Obama and Galifianakis ramp up the funny on "Between the Ferns"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

President Obama faces an obstructionist, disloyal, and perhaps even treasonous Republican Party; an often cowardly Democratic Party with many in the ranks who don't have his back; a media establishment cowed into submission by the right-wing propaganda machine; a divided and apathetic electorate that allows itself to be manipulated by that machine; and a world in which the U.S., through no fault of his, just doesn't have the overriding influence it once had.

So, honestly, can you blame him for turning to comedy on Funny or Die's "Between the Ferns"? Besides, he was really funny, as was his hirsute, spider-bitten interviewer (a certain Zach Galifianakis, from The Hangover Part III), and it was all for a good cause that Republicans hate. 

And all the "worried harrumphing" is just nonsense. As Chait writes: 

One can certainly understand why the White House would be concerned about upholding the dignity of the office. Presidential dignity is one of the most powerful tools the president has. He commands a vast state apparatus designed to create a sense of grandeur around him, and this aura bestows upon him a power unavailable to his rivals.

Is this apparatus really too weak? Why is it the role of the press to worry that the president is coming across too much like an equal citizen and not enough like a monarch? Washington’s dignity fetish is one of those manifestations of the cult of the presidency that expresses some really weird ideas about how democracy is supposed to work.

Besides, if members of the media are so worried about "dignity," maybe they should look at their own chosen profession, and at themselves, before turning their noses up at the president. And as for the Obama-can-do-no-right conservatives, which is pretty much all of them, well, whatever. They have no dignity anyway, and their shameless hypocrisy is nothing new.

Anyway, back to the show. Here you go... Enjoy!

Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis: President Barack Obama from President Barack Obama

SOTU Night in America: Live-blogging the 2013 State of the Union address

By Michael J.W. Stickings, with Richard K. Barry, Frank Moraes, and tmcbpatriot

(Updated frequently -- in real time. Scroll down.)

So the gang's back together tonight. When was the last time we live-blogged? It was the election back in November, wasn't it? And before that the debates. Oh, what a good time that was... well, except for that first debate. Remember that one?

And what are we live-blogging? It's the Papal Election 2013! Woo-hoo!

Wait, what? It's not the papal election? So why the hell are we here?

Oh, right, the State of the Union. Alas. It's strong, isn't it? So what's the point of all this? Can't we go back a century or so, back to pre-Wilsonian times, when the president just sent the damn thing up to Capitol Hill in writing?

Yes, Wilson changed things in 1913. Before that, no president had delivered it in person, as a speech, since Jefferson, who ended the tradition in its infancy.

That's the first page of Washington's notes for his 1790 address. Pretty neat, huh?

**********

But okay, here we are. Let's make the most of it. (I was on my own for it last year. Should be more enjoyable with the guys joining me tonight.)

Read more »

Republicans versus reality: Obama is no dictator

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Long before he announced his wide-ranging, if hardly radical by the standards of the civilized world, effort to curb gun violence, conservatives were freaking out over what they shriekingly claimed was President Obama's autocratic rule. He was some newfangled combination of fascist and socialist, the bringer of un-American anti-values, the destroyer of freedom, the face of evil itself.

But then -- gasp! -- he won re-election, and surely four more years would mean the end of America as we know it. Republicans were planning yet more party-before-country obstructionism on Capitol Hill, but that wasn't going to be enough to stop this runaway train. Short of violent insurrection, which we know is on the degraded minds of many on the right, there was only route left: impeachment.

And it's coming. You know it's coming. Because these "patriots" really have nothing but comtempt for democracy. It's their extremist right-wing way or... nothing.

As Dan Amira notes at New York, Republicans were upping the rhetoric recently on Obama's alleged assault on all things holy to the "freedom"-loving right in anticipation of his gun control plan, including the executive orders he plans to issue alongside legislative action. Basically, what's happening is that Republicans' general Obama-as-fascist sentiment has been magnified by their pro-gun insanity. It's not just that the president is a dictator trying to destroy freedom, it's that he now wants to take away their beloved guns. When it comes to the right's anti-Obama craziness, this is a lethal combination.

But it isn't just about the guns -- or, rather, about the right's gun paranoia (because Obama is actually not trying to take away people's gun rights -- not even close). As Amira writes, it's also "the use of executive orders in particular that's getting critics all riled up." Which is to say, some conservatives really do seem to think that Obama is ruling America with an iron fist.

