards to the Faith-Based program, Obama neglected to put an end to Bush-era discrimination in hiring practices by groups received OUR tax dollars. Meaning, as under Bush, WE pay these clowns so they can discriminate against US who are not the right kind of Christian or who are not Christian at all. I would mark him down further but after the last release on this subject, this new bit of news is really not news at all. Obama lied on the campaign trail:

Speaking last July in Ohio, Mr. Obama set forth his “basic principles” for assuring constitutional balance. “First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use the grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of religion,” he said. “Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs.”

And he deserves to be downgraded for so doing, but I'd already downgraded him, expecting that this would be the result - the drop from an A to a B. As the Times concludes that, "it is hardly the clear commitment to proper employment practices Mr. Obama voiced as a candidate, and the Constitution requires."

A better scoring method would probably be to grade him on different areas - Domestic Policy and Foreign Policy, or to break it down even further. It is something I will have to consider. If I included Church-State as a separate category, he'd have at most a "C" right now, and possibly a "D".

That's a thought for another day, however. I wanted to share a bit of unrelated news, the view held of President George W. Bush by historians. CNN reports the following:

Lincoln finished first in a ranking by historians of the 42 former White House occupants. The survey was released over Presidents Day weekend.

The news wasn't quite as good for the latest addition to the nation's most exclusive fraternity: George W. Bush finished 36th in the survey, narrowly edging out the likes of historical also-rans Millard Fillmore, Warren Harding and Franklin Pierce.

James Buchanan -- the man who watched helplessly as the nation lurched toward civil war in the 1850s -- finished last.

"As much as is possible, we created a poll that was non-partisan, judicious and fair-minded," said Rice University professor Douglas Brinkley, who helped organize the survey of 65 historians for cable television network C-SPAN.

The survey -- which asked participants to rank each president on 10 qualities of leadership ranging from public persuasion and economic management to international relations and moral authority -- was the network's second since 2000.

It's Lincoln's 200th birthday. Happy Birthday, Mr. President!

Day 27 - More GOP Lies

2009-02-15T22:27:00.004-05:00

CNN reports that the GOP is back up to its old tricks, obstructing Obama and rejecting his efforts at bipartisanship and then accusing him of not being bipartisan. That's rather like a man throwing a drowning person a flotation device, the drowning victim pushing it away and then accusing his would-be savior of letting him drown. It's not a very compelling argument - and according to polls, the American people are not buying it. They know who the real foes of bipartisanship are despite the dissemination of propaganda both by the media and by the Republican Party:

Top Republican lawmakers Sunday called on President Obama to change his political strategy, arguing that the passage of a massive stimulus bill on a party-line vote showed he has failed to deliver the "change" he promised.
Sen. John McCain says the Obama administration is off to a "bad beginning."

Sen. John McCain says the Obama administration is off to a "bad beginning."
Click to view previous image
1 of 2
Click to view next image

"If this is going to be bipartisanship, the country's screwed," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, told ABC's "This Week." "I know bipartisanship when I see it."

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said Obama was off to "a bad beginning," out of step with the vow of bipartisanship both men made after Obama beat out the Republican presidential nominee for the White House in November.

As White House press secretary Robert Gibbs "I think what you saw from this president was an unprecedented effort to reach out to Republicans. Not just in meetings at the White House, but you had the president drive up to Capitol Hill to meet with Republicans where they work."
Reuters is reporting that "President Barack Obama will sign the $787 billion economic stimulus bill on Tuesday in Denver, a White House official said on Saturday."

Day 26 - Charlie Crist the Patriot

2009-02-14T08:11:00.003-05:00

TampaBay.com is asking the question, "Is Governor Charlie Crist a statesman or a sellout?"

It's clear what the Republican party believes. Get this statement of ignorance:

"I don't think he's helped any national Republican ambitions he may have by stepping up to the plate and batting for the other team. … There's a difference between working in a bipartisan way for the common good and switching sides and putting on the other team's jersey," said veteran Republican consultant Alex Castellanos. "At the one moment when we've finally found our voice and remember who we are as Republicans, Charlie Crist forgets. It's stunning."

Alex: WE ARE AMERICANS.

But that seems to be the lesson lost on the Republican Party of 2009.

Crist's full-throated support evoked a rare rebuke from one of his closest political allies, Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, who said on the Senate floor that Crist didn't get it.

"I don't know that my governor understands all the details of this package — that there will be nothing here to help with Florida's housing economy," Martinez said stressing the need for more tax cuts.

For his part, Charlie Crist is unapologetic. He says his state needs help. Period.

Good for him. He is doing right by his constituents. They put him there to take care of them, and he is trying. I hope they recognize this.

This is Republicanism's embrace of the Christian "other":

"They may not be saying it outright, but the Republican delegation is very angry. If they got Charlie Crist in a dark alley, all you'd have left is a tuft of white hair," said Ana Navarro, a Republican consultant from Miami, suggesting Crist has dampened enthusiasm for a potential Senate run in 2010.

The article does well to let Charlie Crist have the last word. He is, after all, the man under the microscope, and he deserves to speak for himself:

Presumably Crist won't be among those running against that bill. But if the governor has any misgivings about the politics of appearing with Obama, he sure isn't showing it.

"My concern is not about what's best for one party or the other. My concern is what's best for the state and what's best for the people of Florida," he said Thursday, when he invited a mostly Democratic group of African-American legislators to the Governor's Mansion to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the NAACP and the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth.

"This is our president, and I wanted to show support for what he's trying to do, to help our students in the classroom, the most vulnerable in our society who deserve health care and the infrastructure benefit that this will bring about," Crist said.

Day 25 - Republicans

2009-02-13T23:48:00.004-05:00

Frank Schaeffer is the author of CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back. Now in paperback, has written a letter to President Obama.

Dear President Obama: As a former lifelong Republican, son of a co-founder of the Religious Right; my late evangelical leader father, Francis Schaeffer, I'm in a unique position to tell you a few things about the Republicans from inside perspective. (As you know I left that movement in the mid 1980s.)

The lack of cooperation you're getting from the Republican Party will continue. You were ri More..ght to indulge in a little bit of tokenism when you had to Pastor Rick Warren pray at your inauguration. But if you think that the Republicans in Congress and the Senate are going to do more than their utmost to obstruct everything you are and what you stand for you're dreaming.

This is, of course, everything I have been saying for the past week. It comes as no surprise, yet it is chilling to read from somebody in the know, somebody who was once one of these people. It's truly terrifying to see first hand the extent of Republican treason - and treason it is. There is no other word for it.

There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. President, you need to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the business of governing by winning each battle. You will never be able to work with the Republicans because they hate you. Believe me, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are the norm not the exception. James Dobson and the rest are praying for you to fail. The neoconservatives are gnashing their teeth and waiting for you to "sell out Israel" or "show weakness" in Afghanistan, whatever, so they can declare you a traitor.

Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are the norm not the exception. This is certainly true. Whatever moderate position once existed within Republican ranks has been utterly eradicated by eight years of the Bush maladministration. But Schaeffer is optimistic nonetheless:

The good news is that most Americans support you. And if you will just get in the face of the Republican Party and call their bluff you'll be surprised how many individual ordinary Republicans will support you, not to mention the rest of us. America is sick of the Republicans.

The Democratic Party won for a reason: the Republicans failed and have taken us all down with them! You're doing your presidency and America no favor by extending an open hand to the perpetually knotted fist of what has become the embittered lunatic fringe of our country. They would rather go down in flames than "compromise" their ideology.

As you showed us again at your press conference of Feb 9, you are a brilliant, articulate and decent man. Your Republican opponents are not decent people but ideologues bent on destroying you. To quote the biblical adage sir, don't cast your pearls before swine.

Day 24 - Fighting for the Economy

2009-02-12T21:55:00.003-05:00

The news continues to be filled with Republican attempts to discredit Obama's stimulus plan. They've even tried to claim that FDR's New Deal did not work, though it can be statistically proven. But facts never get in the way when you're an ideologue, and the Republicans have proven that they will not cooperate, will not compromise, and will not even try to work with Obama. They would rather see the country ruined than see a Democrat succeed. I hope Obama wakes up to this fact sooner rather than later.

Still, the stimulus package should pass both houses of Congress. There is enough support for it now that it's been watered down. Of course, the Republicans, having pretty much eliminated, or at least greatly reduced, the possibility that it will help, will then claim that it's Obama's fault and call for a change in Washington. I do not believe their tactic will work. They are discredited after eight years of Bush and it will take more than this to unseat Obama and the Democrat majorities in Congress.

Reuters reports that

Democratic leaders in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives on Thursday wrapped up a last minute tax cut and spending details in the $789 billion economic stimulus bill, setting votes for Friday by both chambers.

The House is scheduled to vote Friday morning and the Senate plans to follow in the evening, but that vote could take a few hours to accommodate a Democratic senator who has to return home after the death of a family member.

Both chambers are expected to approve it which would meet a deadline set by President Barack Obama to approve the emergency spending and tax cut package before the end of the upcoming holiday weekend.

Another sign that Republicans will not work with Obama is that Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) has withdrawn his nomination to be Commerce Secretary - he says because of disagreements over the stimulus plan. Disgusting, but not at all surprising. And three Republicans who voted for the plan have been vilified by their own party and a call has been made to unseat them.

Reuters also released a "Factbox" detailing the provisions of the stimulus package.

FOR WORKERS, CONSUMERS AND RETIREES

* A "making work pay" refundable tax credit championed by President Barack Obama of up to $400 per individual and $800 for couples in 2009 and 2010. It is calculated at a rate of 6.2 percent of earned income and is phased out for individuals with adjusted incomes over $75,000 and couples with incomes over $150,000.

* A one-time payment of $250 to Social Security beneficiaries, railroad retirees and veterans receiving benefits from the Veterans Affairs department. State government retirees not eligible for Social Security would also get the $250 payment.

