George Bush on The Huffington Post

Sen. Byron Dorgan: History Reveals a Pattern as DPC Hearings Look For Best Job Creation Ideas

2009-12-19T10:24:35Z

The Obama Administration inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. That crisis has been described as the "Great Recession."

Over the past year, we've made some good progress in digging out from under that mess. We prevented complete economic collapse, and indicators suggest that the economy is now on the mend.

Employment - jobs - remains a serious problem. Historically job creation has always been one of the last areas to recover, and that's the case with this recession, too. We are determined to focus on this area to get Americans back to work as soon as possible.

The recession may be waning, but talk of economic recovery is small comfort to Americans who have lost their jobs. Our country's unemployment rate now exceeds 10 percent. For every American who is out of a job, the unemployment rate feels more like 100 percent.

The Senate faces no question more important than how to get Americans back to work.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) asked Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) and I lead an effort to develop legislation to create jobs as soon as possible. As part of that effort, I'm conducting a series of Democratic Policy Committee hearings to hear a broad range of ideas about what ought to be in that bill and to review what's worked in the past and what hasn't.

I certainly don't believe that any one party has all the right answers and the other party has none. I'm interested in taking a broad look around and getting the best ideas regardless of the source. I also want to make sure that we are challenging and really thinking through the job creation ideas we select.

It is important to look at the record. What's worked in the past? What hasn't?

Historically, the data suggests that Democratic policies have worked best to put people back to work and strengthen the economy. That's the record.

Your browser may not support display of this image.

Here are three simple charts that illustrate this.

This first chart shows the record of job growth of every administration from Herbert Hoover to George W. Bush.

As you can see, only the Hoover administration had a net loss of jobs. Every other administration had at least some net job growth.

However, there is a distinct trend here: every Democratic administration - shown in blue on this chart - has had a better rate of job growth than every Republican administration - shown in red. If you look at this as a series of peaks and valleys, you see that the peaks are blue, and the valleys are red.

The odds of this job growth pattern happening due to random chance is 1,700 to one.

Your browser may not support display of this image.

The next chart shows the rate of economic growth from the Truman to the George W. Bush Administration. This is the growth in the average annualized real GDP. And again, as you can see, there is a distinctive pattern: the greatest economic growth has come in the five Democratic Administrations.

Your browser may not support display of this image. Finally, here's a chart that shows the performance of the stock market over the years. From FDR through the current administration, the average growth in the S&P index has been 9.4% in Democratic administrations, and 4.3% in Republican administrations. And that does not include the Hoover administration, which would have essentially driven the stock market growth rate for Republican administrations to zero.

There is a pattern that has emerged over the years. In considering various job creation policy options, I think we want to take the historical record into account.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said the Senate will turn to the jobs bill Senator Durbin and I develop when it concludes its consideration of health insurance reform.

Getting Americans back to work is an urgent job. The hearings we're conducting at the DPC, which are taking a broad look at job creation ideas, are helping to ensure that when the Senate considers a jobs bill the ideas it contains have been carefully considered and even challenged.

We want a jobs bill that not only works, but that puts millions of Americans back to work as soon as possible. Thinking "outside the box" will help make that happen.

Missing Bush Emails Will Be Restored: White House Settles Lengthy Legal Battle

2009-12-14T16:56:38Z

The Obama White House has finally stopped defending the mess the Bush administration made of its email archiving, and has agreed to restore millions of missing e-mails from George W. Bush's presidency.

Mother Jones on Monday detailed the "years-long legal battle" that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) and the National Security Archive (NSA) fought against the Bush administration over archiving problems that led to the loss of over 20 million White House emails.

The Bush administration first ran into archiving problems in 2003 but didn't begin to address the problem until October 2005. CREW and NSA filed the lawsuit in order to "force the White House to recover missing emails and implement an effective archiving system that would prevent important presidential records from being lost or misplaced in the future."

After months of balking, the Obama administration reached a settlement with the plaintiffs, under which the White House must recover a total of 94 days of missing emails from 2003 to 2005, all of which will be transferred to the National Archives for preservation and eventual release.

But don't get too excited -- the e-mails could take years to become accessible to the public.

"The actual timeframe is not clear," said Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director. "The emails could be released in 5, maybe 10 years under the Presidential Records Act."

In any case, the recovery of the emails will shed some light on why they went missing in the first place and why the Bush administration "knowingly continued to use a broken system for preserving electronic records," according to a CREW press release.

Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, wrote in a White House blog post: "The President is firmly committed to ensuring that the records of this Administration--as well as those of all previous administrations--are properly retained and preserved. We are pleased to see this matter reach an amicable resolution."

John R. Bohrer: Lieberman, Republicans and Why Change Still Means Something

2009-12-14T15:55:04Z

In case you needed any more proof that Senator Joe Lieberman wants only to slow down and kill health care reform, Greg Sargent has the smoking gun. In a September interview with the Connecticut Post, Lieberman whole-heartedly endorsed the Medicare buy-in, which he now says is the reason he cannot support health care. This is the latest in a long list of excuses he's found to stall the Democrats' signature legislation of the 111th Congress.

Lieberman is too egotistic (and from too blue of a state) to come out and admit that his sole purpose is to block reform from happening. But Michael Steele isn't.

No, Steele's launching a radio ad that un-apologetically embraces the 'kill the bill' mantra. Upset that he didn't get credit for taking the statehouses in Virginia and New Jersey, he's using RNC money to paint the idea of stopping health care reform as his idea.

Of course, he's wrong. Blocking reform outright wasn't his idea. Maybe it was Jim DeMint's. But more likely, it was just a Republican Party, flat out of ideas, not knowing what else to do. They have no alternative of their own, except to stand in the way of change, the way of reform. And so they hold on tight while they wait for the restoration, hoping to be returned to power by making Democrats look like ineffectual failures.

It is a Republican Party that never looked inward at how it could better itself coming off the Bush years. It never looked at new ideas. They have the intellectual consistency of a 2009 Joe Lieberman -- adapting whatever works at making your opponents bleed. Anyone who thinks Lieberman isn't playing a waiting game is deluded. He's a miniature of today's Republican Party -- hoping to go back to the way things were in 2003, 2004. And given the chance, that is exactly where they will take the United States in 2010 and 2012.

For their vision for America doesn't go forward. It extends as far as their ideas: the administration of George W. Bush.

Most, if not all, political observers will say that card is played out -- that people don't care about George W. Bush anymore. But that's what it has come down to. The Democrats are still fighting against the ideas borne out of the Bush years. Because if the Republicans are returned to power over the next few years without having to reexamine what they stand for, it will just be a restoration of the Bush era. And Democrats shouldn't stand for that. Nor can they let Americans be fooled.

If Democrats want to retain the support of the American people in the face of a Republican Party with vampire politics and zombie ideas, it's time they embrace the mantle of change.

Change is, after all, still what they're fighting for.

George H.W. Bush On Joe Wilson: 'How Low Have We Gotten Here?'

2009-12-14T12:57:18Z

Former president George H. W. Bush had some harsh words for Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) in a Parade interview. Via Political Wire, Bush on the lawmaker's "You lie!":

He was deeply offended by Rep. Joe Wilson's (R., S.C.) outcry during President Barack Obama's September speech to Congress. "There has to be a certain decorum and civility. And that was just smashed. I thought, 'How low have we gotten here?'"

Republican leaders said at the time that Wilson should apologize, but they balked at any punishment for his actions.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Jane Hamsher: Calling On Ellen DeGeneres, Christie Brinkley And Other Stars: No More "Race For the Cure" Cancer Money to Hadassah Lieberman

2009-12-14T12:00:46Z

On Friday, I wrote a letter to the Susan G. Komen Foundation asking that they stop using money that was raised for cancer research to pay Hadassah Lieberman, wife of Senator Joe Lieberman, as a spokesperson for the organization. The organization issued a statement saying that they refuse to do so.

As a three time breast cancer survivor, I do not believe that those who "race for the cure" and donate their hard earned dollars think they're doing it so the money can go to Hadassah Lieberman. So today, I'm asking the celebrities who lend their names and their time to Race for the Cure like Ellen DeGeneres, James Denton and Christie Brinkley to join me in asking the Foundation to end its ties with Lieberman, whose professional agenda is antithetical to the cause they purport to advance.

For decades, Hadassah Lieberman has worked for the insurance-pharmaceutical-lobbying complex. Like Newt Gingrich, Dick Gephard and Tom Daschle she never registered as a lobbyist to avoid the official taint, but nonetheless worked at the powerhouse lobbying shops Hill and Knowlton and APCO. She also did stints at Pfizer and Hoffman-La Roche.

When she was hired at Hill and Knowlton as a senior counselor in the health and pharmaceutical practice in 2005, the company issued a press release which said "she hopes to draw on her political experience in concentrating on health care policy and public health initiatives." It is unquestionable that she has used her association with her husband the Senator, who was instrumental in killing the Clinton health care reform effort in 1994, in order to secure these lucrative positions and advance the interests of her clients.

How much is she being paid? It's hard to tell -- the Senate Finance report only indicates that it's "more than $1000." But money paid to spouses is one of the primary ways that members of Congress manage to wander into serious money while in office, and Hadassah made $328,000 in speaking fees in one year. From 2004 to 2008, the Center for Responsive Politics estimates that Lieberman's net worth has increased by a million dollars. That's impossible to do on a Senator's salary alone.

According to Larry Nobel, former executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics: "Unless it can really be shown that there is a reason that an individual is being paid for her expertise, then it does look like she is getting paid as a substitute for his speaking...In perspective, I think it falls in a category of ongoing issues that arise having to do with the proper role of spouses and whether someone is trading off of a spouse's influence."

And what is Joe Lieberman using his influence for these days? After running hapless Harry Reid around in circles with his endless demands, Lieberman is holding the health care bill hostage and says he will join a Republican filibuster to once again torpedo reform.

The death of health care reform will no doubt please the clients of Hadassah Lieberman's lobbying firms, but it would appear to be out of step with the goals of the Susan B. Komen Foundation. In 2008, Komen for the Cure listed $266,314,501 in assets, and Komen for the Cure Affiliates listed $138,428,012. They are by far the biggest breast cancer organization, with close ties to the Republican Party. Executive Director Nancy Brinker was appointed by George Bush as Ambassador to Hungary in 2001, shortly after the Komen Foundation helped defeat a meaningful Patients Bill of Rights and promoted the watered down version Bush advocated.