Read more »

Double billing

By J. Kingston Pierce

Has anybody else happened to mention this anomaly in American history? Barack Obama is now the third recent U.S. president in a row to be elected to two terms in the White House, following Bill Clinton (1993-2001) and George W. Bush (2001-2009).



 








The last and only other time three men were elected consecutively to two terms as president was back at the beginning of the 19th century: Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), James Madison (1809-1817), and James Monroe (1817-1825).



 








(Cross-posted at Limbo.)

The latest smear: Republicans dishonestly accuse President Obama of "skipping" intelligence briefings

By Michael J.W. Stickings

President Obama, on a secure iPad, with Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Intelligence Integration Robert Cardillo -- January 31, 2012.

Basically, Republicans can say anything they want, and make any ridiculous accusation to try to make President Obama look bad, and suddenly the accusation becomes part of the national discussion, with the media treating the accusation like a legitimate point worthy of serious coverage and consideration.

I'm fucking tired of it. Fucking, fucking, fucking tired of it.

The latest accusation, given prominence initially by Dick Cheney (who made it in an interview with the right-wing Daily Caller the day before 9/11 last week), comes in the context of the Times's remarkable report, published the same day, that the ignorance, incompetence, and stunning gross negligence of the Bush-Cheney administration prior to 9/11 was even worse than we knew -- "The Deafness Before the Storm."

Suddenly on the defensive, Cheney lashed out at Obama, saying that the president wasn't "participating in his intelligence briefings on a regular basis," the implicaton being that Obama is less engaged than his predecessor and possibly even a threat to national security.

And it didn't stop with Cheney. After the Times report and a terrible week for Romney on the foreign policy front, Republicans, with Romney-booster Karl Rove right out in front, are going all-in on this ridiculous accusation, and the media are playing right along.

Consider the title of a piece at ABC News: "Is President Obama 'Skipping' Intelligence Briefings?" Yes, the piece provides the White House response, quoting Press Secretary Jay Carney and noting that the president "religiously reads a written version of the same prepared material, often on a secure iPad (as seen in this official White House PHOTO). He often receives an in-person briefing in addition, aides note, as well as real-time national security updates during the day, both in the office and on the road." But not before taking the Republican accusation seriously and turning the issue into a Crossfire-style debate between two supposedly equal, and equally valid, sides:

Conservative critics of President Obama are accusing him of "skipping" daily intelligence briefings throughout his first term and in the days leading up to this week's deadly attacks on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Libya.

The anti-Obama super PAC American Crossroads levels the charge in a new Web ad HERE.

Right-leaning bloggers and American Enterprise Institute scholar and Washington Post columnist Marc

Thiessen make the case HERE and HERE.

But the substance of the charge, aimed at undermining Obama's credibility as commander in chief, appears to be more a matter of semantics than hard fact.

Uh, no. It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of Republicans being dishonest and smearing the president, accusing him of shirking his responsibilities and weakening the country, putting Americans at risk.

Of course, if you look at the facts, he's doing nothing of the kind. President Obama is highly engaged, significantly more so than Bush. And he isn't just consuming information, he's actively questioning the information and analysis he's given, pressing to make sure it's right and asking for alternative analyses and additional information so he can understand what's going on in a highly complex world as fully as possible and make the informed decisions one should expect from the president of the United States.

Indeed, far from shirking his responsibilities and weakening the country, he's taking his responsibilities with the utmost seriousness and strengthening the country by providing mature, responsible leadership, understanding in detail the issues and options he confronts each and every day.

Bush may have preferred oral briefings, but Obama, like Clinton before Bush, takes a more diverse approach -- one that, it seems to me, leads to greater engagement with the challenging issues of the day. He doesn't just want to be told what's going on, he wants to read the materials for himself and push back as required:

"He does both all the time, all the time," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters [yesterday]. "And when he is here in Washington, he has briefings in person in the Oval Office with his national security team regularly. And when he is on the road, he has phone conversations that supplement and augment the briefings he receives on paper that are specific to the so-called PDB. I hardly think that is different from previous presidents."

Actually, I'd say that makes him quite a bit more engaged, and quite a bit more responsible, than his predecessor. He likes to read, and he wants to know more, and he wants to be able to make decisions based on as much information and with as much comprehensive analysis as possible.