* Increases the earned income tax credit for low-income workers with three or more children.

* Increases eligibility for the refundable child tax credit to more low-income workers. The bill reduces the income floor to $3,000 in 2009 and 2010 from the current floor of $8,500.

* Provides a new $2,500 tax credit for college education expenses. The credit phases out for individuals earning more than $80,000 and couples with incomes over $160,000.

* Provides an $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers for homes purchased between January 1 and December 1, 2009. The tax credit phases out for individuals earning more than $75,000 and couples earning more than $150,000.

* Provides temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax for millions of middle-class taxpayers who otherwise would be ensnared by the tax originally meant for the very wealthy.

The bill provides for $282 billion in tax cuts. This is far less than the Democrats wanted but much more than the country can bear. I'm worried. And I'm far from alone.

Sarah Robinson of Campaign for America's Future writes about the effect of the tax cuts so loved by Republicans. I agree with her 100%:

The past 20 years has taught us two hard new truths about tax cuts that conservatives have yet to internalize. The first one is: Tax cuts directed at the wealthy don't create new wealth. Larry Beinert has run the numbers that show that, going all the way back to the 1920s, economic growth correlates absolutely perfectly with high marginal tax rates on the rich. The higher the top tax bracket, the better the U.S economy does. This happens so reliably that we probably need to consider it a bit of settled economic wisdom.

The second truth is: What tax cuts do create—better than anything else you can name—is economic bubbles. It doesn't take long before you've got too many rich people with too much capital chasing too few real investment opportunities. When they can't find places to park their excess cash, they start gambling with it. In the 1630s, it was tulips. In the 1990s, it was dot-com stocks. In this decade, they turned to flipping houses and stashing it in hedge funds.

Of course, con men and scam artists (paging Bernie Madoff) thrive in the overheated, gravity-free, anything-goes casino atmosphere that follows. Worse, a whole lot of paper "wealth" gets created that doesn't have any real-world basis of value. Eventually, the bubble overinflates and pops, taking that phony "wealth" with it. And this happens every single time we cut taxes on the rich below the 50 percent threshold.

Tax breaks were one of the main reasons we got into this pit. More tax breaks will not get us out of it. And the conservatives need to let go of that shattered fantasy, and move on.

Day 23 -

2009-02-11T06:38:00.009-05:00

I wouldn't be surprised if one of the loonies from Digg who are always saying Obama is going to get what he deserves, etc, isn't the man arrested yesterday who drove up to the capitol barricade with a gun and ammo. His IQ must be on the same order. This is how CNN reports it:

Alfred Brock, 64, of Winnfield, Louisiana...drove up to the north barricade at the Capitol late Tuesday afternoon, saying he had a delivery for the president, Schneider said. After further questioning, he admitted he had a rifle in his truck. He was arrested and taken to police headquarters for processing, she said.

CNNMoney.com is reporting that Congress is going to hold bankers responsible for their actions. Congress wants to know what they did with all the money we gave them - all $165 billion of it.

When you take $165 billion from the U.S. government, you better make yourself available when Congress comes calling.

This Wednesday, lawmakers from the House Financial Services Committee are holding court with the chief executive officers of the eight banks that received the first injections of capital from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

Here is the problem:

By force feeding capital into nine of the nation's largest financial institutions (including Merrill Lynch, which has subsequently been acquired by Bank of America), regulators hoped banks would use it to keep credit flowing and prevent the economy from spiraling any lower.

But there have been concerns that some financial institutions have instead hoarded the cash. Some banks that received TARP funding have also been accused of using government funds to acquire rivals and pay lavish bonuses to executives.

One example is that of Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) which received $45 billion. They used only $17.5 billion for making new loans or extending existing credit lines. Obviously, that doesn't help the economy as much as redecorating your bathroom or office.

Reuters reported this afternoon on the results of that meeting:

"I want to know where the money has gone," said Democratic Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania. He told the executives that if their banks did not use the money, "Please find a way to return that money before you leave town."

I think Kanjorski speaks for many of us in asking that question.

South Carolina Republican Rep. Gresham Barrett said: "My folks simply have not seen the evidence that the money you were given is working or making their lives better."

Day 22 - Day of Reckoning

2009-02-10T13:15:00.004-05:00

I was watching Obama this morning, speaking to a Town Hall gathering in Florida. He told the crowd, "I'm not going to tell you that this plan is perfect. I mean, it was produced in Washington." The crowd laughed. I like this president. He speaks to people, not down to them like Bush.

I'm glad to see that he has gone on the offensive, selling his plan to the American people after days of putting up with Republican propaganda and obstructionism. As I always say, if you let the other side control the terms of the debate, you also let them control its outcome. The past few days are proof of that. I just hope Obama did not wait too long to take the offensive. He pointed out to the crowd that, "there was still work to be done to reconcile differences between the Senate version and a $819 billion bill passed earlier by the House of Representatives."

Huffington Post reports that the Senate has passed the stimulus bill.

Just three Republicans helped pass the plan on a 61-37 vote and they're already signaling they'll play hardball to preserve more than $108 billion in spending cuts made last week in Senate dealmaking. Obama wants to restore cuts in funds for school construction jobs and help for cash-starved states.

In Washington,

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner unveiled a bank rescue plan to remove up to $500 billion in bad assets and support $1 trillion in lending.

But the stock market, hoping for more details, tanked on the news.

"Wall Street, I think, is hoping for an easy out on this thing and there is no easy out," Obama told ABC News in an interview, adding the problem was caused by some banks whose books were not as transparent as they should have been.

They're saying more banks will fail. I've seen it suggested that people switch to credit unions where their money will be safer. These are truly frightening times, and nobody knows just how bad things are going to get. The International Monetary Fund has already said that the U.S. is in a depression. Now, I can honestly say I never imagined I'd live to see a depression. I grew up on horror stories from the first one. My mother was born one year before, in 1928, and her first years were spent during the Great Depression. She never got over it. She was very frugal. The same with my father. Neither lived to see this second depression, and I hope that this one will not earn the sobriquet "Great". I find it interesting that we did not quite make a century without this happening again.

Day 21 - Three Weeks and a Vote

2009-02-09T20:34:00.004-05:00

Reuters reports that the stimulus bill has narrowly cleared the Senate:

The U.S. Senate on Monday moved a step closer toward approving President Barack Obama's plan to jolt the U.S. economy out of recession with government spending and tax breaks, setting up a vote to pass the $838 billion emergency package on Tuesday.

After a week of contentious debate, senators reached a deal to pare down the stimulus bill by about $100 billion and voted 61-36, with minimal Republican support, that it was time to hold a final ballot at 12:00 p.m. EST Tuesday.

What happens next, if the bill passes the final vote tomorrow, is that "the Senate and House of Representatives will enter final negotiations on a compromise bill, with Obama arbitrating disputes." There is some slight hope that some of the impact of the bill can be restored before it's signed into law, but the chances do not appear promising given Republican opposition. Even after all the negotiations that have taken place, only three Republicans voted for passage today - Sens. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter.

According to Reuters, "Obama wants the stimulus legislation on his desk for signing into law by this weekend in the hope that it will begin to create and save up to 4 million jobs."

Obama's approval rating, according to a new Gallup Poll, is at 67%, quite a bit higher than Republicans would like to admit (in fact, most of those I've run into on Digg refuse to accept so high a figure - they insist Obama's popularity is slipping). According to Gallup:

President Obama receives a 67% approval rating for his handling of the government’s efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill, compared to 31% for the Republicans in Congress. A majority of Americans (51%) agree that passing such a bill is critically important to improving the nation’s economy.

Another bit of good news on the horizon that deserves mention is the possibility of an investigation into what went on during the Bush administration. According to Reuters,

A U.S. "truth commission" should investigate Bush administration policies including the promotion of war in Iraq, detainee treatment and wiretapping without a warrant, an influential senator proposed on Monday.

Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, urged a commission as a way to heal what he called sharp political divides under former President George W. Bush and to prevent future abuses.

He compared it to other truth commissions, such as one in South Africa that investigated the apartheid era.

Though, of course, Republicans are against the possibility, Leahy is correct in saying an investigation must be made:

"We need to come to a shared understanding of the failures of the recent past," Leahy said in a speech at Georgetown University.

"Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened," the Vermont senator said. "And we do that to make sure it never happens again."

Day 20 - A Tough Road Ahead

2009-02-08T20:49:00.004-05:00

I finally got to watch the Obama interview from the Today Show. I'd h ave enjoyed it more, and might have watched the entire thing, if they hadn't spread it out as teasers over the entire length of the broadcast. More than a little annoying but typical of the show. It was, however, nice to see Obama relaxed and without suit and tie, and the beautiful rooms and corridors of the White House. He seems like such a "real" person after the banana republic dictator-types we've had there for the past eight years - Bush, Cheney and their storm-trooper followers. I heard Andy Card even criticized Obama over not wearing a suit and tie. As if that makes you a better president. It sure didn't help Bush to dress up. He was a petty little thug in nice duds. How is that a good thing?

There was some news today as well. The Washington Post reports that there will be some changes in Obama's National Security Council.

President Obama plans to order a sweeping overhaul of the National Security Council, expanding its membership and increasing its authority to set strategy across a wide spectrum of international and domestic issues.

The result will be a "dramatically different" NSC from that of the Bush administration or any of its predecessors since the forum was established after World War II to advise the president on diplomatic and military matters, according to national security adviser James L. Jones, who described the changes in an interview. "The world that we live in has changed so dramatically in this decade that organizations that were created to meet a certain set of criteria no longer are terribly useful," he said.

Jones, a retired Marine general, made it clear that he will run the process and be the primary conduit of national security advice to Obama, eliminating the "back channels" that at times in the Bush administration allowed Cabinet secretaries and the vice president's office to unilaterally influence and make policy out of view of the others.