According to Breast Cancer Action, the rate of breast cancer incidence among women was 1 in 22 in the 1940s. In 2007, it was 1 in 8. Despite the obvious questions this raises about the impact of environmental factors on breast cancer occurrence, the Komen Foundation focuses its resources on developing treatments that increase the profitability of pharmaceutical companies like the ones that employ Mrs. Lieberman rather than prevention. Unlike other breast cancer organizations, they refused to sign on to the 2006 Consensus Statement on Breast Cancer and the Environment.

The drugs that are developed by the Komen money are being put out of the financial reach of average middle class women by Hadassah Lieberman's lobbying firms. Her pharmaceutical employers lobbied heavily for Rep. Anna Eshoo's PhRMA-friendly biologics amendment to the health care bill, which grants "indefinite monopolies" (according to Henry Waxman) on life saving breast cancer drugs that can cost $50,000 to $100,000 a year. This keeps them from ever becoming available as affordable generics. When the underlying causes of breast cancer are never addressed in a way that benefits women who will never be able to pay those high prices to stay alive, the name might as well be the "Race for the Cure You Can't Afford."

Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among women age 35-44. The people who are anguished over the suffering of those they love and want to help in some meaningful way are attracted to Komen by celebrity names like James Woods, Andie MacDowell, Neil Patrick Harris, Jennifer Tilly, John Ondrasik, Kimberly Locke, Marcia Cross, Mimi Rogers, Ann Curry and Aimee Teegarden. They are racing their hearts out because they think it will help others to keep from suffering, they aren't doing it so the money can be used as a pass-through to Joe Lieberman through his wife to block health care reform.

Please join me in asking these celebrities to call on the Komen Foundation to stop giving money to Hadassah Lieberman and sign the petition.

Fred Redmond: A Call to Arms for Civil Rights Activists

2009-12-11T17:13:51Z

Today I issued a call to arms to the civil rights activists of the United Steelworkers union.

This was no summons to warfare, though.

To the contrary, I challenged USW civil rights committee members to shield the downtrodden in society, to aid those felled by the current economic crisis, to serve as their brothers' and sisters' keepers, not just for labor union companions, but for all fellow community members.

This is a call to arms because it will involve heavy lifting, I warned the USW committees at their 15th International Civil and Human Rights Conference in Pittsburgh, Pa.

We'll get a feel for it this week as 85 of us lug books and movies to be donated to Pittsburgh's Children's Hospital, unpack boxes of food and stock shelves at the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank in Duquesne, and distribute recyclable bags containing fruit to residents of Pittsburgh Housing Authority's 10 senior citizen communities.

This economic downturn mangled the budgets of our food pantries, churches, schools, charities, even our local governments. The Great Recession has left them under-resourced and under-staffed. And that is hurting our children, our elderly parents, our fragile relatives and our communities' health.

We hear their plea. It is our communities calling us to arms. And we will reach out in response to them.

That does not diminish our civil rights committees' traditional duties. These are crucial and will continue. They will investigate civil rights complaints and explain the value of diversity.

These functions simply can't be set aside. That is what happened in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department during the long, dark Bush years. A Government Accountability Office audit of the division's activity showed a significant drop in litigation in several major anti-discrimination and voting rights areas during the Bush years. The Bush department pursued fewer cases when compared to enforcement during the Clinton years, according to the report released early in December.

This, of course, was deliberate by the Bush administration, which did not believe in enforcing civil rights law. We will not allow our new duties in the community to distract us from vigilantly pursuing civil rights complaints filed with our committees. Instead, we will assume this new function as an additional role.

It is a role that is basic to unions, which have always struggled to improve conditions for their members and their families.

At this moment, it's vital that labor union civil rights activists everywhere - not just at the USW -- take inspiration from the Dr. Martin Luther King Day of Service and intercede for the sake of their communities so hobbled by the effects of Wall Street recklessness.

Families are suffering under the highest unemployment in a quarter century. For every single job opening available, 6.3 unemployed job seekers are desperate to take it. Those who lose out are forfeiting their homes. Every month, banks file another 330,000 new foreclosure notices and seize another 75,000 homes.

Those lucky enough to have jobs have been pinched by pay and benefit cuts, furloughs and shortened hours. The average work week is 33.2, nearly 7 hours short of 40, costing many workers nearly a whole day's wages. The Center for Economic and Policy Research calculates that workers haven't endured the worst of it yet. In its report, "The $1 Trillion Wage Deficit," the Center estimates that unemployment will cost workers more next year than this in lost income.

Families that can't make mortgage payments also can't meet tax obligations. Then local governments and school districts are caught short. Low tax revenues meant $30 billion in budget shortfalls for states this year, and as a result, they will will send even less money to aid cities and schools next year. Families without income don't eat out or frequent local shops, so those decline. Contributions to local religious organizations and charities slack off, so at the very moment when their services are most needed, they're least able to respond. The connections among people and groups so fundamental to community begin to dissipate and deteriorate.

So I propose that union civil rights activists volunteer to do whatever they can to fill those gaps in community service. Like workers across this country, our civil rights activists have suffered layoffs and furloughs and work week reductions. So stepping forward as cash cows is unrealistic. But we can step up as volunteers, in our church groups, community organizations and schools. Our hands can help hold it together during these trying times.

We can link arms to help our communities. That is my call to arms.

Alex Grossman: Obama Is Destroying Our Global Image

2009-12-08T11:46:33Z

Dear Far Right,

On behalf of President Obama I would like to apologize for his recent string of embarrassing incidents on the international stage and their devastating impact on America's global image. Bowing to foreign leaders? Shaking hands with terrorists? Talking to enemies? These conciliatory actions are nothing less than a mockery of American values and perhaps even borderline treason.

Whether you agree or disagree with his predecessor, President Bush, it is safe to say that the aforementioned kowtowing never occurred during his reign. For the eight years Bush and the conservative movement were in power, America was a beacon of might and right for the rest of the civilized world. They respected us. They admired us. They feared us.

Can you imagine how much more positively foreigners would view us today if conservatives were in charge? Just imagine if McCain and Palin were in the White House. There would be no more pansy-ass negotiations. We'd simply kick ass and take names. We might even lock those names up. Or if we didn't like those names because they sounded too Araby or something, we'd give them new names. Or at least pronunciations. Why? Because compromise is for losers, that's why.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Your shame is my shame, Far Right. We're all in this together. What the rest of the world has and always will respect is strength. And belief in God. And not just any God, but the correct God. The all-powerful right wing, evangelical God that saw fit to make the world in seven days and was also kind enough to let us humans hang with the dinosaurs. "T-Rex, make hustle with thee, Joseph needs a lift to Egypt." Do not laugheth! He did this and it was good!

Tea-partiers, global warming conspiracy theorists, homophobes, birthers, and dudes who hate Mexicans, just because your voices have been temporarily stifled on the world stage does not mean you are wrong. Quite the contrary, my friends, it means you are white! Er, right.

In any event, please accept my heartfelt apologies for President Obama's transgressions. Born under an Arab moon, he is not a true citizen of this country and is unfamiliar with our powerful ways. Have mercy on him as the Koran commands he have on you.

Sincerely,
Embarrassed Liberal Elite

Robert J. Elisberg: What It Takes to Make a Republican Mad

2009-12-08T10:32:05Z

Last Friday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was on the radio, seething about the economy and noting, "I'm madder than I've ever been."

One reason he said he was so mad was because he didn't support the stimulus bill. Okay, true, he did vote to bail out America's banks -- but not its citizens! And in fairness, he's probably still really mad that just before the economy collapsed last year he famously intoned that its fundamentals were strong. So, we'll just give me a pass for making sense about the economy. Even he acknowledged it wasn't his strong suit. If he says he's the most pissed off he's ever been, that trumps all.

Mind you, one would think he'd be more angry at having had to select Sarah Palin as his running mate, especially since her whiny co-written memoirs blast his campaign for her own incompetence. And you'd think there were other things in his long life that had infuriated him the most -- but no, it's the stimulus bill. Fair enough. We'll take John McCain at his word, because he would never be disingenuous, even when upset at losing an election to That One.

But it's not just Mr. McCain's who's mad at the economy, health care, and the stimulus bill that didn't help Wall Street. As he noted, "There's not a lot of happy people out there, so you see tea parties, and you see people who are madder than they've ever been in their life."

Forgetting for a moment that there are a lot of happy people out there thrilled that Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin didn't win the election, there are, indeed, people of all stripes who are unhappy. Most of these stripes, though, are unhappy Republicans. Really unhappy Republicans. Furious Republicans. Republicans, if we are to take Sen. McCain's sharp, observational eye, who are madder than they've "ever been" in their life.

And we don't have to imagine how mad, furious, angry, unhappy, livid, incensed and pissed off they are right now. More mad than they've ever, ever been in their life. We can see that. It's blatantly clear. Because it takes A LOT to make a Republican angry, let alone that angry. So, you really notice it. After all -

Republicans weren't mad when George Bush and Dick Cheney lied America into a war against a nation that didn't attack us and didn't have any Weapons of Mass Destruction.

They weren't mad when George Bush and Dick Cheney pulled troops out of Afghanistan that was harboring the actual terrorists who did attack us.

They weren't mad at George Bush taking a budget surplus of $128 billion when he came into office and turning it into a $455 billion deficit.

They weren't mad, either, that George entered office with a national debt of $5.73 trillion and left with the national debt $10.7 trillion. A doubled increase of $5 trillion.

They at weren't mad when George Bush and the Republican Party ignored the city of New Orleans being wiped off the map.

They weren't mad when George Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping, reading private emails of American citizens and tearing down civil liberties and the Bill of Rights.

The weren't mad when George Bush described the U.S. Constitution as "just a goddammed piece of paper."

Republicans weren't mad at George Bush underfunding "No Child Left Behind." Or vetoing stem cell research.

They weren't mad when officials in Vice President Dick Cheney's office outed a CIA agent whose career expertise was fighting terrorism. Nor where they mad when George Bush ignored his word that he'd act when the perpetrators were found.

They weren't mad at George Bush politicizing the Justice Department, which targeted political opponents and fired U.S. Attorneys who wouldn't go after Democrats.

They weren't even mad when John McCain selected the most woefully unprepared Vice Presidential nominee in U.S. history, who would be a heartbeat from the Oval Office.

So, you just KNOW how utterly, hot-eyed furious Republican must be when they express their outrage at national health care!!

Republicans don't wear tea bags on their heads just for fun, y'know, or shout down disabled people at town hall meetings for the pure sport. No, they are really, really angry. At national healthcare.