Cheney, other Bush apologists, and the various other Republicans now attacking the president, partly to defend their own massive incompetence and partly to help the struggling Romney, are adding to the Republican narrative that Obama isn't up to the job.

But the record is clear, and even clearer following the Times report: It was Bush and Cheney and their minions in the White House and Pentagon who were negligent and irresponsible, and it's Romney who is unqualified, unprepared, and unfit for the presidency.

Meanwhile, President Obama is doing his job -- and doing it extremely well.

Bifurcated democracy

By Carl 

This was an interesting op-ed in yesterday's New York Times:

OUR nation isn't facing just a debt crisis; it's facing a democracy crisis. For weeks, the federal government has been hurtling toward two unsavory options: a crippling default brought on by Congressional gridlock, or — as key Democrats have advocated — a unilateral increase in the debt ceiling by an unchecked president. Even if the last-minute deal announced on Sunday night holds together, it’s become clear that the balance at the heart of the Constitution is under threat.

The debate has threatened to play out as a destructive but all too familiar two-step, revealing how dysfunctional the relationship between Congress and the president has become. 

The article talks about how presidents have decided to exercise power unilaterally, like Obama's Libyan adventures (although the practice goes back decades to Reagan and even Nixon,) while the Congress has been unable to rally itself to challenge the President's usurpation of power. Either the Congress is divided (like now) or reinforces the person holding the Oval Office (as under Bush the Younger).

This is what the punditry tells us we want, over and over again: divided government. Given what we've experienced for over three decades now (absent the six years of Bush the Younger) is this really what we want? An ineffectual Congress hamstrung by the tyranny of the minority and a Presidency who usurps power like a king?

Mind you, none of this is partisan: Republicans and Democrats have been to blame in BOTH branches. Clinton was forced to legislate by executive order, much as Obama is. Both Bushes declared wars without making a firm case to the American people as to the need for them (this wasn't dominoes toppling or any such credible threat.) Reagan tossed American troops around like candy and American armaments to enemies.

In Congress, John Boehner can't even get a centerpiece of legislation passed trying to keep the party's dog-and-pony show from tearing each other up. When Pelosi was in charge, she had to placate Blue Dog Democrats, rather than muscle them into line.

Hell, about the only thing any Congress since 1990 has been able to agree upon is that Bill Clinton needed to be impeached and a bunch of Asian deserts bombed!

This has effectively emasculated an entire branch of government. Power seeks a vacuum. It's almost understandable that the president would unilaterally legislate.

Plus, members of Congress don't have to take a stand on anything controversial. Take the EPA actions earlier this year to regulate greenhouse gases. Now, long time readers of this blog know there are few people more concerned with global climate change than me. Maybe Al Gore. So while I don't have a problem with Obama taking the bull by the fumes... so to speak... I worry about the fact that Congress didn't vote on this.

Note: it wasn't voted down. The bill stalled before a vote could be taken. It's probably still in the hamper, waiting to be aired out. Look at what this saves Republicans from, say, Montana, where people believe climate change is real and a problem. The party would insist they vote against the EPA actions. Their constituencies would say "We need a better Congresscritter." No responsibility, yet they can parade around touting how angry they are that they didn't get their say.

The more a controversial issue remains undecided, and the more critical that issue becomes, the less likely it is Congress will ever actually take action. And the more likely it is they will cede that issue to the Executive branch. Fine for a liberal like me when a semi-liberal like Obama is in charge, but what happens when another Dumbya hits the Oval Office? One a little more clever?

Congress will still feel this is expedient.

But it is unhealthy. It is unhealthy for an economy, it is unhealthy for a Constitution and it is deep unhealthy for a society and its people.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

How about a real government for the people?

By Distributorcap

We thought it was bad when Bush was in charge, but just look at the simpletons running the House of Representatives now. It's Titticut Follies meets Duck Soup.

Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, and the entire new crop of teabagging dingbats like Rand Paul and the freshmen reps give new meaning to the Peter Principle. Face it, we have a completely broken government put in power by a completely broken electoral system.

It is really time Americans took a hard look at our system and organization of government (which we won't) and change the things that are driving us into the cesspool (which of course we won't). For over 200 years we have basically followed the principles and doctrines of the founding fathers -- Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and all the other 18th-century scholars. Stability in the process of law has been our strength. It might now also be one of our greatness weaknesses. Plus, it is the 21st century, and most Americans are barely treated as 3/5 of a person.