This is not unreasonable, given the changes in the world. I don't think Bush kept up well. He ran the country on hunches, by the seat of his pants. He probably really had no need for advisors because he had already made up his mind. He needed only "yes" men. Obama is cut from a different cloth. He actually wants to be advised, which is a refreshing change of pace. It's almost too good to be true:

"We're not always going to agree on everything," Jones said, and "so it's my job to make sure that minority opinion is represented" to the president. "But if at the end of the day he turns to me and says, 'Well, what do you think, Jones?,' I'm going to tell him what I think."

The Associated Press reports on the stimulus package and the future course of events:

The Senate's $827 billion stimulus legislation seems assured narrow passage by Tuesday. Harder work for Obama and the Democrats comes in the days ahead, when the House and Senate attempt to reconcile differences in their two versions.

Obama and Democratic Party leaders had hoped to have a bill ready for the president's signature by Feb. 16 — a goal that appears increasingly unlikely.

It's going to be tough. The Republicans are not making it easy. They want the same old same old even though they lost and they're not enough of a minority in the Senate that their will can be brushed aside. I think the next few days will define this presidency. Obama points out that it's early and that trust takes time to develop, but he's putting a good face on it. The Republicans have no intention of compromising or cooperating or developing trust. With Rush Limbaugh as their Pope, they've made it clear that they're the party of the not-so loyal opposition.

Day 19 - A Nation in Peril

2009-02-07T15:15:00.004-05:00

It's been a frustrating day politically, listening to the propaganda machine of the Republican party. They dominated the news media yesterday. By far more Republicans were heard than Democrats, all shouting down the stimulus package. As Media Matters for America points out,

ABC's Charles Gibson portrayed

spending and stimulus as opposing concepts in a question to President Obama: "And as you know, there's a lot of people in the public, a lot of members of Congress who think this is pork-stuffed and that it really doesn't stimulate. A lot of people have said it's a spending bill and not a stimulus."

That formulation -- "it's a spending bill and not a stimulus" -- is complete nonsense; it's like saying, "This is a hot fudge sundae, not a dessert." But nonsensical as it is, it has also been quite common in recent news reports.

Obama made this point himself in his speech yesterday. SPENDING IS STIMULUS. But if the media won't tell the truth, or doesn't know the difference, or is afraid to call propagandists to task, then the truth will never get out. IF the stimulus is less popular, as CNN reports, it is because CNN and other news outlets have fed the Republican propaganda machine with their lopsided coverage. As Media Matters points out,

So far, the news media's coverage of the stimulus debate has consisted largely of repeating false Republican spin and pontificating about which side has been making their arguments more successfully (all the while ignoring the media's own role in aiding the GOP.)

From MSNBC:

While Senate Democrats reached an agreement with moderate Republicans on Friday, more conservative Republicans refused to fast-track the legislative process. Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, insisted that the deal required careful deliberation and said that he would spend the weekend reviewing it, even though it was clear that he was unlikely to support the measure.

As a result, the Senate met for a rare Saturday session, and Republicans delivered some of their harshest criticism of Mr. Obama since he took office, suggesting that he was pressuring Congress to act in an irresponsible fashion.

“In discussing with the American people his approach to the stimulus of our economy, he has first really used some dangerous words,” said Senator Jon Kyle of Arizona, the No. 2 Republican. Mr. Kyl added, “It seems to me that the president is rather casually throwing out some careless language.”

I guess they don't like Obama speaking to us behind their backs. They're not used to an American president actually treating the American people as part of the political process. But Obama has done the right thing. And we must do the right thing now as well, and pressure our representatives to do OUR will, as they are meant to do.

Day 18 - Selling the Stimulus

2009-02-06T16:11:00.006-05:00

President Obama goes after the obstructionists. It is a must-watch:

I'll quote this report in full:

In a sharp departure from Bush Administration policy, the Obama Justice Department on Friday informed the Supreme Court it is dismissing a challenge on rules dealing with allowable mercury emissions from power plants.

The end result is that the Environmental Protection Agency "has decided consistent with the court of appeals' ruling to develop appropriate standards to regulate power plant emissions," the filing said.

The EPA had set up new rules under which it would drop some power plants as the sources of mercury emissions, loosening more rigorous controls set during the Clinton administration. The appeals court had essentially struck down that new regime, and the Bush administration had appealed.

The decision to withdraw the case leaves the older, more stringent rules in place.

So other than Obama's complete failure to rein in the bloated and unconstitutional Faith-Based Initiative, he's done very well by the country. Unfortunately for me, the support of Christianity by a secular government lowers my approval grade of Obama to a B from an A-.

Day 17 - Getting it Done

2009-02-05T08:44:00.008-05:00

Barack Obama wrote an op-ed piece for the Washington Post which appears in today's paper: The Action Americans Need. "What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis."

Agreed. And in this piece Obama answers his critics:

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

He goes on to conclude, and again I agree:

So we have a choice to make. We can once again let Washington's bad habits stand in the way of progress. Or we can pull together and say that in America, our destiny isn't written for us but by us. We can place good ideas ahead of old ideological battles, and a sense of purpose above the same narrow partisanship. We can act boldly to turn crisis into opportunity and, together, write the next great chapter in our history and meet the test of our time.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I reported yesterday that Wall Street wasn't happy about Obama's new rules. I'm reading more about that this morning. This in particular is a hoot:

The salary limit is "still a hefty sum to be sure, and the spirit of the order certainly has popular appeal, but it's a slippery slope when the government puts restrictions on how much an individual can earn in the private sector," said Patrick O'Hare of the independent research firm Briefing.com.

It's a slippery slope, Mr. O'Hare, when Wall Street CEO's expect impoverished citizens to pay their bloated salaries so they can live like princes. Get a clue.

There is a lot of whining going on and you won't see the American people shed a tear:

Douglas McIntyre at the financial website 24/7 Wall Street said the limits could make it more difficult for troubled banks to retain their best executives.

"Wall Street may keep most of its bankers if they face pay cuts, but it is the top five or 10 percent who make these companies really profitable, and they will soon be on their way to greener pastures if this measure is enacted," McIntyre said.

Is this an argument FOR high pay? Please. These so-called talented people you're whining on behalf of ran their businesses, and our country, into the ground. If this is talent, we can do without it. Get some high school kids in there. They can't do worse.

Don Lindner, a compensation specialist with the human resources association WorldatWork, said the new restrictions could mean a "huge cut in pay" for many top executives.

"They might leave to find jobs where they are paid more, that's my concern, that the restrictions are so deep that the leadership won't stay," Lindner told AFP.

GOOD! That's the outcome we want! Too many still have their jobs. Any CEO who accepted TARP funds should have been fired, along with the entire Board of Directors. They already proved they were incompetent to lead.

Time Magazine has a piece on this. Their question is, Can Obama's Executive-Pay Limits Tame Wall Street?

Day 16 - Reining in Wall Street

2009-02-04T12:01:00.015-05:00

The New York Times is reporting this morning that the Obama administration "is expected to impose a cap of $500,000 for top executives at companies that receive large amounts of bailout money, according to people familiar with the plan." This plan would also prohibit executives from receiving any bonuses above their base pay, "except for normal stock dividends."

And why is the Obama administration taking this step? Because it's listening to the American people, who are outraged by the huge bonuses these modern-day French aristocrats are paying themselves on top of their already obscene salaries.

Under the Treasury’s $700 billion rescue program, most companies that have received money so far have been considered “healthy” rather than on the brink of collapse.

But five of the biggest companies to get help — Citigroup, Bank of America and the American International Group, General Motors and Chrysler — were all facing acute problems. And top executives at those companies made far more than $500,000 in recent years.

Kenneth D. Lewis, the chief executive of Bank of America, took home more than $20 million in 2007. Of that, $5.75 million was in salary and bonuses.

Vikram Pandit, who became chief executive of Citigroup in December of 2007 and previously held other senior positions at the bank, made $3.1 million.

Richard Wagoner, the chief executive of General Motors, made $14.4 million, much of it in stock, options and other non-cash benefits. He earned a $1.6 million salary.

Maureen Dowd lists a few other mind-blogglings acts by the completely immoral and clueless:

Until it came to light Tuesday, Wells Fargo, which received $25 billion in federal funds, was blithely planning a series of “employee recognition outings” to Las Vegas luxury hotels this month.

As ABC reported, Bank of America took its $45 billion in bailout funds and sponsored a five-day carnival outside the Super Bowl stadium, and Morgan Stanley took its $10 billion in bailout money and held a three-day conference at the Breakers in Palm Beach. (Morgan Stanley had also still planned to send top employees to Monte Carlo and the Bahamas, events just canceled.)

The New York Post revealed that Sandy Weill, former chief executive of Citigroup, took a company jet to fly his family for a Christmas holiday to a $12,000-a-night luxury resort in San José del Cabo, Mexico. No matter that the company just got a $50 billion federal bailout and laid off 53,000 worldwide.

The interior of the 18-seat jet, as described by The Post, is posh, with a full bar, fine-wine selection, $13,000 carpets, Baccarat crystal glasses, Cristofle sterling silver flatware and — my personal favorite — pillows made from Hermès scarves.

As of now, the plan has been put into place, as the AP reports:

Obama announced the dramatic new government intervention into corporate America at the White House, with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at his side. The president said the executive-pay limits are a first step, to be followed by the unveiling next week of a sweeping new framework for spending what remains of the $700 billion financial industry bailout that Congress created last year.

Obama clearly understands how the American people perceive the actions of these CEOs, who enrich themselves while their companies fail and while the American people pay to keep them afloat:

"This is America. We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success," Obama said. "But what gets people upset - and rightfully so - are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."

On top of this, Obama said that massive severance packages for executives who leave failing firms are also going to be eliminated. "We're taking the air out of golden parachutes," he said.