Yes, we know they say they're also incensed about the national debt, though in fairness they were never remotely concerned when George Bush doubled it by $5 trillion.

And yes, they do say they're enraged by the stimulus bill, though in fairness they didn't get out their tea sets and Revolutionary War attire when the stimulus bill actually first passed during the Bush Administration.

So, it's safe to say that their real fury must be at national healthcare.

That this is what has finally driven the far-right Republican Party to finally being madder than they've ever been in their lives (!!), one can only admire their courage at finally being so noble at finally voicing such patriotic anger.

One can only admire we have Americans who have such true, heartfelt passion for their country and all its people.

One can only admire how proud the health insurance companies much be to have such loyal support.

And so Republicans are finally mad. Madder than they've ever been in their lives!!!

All it took was providing health care for all Americans.

And Barack Obama being Barack Obama. And winning

Republicans are finally mad.

America could have used you over the past eight years.

UPDATED: Correction on Sen. McCain's voting record.

Rick Horowitz: No to Afghanistan? But Didn't We Say...?

2009-12-07T09:37:00Z

Don't you just hate it when your own words come back to bite you?

You sweat and you squirm -- at least you do if you're being honest with yourself. You try to make what you were saying then line up with what you're saying now, and if you can't, you feel some obligation to explain the difference -- to yourself, and to the people who may have seen those earlier words.

What you can't do is simply walk away from your earlier words and hope nobody remembers.

Which brings us to Afghanistan.

We're going deeper, and maybe longer, into Afghanistan. The prospects are daunting. The historical parallels are chilling. But for those of us who spent much of the previous administration criticizing George Bush and friends for ignoring Afghanistan in their eagerness to get rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq -- for "taking their eye off the ball" -- for us to suddenly decide that, come to think of it, Afghanistan really doesn't matter, and...

No.

For many of us, Afghanistan was a major part of the argument against Iraq. Not only was the Iraq invasion built on faulty (if not falsified) premises, we said. Not only was it misconceived and mismanaged, fought on the cheap and slow to adapt for far too long.

But -- and didn't we say this over and over again? -- every bit of energy and effort and expertise that was going into Iraq, every dollar and every soldier that was focused on Saddam Hussein, meant we were paying less attention to the real danger looming farther to the east: Osama bin Laden and the murderous al-Qaeda, living to plot another day, and another, and another.

Iraq meant we were taking our eye off the ball. Keeping our eye on the ball meant Afghanistan and the neighboring (and wobbling, and nuclear) Pakistan. Iraq was the "war of choice." Afghanistan was the "war of necessity." We said that.

And now Barack Obama, who ran for the White House saying many of those very same things, and who said them again after he took office, is making good on those judgments -- sending more troops, spending more money. Putting the focus where the focus should have been all along.

And some of us are suddenly saying, "Wait a minute!"

We're saying, "Who ever said anything about going deeper into Afghanistan?"

We did. Over and over again.

Now, there's an argument to be made that conditions have changed -- and not just the political condition that the president of the United States is no longer named George Bush. There's an argument to be made that the situation on the ground now isn't what it was then, and that we need to adjust our strategy to meet the new situation. Or that the situation here at home now isn't what it was then, and that we need to adjust our strategy to meet that new situation.

Fair enough -- but then make that argument.

Argue that the threat from al-Qaeda has diminished, and that going harder after them is no longer necessary. Or that the threat from al-Qaeda has increased so much that going harder after them is no longer feasible.

Argue that the Afghan government is more corrupt than we ever imagined a year or two (or six) ago, and that we have no viable, reliable partner for our efforts on the ground there.

Or that there are better ways to spend those billions over there -- more drones firing more missiles at suspected terrorists on either side of the border. Or over here -- hardening our ports and our mass transit and the rest of our infrastructure, better equipping our hospitals and our first responders.

Or argue that we simply don't have the billions to spend, that joblessness and an exploding national debt are greater threats to our well-being than anything al-Qaeda is likely to cook up.

There are arguments to be made. A few of them might even be convincing arguments. But then make those arguments. Don't pretend that we haven't spent these past years shouting "Afghanistan! Afghanistan!" at every opportunity. And now that there's a president who's listened, who's reluctantly reached the very same conclusion, we say --

"Nevermind"?

"Just kidding"?

That won't cut it. Not if we're being honest with ourselves.

Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com.

Sam Sedaei: If I Had Crashed the White House Party, I Would Be in Guantanamo by Now

2009-12-02T11:06:44Z

After visiting one of my friends in Toronto a few years ago, I was on the train coming back to the United States. As the train arrived at the border, it stopped for the customs and border protection agents to check the passports. One of the agents approached me and nicely asked for my passport. I took it out and gave it to him. As he examined it, I noticed that his smile quickly disappeared. He looked at me again, seeming inexplicably troubled. He gave me the passport and thanked me. But a few moments later, another agent came into the car and asked me to follow him for "random" double examination.

As we got off the train, I followed him into the customs office by the track, I noticed that he had selected four other people (three minorities, and one Caucasian who spoke with a heavy Eastern European accent). The agents proceeded to make phone calls and showed a stunningly boorish behavior toward the individuals selected for the random check. One of them insulted me because I answered my phone. I could not believe the representatives of the American government would treat a U.S. citizen in such an undignified way, but wondered if their selection of me for this security procedure was truly random or because of where my passport indicated I was born: Tehran, Iran.

On another occasion a few months ago, I was at my gate in the Fort Lauderdale airport before getting on the plane for a trip to Peru. As I was waiting in line, a gentleman wearing a TSA jacket walked up to me and said, "Sir, if you would follow me please, I'm going to give you a quick pat down and put you in front of the line." Of course, I wouldn't have minded if he was patting down everyone else in line, too. But he was not. Keep in mind that I had already gone through all the standard airport security checks, metal detectors, and ticket checks. Still, there was something about me that made this TSA agent hand pick and re-search me.

Over the past week, the media has shown a great degree of interest in the Virginia couple that crashed the Obama Administration's first state dinner party. It was revealed that the Salahis -- the media hungry couple that has also been auditioning for a so called Real Housewives of Washington DC -- were able to enter the party without invitation and get close to so many high level individuals in the White House, including the president's chief of staff and Vice President Biden, and even shake hands with President Obama.

While those in the media seem concerned about the failure of the Secret Service, few seem to genuinely believe that the president's safety was at all jeopardized. So I could not help but wonder how the media, the White House, Senator Lieberman and the public would have reacted to a different breach. One can only speculate, how would these parties have reacted if instead of being a beautiful blonde woman in a fancy dress and personal make-up artist who literally followed her to the gates, the intruder was a man of Middle Eastern descent with beard named Muhammad? Imagine how people would have reacted if such an individual had been able to enter the White House and shake hands with the President without an invitation.

For one thing, Senator Lieberman would be on Fox News, pointing out how he prays five times a day and is connected through six degrees of separation with some Muslim cleric without using a pronoun once just so he could repeat his first name, "Muhammad," as many times as possible. Not to be left behind, the rest of the media begins to rail against the Secret Service and wonder if Mohammad had a malicious intent that he wasn't able to act on because something didn't go his way. They would research a blog, a paper or something he wrote, in which he was mildly critical of the U.S. government. The Secret Service would immediately take him in for questioning, and no amount of answers would be sufficient to fully satisfy the authorities. Even if no evidence of malevolent intent is detected, the Justice Department will surely prosecute him for this trespassing and put him behind bars for at least a few years.

Of course very few people are seriously demanding that the Salahis be prosecuted. Most of the media is treating the story as an unfortunate incident, but no one is on alert. Commentators seem irritated that the couple would pull such a stunt to get media attention the same way they were during the "balloon boy" incident. But no one -- including the Secret Service -- seems scared or interested in telling the story as part of the global struggle against terrorism. This is because the intruders just "didn't seem threatening," as a commentator said. I will leave it for you to decide what those are code words for.

This is all, of course, besides the point that it surely would have been impossible for a Muslim man named Muhammad to be able to get in the White House if his name was not on the list.

Many of us were frustrated by the Patriot Act during the Bush administration and the way in which it led to profiling and discrimination against minorities. But although President Bush is gone, his legacy continues to live on. Elements within the American security structure -- from national airports and border checkpoints to the White House -- continue to make decisions about threat levels, at least in part, based on the ethnicity and appearance of the individuals of interest. Minorities have to take their shoes off twice before getting on the plane, but the Virginia couple can show up and walk right into the White House as the announcer reads their name through the speakers and shake hands with the President of the United States without anyone stopping them.

I don't generally agree with the Republican strategist, Ed Rollins, but I love something he said on Sunday about the White House intruders: "These people want a reality TV show? Give them one. It's called 'Dealing With the Federal Prosecution System of the District of Columbia."

UPDATE (Thursday, 12.3.2009, 1:20pm): The New York Times is reporting that the individuals within the Secret Service who were responsible for letting the Salahis into the White House have been placed on leave.

Tom Gregory: Obama To Bring Troops Home!

2009-12-02T00:53:37Z

(Reuterz: West Point, NY)

Speaking before a fully-packed audience of uniformed mandatory attendees, President Obama announced that he will deploy 30,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan, promising to bring them home just in time to vote in the next presidential election.

A White House spokesperson said "Bringing troops home always plays well with the voters, but in order to do that, we need to send them somewhere first."

The deployment is estimated to cost taxpayers $30 Billion -- roughly the same as bailing out Goldman Sachs.

Citing the 9/11 attacks, The President emphasized that winning in Afghanistan is absolutely crucial if we are "to learn from the lessons history has taught us."

Apparently not his best subject, Mr. Obama failed to mention that history also teaches us that everyone who has tried this before -- including the Russians, the British, the Ottomans, Alexander The Great, and Genghis Khan- all failed miserably.

Christopher Meyer, Ex-UK Envoy: US Focused On Iraq Hours After 9/11

2009-11-26T12:03:04Z

LONDON — Tony Blair could have delayed the 2003 invasion of Iraq and ensured better plans were in place for its chaotic aftermath by taking a tougher stance with President George W. Bush, Britain's ex-ambassador to Washington said Thursday.

Christopher Meyer, Blair's U.S. envoy from 1997-2003, told a panel investigating the Iraq war that Blair failed to use his influence with Bush to stall the frantic rush to invasion.

Alec Baldwin: The Republican Way: Keeping Everything The Way It Is

2009-11-24T12:10:50Z

Didn't you know, all along, that the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq was about accessing oil?