The Amendments

So grounded are we in NOT changing, there have only been 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution in over 200 years. Of the 27, some are not really laws to govern by but rather corrections to flaws and issues stemming from the original document.

The 18th and 21st amendments deal with prohibition (which in reality had nothing to do with government) and negate each other. The 23rd (electoral representation for D.C.) and the 19th (giving women the right to vote) are corrections to obvious flaws. One can argue the 20th (which deals with term-end dates), the 24th (poll taxes), and the 25th (presidential succession) are really just clarifications of early laws. And finally the last amendment, the 27th (congressional compensation), has nothing to do with the rule of law. That leaves 19 amendments that have dealt with shifting times and a more complex country. One could even argue that the 13th amendment, which abolished slavery, is not an amendment to govern but a correction to a horrible mistake. Many racists Republicans are gunning to get rid of the 14th.

And guess what, with so few changes to an ideology established in a period that bears little relationship to an era of instant information in a shrinking world, our government continues to detract from its original aspiration and devolve into an incredibly dysfunctional body. Sure, a large chunk of people (like the right wing and others) will say our Constitution is the single greatest document laying down the basis for the single greatest political system ever (it is not; it allowed George Bush to be elected). So how dare we tinker with it. Well, arrogance knows no bounds from people unwilling or unable to adjust to the world as it is. That attitude and a quarter gets you more worthless American currency and more Congressmen like Jim DeMint and Louis Gohmert.

Here is my two cents: The Constitution (and the political process) ain't working. It needs an extreme makeover. Think Joan Rivers. There are those who do not want change: those in power (who are more and more looking like a bunch of less and less intelligent media whores) and the (allegedly non-ideological) media, both of whom have very little incentive to alter the structure that put/keeps them in power in the first place. Almost anyone in government today (from all political bents) would poo-poo any suggestion of major constitutional rewrites. But to survive as a viable and thriving society in a world of diminishing resources, floundering leadership, and increased divisiveness, we must consider moderation to the very fundamentals that brought us to the place we are at. Change or die. Survival of the fittest.

Here are some of my thoughts – food for discussion. They are not wrong or right, just some ideas on improving a broken (yes, broken, dilapidated, and now dangerous) system.

Elections

First I will say that I wish we had the parliamentary form of government like Canada, Britain, or Australia, where the party in power chooses the leader of government and can also fall from power before the end of the term. There are tons of pluses and minuses to this form of government. But for now I will work within the basic confines of the current government structure.

All elections should be held on Sunday (don't give me the lame excuses of Church or religion or the day of rest -- almost every other nation in the world votes on a weekend, and most churches today are political hotbeds anyway), so yhat people could vote and not worry about the kids at school or getting time off from work. Or if that doesn't suit you, have a two-day election Saturday and Sunday. EVERY polling place in the nation has the same equipment, all with paper trails. If you want early mail-in voting, fine. For the presidential elections, all polls close at the same time, 12 midnight ET, 9 pm PT, 6 pm in Alaska and Hawaii -- one day every four years is not too much to ask of a late-night election. This Tuesday nonsense is, well, nonsense and utterly ridiculous.

The campaigns go on way too long – they really become more of a turnoff and often evolve into a mudslinging anger-fest right out of As The World Turns. The 2012 campaign has been in full force for nearly a year (just watch any cable show and the handicapping is in full bloom). Stopping candidates from early or long campaigning is impossible and fraught with free speech implications, but you can limit advertising and debates to a narrow period of time. (I realize there are major freedom of speech issues with this as well, but what is more important, an honest debate or permanent campaigns to ensure pundits have a job?) The primary process sucks. It is long, expensive, and cumbersome. It should be divided into four regional super-primaries instead of a six-month drawn-out media party. The primaries should be about the candidates and issues, not about what the media wants in terms of covering the candidates and the issues (there is a big difference). Plus, it is expensive. We complain about all the money in politics, and all the donations. When you have a six-month primary system done on such a local-local level, it is bound to get very pricey.

(This issue of money and elections is a whole post unto itself.)

Presidential Election

The Electoral College needs major reformation or to be junked completely. My belief is to ditch the bitch -- get rid of it. It is an anachronism, developed (in my opinion) for arrogant and snobby reasons. The presidency is the only political office in the country that is elected by the entire country, and the current bizarre system allocates votes based on a lopsided and unfair weighting system. This is an electoral system that puts the states (or federalism) above the people (or populism). Votes in Alaska count much more than votes in California. It is a ridiculous and dispiriting procedure. And it is expensive. It is not one man, one vote, and it seems to me to be more Soviet-style than democratic.