Of course, the CEOs are not happy. They've lived high off the hog for a long time and have been a law unto themselves, far above such petty concerns as ethics and morality. Honestly, 500K is pretty generous. I'd like to see steeper cuts in their privileged lifestyle. But it's a start, and it was the right thing to do.

Finally, there is this tidbit of news: TARP recipients paid $114M to lobby lawmakers.

Bank of America, combined with Merrill Lynch, spent $14.5 million and got $45 billion from the bailout. General Motors spent $15 million and got $10.4 billion, and American International Group spent $10.6 million and was paid out $40 billion.

Of all companies that have been helped by TARP, 25 paid lobbyists $76.7 million to represent them on Capitol Hill last year. According to the Washington Business Journal:

Day 15 - A Return to Law

2009-02-03T11:22:00.007-05:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Some good news has come in this morning (I'm getting spoiled): Eric Holder was sworn in Tuesday as U.S. attorney general, becoming the first African-American to lead the Department of Justice on a permanent basis. The Senate had voted 75-21 on Monday to confirm Obama's nomination of Holder, 58, who has previously served as a federal prosecutor, deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration, and briefly, as acting attorney general in early 2001. The man is eminently qualified and he is foursquare against torture. MSNBC reports that "Holder's chief supporter, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the confirmation was a fulfillment of Martin Luther King's dream that everyone would be judged by the content of their character."

There was some opposition, of course: Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky, mentioned Holder's insufficient support for gun rights, for example, and all 21 of the "no" votes were, unsurprisingly, Republicans. They're afraid Holder will hold Bush and his cronies accountable to the law. We can't have that in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Even the Romans prosecuted corrupt consuls when their term of office ended but for Republicans, the violation of the law has become the rule of law. CNN reports

Bond, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, raised concerns that the administration would seek to prosecute U.S. officials involved in using what the Bush administration called "alternative" interrogation techniques, measures that critics said involved the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody.

Holder unambiguously called the use of waterboarding against suspected terrorists a form of torture that violated the Geneva Conventions, but he has said that prosecuting intelligence officials who followed Justice Department guidance would be "difficult."

Bond said that while Holder's answer focused on U.S. officials who were following the administration's legal advice, "I told him, and I believe he understood, that trying to prosecute these lawyers or political leaders would generate a political firestorm."

Yes, we can't have a political firestorm can we? Better to just violate the Constitution and International Law and then pretend it never happened. What are these people thinking, seriously? If we do nothing now, another president will come along eventually who is even worse than Bush, and we'll end up with a dictatorship.

Holder promises to act in a nonpartisan manner, which will be refreshing after Alberto Gonzales' Reinhard Heydrich impersonation. According to AP,

"I am determined to ensure that this shall be a new day for the dedicated career professionals that I am so honored to call my colleagues," Holder told various employees and dignitaries gathered for the ceremony. He said he was committed to remaking the department "into what it once was and what is always should be."

On another front, beset by questions about "back taxes and potential conflicts of interest," Tom Daschle has withdrawn his nomination to be Obama's Health and Human Services secretary.

"Now we must move forward," Obama said in a written statement accepting Daschle's surprise request to be removed from consideration. A day earlier, Obama had said he "absolutely" stood by Daschle.

Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader and a strong backer of Obama's presidential bid, said he would have been unable to operate "with the full faith of Congress and the American people."

"I am not that leader, and will not be a distraction" to Obama's agenda, he said.

Also in the news today, Gallup reports that "Of seven actions Barack Obama has taken during the early days of his presidency, five are supported by large majorities of Americans."

Day 14 - End of Week 2

2009-02-02T07:21:00.009-05:00

MSNBC offers a good start to the day:

The relatively violence-free Iraqi elections mean “substantial” numbers of U.S. troops will be able to return home from Iraq within a year, President Barack Obama told NBC News on Sunday.

“We are in a position to start putting more responsibility on the Iraqis, and that’s good news for not only the troops in the field but also their families, who are carrying an enormous burden,” Obama said in an interview with Matt Lauer, anchor of NBC’s TODAY show.

The article goes on to say that "Obama gave no details, but he said his administration would make its intentions on troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan known in coming days."
This is good news to Americans. Obviously, some of these soldiers will be going to Afghanistan instead, but over all we will still see a significant reduction in the numbers of US soldiers deployed overseas. The Iraq war has been ghastly in terms of lives and dollars and we'll be well out of there. Then there is the loss of Iraq as a recruiting ground for Al Qaeda. Once we are no longer there to stir up tensions, they will find fewer people willing to sign on for their global war. Contrary to Bush rhetoric, we will be safer from terrorism when we're out of Iraq.

On another front, Obama is being accused (rather gently, I think) of having broke his first campaign promise.

Really, every complaint I've heard about Obama so far, since he has taken office, is either petty or an outright lie. And when you consider what Bush and his cronies did to this country, it's really outrageous that anyone is complaining at all. I'm not used to seeing so much information made public. It's night and day compared to the Bush Whitehouse, which hid every damn thing it could lay its hands on.

Apropos of lies, Harpers ran a piece today condemning some tomfoolery, as they call it, in the Sunday Los Angeles Times.

n a breathless piece of reporting in the Sunday Los Angeles Times, we are told that Barack Obama “left intact” a “controversial counter-terrorism tool” called renditions. Moreover, the Times states, quoting unnamed “current and former U.S. intelligence figures,” Obama may actually be planning to expand the program. The report notes the existence of a European Parliament report condemning the practice, but states “the Obama Administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush Administration’s war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard.”

Rendition, also known as "extraordinary rendition" and "irregular rendition" (I do love euphemisms) are, according to the definition on Wikipedia, "terms used to describe the apprehension and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another,[1] and the term "torture by proxy" is used by some critics to describe situations in which the US has transferred suspected terrorists to countries known to employ harsh interrogation techniques that may rise to the level of torture."
In the words of Harpers, "The Los Angeles Times just got punked."

In the course of the last week we’ve seen a steady stream of efforts designed to show that Obama is continuing the counterterrorism programs that he previously labeled as abusive and promised to shut down. These stories are regularly sourced to unnamed current or former CIA officials and have largely run in right-wing media outlets. However, now we see that even the Los Angeles Times can be taken for a ride.

Of course, the Right Wingnuts are having a field day with all this. They're so eager to find anything wrong with Obama that they're clutching at straws, making up lies when one cannot be found. I've haven't seen such an outpouring of hatred and racism since the 60s when I was a little boy. It's frightening to see there is still so much of it.

Day 13 - Super Sunday

2009-02-01T09:36:00.004-05:00

Today is the day of the Super Bowl. I don't know if any bigger news will come out of Super Sunday than the name of the victor, which happens to be Pittsburg in a 27-23 game that came down to the last few seconds. President Obama will be happy; he was apparently rooting for the Steelers.

But that does not mean that events around it stand still, and indeed they have not. One bit of news, as reported by MSNBC, is that the catch-phrase "War on Terror" is fading.

The "War on Terror" is losing the war of words. The catchphrase burned into the American lexicon hours after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is fading away, slowly if not deliberately being replaced by a new administration bent on repairing the U.S. image among Muslim nations.

MSNBC goes on to say that "White House officials say there has been no deliberate ban on the war-on-terror phrase. And it hasn't completely disappeared."

We have lived with this myth of a "war on terror" for seven years now. And it never really was. The invasion of Iraq was not a war on terror but a war of naked aggression against a nation that had done us no harm. I've always equated it with Hitler's invasion of Poland, on equally flimsy justification. If the US fared better than the Third Reich as a result it is only because Bush's Reich lasted only eight years to Hitler's twelve. The US dodged a bullet.

Unlike Bush, Obama is not an ideologue. He understands that the world is far more complex than a black-white dichotomy can explain. The decision-making paradigm of the Bush administration was based on ideology and therefore was flawed. It could not be otherwise. Ideology imposes its will on the world whatever reality itself dictates. Obama is a practical man and I think we can safely say he won't make the same mistakes Bush has made. If war is the result of a failure to listen, we will at least know that Obama HAS listened.

Obama says that there is a sense that the U.S. should be talking more about specific extremist groups — ones that are recognized as militants in the Arab world and that are viewed as threats not just to America or the West, but also within the countries they operate.

The thinking has evolved, he said, to focus on avoiding the kind of rhetoric "which could imply that this was a struggle against a religion or a culture."

As the MSNBC piece observes,

According to the White House, Obama is intent on repairing America's image in the eyes of the Islamic world and addressing issues such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unrest in Pakistan and India, Arab-Israeli peace talks and tensions with Iran.

The New York Times reports that changes are taking place in Iraq as the US prepares to depart in 16 months, a timetable some still oppose.

Iraqis across the country voted Saturday in provincial elections that will help shape their future, but regardless of the outcome it is clear that the Americans are already drifting offstage — and that most Iraqis are ready to see them go.

As the New York Times article points out, "President Obama has made it plain that Iraq is not his war; he wants to focus on Afghanistan. In an economic crisis, there is simply not enough money for the country to keep spending hundreds of millions of dollars a day in Iraq."

Day 12 - Turning to the Middle Class

2009-01-31T21:36:00.004-05:00

President Obama's weekly address:

1/31/09: Your Weekly Address from White House on Vimeo.

This was an interesting development, reported by Yahoo News:

NEW YORK – Most Republican governors have broken with their GOP colleagues in Congress and are pushing for passage of President Barack Obama's economic aid plan that would send billions to states for education, public works and health care.

Their state treasuries drained by the financial crisis, governors would welcome the money from Capitol Hill, where GOP lawmakers are more skeptical of Obama's spending priorities.

The most interesting aspect of this story is that Sarah Palin was among those pressing for release of her state's share of the recovery package.