Not oil as in those production levels at the onset of the Bush era incursion in March, 2003. But newer, stronger, American-style production levels. American oil companies had been forbidden from exploring and developing new oil fields since the nationalization of Iraq's reserves in 1972 and those American oil companies have long contended that Iraqi estimates of their potential reserves are grossly underestimated, by perhaps as much as a couple of hundred billion barrels.

Likewise, didn't you know all along that Republican opposition to current health care reform is about maintaining the unconscionable monopoly that insurance companies have in the American economy. Why? For the same reason Bush went to war in Iraq, spent money we didn't have, pushed the country into financial ruin and did more to threaten our long term national security than any modern president. The GOP needs contributions. I would never contend that the GOP is alone in this practice. When an administration awards contracts to some supporter, they anticipate more support. But no group, in the history of this country, has ever done this to such an extent. Remember, I am always careful to separate the leadership of any party from its rank and file. So when I level such a charge against "Republicans", I am referring to their leadership on Capitol Hill. But, I think it's safe to say now that the war in Iraq was started to provide U.S. oil companies with the opportunity to develop new oil fields there in return for the massive campaign contributions those oil companies will make to the Republicans in 2010 and, especially, 2012 in their effort to unseat President Obama.

The same is true for the health care industry, and insurance companies in particular. They don't want reform. The current system works quite well for them. If an excess of Americans die due to insufficient health care, so what. Republican leaders argue that health care reform will lead to a big, fat, incompetent bureaucracy that will gobble up billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars and provide little accountability. But wait. Isn't the Pentagon a big, fat, incompetent bureaucracy that gobbles up...? Well, you get it.

The Pentagon wastes more money on more crap that you and I don't need and gets it wrong, on a policy level, more often than not since 1960 (I'll give them a pass on Korea, due to all the Cold War anxiety at the time). Republicans never flinch. Spending on the military, and subsequent sales of those weapons systems around the world, help the U.S. economy, in their mind. Those companies, in turn, contribute to the campaigns of men like George W. Bush. This is especially so now that the Pentagon, in the ultimate sign of their stupidity, abdication of their responsibilities and tacit compliance with GOP fundraising goals, have privatized the U.S. military to the tune of one million dollars per soldier in Afghanistan.

Think about that. Recruitment is down. This Pentagon has a shortage of willing and competent soldiers who can run our military machinery. So what do they do? Do they improve recruitment, training and pay for soldiers? No. They privatize as much of these duties as they can (with no bid contracts for staggering sums of money) and create new businesses that, in turn, will contribute to those that helped them

The health care industry wastes untold billions, then passes those costs on to insurance companies who then exploit your fear and pass them on to you. Fear of Al Qaeda. Fear of getting sick without insurance and, therefore, access to effective medical care. Keep everything the way it is, out of fear. Fear that it could get worse. That's the Republican way. These guys have this country coming and going.

Health care reform means less money for insurance companies. Thus less money for the GOP. We should pass this bill for that reason alone.

Iraq War Inquiry Begins In Britain: Tony Blair Will Be Witness

2009-11-24T04:46:04Z

LONDON — An inquiry into Britain's role in the Iraq war kicked off Tuesday with top government advisers testifying that some Bush administration officials were calling for Saddam Hussein's ouster as early as 2001 – long before sanctions were exhausted and two years before the U.S.-led invasion.

Critics hope the hearings, which will call ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair and are billed as the most sweeping inquiry into the conflict, will expose alleged deception in the buildup to fighting. However, they won't establish criminal or civil liability.

Joanne Bamberger: Sarah Palin: Going Rogue to the White House Or Someplace Else?

2009-11-18T14:36:19Z

Sarah Palin in 2012? Some are chuckling, but they might want to rethink their take on the first woman on a GOP presidential ticket.

Conservative pundit David Brooks laughed out loud at the suggestion, calling her a "joke". Others point to 2008 wannabes Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee as more qualified and doing better in polls than Palin when people talk about GOP Presidential hopefuls. Of course, most thought that quitting her day job as Alaska Governor was the death knell for her political career, but I think this is just the beginning of Palin's national political career. After all, she was just on Oprah!

Seriously, as I have to remind some who've accused me of being a closet Republican, I'm no political fan of Palin. But when people dismiss her out of hand, I keep thinking one thing -- remember the last politician we scoffed at as not even close to being competent enough for the White House?

Yup -- George W. Bush. And then we said, "Oh, well, at least he'll only be a one-termer like his father." We were 0 for 2 on that front.

It turns out that the "smart" Bush wasn't the one people related to -- as a nation, we preferred the baseball-loving, brush-clearing, recovering-beer-swilling-guy. More people liked Bush because even though he has two Ivy League degrees, they saw the "common" man in him, and that made them connect with him in a Dr. Phil sort of way.

People also related to Barack Obama in spite of his Harvard degree because he, too, had a good dose of the "everyman" in his life story -- son of a single mom from middle America who struggled with his identity and didn't have things just handed to him on a platter.

But voters wouldn't find a working class story appealing with Palin, right? Think again. There are plenty of voters who find her accessible and according to a recent Rasmussen poll, a majority of Republicans like her and think she shares their values. You can "betcha" Palin will use that angle for all it's worth. According to an excerpt in the New York Times from her book, Going Rogue:

We know what it's like to be on a tight budget and wonder how we're going to pay for our health care, let alone college tuition. ... We know what it's like to work union jobs, to be blue-collar, white-collar, to have our kids in public schools. We felt our very normalcy, our status as ordinary Americans, could be a much-needed fresh breeze blowing into Washington, D.C.

Plus there are still plenty of women who are smarting over Hillary Clinton's loss and who just might vote for Palin if she's the candidate in 2012 because they don't want to wait one more second to see a woman in charge of the Oval Office.

Don't laugh too hard! Democrats aren't doing such a bang up job at the moment -- they're dragging their feet on Paycheck Fairness, throwing reproductive health under the bus and we still aren't further on paid sick days even though we're all spreading the swine flu to each other like wildfire.

Palin is a wily one so I'm not counting her out for 2012, but I wonder if she's got something else on her agenda. I'm betting that being President is a little too much real work for her and that she's angling for something else.

My official prediction is that Palin wants Michael Steele's job as head of the Republican National Committee. Even though Steele has taken his share of jabbing and isn't the most effective one, the position of RNC Chair can be an extremely powerful position -- maybe even more powerful than President when it comes to selecting candidates for races around the country. Plus, you don't have to worry about all those pesky voters, campaign debates and whistle-stop tours! One of the most important roles of a party chair is to be fundraiser-in-chief and that's something that Palin has proven she excels at.

As much as many would like to dismiss her from the national stage (myself included), Palin isn't going quietly. Whether you like her or not, one has to acknowledge the power in that. Whether she runs for President in 2012 or sets her sights on some other political plum, she'll definitely have plenty of pocket change to look for a pied-a-terre in the lower 48 where she can set up base camp.

What do you think? Are Palin's 15 minutes up or is she the new secret weapon to lure women back to the Grand Old Party?

Joanne Bamberger is a political anaylst and writer in Washington, D.C. and the founder of PunditMom blog, a site about the intersection of motherhood and politics. Her work appears in the just released, Kirtsy Takes a Bow: A Celebration of Women's Online Favorites and she is at work on a book about political motherhood (Bright Sky Press, Fall 2010).

Jackson Williams: Obama Bows, Conservatives Bitch, Reality Bites

2009-11-17T15:10:26Z

In the 1980's, billionaire conservative gadfly Ross Perot received the prestigious Winston Churchill Award at a lavish Dallas dinner. Prince Charles himself came across the pond for the event, and local high society, Republican to a fault, rushed around town in the two weeks beforehand booking lessons on how to curtsy in front of royalty.

Never mind that America fought a war to escape British tyranny. The social set is big on ceremony, and this was as big as it gets.

Fast forward a quarter-century. President Obama bowed this week when greeting Japanese Emperor Akihito, and the conservative media and blogosphere went positively apoplectic. The co-host of the Fox News morning show Fox & Friends, Steve Doocy, prattled on about how Americans haven't bowed in over 200 years. Yeah, right.

Doocy is dim-witted, but reprehensible best describes Wesley Pruden, editor emeritus of the far-right Washington Times (owned by the religious Moonies.). He writes in his November 17 column that the president's predilection for bowing is because "he was sired by a Kenyan father" and "born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World," and thus "has no natural instinct or blood impulse" for what this nation represents.

Does he mean "sired" as in the breeding term for animals? Little doubt.

As we see from the images below, however, Eisenhower bowed before De Gaulle (a Frenchman, sacré bleu!), Nixon bowed before Emperor Hirohito (who'd ordered the bombing of Pearl Harbor), and George W. Bush actually kissed the Saudi Arabian King, something his former press secretary Dana Perino admitted to Wolf Blitzer on CNN was "the customary thing to do."

I'd say damn near making out with a foreign leader beats a ceremonial bow any day, wouldn't you?

Even Bob Dylan, arguably the world's most famous Jewish artist, knelt before a seated and throned Pope John Paul ll after performing in his Holy presence. The Bard was not expressing subservience to the Catholic faith and its leading acolyte.

Yet when Obama engages in these same kinds of traditional acts, right-wing heads explode. What blithering, racist fools these mortals be.

Laura Bush Opens Up (VIDEO): 'There's Great Relief ... When You Leave The White House'

2009-11-16T12:52:36Z

How is life these days for Laura Bush? "Freedom," "relief," and "relaxed" were a few of the words Bush used to describe it in her interview with CBS' Maggie Rodriguez.

Bush has been keeping herself busy at her new digs in Dallas, Texas, writing her memoir and acting as chairwoman for the Dallas Center for the Performing Arts. However, a running motif in the interview was the "great feeling of freedom" that comes with leaving the White House, and that she and former President Bush are "both a lot more relaxed."

"There's great relief, believe me, when you leave the White House after serving there for eight years. A lot of responsibility," Bush added.

Bush maintained a sunny disposition for most of the interview, even when it came to her replacement, Michelle Obama, who she said is using her podium as first lady "very well." The one time she expressed disapproval was when Rodriguez touched on President Obama's critiques of the Bush administration:

I can tell you, I don't like that very much. That he would say that, you know, blame everything on George. But I think that really the President of the United States needs to remember the duty that he has and the obligation he has, the responsibility he has to the office. Which is of course to treat it with respect and with dignity. I think that's probably not a really great thing to do. Especially, this is coming from the wife of the former President. So surely you understand me.