We should have a national election where the winner is determined by a plurality of the popular vote, period. Sure, the "get to know the candidate" in more remote places will go away, but to my mind that is a small tradeoff for having every person count the same. Besides, with social media and invasive cable, every candidate is everywhere, everyday. Hand-to-hand campaigning would still be necessary, as would local stops. Right now a Republican would barely venture into New England or New York, a Democrat avoids the places like Kansas or Idaho -- that all would change. The Republicans in Massachusetts would have to be courted, just as the Democrats in Utah would have to be. Diehards would hate this, but too bad -- who cares what the diehard traditionalists think? The upside of this change far outweighs the downside, since the current system is ALL downside.

There is really no valid reason to keep the Electoral College other than tradition and the excuse that James Madison knew more than we did. Sure people will say it protects states' rights, minorities, and the two-party system. Protecting the two-party system is the last thing we should want. But is the presidency about the federal system or about representing the people of the nation?

Three times -- in 1876, 1888, and 2000 -- the candidate with the most popular votes lost to someone with more electoral votes. That is clearly not the will of the people but rather the will of the states. Why should someone in Wyoming have more say that someone in Oregon? The Declaration of Independence should be re-written to start "we the states" rather than "we the people" if that is what we really want from the presidency.

More importantly, we all know first-hand what happens when someone ignores the will of the people -- you get the idiocy of the self-anointed and power-hungry King George (yes we could have dumped him in '04, but if logic prevailed he should not have even been there for dumping). Plus, a little-revealed fact, the current Electoral College setup basically allows the electors to vote for whomever they want to. They do not have to vote for the candidate chosen by their state. While 24 states have laws to punish this, only ONE (Michigan) has the power to actually cancel that "faithless" vote. So in some surreal setting, a candidate could win the popular vote and the electoral vote and still not be elected president. Unlikely, but theoretically possible. This is not democracy, it is lunacy. To me, almost anything is better than the current Electoral College.

I go back and forth as to what would be best with regard to term limits for the president. As currently -- two four-year terms? One six-year term? No limit? I am not sure, but I lean towards one six-year term.

And oh, the Supreme Court cannot stop recounts, and if a justice fails to disclose his wife's income he is automatically impeached.

Congress

The District of Columbia either becomes or is treated just like a state for national political purposes. Zero discussion on this. The fact D.C. residents have no Congressional representation is ludicrous. They're held hostage by the Republicans since over 80 percent of all voters in D.C. are Democrats.

The House of Representatives continues to be population-based. I don't know what the magical number of reps should be, but for argument's sake I would up the number to 565, which is taking the U.S. population of 309,000,000 in 2010 and dividing it by the population of the smallest state (Wyoming at 545,000). Of course, you wouldn't want to change the number of reps every year or even every ten. Just keep it at the base of 565. Frankly, the larger number, the more unmanageable an already unmanageable body would become. Under this algorithm, New York would have 34 reps, while Colorado would have nine.

There should be no gerrymandering of districts -- districts should ONLY be reassigned if the state gains/loses a House seat every ten years after the Census. Districts should be redrawn by bipartisan committee, with strict guidelines, not by state legislatures (no weird shapes to get in certain groups, minorities, or parties in certain districts). You cannot keep all politics out of districting, but it can and should be limited.

Reps should be required to be present for a certain number or percentage of votes or else are admonished, fined, or kicked out. Terms should be increased to three years (these two-year terms practically require reps to start campaigning the day the are elected). One-third (188) could be elected every year, keeping a rotation.

The Senate should be adjusted for some population-based figures. Having two senators from Alaska and two from California is plain stupid and unfair. I propose the top 17 states get three senators, the next 17 get two senators, and the bottom 17 (remember D.C. is added) get one senator. 102 senators, voted by their full state. In addition, three senators are elected by the entire country, essentially stateless senators, for a total of 105. The party with the most senators is in charge. Six-year terms remain, with 1/3 up for election every two years. Same deal on the minimum number of votes as for the House. NO FILIBUSTERS unless the senator actually does his best James Stewart.