From the White House blog dated January 30th, a last bit of news from yesterday:

America's middle class is the economic engine of this nation. Our road to economic recovery begins with restoring the prosperity of working families and small business owners. That is why today, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum creating a task force dedicated to raising the living standards of middle class families – and he put the nation’s number two guy in charge, Vice President Joe Biden:

"America’s middle class is hurting. Trillions of dollars in home equity and retirement savings and college savings are gone. And every day, more and more Americans are losing their jobs. President Obama and I are determined to change this. Quite simply, a strong middle class equals a strong America. We can’t have one without the other. This Task Force will be an important vehicle to assess new and existing policies across the board and determine if they are helping or hurting the middle class. It is our charge to get the middle class – the backbone of this country – up and running again."

President Obama went on to say the following:

I'm going to be signing three executive orders designed to ensure that federal contracts serve taxpayers efficiently and effectively. One of these orders is going to prevent taxpayer dollars from going to reimburse federal contractors who spend money trying to influence the formation of unions. We will also require that federal contractors inform their employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Federal labor laws encourage collective bargaining, and employees should know their rights to avoid disruption of federal contracts.

And I'm issuing an order so that qualified employees will be able to keep their jobs even when a contract changes hands. We shouldn't deprive the government of these workers who have so much experience in making government work.

Vice President Joe Biden made a few remarks as well:

And our first task force meeting will be held in -- on February 27th in Philadelphia. The focus of that meeting will be green jobs -- those jobs that pay well, can't be outsourced, and will help us move toward a cleaner, more self-sufficient energy future. Each month to follow, we will focus on a different concern in a different part of the country: how to make retirement more secure; child and elder care, how to make it affordable; improving workplace safety; getting the cost of college within reach of the vast majority of the American people; help weary parents juggle family and work; and create the jobs for the future.

All in all, very exciting news. I was hoping President Obama would find useful and meaningful employment for Biden and I know that's what Biden wanted.

A last bit of news from CNN:

After initially vowing to unveil a new financial rescue package this coming week, senior Obama administration officials are now pushing the rollout date back an extra week in a sign of just how difficult it may be to craft such a massive plan — especially while the White House is simultaneously trying to sell a separate $819 economic stimulus plan.

Two senior administration officials told CNN that the full rescue plan, which is being put together by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and other top economic advisers, is now expected to be unveiled the second week of February. But the officials held out the possibility that Geithner could start teasing out some aspects of the rescue plan this coming week.

Officials said the rescue plan will include a crackdown on bonuses and other compensation for companies that receive federal bailout money.

Day 11 - A War against Rush

2009-01-30T07:45:00.015-05:00

The war between Rush Limbaugh and President Obama seems to be heating up and it is possible there is more to it than meets the eye. Our new president is clearly no intellectual slouch and he has already shown a great capacity to plan ahead, to be prepared for every contingency. We may be seeing more of that now. I just saw this in the Huffington Post:
Media critic Michael Wolff thinks Limbaugh is just being played by Obama:

Right now Rush is being played. The Obama dinner with conservative columnists, shortly before his inauguration, was as much about excluding Rush as coddling the columnists. Not only did the conservatives fawn, but Rush fumed. It got under his skin. Indeed, the rumor that he might in fact be there (likely coming from the Obama camp), and then his evident lack of an invitation, highlighted the slight. He's tried to make it out to be a political point ever since, but mostly he sounds like a guy who's hurt he didn't get invited to the hot party.

HuffPo also reports that Politico reports (why do they do this, it drives me mad) that "Republican House member Phil Gingrey has a message for Limbaugh: back off.

"I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach," Gingrey said. "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. You know you're just on these talk shows and you're living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn't be or wouldn't be good leaders, they're not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell."

This seems to be a shared sentiment. On the radio Monday, Limbaugh said Obama wished the same for him (to fail).

"He's obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell. He's more frightened of me, then he is of say, John Boehner, which doesn't say much about our party," Limbaugh said.

The HuffPo headline Obama Allies use Limbaugh to Hammer GOP on Stimulus seems to be right on and it would appear that Rush has Obama right where Obama wants him. He has certainly played into Democrat hands. While some liberals oppose giving Rush any air-time at all (even to refute him) I applaud the strategy (along with the petition hosted by the Democratic National Committee). If you let the other party control the terms of the debate, you also let them control its outcome. Rush has gone unanswered for too many years, spreading too much propaganda, for it to go unanswered. This is what HuffPo had to say yesterday:

Key Democratic groups are launching a series of radio advertisements on Friday designed to tie Republicans to Rush Limbaugh and put pressure on GOP Senators to support the stimulus package.

MoveOn, Americans United for Change, AFSCME and SEIU are releasing the spots in three states with Senate Republicans who could potentially switch party lines on the stimulus vote: George Voinovich in Ohio, John Ensign in Nevada, and Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. The ads are designed to drum up support for the president's economic recovery package. But they do so in somewhat of a round-about manner, not just touting the jobs that could be created from the bill but tying Republicans to some of Limbaugh's most caustic and controversial anti-Obama comments.

Finally, I'd like to point to a great Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, by Paul Krugman, Health Care Now. Krugman asks a very critical question, one for which there is no answer at this point:

Why has the Obama administration been silent, at least so far, about one of President Obama’s key promises during last year’s campaign — the promise of guaranteed health care for all Americans?

If anything ever proves the old adage that a picture is worth 10,000 words it is this piece, by PunditKitchen.com:

see Sarah Palin pictures

Who doesn't want a president with an inner Samuel L. Jackson?

Day 10 - A First Misstep

2009-01-29T08:27:00.011-05:00

Update 8:09PM: This just in from FOX news, a bit of good news to offset the less happy vents of the day:

The chairman of the Senate banking committee claimed Thursday that he would "look at every possible legal means" to recover billions in bonuses to Wall Street executives, after President Obama called the bonuses plain "outrageous."

The president reacted harshly Thursday to reports that corporate employees got paid more than $18 billion in bonuses last year.

"That is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful," he said.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., released a statement saying: "I'm demanding that the Treasury Department figure out some way to get this money back."

Finally some bad news coming out of the Obama Administration. Funding was included in the House's version of the stimulus package for Bush's unconstitutional "Faith Based Initiative." I earlier sent a letter to my senator to urge the Senate to remove this part of the bill. But this is not the end of the story. I just received the following from Americans United for Separation of Church and State:

Media outlets reported today that President Barack Obama will name Joshua DuBois, a Pentecostal minister who did religious outreach during the campaign, to head a revamped White House office of “faith-based” initiatives.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called on Obama to act quickly to overturn executive orders and other policies from the Bush administration that undercut civil rights and civil liberties.

“I urge President Obama and his staff to work expeditiously to fix several glaring problems with the ‘faith-based’ initiative,” Lynn said. “Time is of the essence. Every day the initiative operates under Bush-era rules is another day rights are violated and tax money is squandered.”

Lynn said the Obama administration should work to implement a series of recommendations the new president made in July. During a speech in Zanesville, Ohio, Obama vowed to end taxpayer-funded job bias in faith-based programs, forbid proselytizing in these programs and subject them to oversight to make sure they are effective.

Clearly, this is a mistake of epic proportions. If Church and State are separate, how can the State appoint anyone to oversee anything that is not, according to the Constitution, in any way within the purview of the federal government?

According to the UPI, "The White House declined to comment."

I hope the news is not true. It will be a huge disappointment if Obama does indeed appoint a "religious czar." We have enough czars already, and frankly, I'd like to see the term done away with, given its unhappy connotations.

On another front, as I reported last night, the stimulus package was approved by the House and must now face the Senate. The New York Times observes that while

While the House and Senate measures are similar, they are most likely to differ in ways that could snarl negotiations between Democrats from the two chambers, and delay getting a measure to the president. In particular, House and Senate Democrats are split over how to divide $87 billion in relief to the states for Medicaid, with senators favoring a formula more beneficial to less-populous states.

Democrats’ own differences aside, they also are under pressure from the White House to be open to proposals from Senate Republicans who might support the final legislation if their interests are accommodated, and which might draw a few Republican supporters on a final vote next month in the House.

The New York Times this morning had a piece about Obama's style, including his overturning Bush's dress code - the President and his staff have been photographed working in the Oval Office sans jacket. Scandalous! The article also discussed his work habits:

Although his presidency is barely a week old, some of Mr. Obama’s work habits are already becoming clear. He shows up at the Oval Office shortly before 9 in the morning, roughly two hours later than his early-to-bed, early-to-rise predecessor. Mr. Obama likes to have his workout — weights andcardio — first thing in the morning, at 6:45. (Mr. Bush slipped away to exercise midday.)

He reads several papers, eats breakfast with his family and helps pack his daughters, Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, off to school before making the 30-second commute downstairs — a definite perk for a man trying to balance work and family life. He eats dinner with his family, then often returns to work; aides have seen him in the Oval Office as late as 10 p.m., reading briefing papers for the next day.

Finally, on the diplomacy front, Reuters reports that

Officials in U.S. President Barack Obama's administration are drafting a letter to Iran from the president aimed at unfreezing relations and opening the way for direct talks, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported on Thursday.

The U.S. State Department has been working on drafts of the letter since Obama was elected last November, the report said. It was a response to a letter of congratulations sent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after Obama's poll victory.

The letter gives assurances that Washington does not want to overthrow the Iranian administration, but instead seeks changes in its behavior, the paper said. It would be addressed to the Iranian people and sent directly to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or released as an open letter.

Day 9 - Stimulating the Economy

2009-01-28T11:16:00.013-05:00

Update: 10:54PM CBS News is reporting that "The House of Representatives late Wednesday passed President Barack Obama's $819 billion plan to stimulate the economy and curtail the nation's year-old recession. The 244-188 vote proceeded along party lines as expected. Only 12 Democrats opposed the measure, and no Republicans supported it."