On the other hand, Bush was perfectly fine with Dick Cheney's swipes at the Obama administration. "Absolutely. This is a free country, and I think it's important for people to express what they think," Bush said.

WATCH the full CBS interview:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Jackson Williams: Bush Oil Buddies Divvy Up Iraqi Oil, Now Joined By "Liberal Scion" Peter Galbraith

2009-11-13T10:48:15Z

The ongoing saga of the Iraqi oil patch pie adds a new chapter, courtesy of the Thursday New York Times, and its above-the-fold front pager, "American Adviser to Kurds Stands to Reap Oil Profits."

In today's installment, we learn that Peter Galbraith, former ambassador, foreign policy expert to Joe Biden and John Kerry, and son of the famed economist John Kenneth Galbraith, is in line to reap $100 million dollars -- maybe more -- from contracts between a Norwegian oil company and the autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq. As an advisor to DNO, Galbraith and a partner received a 10% stake in a large Kurdish oil field back in 2004.

What's more, Galbraith has long championed the idea of partitioning Iraq, presumably into three regions that roughly encompass the country's three stakeholder groups (Shiite, Sunni and Kurd).

Why does this matter?

For one thing, the American-created central government in Baghdad has long insisted that it has sole constitutional authority over all of Iraq's oil. For another, giving the central government time to devise an equitable oil agreement between the stakeholders was the main goal President Bush touted when he announced "the surge" in January 2007.

Later that same year, in September, Hunt Oil of Dallas announced an oil production-sharing agreement with the grand poobahs of the Kurdistan region. At the time, Bush briefly feigned concern:

"I knew nothing about the deal. I need to know exactly how it happened. To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil revenue-sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously I'm - if it undermines that, I'm concerned."

Nine months later, in June 2008, Ray Hunt himself crowed about it at a dinner in his honor. D Magazine's online blog "Front Burner," in a piece titled "Oilman Hunt Sees A 'Soft Partition' For Iraq," quoted the longtime Bush crony parroting the Galbraith line:

"I think that, in the end, you'll end up with a soft partition of Iraq, a very decentralized government, with authority granted to three provinces. The Kurds I think will end up being an example...American democracy is not one-size-fits-all, but, as an example of what freedom can do, it's remarkable that this can happen."

Freedom's just another word for "I'm gettin' mine, boys!" Galbraith apparently figured that out years earlier.

Remarkably, the latest story in the Times states that "Mr. Biden and Mr. Kerry, who have been influenced by Mr. Galbraith's thinking but do not advocate such a partitioning of the country, were not aware of Mr. Galbraith's oil dealings in Iraq..."

Say what? Vice President Biden may not favor partition now (he's not in charge of foreign policy), yet just like Galbraith, he advocated it for years, and recently. In fact, he co-wrote a 2006 op-ed promoting it -- in the Times, no less! -- and hyped it as one of his great ideas on cable chat shows when running for president in '07.

Partition may or may not be a wise course. Still, how does Joe's historic support not merit a passing reference in the paper's story today?

Alan Greenspan noted in his 2007 memoir The Age of Turbulence, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Since I've previously blogged about this at Huffington Post, I'll just say it again:

Desert Storm in 1990 was also about oil, but Bush the Elder tacitly signaled that the motivation was to protect Kuwait's oil fields, which is why much of the world (including Arab neighbors) approved of the limited military action. "No-fly" zones over Iraq, continued by Bill Clinton for eight years, ultimately turned Baghdad's Bully into the mother of all empty suits.

Ah, but the son also rises.

Immediately after 9/11, Bush the Lesser held a megaphone at Ground Zero, promising that "the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon." That should have meant al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden, but it morphed, at least publicly, into Saddam's mythical mushroom clouds and WMDs. Then it became freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny, and finally it arrived at the fantastical notion of remaking the Middle East, at all cost and with our blood.

Remaking it for whom, exactly? Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon-Mobil, our Chevron shining bright?

Bush: 'I Went Against My Free-Market Instincts'

2009-11-12T20:24:07Z

"I went against my free-market instincts."

That's what former President Bush said today in explaining why he signed off on the bailout for Wall Street...calling the decision "one of the most difficult of his presidency."

Lesley Stern: How to Live on $0 a Day: Assuaging Rage, One Prick at a Time

2009-11-12T10:53:50Z

If you've lived your life believing that hard work, ethics, observing the golden rule and fiscal responsibility will be rewarded, you're probably a little ticked off right now. Okay, you're probably roiling with rage (especially if you stopped taking your anti-depressants because your insurance company canceled you for being depressed).

A lot of that anger comes from a sense of betrayal and helplessness at seeing people who broke every law of decency living high on the hog while the rest of us are hard pressed to afford a swine flu shot (if we could find one).

The logical recourse is to seek justice. You've appealed to their non-existent sense of decency. You've written your elected officials, attorney general, chamber of commerce and better business bureau. Clearly, you can't afford a lawyer. Crank calls and Internet heckling bring no relief. And while sending offenders cat poop in the mail is satisfying, the postage is costly--there are no bulk media rates for mass poop mailings (which REALLY pisses you off). And try as you might, you can't seem to get your friends interested in storming Wall Street or the Capitol because pitchforks are too expensive.

If you're quivering with rage just thinking about it, it's time to take action. I've discovered a way to calm my ire and achieve a semblance of inner peace without costly aids like therapists, tranquilizers, a masseuse or weapons.

Whether your anger is directed at a TARP recipient harassing you for an overdue $69, a vile CEO, pundit or politician, someone who screwed you over, the neighbor's dog, or the waiter who lied when he told you the chef's special chicken was all white meat, my methods ensure that all bad behavior is met with swift and decisive punishment (finally!). I can't tell you how much better you'll feel. Here's how it works:

Mike Ragogna: Standing on One's Principles: An Interview With Ron Reagan

2009-11-12T04:00:57Z

Ron Reagan is the son of a president and, weekdays on Air America, he's a voice of reason for many listeners who are trying to navigate the complexities of national and global concerns. Known for his progressive views and politics, Ron took a few moments to discuss some of the more pressing issues of our time and gave a shoutout to Elvis Perkins.

Mike Ragogna: When did The Ron Reagan Show begin broadcasting on Air America?

Ron Reagan: It would have been a year ago September, we started with an hour show.

MR: How did that come about?

RR: I had been at the Republican convention in Minneapolis, they (Air America) asked me to come there and be part of their coverage. I'd been doing some things with Mark Green who had a weekend show, a wrap-up kind of thing. I did some of those with him, so he invited me to the convention, and I spent a few days there doing shows. At the end of the week, they asked if I wanted to do an hour show for them, and I said sure, my having been between gigs at the time.

MR: How much time passed between then and when your first show aired?

RR: They said, "Can you start Monday?" and this was Friday evening. I said, "I guess I can, am I going to have a producer?" I met my first producer on the phone Monday morning, the day we launched the show. Not a lot of prep time to get things together, but it slowly evolved, and by the beginning of this year, I think it was in February, we went to the regular three hour format.

MR: Who's backing you up behind the scenes?

RR: Tina Nole, my executive producer, came on board in February, and Shelley Osterberger, the associate producer, came on during the summer.

MR: When you discuss topics, you've been very respectful and gracious to callers and guests with opposing points of view, although it's pretty clear where you stand on the issues. How do you find the patience to deal with your more challenging guests and callers?

RR: I'm not much of a yeller, I don't really get particularly offended or affronted when somebody takes even an extreme position that's opposite mine. I'm not a big one for personal attacks or rudeness. When somebody crosses a line where it's going beyond just stating their extreme viewpoint, like attacking me in a personal way, well then I'll take exception to that and come back at them.

But I don't see any purpose in yelling at the civilians who call in to the show. These are just folks calling in, regular folks, they're not professionals at this or anything. You know, some people have weird ideas, and it's often more interesting to tease out those ideas. For instance, we had a guy call in, and we were talking in general about the ramifications of the off-year elections. The subject of Maine's Question #1 on marriage rights for gay couples came up, and he was violently opposed to allowing gay couples to marry. I asked him, "Well, what would the harm be?" "It's terrible! It's an abomination! These people and their deviant lifestyles..." He was from Massachusetts, and I said, "That's you're opinion, but I want to know what negative consequences YOU'VE felt because of gay people being allowed to marry."

Then he went off again on how terrible gay people were which was all irrelevant, and at that point, he crossed the line and started talking about a Jewish/gay conspiracy. I was like, "Okay, now I've heard enough from you, now we can leave you alone because the entire audience knows that this is the kind of person who is opposed to allowing gay people to have the same civil rights as everybody else." This was a guy where there was no end to the bigotry. If I kept scratching, we'd find racism, we'd find everything else, and I think it was more useful, in a way, than me jumping all over the guy and telling him what an idiot he was. That would have been easy enough to do, but it would have been less educational for people.

MR: When you go home after a day of calls like that, how do you process it?

RR: That kind of stuff doesn't really wear on me at all. I admit it's pretty tiring doing a three hour show, where, generally speaking, it's pretty much ad lib five days a week. That's tiring for anybody to do. But dealing with folks like that is not really a problem. They don't wear on me, I'm aware that those people are out there, that's no secret, I've run into them before and I'll run into them again. They don't really suck the energy out of me. They're more amusing, in a way, and I guess a little depressing, too, but that stuff doesn't bother me.

MR: What are your thoughts on the defeat of Question #1?

RR: We've talked about it on the show before. I would put to the audience as a question whether people in this country should be allowed to vote out civil rights for others. I mean, if a majority of folks in a given state decided they didn't want free speech anymore, should they be allowed to eliminate free speech in their state? I think that most people would say no, and I see marriage rights for gay couples is pretty much in that territory.

This is a fundamental civil right that everybody in this country enjoys EXCEPT one group of people--gay folks. I don't think that should be left up to the vagaries of politics, out-of-state financing, dishonest campaigns, and the various lies that are told by opponents of civil rights. I think it's too fundamental. There's nothing in the Constitution that implies or says that gay people should be treated any differently than anybody else, and that's the document we should be relying on when we look at this.

It's no coincidence that people who want to deprive or keep gay people from having this civil right generally have to change their state constitution to achieve that. They have to literally write-in a specific amendment to their constitution that singles out gay people for this exclusion, and the fact that it's exclusionary is the point. These idiot arguments that come up about, "Well, if we allow gay couples to marry, then we have to allow polygamy and bestiality and things like that"--beyond the stupidity of these arguments--it's quite obvious that in the case of polygamy and bestiality, those laws are not exclusionary in any way. They apply to everybody. No one can marry more than one person. But when we're talking about gay marriage, then we're talking about an exclusionary law. Everybody can get married in this country to the person of their choice except gay people, they're excluded. That's a very different thing, it's an apples and oranges kind of situation.