If you think that basing both Houses on some sort of population count will really tilt the Congress towards the big states too much, then let's go with the Senate remaining with two senators from each state (102 including D.C.), plus three at-large senators elected either regionally or nationally. These senators would not answer to any one state. Total: 105 senators. There is nothing magic about 100 senators other than the round sounding of the total. Before 1959, there were 96 Senators.

Both bodies should be required to remain in session a minimum of 230 days/year. NO DISCUSSION. This is not a country club. That still leaves six weeks vacation for all Congressmen and plenty of time for Boehner to play golf.

Supreme Court

For this body I have absolutely no issues with term limits -- there should be. These are not elected officials answering to the people, they are appointed, and appointed with politics squarely in mind.

Nine justices, 18-year term limit. Every two years one justice steps down as his/her term expires. This way every president would get to nominate at least two justices (resignation and death would cause an immediate refill of the seat, regardless of the term order, and the appointee would fill the remaining term). The president continues to nominate and the Senate continues approval. This way you would not be stuck with a Scalia or Thomas for a lifetime. The politics of the Supreme Court could change every two years depending on the rotation and the president. In today's court you can predict the vote on every case almost to a tee. There should be strict ethics and guidelines for justices with respect to politics and even the appearance of impropriety. No lunches with the Koch boys.

Chime in. Am I that out to lunch?

Wait, is that Michael Medved talking sense?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

How about we make this Elephant Dung #18? That's our ongoing series tracking the GOP civil war. For an explanation of the series, see here. For previous entries, see here.

**********

Well, some sense, yes -- as he speaks truth, some truth, to right-wing power.

The former (highly mediocre, if not worse) movie critic turned conservative talk-radio host spends much of his op-ed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal criticizing the right's anti-Obama nonsense.

He actually defends the president against "some of the current charges" against him, charges he finds "especially distasteful" and "destructive to the conservative cause." He criticizes Sarah Palin for saying that Obama is "purposefully weakening America," and he even goes so far as to challenge Dear Leader Rush's ridiculous claim that Obama is "presiding over the decline of the United States of America," seeking "payback," as a black man, for America's ugly past:

Regardless of the questionable pop psychology of this analysis, as a political strategy it qualifies as almost perfectly imbecilic. Republicans already face a formidable challenge in convincing a closely divided electorate that the president pursues wrong-headed policies. They will never succeed in arguing that those initiatives have been cunningly and purposefully designed to wound the republic. In Mr. Obama's case, it's particularly unhelpful to focus on alleged bad intentions and rotten character when every survey shows more favorable views of his personality than his policies.

It takes guts to call anything Limbaugh says or does "imbecilic," I'll give Medved that.

Now of course, you'll notice that Medved's argument rests largely on respecting the office of the presidency and its history, not Obama himself, and that he is counselling Republicans to take public opinion into account:

Americans may not see a given president as their advocate, but they're hardly disposed to view him as their enemy -- and a furtive, determined enemy at that. For 2012, Republicans face a daunting challenge in running against the president. That challenge becomes impossible if they're also perceived as running against the presidency.

Medved certainly seems to object to the substance of the crazy right-wing attacks on Obama, but he is more concerned that Republicans are simply going too far and thereby endangering their 2012 electoral prospects. 

So let's give him some credit, but not too much.

And let's note, too, that his casual assessment of presidents past is littered with partisan judgement: Kennedy may have had a "sex addiction" and Carter was one of the worst, but Harding didn't really benefit personally from all that corruption and is now more favourably appreciated by historians, while Nixon "almost certainly lied about Watergate." Er, almost certainly? And who was it exactly who brought Egypt and Israel together?

Oh, never mind.

Tough guy Ed Rollins

By Capt. Fogg

Well, what can we expect Ed Rollins to say when he tries to make a case for Barack Obama's weakness? After all, Rollins can't make much of a case for anything but "toughness" in the Reagan administration he worked for or indeed in the party he's long been part of. Not that he will get specific about Reagans testicularity, because if a Democrat had "cut and run" in Lebanon, Ed would still be howling about his effeminate weakness. But one can't take Ed for anything but a low key polemicist, an Ann Coulter without the filed teeth, a Lower fat Limbaugh with less gas content. It's all theater; all a continuing part of the fear mongering the humiliated GOP has been using to make us feel good about giving up freedom and prosperity and distract us from the abject failure of all its promises.

So Barack Obama wants to be loved, says Mr. Rollins. Horrors!