The House of Representatives votes on the stimulus package today. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Tuesday called the bill "most critical piece of legislation [Congress] will consider this session." Democrats have an overwhelming majority in the House so it will pass without difficulty. Obama reached out to House Republicans yesterday but they seem primarily interesting in imposing their already failed policies on Obama. After all, if it didn't work in eight years, maybe four more will do the trick. That seems to be their thinking. Obama tried, apparently they were impressed by the gesture, but it will have no effect in the long-term because apparently most if not all of them will vote against the package. Obama on the meeting:

"I don't expect 100% agreement from my Republican colleagues, but I hope that we can put politics aside...The main message I have is that the statistics every day underscore the urgency of the economic situation," the president said. "The American people expect action."

Of course, the House is only phase 1. Next comes the Senate. On Tuesday, CNN reports,

key Senate committees took up the Senate's separate but similar version of the bill. Next week, the full Senate will vote on its version. Should both the Senate and House pass different versions, the two bills would have to be conferenced together. Then, both chambers would have to vote on the new, conferenced version in the coming weeks.

MSNBC reported last night that the final form of the bill will likely be what Obama wants, despite Republican opposition, which is spreading disinformation and sometimes making things up in a desperate attempt to derail the package. It won't work. Obama has the highest approval rating of any incoming American president in history. Those who seek to obstruct him are, at present, swimming against the tide. So whatever the opposition, reports are that the deal will be done by the mid-February deadline. There are things in the package that can legitimately be quibbled with, and it's clear that the boost to the economy will not be immediate (Republicans claim their suggestions will lead to immediate improvement, though how that can be claimed given that their policies put us here in the first place, is anyone's guess. Ideology is blind, after all).

A final thought for the day. I was reading a report from Gallup called "State of the States: Political Party Affiliation".

The caption for this map reads:

The accompanying map shows party strength by state for 2008, ranging from states that can be considered solidly Democratic (a Democratic advantage in party identification of 10 percentage points or more) to those that can be considered solidly Republican (a Republican advantage in party identification of 10 percentage points or more). States in which the partisan advantage is less than 5 points in either direction are considered "competitive."

The implications, argue the Gallup site, are that "The political landscape of the United States has clearly shifted in the Democratic direction, and in most states, a greater proportion of state residents identified as Democrats or said they leaned to the Democratic Party in 2008 than identified as Republicans or leaned Republican."

Day 8 - A Post-Partisan President

2009-01-27T06:33:00.024-05:00

Obama gave an interview Monday with Al Arabiya TV, offering a new face of America to Arabs and Muslims. Obama made it clear that the US would remain friends and allies of Israel but he offered an olive branch of Islamic nations and expressed concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people. Significantly, this was his first television interview, and it was not given to domestic networks but to an Arab network seen by tens of millions of Muslims.

CNN reports that

Obama's interview was seen widely in Pakistan and has received a generally positive response from analysts there. Islamabad author and journalist Imtiaz Gul told CNN: "It's a good sign of an attempt to reconcile with the Muslim world, to say America wants to reach out to them and not to consider them as an enemy."

Another piece I saw today was from Frontal 21, a German newsmagazine, which had a report about the misdeeds of the Bush Administration, specifically, in this case, torture and human rights abuses. This piece argues that legally, Obama is bound to prosecute Bush.

I don't think we can ignore Obama's governing style in the decisions he's made and is yet to make. Bush seemed to govern either according to an ideological play-book or on intuition, and he surrounded himself with a staff of "yes men". Facts had to conform to ideology and unpleasant facts had to be legislated out of existence, ignored, or reinterpreted so as to no longer present a problem. It's no wonder that the Bush foreign policy decisions of the past eight years led to so many problems and even debacles.

But as a January 20th article in the New York Times points out, Obama is a different sort of president. He actually likes divergent opinions. He actually likes facts. He is willing to entertain opposing voices before coming to an informed decision.

What the country has seen of his leadership style so far evokes the discipline of George W. Bush and the curiosity of Bill Clinton. Mr. Obama is not shy about making decisions and making them expeditiously — he assembled his team in record time — but he has also sought to tap into the nation’s intellectual dialogue at a time of great ferment...“He sort of lives in a grudge-free zone,” said John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of his transition team. “He’s capable of taking on board a lot of information and making good decisions. He knows he’s going to make mistakes. But he also knows that you’ve got to do the best you can, make tough decisions and move on.”

It is refreshing to have somebody in charge who can and will look at the world unblinkered by ideological predispositions. The world is a dangerous place and ideology only makes it more so. The world is not a simple place and ideology does not allow for levels of complexity. But as the New York Times reports,

“I don’t think it maps into traditional right-left, but nor is it Bill Clinton-like triangulation,” said Robert B. Reich, Mr. Clinton’s labor secretary and an economic adviser to Mr. Obama. “My sense is he genuinely believes that people can come to a rough consensus about big problems and work together effectively. I don’t really get a sense of ideological position. He’s obviously a man of strong convictions, but they don’t fall into the standard boxes.”

They are starting to refer to Obama as a "post-partisan" president for his efforts to work across the aisles and to include opponents in the debate and decision-making process. This president wants consensus, not "us" vs. "them." To that end, he has dropped the $200 million that was supposed to go towards contraceptives in the new stimulus bill. This is a concession to Republicans, though they are no doubt claiming some sort of ideological victory. In the end, Obama does not really need the Republicans to pass the bill, which should be enough proof of his sincerity to find that consensus when he meets with Republicans at a luncheon on Capitol Hill today (CNN is saying that today "Obama tests his bipartisan potential"). The Republicans are apparently claiming that the Democrats are Obama's true problem, hinting that they are not in lock-step with the president (Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky on the TODAY show this morning), but these reports are patently false. In fact, six Republicans crossed the aisle to vote for Obama's request to have the remaining $350 billion from the first stimulus package released to him last week.

MSNBC reports that "House Republicans have drafted an alternative. Except for an extension of unemployment benefits, it consists exclusively of tax cuts." Not surprising; and not very helpful either. For eight years they've had what they wanted, and now, as a minority, they want to dictate to the majority, after a popular vote utterly rejected their failed policies, what we should do now in this economic crisis their policies created. Fascinating.

I will save the best for last. ABC news is reporting that "The high-flying execs at Citigroup caved under pressure from President Obama and decided today to abandon plans for a luxurious new $50 million corporate jet from France." Given that the taxpayers have forked over $45 billion to Citigroup to bail them out, it seems particularly obscene to buy the plane from France when at least buying one from the US would have helped US industry and by extension, US workers.

The decision came 24 hours after the banking giant, which was rescued by a $45 billion taxpayer lifeline, defended buying the state-of-the-art Dassault Falcon 7X -- one of nine to be flying in U.S. skies -- as a smart business deal.

The jet, the epitome of corporate prestige and privilege, can carry 12 passengers in elegant comfort.

ABC News has learned that on Monday officials of the Obama administration called Citigroup about the company's new $50 million corporate jet and told execs to "fix it."

Day 7 - And Seven Makes a Week

2009-01-26T19:54:00.004-05:00

A full week of Obama's presidency has gone by, and it's been the most enjoyable week of the past eight years. In fact, I don't think I've been this happy since Clinton was president. If Bush hadn't done all in his power to bring America to her knees, I'd be even happier. But as I've been saying, at least we have hope now.

Speaking of Bush, Obama is now facing some hard work fixing the breakdown of environmental protections weakened and, in places, outright destroyed by Bush's maliciousness.

Time Magazine reports

when it comes to environmental regulations, he's still in the grip of yesterday. In his last few months in office, former President George W. Bush's Administration pushed through over 150 "midnight regulations," many of them weakening existing environmental protections. Although Obama is now in charge, most of Bush's new rules are on the books, and changing them will take time and effort from an already burdened White House. "The Obama Administration will be saddled with reversing harmful Bush rules at the same time that Obama wants to enact his own agenda," says John Walke, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

Time observers that "The Obama Administration isn't completely helpless. As the President, Obama of course can push through regulations of his own, but that can take months."

That said, Obama has already made at least one important move: MSNBC reports that

President Barack Obama is poised to let California and other states set their own more stringent auto emission standards in their drive to slash greenhouse gases, an official familiar with the decision said Sunday.

. This is great news. I well remember how angry I was when Bush denied California's request for a waiver. It seemed small minded and mean spirited. Obama, however, is made of better stuff. As MSNBC notes, "he move is significant on two fronts: It could empower states to set tougher standards in targeting emissions, which are blamed for contributing to global climate change."

Obama is also expected to direct the Transportation Department to get moving on rules for automakers to improve fuel economy. A 2007 law requires that by 2020 new cars and trucks meet 35 miles per gallon, a 40 percent increase over current standards. The Bush administration ended its tenure before putting the new fuel-economy rules in place.

I would love to see Bush prosecuted for all his crimes against America and against the American people. The world, I think, should have to get in line and have whatever is left of him when we're through. I don't know if that will happen, but it needs to be done. We can't let a president do the things Bush has done ever again.

Finally, MSNBC reports that "The president on Monday is also expected to tout proposals that he says would boost clean energy supplies while also producing badly needed jobs in so-called "green" industries."

Hopefully, this will not include "clean coal" which is a canard if there ever was one. There is no such thing as recent troubles in Tennessee.

A final bit of news today: The Senate voted today to confirm Tim Geithner as the next treasury secretary. He was sworn in by Joe Biden. He appears to be the best man for the job, and he promises far better oversight on the stimulus money than previously displayed by Bush's people.