MR: With all the ignorance and fear out there, it seems that the only way issues like this are going to be resolved is through the court system, and ultimately, by the Supreme Court. But that might not be such a good thing because of some of its hard right judges.

RR: Well, you've got Scalia who's a radical fundamentalist Catholic on the court. You've got Roberts and Alito who also have an agenda, though it might not be as socially extreme as Scalia's. I think they're more interested in protecting the rights of corporations and things like that. I mean that's why they were installed on the court. But yeah, you're quite right, it's not a gimme on the Supreme Court. It could very well be one of those unfortunate five-four decisions that would come down the wrong way.

MR: What do you think, if any, were the messages from last week's election?

RR: I don't think we can read the tea leaves and say because democrats lost the Virginia and New Jersey governorships that this portends all sorts of awful things for the mid-term elections. I don't think you can really say that there's that connection. On the other hand, I do think that the people widely, across the political spectrum, are becoming terribly dissatisfied with status quo governance in Washington, D.C., right now. I think you saw that, to some extent, even in the Tea Party stuff earlier this year. Now, some of these people were just, you know, kind of Glenn Beck idiots with their Nazi signs and all that kind of stuff. But there were people who were drawn in because they were upset, for instance, by the bank bailout and the lack of transparency at the Fed. I can't argue too much with that, they're not wrong to be worried.

I think with health care, we find progressives who are very disenchanted with the approach of this administration and, certainly, the approach of Congress to health care reform. It's really as if these people are bending over backwards to try and make as ineffective a piece of legislation as it can possibly be. You know, we've got people shouting about the public option being a government takeover of health care...hell, it's not even going to be available to most people. I mean, you and I, if we have health insurance through our jobs, we can't sign up for the public option. This is going to apply to maybe twelve million people in America. It seems to me this is the worst kind of incrementalism, and I think people are looking at that and wondering if our government is capable of dealing with really big problems that are all coming down the pike at about the same time.

MR: What would you say are some of those problems?

RR: Look at the environment, economic issues, social issues, health care of course, war and peace... We've got lots on the plate and it's pretty serious stuff, and we don't seem to be able to man-up and do something about it. And you think the health care fight was ugly? Wait 'til we get to Cap & Trade. We've got a bunch of people in Congress who are still denying that global warming even exists! These are Flat Earthers that we're having to deal with here. It's a little depressing, and it doesn't bode well for the future.

MR: Do you think that we've got a president who can tackle some of these issues?

RR: There's no question that this administration is a vast improvement over what we had before. My God, from torture to everything else, not only were they evil, but they were incompetent and evil at the same time. So yeah, I'm a supporter of Obama, I wish him the best, I think his impulses are good. My question--I think it's a question that many people on the progressive side have--is, does he have the stones to see this thing through?

He's not really a progressive democratic politician. He is a centrist democrat. He's cautious, he always has been. If you look at his history, it's one of always reaching across the aisle, always looking for the bipartisan compromise which can be fine in its place. But he's not as "left" as some people on our side thought he was during the election, and so we're seeing the real Barack Obama here--a cautious, centrist, pragmatic politician. That can often get the job done, but I'm a little nervous at this particular time in history, with all the problems we have facing us, that that approach really isn't going to get the job done. I think he's wasting a lot of time--a lot of time--with this reaching across the aisle stuff. He had to make the gesture, had to let people know that he would try in good faith with republicans; but we're long past the point where we realize that these people aren't reaching back. They just simply want him to fail. If they're reaching back at all, it's to stick a thumb in his eye, so the time for that stuff is just about over.

MR: And so many in Congress seem to be under the thumb of the lobbyists and corporations who have made large donations to their campaigns or causes.

RR: Let's not be naïve here. When you see that someone is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars over a few years to their campaign PAC or whatever from a certain industry, they're getting that money for a reason. People don't just hand politicians money because they kind of like their haircut or the way they wear a suit. They want something for that money. If you want to know the main thing we can do to put a stop to that? Campaign finance reform. Let's take the money entirely out of politics. If you get pulled over by a cop for speeding and you try to give him a twenty dollar bill to get off, well, if he's crooked, he'll take it and let you go. But you're really courting arrest there. That's bribery of a public official. Well, why isn't it bribery of a public official for individuals or corporations to hand them bundled checks for their political action committees. It's the same kind of thing here, and we need to eliminate that entirely.

MR: Challengers to reform insist this is a Freedom of Speech issue.

RR: Money is not speech. If you want to go out and campaign for somebody, speak on their behalf, tell everybody that you think they'll be a great congressman or president or whatever. You're more than entitled to do that. But giving them money is not the same thing. Money is property, money is a bribe, it isn't support, and that's what needs to be eliminated. There needs to be a level playing field and a regular manor in which we elect officials where everybody, maybe who've gotten enough signatures on a petition or whatever, can get on the ballot. Then you all play by the same rules and you have the same amount of money to work with. Free television time would be a good thing for TV advertisement...we give the broadcast networks our public airwaves for a song. They're supposed to do a public service in return--that used to be the news shows that they would produce. Well, you know, they can start giving politicians free ad time during election years for a certain period as part of that public service so that (politicians) won't feel pressed to spend billions of dollars buying time on the networks that should be free. This is how we can elect public officials in this country. It's an important thing, and the broadcast and cable networks can get on board with that. If we can have a level playing field for various sports teams, we certainly can have it for political races as well. Just take the money out of the system entirely.

MR: But sometimes a level playing field can work against you, like when the media gives equal weight to both sides of a story no matter how ludicrous one side might clearly be.

RR: Yeah, that's the fallacy of "fair and balanced." It's turned into literally, "Well, we have two opinions here--Joe says the world is flat, Bob says the world is round, YOU be the judge," instead of pointing out that one person is full of s**t, and the other person actually has it right.

MR: And there's so much damage being done and ignorance being propagated as a result of that approach.

RR: There have always been these carny barkers in American life. There have always been the crooked tent preacher or whoever who's getting people all riled up about stuff. Limbaugh and Beck are just those kind of clowns. There's not much you can do to stop that. It's not that they're promoting ignorance as much as the American public--actually, a fairly small percentage of the public--buy into this crap. You know, come on people...wake up! The Limbaughs and the Becks are charlatans. They're entertainers who are there to make money and nothing else. I don't even know that Glenn Beck believes half of the stuff he says, and he's just taking advantage of people's ignorance and gullibility and stupidity. Are people that naïve and stupid that they're going to be taken in by fools like this? Well, apparently some are. You can fool some of the people all of the time.

MR: All of this seems even more ridiculous in the face of real discussions we need to be having on dangers like global warming.

RR: Indeed, global warming is a perfect example of just the kind of problem that American politicians seem incapable of dealing with. It's long term, it's incremental, it's not going to show up in a big explosion tomorrow that knocks down buildings on the southern tip of Manhattan. We've got to think long term, and we've got to actually deprive ourselves of stuff. We're going to have to change our lifestyle, we're going to have to make do with less in certain instances, at least temporarily. And it involves nature instead of just people politics and money politics and things like that, and that's something that Congress also has a very difficult time dealing with. These are people who spend way too much time indoors...they need to get out a little more! They forget that nature doesn't really care what your political agenda is, nature doesn't really care that Jim Inhoff doesn't believe that the atmosphere is warming up. Nature is gonna do what it does regardless. The laws of physics are the laws of physics. But these people don't seem to get that, they think they can kind of spin nature their way somehow. It ain't gonna happen, you know?

MR: Sure, global warming is important, but what music are you listening to?

RR: I've been playing a lot of Elvis Perkins in my car on the way to work. My wife is very good about finding new stuff, I'm a little more boring when it comes to that.

MR: What are some of your favorite classic acts?

RR: I still will throw a little U2 on every once in a while, and I still enjoy The Beatles. My wife and I were talking about Sgt. Pepper the other day and what a great song "For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite" was. We were trying to remember the lyrics. We had them all mixed-up and had to go online to find them.

MR: You sort of were introduced to America through your Saturday Night Live appearance in 1986, right?

RR: Yeah, that's pretty true.

MR: Your Risky Business parody is considered one of the show's best moments.

RR: I was a little reluctant to do it at first, I didn't want to be a conduit to ridiculing my parents. I knew, of course, there would be some fun poked at them, but I didn't want it to be vicious and mean and be a part of that. But I was assured I would have veto power over any of the skits if they got out of hand, that I could pull the plug on them. But it worked out well, it was a lot of fun. It was a good cast, and everybody was real nice.

MR: Were your parents okay afterward?

RR: Yeah, I think they were a little confused, they didn't understand the Tom Cruise thing. They'd never seen that movie, and they had no idea why I was in my underwear. So I had to explain to them that whole Tom Cruise bit and all. I was actually wearing three pairs of jockey shorts by the time we did the live show. The NBC censors said, "You can't go out there with just one pair of jockey shorts. God knows what might happen, he's moving around and dancing, we can't just have something fly out of there. Have him put another pair on!" I put two pair on and when we did the live show after we did the dress rehearsal, the edict came down, "He needs another pair!" So I had three pair of jockey shorts on just to be sure that nothing untoward happened.

MR: Having been a president's son, did you ever feel obliged to steer your career towards politics?

RR: No, from the time I was a little kid and exposed to politics, I pretty much knew that I was not interested in leading that kind of life. I'm just not that kind of person. There's nothing about that life that appeals to me. I guess it's an attractive enough notion to be in a position to get things done, that would be fun and challenging. But I'm no good at asking people for money, to get back to our campaign finance angle. It's not me, it's not my personality, it's not my life.

MR: You're probably contributing more by choosing the path you did.

RR: You do what you can do I guess. As I've told people before, I can't really be elected to any high office because I'm an atheist, and as we know, Americans won't elect an atheist to any high office. And I don't think I'd be a very good local politician because I don't know anything about local issues most of the time. You don't want me running your city or being in charge of your utilities or any of that.

MR: With all the current disillusionment in the way our government has been run for so long, what is your advice to anyone entering politics who wants to make a real difference?

