Restitutor Orbis

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.

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

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.

(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.

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)

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I cannot denounce this move strongly enough.

For the full press release, go here.

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a history of the auto industries failings:

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


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


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


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

Why Waggoner? Politico offers two reasons:

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


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

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