Day 6 - A Time for Diplomacy

2009-01-25T12:07:00.013-05:00

We are nearly at the end of Obama's first week in office. These have been momentous days, pregnant with hope and promises fulfilled. Most significant of all the changes Obama has brought to the presidency is his willingness to embrace diplomacy. And this openness, this willingness to talk before shooting, is already bearing fruit. According to the Associated Press,

Fidel Castro is said to like the new American leader, and North Korea and Iran both sounded open to new ideas to defuse nuclear-tinged tensions...Iran still considers the U.S. the "Great Satan," but a day after Obama was sworn in, it said it was "ready for new approaches by the United States." Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said his country would study the idea of allowing the U.S. to open a diplomatic office in Tehran, the first since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

I have been reading a very compelling book, David Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerilla (Oxford, 2009), who points to the problems long plaguing US relations with Iran. I have to wonder if Obama isn't familiar with Kilcullen, who served General Petraeus in Iraq as Senior Counterinsurgency Advisor. This is what Kilcullen has to say:

There is a certain amount of irrationality in our Iran policy, arising in part from the experiences of the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis in Tehran in 1979-80...There is baggage on both sides, of course; some Iranians remember the U.S.-led overthrow of the Mossadeq government in 1953 with equally vivid bitterness while others, opposed to the current regime, blame America for the revolution of 1979. This baggage sometimes makes American policy-makers reluctant to accept the historical and geopolitical fact of Iran's importance in its region, and hence the underlying legitimacy of Iran's long-term aspirations to play a regional role, including in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course, the United States and the rest of the international community have a clear interest in ensuring Iran plays a constructive role in those countries, rather than its current highly destructive and de-stabilizing role. Still, it seems clear that distinguishing Iran, as a country, from the clericist regime in Tehran and from the Iranian people it opposes, is fundamental to developing an effective Iran policy. The youthfulness of Iran's population, and Iranians' widespread dissatisfaction with the only regime many of them have ever known, are key advantages for the United States. But lack of diplomatic representation in Tehran, along with limited willingness to engage in discussion with Iran's leadership group - backed by force and international consensus, and addressing the broadest possible range of issues in partnership with other Muslim allies - severely limits U.S. options and restricts situational awareness. This makes it hard to clearly discern the Iranian role in an Islamic civil war, or to formulate viable policy responses to it (pp. 20-21).

Clearly, the US has understood as little of Iran's real and legitimate concerns as it did those of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. We always tend to think in terms of Good vs. Evil and those are not useful demarcations. The real world is more complex than that. We're not always innocent of blame; the other side is not always guilty of the blame.

The Brookings Institute has released a paper studying the issues, Europe, the United States, and Middle Eastern Democracy: Repairing the Breach. They suggest the following steps:

Avoid concretizing divergent rhetoric in disparate European and American mechanisms or institutions. Brussels and Washington should consider setting up a higher-level transatlantic forum for coordinating policies in the Middle East, along the lines of the U.S.-E.U. strategic dialogue on Asia established in 2005.

Continue issuing joint diplomatic statements on the need for and desired shape of Middle Eastern reform. The Atlantic community should leave Arab leaders in no doubt of the West’s continued interest in and attention to democratic growth and human rights improvements in the Middle East.

Coordinate rewards on offer for democratic reform. The Atlantic allies should seek common criteria for determining such rewards and coordinate on the use of positive conditionality to induce greater reform and ease the costs of change.

Uphold the principle that local civil society can seek and accept foreign assistance. The European Union and the United States should articulate clearly and forcefully that their links to and support of Arab civil society are non-negotiable.

Coordinate positions on engagement with Islamists. Western defense of peaceful political activism should not be selective, and transatlantic pressure should be wielded when regimes crack down on nonviolent Islamist organizations or prevent them from meeting with Western donors.

Improve coordination in the provision of non-governmental aid. American and European government funders should engage in more sustained and regular dialogue on funding strategies for democratic development in specific states, and how to use their funds most efficiently to achieve common goals.

Stress jointly that democratic development in the Middle East is a common interest of Europe, the United States, and the peoples of the region, not a means to other ends. Democracy should be supported as a system that meets the aspirations of Middle Eastern citizens for greater say in their government, and not simply because it is judged as instrumental for Western interests.

The paper points out the Europe and the US approach the problem from different angles and conclude that "If European and American policymakers wish to move beyond the ructions of recent years, they can and should focus on their points of relative similarity as a foundation from which transatlantic cooperation in the Middle East can, cautiously, be rebuilt."

On the economic recovery front, the full text of the bill to be introduced is now available from the US House of Representatives Committee on Rules here.

The New York Times reports that
"The Obama administration plans to move quickly to tighten the nation’s financial regulatory system":

Officials say they will make wide-ranging changes, including stricter federal rules for hedge funds, credit rating agencies and mortgage brokers, and greater oversight of the complex financial instruments that contributed to the economic crisis.

The Times observes that "Some of these actions will require legislation, while others should be achievable through regulations adopted by several federal agencies."

The best news of all is perhaps this: "Administration officials have begun to study ways to control executive compensation."

“Excessive executive compensation that provides inappropriate incentives,” Mr. Geithner said, “has played a role in exacerbating the financial crisis.”

Hail to the chief!

Day 5 - Going Live

2009-01-24T11:22:00.011-05:00

President Obama's first internet address, Saturday, January 24th, 2009 at 5:55 am:

Download the Recovery Plan Metrics Report

This is a new era. We've gone from radio addresses by FDR to television addresses and now internet addresses. And you can download them for posterity, to share, or listen to later, when you have some quiet time away from kids and other distractions. Technology is amazing. And I love how this new president embraces it. This is a forward thinking man, not a neobarb like the last bunch to infest our nation's capital.

This is obviously a very contentious issue. It has been and it will remain so, whatever is finally decided about the stimulus package.

Republican opposition is almost laughable. They say "You can't do this! It doesn't have any trickle-down economics in it!"

Of course, we've tried trickle-down economics before. It doesn't work. No matter how often they try it, it doesn't work. The wealthy just pocket the money. They don't create new jobs with it.

They have had their chance. It's time for a change. It's their failed economic policies that got us here in the first place.

AssociatedContent.com put Obama's response this way:

After listening to a critique of the nearly nine hundred billion dollars stimulus package from Republican Congressional leaders, along with some helpful suggestions on how to fix it, President Barack Obama had a two word answer.

"I won," President Obama said, indicating why the Republicans were not going to have any significant input into the bill.

Some of Obama's supporters are upset with him regarding the Palestine issue. There are some real opponents of Israel in this country and they see this whole situation in terms of Israel=evil, Palestinians=good. There is talk of holocaust - by the Jews this time and not against them. To be sure, the news out of Palestine is grim. To be sure, atrocities have been committed. And to be honest, I do not see any drastic changes in the future. I warned of this on Digg over the past few days. The cost to Obama in political capital would be too great. The Israel lobby is very strong. The US has had a special relationship with Israel since 1948. The US has invested a great deal in the State of Israel. It's not likely we'll abandon them now.

That said, I think it's too early to condemn Obama. He has been president for less than a week. Isreal is holding new elections and it's not like he can go there and talk to...who? He has no idea who will be elected. He has appointed Mitchell as his special envoy but Mitchell has not had a chance to go over there yet either (according to Reuters, he's expected to go next week).

The truth is, people are impatient. They want change now. They're used to living in a world that offers immediate gratification. This sounds trite, but change doesn't happen overnight. We need to be patient. We need to give diplomacy a chance. We need to give Obama a chance.

I'm a little disappointed in people who are willing to condemn him so quickly, or who think the Gaza situation is the most important situation facing either Obama or our country.

Finally, Pakistan is still in the news. So far, the US has made no official announcement about the rocket attacks. It's been suggested that CIA-controlled drones made the strikes. We won't know for sure what's going on until somebody accepts responsibility.

All this goes to show that the problems facing Obama are many and varied. I would not want to be that man right now.

Day 4 - Questions

2009-01-23T08:40:00.009-05:00

It is the fourth day of the new Era. I can easily understand ancient dating systems that were reckoned according to the reign of a king. That is how clear the demarcation between January 19th and January 20th seems. Where nothing was possible before, everything seems possible now, and no critics have so far managed to rain on my parade. People are too quick to judge. No matter what Obama does, some will say he acted rashly, and others will say he acted too slowly. But it's the nature of people to think they know better (including me) as well as to be impatient. And can you blame them after the eight years we have endured?

There are concerns among some that Obama's executive orders of yesterday left too much wiggle room - too many things on the table that should not be on the table. For example, the army manual will be examined to see if anything needs to be changed. The ACLU fears methods might be added to the 19 methods of approved interrogation that could lead to further abuses and violation of international law. Apparently even the "isolation" of a prisoner is against international law and that is one of the 19 methods approved of by the army manual. An army general stated that it's much ado about nothing, that the military is constantly re-assessing its tactics and methods to improve them. I suppose this is one of those times we will have to wait and see what happens. Like the ACLU, I'm hopeful. We've been a rogue nation long enough and I do not believe Obama intends to further the alienation begun under Bush.

The big news today is the signing by Obama of another executive order, this one revoking the so-called "Mexico City policy" - a rule which prohibits U.S. money from going to international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion services - first put in place by President Reagan in 1984, then canceled by President Clinton in January of '93 as one of his first acts in office, only to be reinstated by President George W. Bush in 2001 as one of his first acts. Obviously, the conservatives are unhappy over this but CNN tells us that "The group Population Action International praised Obama's move, saying in a statement that it will "save women's lives around the world."

Something is being made of the fact that Obama chose today - one day after the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade - to sign this order. Other presidents have chosen that day to act, and it has been suggested that Obama deliberately held off one day to show so-called "pro-life" groups that he is not looking for a fight. I doubt Obama is that naive. He will get a fight either way. The abortion opponents (I simply can't grant them their self-styled title of "pro-life") offer no quarter and no compromise. It seems to have been the only real platform of the Republican base in this past election, and it is certain to resurface in 2012.

Also arguing against this interpretation are Obama's own words yesterday. According to CNN Obama said that Roe v. Wade

"not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters."