RR: Well, cinch it up real tight because you're going to be buffeted by the forces of compromise, and I'm not talking about political compromise. I'm talking about compromise in principle. You can see some people in Congress today like Anthony Weiner from Brooklyn, New York, talk about health care, and, you know, Alan Grayson. He's ruffled some feathers, I know, and he gets right up in people's faces, but he seems to be doing stuff from the heart. There's Bernie Sanders, I talk to him a lot on our show. He seems to have his head screwed on right. These are people who follow their own principles, and they've probably gone about as far as they're going to go in politics being members of Congress. I would look to those folks who have identified principles they're willing to run on and stand on and do so consistently.

I was alarmed back in 2004 after the presidential election with Bush being re-elected. Nancy Pelosi, I believe it was, came out and said, "Well, the democrats have to sit down and decide what principles we really want to focus on." I thought, "My God, this is a woman who is in her sixties, she's been in government for a long time, and she's now saying we have to identify the principles that are important to us? Didn't you do that before you ran the first time?" What is wrong with THAT picture. So I would say identify those principles before you run. Make those the reasons you want to run, don't approach a career in politics as a sort of, "I'll see what happens when I get there, and I'll make it up on the fly," or anything like that. You need to know what you're all about before you set out on that first campaign.

MR: Congressman Alan Grayson sure did invigorate the health care debate with his passion.

RR: All too often, democrats play this soft game where it's always, "My friend across the aisle." Decorum is fine, but the fact of the matter is, half the time, they're not your friend, they don't wish the best for you, and half the time, they don't wish the best for the American people either. It's time to stop playing footsie with some of these people. There are some destructive forces out there in government, and they need to be confronted, and they need to be revealed for what they are. The corruption has to be exposed, the disinformation, the lies that are coming, health care being the obvious example--death panels, and all that kind of stuff. I mean that was such an obvious lie that was being told, and it needs to be exposed and those people need to be confronted in no uncertain terms. No more of this "my friend" and "we differ on..." kind of stuff. How about, "Congressman or Senator So-And-So is telling you a lie." If THAT'S the truth, it needs to be spoken.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson: The Michelle Obama Fixation

2009-11-11T10:10:00Z

What difference could it possibly make whether Michelle Obama's approval rating plunged over 10 percent in the past couple of months, or that she even has any approval ratings? To make things look even worse, the November Gallup Poll that punched out her diminished ratings compared her ratings to Laura Bush, whose numbers never dropped during her first lady years in the White House even as hubby Bush's sunk to the ocean's depths.

Michelle's not the president. She holds no elected office. She's penned no legislation. Heck, she's not even Hillary. Clinton was arguably the closest that any first lady has come to being co-president since Eleanor Roosevelt. Clinton actively campaigned, raised funds, globe-trotted around pushing White House policy initiatives on women's rights, environmental issues, and, of course, her signature issue -- health care.

The surface answer to why Michelle as first lady rates poll numbers is because she's the first the African-American first lady. And as with President Obama, she's the subject of wonderment, pride, gossip, and incessant celebrity voyeurism.

There's a far more compelling reason for the Michelle fixation, good and bad. Despite the GOP pounding of Obama, the angst of liberals and progressives at Obama over Afghanistan, his health care reform water-down, gay rights issues, and voter jitters over the economy and unemployment, he's still wildly popular and virtually universally liked.

Michelle is a different story. She's a woman, a black woman, and a soft target for the frustrations and even scorn of the Obama loathers. During the campaign Obama opponents eagerly latched onto out-of-context statement she made at a campaign rally in which she allegedly questioned her faith in America, and made a supposedly less than reverential reference to the flag. They brutally tarred her as a closet anti-American, race-obsessed, black radical. That made her an instant campaign liability. For weeks she virtually disappeared from the campaign trail. She later reemerged as a much softer role player in the background. She smartly sloughed off any talk that she would be a Hillary-type, White House fill-in for Obama on major policy issues.

This didn't diminish the media's and a wide swath of the public's compulsive looking glass fascination with her. Or their insatiable need to know every bit of motherly, womanly, wifely, and presidential gossip about her. It's made her even more vulnerable to serve as a surrogate to take veiled hits against Obama, no matter how low-key and supportive she's remained. She got knocks for the failed Chicago Olympic bid, and for uttering a few words on health care reform. Her shopping excursions, the couple's date night in New York, and her White House Garden have been ridiculed.

A viral email has been buzzed around the nets and blogs hammering her for her high-salaried and top-heavy staff (legitimate criticism is warranted here). A British tabloid even engaged in malicious mischief when it claimed that Michelle's undergraduate thesis written in 1985 with the hardly incendiary title of "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community" was an open call for black militancy.

Obama's historic win ensured that he'd be the most watched, admired, and reviled president since Lincoln. Michelle's equally historic step into the first lady spot assured that she would be the most watched, admired and reviled first lady since Eleanor. The added draw with her is that she is the back door to knock her still popular husband. This explains the Michelle fixation.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book, How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge (Middle Passage Press) will be released in January 2010.

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein: "I'm Doing God's Work."

2009-11-07T16:29:54Z

Goldman's reputation is suddenly as toxic as the credit default swaps and other inexplicably exotic financial instruments it used to buy with glee. That's bad for the one thing it values more than anything else: business. Being the prime target for popular and political outrage could put Goldman first in line for draconian new regulation. So it has, reluctantly, decided that the time has come to speak out, to fight its corner. That's how, on one of those bright autumnal New York mornings when anything seems possible -- even an invitation to break bread with the masters of the universe -- I find myself walking past the security guard who held up Michael Moore and into the building with no name.

Chris Weigant: One Year After Obama's Election: Still Smarter...Than The Alternative

2009-11-04T18:57:07Z

The day before I cast my vote for Barack Obama, I wrote a column titled "Barack Obama Is Smarter Than Us." By "us," I meant the legions of us lefty bloggers out here, who second-guessed his campaign on a daily basis for nigh on two years. I included myself in that "us" as well -- because, I fully admit, I got incredibly frustrated during Obama's campaign when he didn't do what I really, really wanted him to. Or didn't do it fast enough to suit me.

But you know what? He won anyway.

Here's part of what I wrote back then:

...I have to say, once again, that Barack Obama was right not to always listen to me, and others of my ilk. He knew through it all that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and that a purist lefty candidate would not win the White House. So I have to stand up and admit it.

Obama was right. We were wrong. And he has shown he knew what he was doing all along, which makes me even more comfortable casting my vote for him tomorrow.

I also wrote, at the time:

Should Obama be elected, and should he run his White House the way he has run his campaign; then we are about to see some professionalism and basic competence in Washington once again, instead of the pure partisan rancor and dysfunction we've (sadly) become accustomed to.

So, after reflecting on how I felt a year ago during the election itself and how I feel now, I do have to say that the old adage is true: governing is harder than campaigning.

The eternal question within the District of Columbia for an "outsider" running a successful campaign on "changing the system" (Note to our younger readers: Barack Obama is not the first to have come up with this theme) is, of course: "Will you change Washington... or will Washington change you?"

Barack Obama was always a bit of a blank canvas for everyone. The Righties were incensed by this, and tried to portray him as some sort of empty suit, building castles in the air upon his lofty campaign rhetoric. But the Lefties were almost as bad, attempting to paint their own picture upon this blank canvas with the funny name... and, by doing so, declare Obama one of them. You might say the Lefties took up residence in Obama's air castles, smug in their belief that he would (after he was elected) do what they wanted (and indeed expected) him to, rather than what he actually said he was going to do. Or not do.

Obama, though, was not the picture either side painted of him on this blank canvas. He was, and always has been, his own man.

The disillusionment and disappointment a lot of Lefties are feeling right now is a direct result of their own refusal to hear what Obama was actually saying during the campaign, versus what they really wanted him to say, or "heard" him say, somehow. That may be a fairly harsh assessment for some people to hear, but I believe it is true to some extent. The feeling of crashing back down to Earth is usually the end result of attempting to live in a castle in the air. Some of the Left's disappointment, to be sure, is over actual broken campaign promises; but most of it is over their perceptions of Obama that didn't quite prove to be true in the end.

I have to say that I pride myself (as someone who does a halfway-decent imitation of a "pundit" on the interwebs) for never having totally "drunk the Obama Kool-Aid." I apologize if it causes offense, but I've always seen him as a politician. A brilliant politician, to be sure, and one whose like we may not see for another generation in American politics (in other words, not "just a politician" as some sort of pejorative), but a politician nonetheless. For better or worse.

Take the issue of foreign policy, for example. Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq. He spoke of moving thousands of American troops out on a monthly basis, beginning almost immediately after he took office, until all combat forces had come home. Both the Left and the Right (using different language to describe it, of course) decided that Obama wanted to get out of Iraq as soon as could be safely arranged. But then, at the last minute, George W. Bush signed a Status Of Forces Agreement which pretty much laid down the "timetable for withdrawal" to follow. Obama, once sworn into office, has largely kept Bush's plan intact. The first stage was withdrawing from Iraqi cities this summer. The second stage will be the real troop drawdown, which should begin shortly after Iraq has a national election (currently slated for January). Neither the Left nor the Right's caricature of Obama as Commander-In-Chief turned out to be true. He took into account the "situation on the ground," and changed his strategy accordingly -- something neither side really expected him to do, it should be noted.

Or take the Afghanistan situation. Throughout the campaign, Obama spoke of Afghanistan as being the war we really should be fighting, rather than Iraq. The "good" war, if you will. He spoke of sending around 10,000 more American troops over there right away. Now, as Obama decides what the strategy will be for the coming year, the Right is trying to portray him as some sort of wimp who is going to lose the war by "dithering" (as Dick Cheney put it); and the Left is portraying him as somehow betraying their idealistic anti-war image of Obama. The telling thing to me is that neither side either: (a) admits that Obama was always hawkish on the Afghanistan war; or (b) even noticed or has seen fit to mention that Obama has already fulfilled his campaign promise -- threefold -- when he sent 30,000 more troops over there, earlier this year.

Perception -- as in "people's perception of Obama" -- seems to be more important to a lot of folks than the reality of Obama the politician, or Obama the president. On both sides.

The Right, after the election, wasted no time in trying to paint Obama as all sorts of things that he wasn't, and was never going to be. They haven't let up for a minute -- and they won't, for the next three years. The Left has been shocked by all of this unseemliness, since they conjured images up of everyone singing "Kumbaya" after Obama's inauguration -- conveniently forgetting that whole "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" thing that Bill Clinton had to put up with (also from Day One, in his presidency). Or the way Dubya started his term, for that matter. Just because an election's over does not mean that the losing side in the election is going to suddenly "see the light" of the winning side -- it never has in American politics, and it never will.