On the international front, there are complaints that Obama is continuing the policies of his predecessor with reports Friday (unconfirmed by US officials) of U.S. drones striking militant targets in Pakistan and killing 17 people. Here is the interview former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf gave to CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

Perhaps there will be more news by tomorrow that will affirm or reject these claims.

All in all, though less newsworthy, this fourth day of Obama's presidency has been quite satisfying.

Day 3 - Promises Kept

2009-01-22T07:58:00.011-05:00

It is Day 3 of the presidency of Barack Obama. I get an almost giddy feeling even typing that, as though it's a dream I never quite thought would come true. But it has, and it is difficult not to bask in the reality of it.

The New York Times provides a nice analysis this morning of Obama's first day as President, On Day One, Obama Sets a New Tone discussing and analyzing the president's initial moves and their importance in setting the tone of his administration. Another offering from the New York Times that is worth a read is Nicholas D. Kristof's The Remaking of America. Kristof makes the following memorable remark:

A BBC poll in 17 nations found that on average 67 percent believed that President Obama would improve America’s relations with the rest of the world; just 5 percent thought the opposite (or maybe feared that if they seemed critical of George W. Bush, they would be waterboarded).

Perhaps the biggest news of the day is the signing by Obama of an executive order to close Gitmo - Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - within a year. CNN reports that

During a signing ceremony at the White House, Obama reaffirmed his inaugural pledge that the United States does not have "to continue with a false choice between our safety and our ideals."

Two other executive orders followed the first:

A second executive order formally bans torture by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terror interrogations. That essentially ends the Bush administration's CIA program of enhanced interrogation methods.

This is a positive step, and one that I cannot praise too highly. And finally,

A third executive order establishes an interagency task force to lead a systematic review of detention policies and procedures and a review of all individual cases.

Obama says this task force will "provide me with information in terms of how we are able to deal (with) the disposition of some of the detainees that may be currently in Guantanamo that we cannot transfer to other countries, who could pose a serious danger to the United States."

Clearly, it will take more to close Gitmo than simply assertion a will to do so. The illegalities of the Bush administration has made the fate of some of the prisoners there highly problematic. They have already been denied due process. They may be guilty, but how can we try them now? I saw it suggested yesterday on MSNBC that some of them may end up being sent home to be tried by their own governments. It may well be that there are two choices, neither of them being "good" and "better."

Two additional executive orders followed:

A second executive order formally bans torture by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terror interrogations. That essentially ends the Bush administration's CIA program of enhanced interrogation methods.

This is another positive step. And finally,

A third executive order establishes an interagency task force to lead a systematic review of detention policies and procedures and a review of all individual cases.

Obama says that this task force will "provide me with information in terms of how we are able to deal (with) the disposition of some of the detainees that may be currently in Guantanamo that we cannot transfer to other countries, who could pose a serious danger to the United States."

Of course, the crazies are still out there. A sampling of today's rants:

* Obama will impose socialism on the United States
* Obama plans to kill millions of babies
* Obama plans to destroy "traditional" marriage

There is more, but those are the "high" points. The Right Wingnuts are doing everything they can to get themselves worked up and if it means inventing "facts" out of whole cloth, they've got the experience and lack of standards to do just that.

Finally, it has been reported in the New York Times that George J. Mitchell, a former Senate majority leader and the chairman of a Middle East peace commission in 2001, has been selected as special envoy to the MidEast. The paper has this to say:

The appointment of Mr. Mitchell, a seasoned and well-regarded negotiator, would signal that President-elect Barack Obama was attaching a high priority to the Middle East and the current Gaza crisis from his first days in office. Obama transition officials declined to comment on Mr. Mitchell, but David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, told CNN on Sunday that Mr. Obama would move quickly to address the instability in the Middle East and hoped that the new cease-fires in Gaza would last.

Obviously, this is good news. Now that Hilary has been made officially part of the team, the gears of diplomacy can begin to grind. I'm looking for change, but I'm uncertain how much change we'll get given the strength of the Israel lobby in this country. I'd like to see them judged as every other nation is judged but we've held to a special relationship with them since 1948 and there is a lot of inertia behind our existing policies.

Anything Obama does to re-examine that relationship will cost him political capital. Given the news coming out of Washington, both from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, you can be sure Obama will be carefully weighing where to spend that capital. Critical as the situation in the MidEast is, my own hope is that he will look at our domestic problems first.

Day 2 - The First Morning

2009-01-21T08:24:00.004-05:00

The news services are abuzz this morning with speculation about what the first steps of the Obama administration will reveal. He began his first full day in office with a moment of solitude in the Oval Office, reading a note left for him by Bush, before making phone calls to Middle East leaders, including King Abdullah of Jordan, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

But as of last night, Obama had already acted in two ways: he ordered a halt to Gitmo cases for 21 days, allowing time for a review, and, in the words of CNN, "Chief Staff of Staff Rahm Emanuel sent a memo Tuesday to all agencies and departments of the federal government. The memo halts further consideration of pending regulations throughout the government until a legal and policy review can be conducted by the Obama administration."

These are two critically important steps. Clearly, the Obama transition team, as it has done all along, did its homework and has a playbook in place. They know exactly what must be done going forward and I suspect many of Obama's first steps are at this point pre-programmed, designed to halt a further deterioration of the problems confronting us and minimizing the sabotage inflicted on his administration by last minute regulations enacted by President Bush.

And this today from Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com:

There is some genuinely good news today from the Obama camp: following up on the appointment of the excellent Dawn Johnsen to be OLC Chief, it was announced yesterday that Johnsen's second-in-command at OLC will be Harvard Law Professor and vehement Bush critic David Barron, who, among other things, co-wrote this superb Law Review article arguing that the President's "war powers" have been wildly overstated over the last many decades while Congressional power in this area has been vastly understated. Also joining the Justice Department in a still-unknown capacity is one of the smartest, most principled, and most unyielding opponents of the legal radicalism that prevailed over the last eight years: blogger and Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman (who co-wrote that law review article with Barron on the Constitutional limits on the "commander-in-chief" powers). It is virtually impossible to imagine that particular group of individuals placing political allegiance to Barack Obama over the principles they have so forcefully advocated over the last several years.

As Greenwald says, "The importance of these appointments shouldn't be understated." This news alone is enough to make me want to dance in the streets, and anyone who knows me knows I'm not much of one for dancing.

It is a new day. The first morning. And if last night was a symbolic wedding, then the 100 days are the honeymoon, the best chance President Obama has of pushing his agenda forward and seeing his legislation enacted.

I feel better, physically. Stress, as everyone knows, is unhealthy. Since election night, I have been stressed by thoughts of all the awful things Bush was doing (to the environment, to our rights) and would do to inflict maximum harm on our nation and by extension, the world.

As of noon yesterday, the hostile acts of an embittered and mean-spirited administration ceased. And last night, for the first time in eight years, I could go to bed almost free of worry. I suspect many people will feel an improvement in their lives as a result. Not only scientists and economists but average Americans like me.

The skeptics and doubters, as well as conservative opponents and critics, are at work already as well. WND published an article called "Change We Cannot Believe In" making its usual list of false assertions, misstating the facts etc - basically being as propagandistic and divisive as Joseph Göbbels' Der Angriff. Rush Limbaugh has already said he will pray for Obama to fail. I haven't seen such levels of hatred since the 60s and early 70s, when I was a child.

Even so, the good news continues to pour out of Washington. Most recently, from CNN:

Promising "a new era of openness in our country," President Barack Obama signed executive orders Wednesday relating to ethics guidelines for staff members of his administration. "Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," Obama said.

This Administration even at a very early stage seems to be making every attempt to set itself apart from the previous administration. Where Bush was secretive, Obama is open. "This is going to be a general principle of governing," he told CNN's John King. "No spin, play it straight, describe to the American people the state that we're in." Where corruption was the name of the game for the past eight years, Obama swears above-board behavior. Where Bush embraced torture, Obama has abjured such methods of interrogation. Where Bush made war and looked for more, Obama has extended an open hand of friendship to those, in his words, who will unclench their fists.

A final piece of news today, from CNN:

The Senate today approved the nomination of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state by a vote of 94-2. Speaking from the floor, Sen. John McCain urged a quick confirmation. About an hour after the vote, Clinton was sworn in during a private ceremony attended by her husband, former President Clinton. She also formally resigned from the Senate.

I heartily approve of her selection. I think she will make a strong secretary of state, and I'm happy to see McCain did the right thing. I hope he will prove to be a voice of reason on the Republican side.

Day 1 - "The world has changed, and we must change with it"

2009-01-20T13:57:00.005-05:00

At noon today, eight years of failed domestic and foreign policy decisions, fueled by a divisive and corrosive ideology, stepped into the pages of history.

At noon today, a new era began. The Obama Era.

I call this blog Restitutor Orbis.

RESTITUTOR ORBIS - "Restorer of the World"

The title granted to Roman emperors who had stepped into a crisis that threatened the very survival of the empire and by their actions, saved it.

Our own crisis is no less dire than that faced by Rome in the third century of the Common Era. Our nation, like Rome, is faced with a financial crisis and with multiple wars.

In this blog I will chronicle the presidency of Barack Obama on a daily basis, reflecting not only on the state of America but of the world, and Obama's influence upon both.

This journal is dedicated to a little boy, my four-year-old son, who is too young to understand the momentous changes occurring in our country, changes that will impact his life from this day forward.

I hope that someday, he can look back, and in reading these posts, gain a better understanding of the world he is stepping into.

And I hope that by putting my thoughts down on these virtual pages that I will myself gain a better understanding of the world, and of what may well be our last best chance to save America, before our nation too becomes the stuff of history books.

Is my view of Obama biased? Most certainly. Is my acclamation of Obama as a restorer premature? I do not think so. He has already restored the most precious commodity of all, and not only to the citizens of the US, but to citizens of the world: HOPE.