Expectations after Obama took office, from both the Left and Right (again, in different ways), were high. The Right -- some of them, at least -- think America is truly on the brink of becoming (take your pick) Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or even (conservatives shudder at the suggestion), France. The Left -- some of them, at least -- actually believed in their own dreams of a Progressive Utopia, even though what Obama actually said during the campaign bore little resemblance to it.

Now, all of this isn't to say that I don't have my own annoyances with Barack Obama, which I point out frequently here in public. He has either broken or severely backtracked on a number of his campaign promises, I fully admit. But he has also kept and delivered upon a downright astonishing number (for any politician) of campaign promises, as well. Governing is always harder than campaigning, and every politician is forced at times to realize that what sounded so glib while knocking his opponent during a rally of the faithful is really a lot tougher than it seemed at the time. This is natural, although some of Obama's supporters may be too young to have ever seen it before in a politician of their own party whom they admired greatly on the hustings, giving his stump speech. There's always a bit of letdown, and because Obama was being held to such a high standard (the absolute ramparts of the air castles, as it were), the letdown is even more keenly felt by some.

Millions of Americans did have sky-high expectations for Obama. But he has been more closely examined and criticized and covered by the media than just about anyone I can remember. The media, hilariously, calls Obama (in disparaging tones) a "media rock star" -- without realizing the irony that the only thing they're condemning by using such a term is themselves. You can't be a media star without a willing media. If proof is needed -- look at us. Here we are, critically examining Obama's "first year," when, in actual fact, he has served less than three hundred days in office. Because, you see, Barack Obama doesn't get a first year. He gets a first nine-and-a-half months. That's the way it goes if your name is Obama, I guess.

I was at a party recently, and a close friend and I were discussing the subject of Obama, his "first year," and this article (which I was then considering how to write). A quick rundown on this friend: she's a Union officer and organizer, she would rather be dipped in molten lava than vote Republican, and she keeps up on the political scene and the news about as much as any Huffington Post reader. She also, from Union negotiations with local government, understands both the slowness and obstacles to getting good things done, and also the fact that sometimes you have to compromise and you don't get everything you want.

But, after circling around for a while in describing her disappointment in some of what Obama has done (mostly "not done," if truth be told), she finally, in exasperation, said what she really felt, in response to something I said along the lines of: "If Obama had overturned 'Don't Ask/Don't Tell' on his first day in office, but failed on healthcare reform -- would you be happier with the result than if it was the other way around?".

She summed up her frustration with Barack Obama not going further faster in a very visceral way: "I want it all," she said, perhaps unconsciously quoting the late Freddie Mercury. "I want it all, and I want it now!" Specifically, what she wants is: Democrats in Congress to act like Democrats, and act like they have a majority; Obama to forcefully get out there and fight for what he campaigned for -- "Change we can believe in!"; Obama to be the "fierce advocate" for gay rights he promised he'd be; Obama to stop bailing out Wall Street and pay a lot more attention to Main Street; Obama to send George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to Guantanamo Bay where they would be subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" until they came clean about the past eight years; the Democrats to pick up about 50 or 60 seats in the House in 2010 and about 20 more seats in the Senate; Harry Reid to be replaced as Senate Majority Leader, tout suite; Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers to be replaced, also immédiatement; Union strength to return to about where it was in... oh... 1958, say; Alan Grayson to appear on every political talk show for the next four years, on a daily basis; John Boehner and Mitch McConnell never to appear on her television screen, ever again, on any program; Sarah Palin to be a miserable failure at anything she attempts in the future; and President Obama to have a magic wand which he can wave and get Congress to do exactly what he wants them to do. Oh, and the memory of Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor of her state to be permanently excised from her memory, I should mention that one, too.

She's not alone in any of that, either. That particular ethereal castle's booked solid, and has a waiting list as long as your arm to get into. I sympathize with most of what she felt, myself. It sounds like a pretty good place to live in, or even to visit; the way we all used to tune in each week to The West Wing, to see how life was like in the alternate universe where Martin Sheen was president. Or, perhaps, another universe in which Obama conducts himself much as President (or "King" as it were) George W. Bush conducted himself, in regards to Congress.

But it's not reality. It's not the reality we live in. This reality is a lot more ugly, and a lot more concrete. Obama is not King. Obama really believes reaching out to the other side is a good and important thing to do, and not just a campaign promise. Congress still has a role under our Constitution, as inconvenient as it is to admit this fact. Lobbyists still exist. Washington is still situated on a former swamp, having only exchanged alligators for alligator wingtips on K Street. Congresscritters (far too many of them) are still absolute whores for big corporate campaign contributions. 'Twas ever thus in the District. There's only so much one man (no matter how powerful, or what his name is) can do to drain this particular swamp.

And while I would have loved to see some cage-fighting Democrats beating down Republican opponents on the Hill in the past nine months, I have to admit that what I wrote a year ago is a double-edged knife -- it cuts both ways. While we who consider ourselves "down in the trenches" in these day-to-day battles would absolutely love it if we got stronger backing and stronger leadership from the White House at times, what we are really hoping for is merely a reversal of fortunes in Washington, not a true change. Again, what I wrote back then:

Should Obama be elected, and should he run his White House the way he has run his campaign; then we are about to see some professionalism and basic competence in Washington once again, instead of the pure partisan rancor and dysfunction we've (sadly) become accustomed to.

"Pure partisan rancor" can come from both sides -- we'd all do well to remember that.

Which returns us to our primary question: "Has Washington changed Obama, or has Obama changed Washington?"

I would answer this in two ways. The first is to state that Obama has changed Washington in a very critical way -- because Democrats are now on the offensive. Democrats are now driving the bus. This is not always entirely apparent (they are, after all, Democrats), but think about it dispassionately for a moment -- Democrats are the ones proposing legislation, and Democrats are the ones squabbling about what it will contain. Even after the 2006 sweep of Congress, the agenda in D.C. largely remained Republican, since no matter what Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid managed to pass, if it wasn't sufficiently acceptable to Bush and his Republican sycophants, it would not have become law. This has changed, in a big way. It can be argued that this is not due to Obama himself, but rather to the partisan power dynamic which exists now, as opposed to back then -- but that would be to ignore the reason for this change: Barack Obama being elected president.

And it's a bigger change than most people give him credit for, or indeed, even think about.

The second thing that Obama is trying to change is the 24-hour-news-cycle, short-sighted nature of Washington thinking (or what passes for "thinking" in the punditocracy). The jury is still largely out on this one, I have to admit. The most impressive thing about Obama, which I have noticed over and over again in the past nine months or so, is that he absolutely refuses to be drawn in to trivial subjects -- which, it must be pointed out, cause vapors, fainting, shrieking, and even (at times) heads exploding among the cable news channels. Put succinctly: Obama takes the long view. Always. Even when all around him are taking a very, very short view -- for the sake of puffing some stupid playground battle among politicians into some improved cable chat show ratings. Obama, to a very large extent, just doesn't play that game. He simply refuses to, over and over again. The only time he's really slipped up on this front was the whole "beer summit" nonsense, for which he can be forgiven (seeing as how a friend of his was involved).

To me, this -- if he manages to succeed in the end -- would be "change" I could indeed believe in. The shortening of the American attention span, and the concomitant idiocy-pretending-to-be-depth stoked by the 24-hour news cycle is one of the chief culprits in the crime of American politicians being seemingly incapable of having serious debates about serious subjects with long-range implications in the modern age. If Obama can manage to overcome this prattling nonsense, and hence rise above the rank stupidity of filling up the airwaves with non-stories on a daily basis -- then he will have achieved more than I ever thought any politician could, in today's media world.

Of course, he'll probably fail at that. P.T. Barnum's "there's one born every minute" maxim does come to mind. But I have to give Obama credit for at least trying.

That's what it all comes down to, really. Do you still give Obama the benefit of the doubt? I have to admit here, his supporters have used the line "it's only been X months..." as an excuse to deflect Obama criticism so many times now that it is indeed beginning to wear a bit thin. We're not talking about a true "first year" for Obama today, but that actual milestone isn't all that far away. And one year is precisely one-fourth of a president's term.

The other question it really all boils down to is one of trust. Do you still trust President Obama to do the right thing in most situations? I did back when I voted for him, and I have to admit that I still do. I have reservations, I'm a bit wary at times over specific actions Obama takes, and strategies he employs (or doesn't employ); but that core of trust in Obama -- as a politician, and with eyes wide open on my part -- still exists, I have to say. And while Obama's approval polls are down a bit from the stratospheric highs he entered office with, he still enjoys support from just about exactly the same percentage of Americans who voted for him on election day last year. And that is a measure, in a very real way, about how the public still trusts Obama to the same degree they did last year. Which, I have to admit, is a comforting thought.

Especially when you consider the alternative. Imagine where we'd be now with President John "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" McCain, and Vice President Sarah (shudder) Palin. Each and every time you get disappointed in President Obama, or disagree with something he says or does, ask yourself: "How would this discussion be different if McCain had won?"

That kind of puts Obama's "first year" in perspective for me, at least. Obama may not be smarter than all of us, but he sure is smarter by a long shot than McCain would have been. And that, for now, is enough for me.

[Technical Note: Earlier, I used what can only be described as metaphorical excess, since I don't believe alligators ever infested Georgetown or anything. I could be wrong about that, though, as I could have sworn I once saw Pogo Possum, Albert, and a few of their friends on the Metro....]

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Rick Horowitz: GOP Is Withering About His Dithering

2009-11-04T16:19:13Z

If you look before you leap,
And worry that you're in too deep,
If flag-draped coffins cost you sleep,
You're "dithering."

If you bring the experts in
To see if there's some way to win,
And think about the next of kin,
You're "dithering."

If you'd rather get it right
Before you send them off to fight,
If answers aren't black and white,
You're "dithering."

Better to be Bush and Cheney,
One naïve and one so brainy,
Ev'ry judgment foreordainy,
No "dithering."

Better to be just like Rummy,
Confident, serene and chummy.
(Too bad he was such a dummy.)
No "dithering."

Better just to cook the data,
Buy a scheme that's still in beta,
Rush to war and fix it later --
No "dithering."

So if you think this stuff's a snap,
Just names and numbers on a map,
Instead of, say, an endless trap,
Stop "dithering."

Announce that talking's had its fun,
That all your experts think as one,
That you don't mind your dreams undone,
Stop "dithering."

But if you grasp the price of war,
And wonder what we're fighting for,
Before you pledge a decade more:
Keep "dithering."

Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com.