He wants to be loved passionately and daily,

he writes for CNN.com, as though he could know. As though he learned of the president's inner-most dreams through pillow talk, as though he weren't building yet another straw man, stuffed with pot-pourri and dressed in lace panties:

He wants to be loved by the Democrats on the Hill and even the Republicans who have still not given him any love. [despite many having voted for him]

He wants to be loved by the Europeans who have made a career out of badmouthing U.S. presidents and their policies.

Which is Ed's way of placing the blame for calling them all terrorist supporters of the Axis of Evil because they didn't agree about our false assurances about Iraq on them rather than on George Bush's glaring weakness of character.

The real example of searching for love in all the wrong places was last week's lovefest south of the border when, in effect, he appeared to be hugging Castro, Ortega and Chavez who have spent their lives fighting everything the United States stands for,

continues the puffed up patriot, twirling his baton, wishing you could believe that George Bush's Chavez handshake was fundamentally different than Obama's Chavez handshake, which to a prejudiced eye appeared to be a "love fest," and that these banana republic leaders were, by dint of socialistic ambitions, "fighting against everything the United States stands for." The very nerve of showing basic respect instead of making threats! The very weakness of decency and dignity!

Perhaps they do fight against some of the things we stand for, in their own countries, Like Ronald Reagan's death squads and the feudalism of foreign corporations, but as a threat to the security and way of life of our republic, they can't do the kind of damage that's been done by Rollins' party, nor are all the things we've been standing for, like torture, military aggression, supression of dissent, and bombing the bejusus out of innocent civilians, all that worth defending. I hate to mention it, but Jesus lost his life fighting against many things we've wasted time standing for, nor did he think love was such a terrible and weak thing.

Still, Obama should court respect, says Ed, meaning fear. He should just spit on these spic bastards and tell them in no uncertain terms just how many bombs we could drop on their miserable citizens just for voting against our wishes, like we did in Veet-nam. Fear is what we want, not love: grovelling, abject submission to the will of the American President, through fear.

Now, of course, appealing to the basest sentiments of the public with slander and libel and a smorgasbord of false accusations, as the Republicans have done, is really all about wanting to be loved, only it's more pure by virtue of its dishonesty and hostility.

Consider the torture memos. Obama was weak fo releasing them: weak for allowing the Justice Department to decide who to go after, and worst of all, he looks weak, says Ed, to both the people who wanted to hide the information and the people who are our for Republican blood.

Weak if he does, weak if he doesn't. In fact, the courage to ignore the passion of either mob must be weakness, right?

Weakness is the death knell for a president. With 1,366 days to go before this term is up, Obama's got to get tougher or he will be viewed as a personality who reads well from a teleprompter.

So Ed is already partying like it's 2012, and he's trotting out that shibboleth about telepromters to prove his comfort with the most childish and idiotic of his party's giggling points. Pretty weak, Ed, I'm sorry to have to say it.

But that's what America liked about Kommander Guy Bush and Reagan -- toughness -- reading tough words written for him by arm chair belligerents like Ed. I just wish someone would define the concept well enough to differentiate it from pandering, from intransigence, stupidity, dishonesty, unwillingness to learn -- even to make peace.

I just wish politicos like Ed Rollins could explain to me why it's wrong to expose atrocities rather than be grateful to the perpetrators who have allowed us 1200 some odd days of not being attacked by a dozen or so saboteurs -- and why being so pants-wetting fearful justifies taking our freedom, respect, dignity, and prosperity away while he whimpers about Obama being weak.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Obama administration needing help

By Carol Gee

President Obama gathered a crowd of over 120 potential helpers at the White House on Thursday for the Forum on Health Reform. In what is being called the Health Care Summit, President Obama is starting the big push for health care overhaul, as NPR headlined. The President said,

"In this effort, every voice must be heard. Every idea must be considered. Every option must be on the table. There will be no sacred cows in this discussion," Obama said as he opened his White House forum on what he calls the greatest threat to the foundation of the U.S. economy.

. . . people from all sectors — and with a wide range of viewpoints — were taking part in the program. They included longtime health reform heavyweights, including the cancer-battling Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, and some people who helped kill Clinton's overhaul in the 1990s.

Also unlike Clinton, Obama is planning to send only broad principles to Congress of what he wants to see in the bill, such as increased coverage and controlled costs. The House and Senate will be left to do the heavy lifting.

President Obama needs help to stay "outside the bubble" that insulates him from the outside world. He fought successfully to keep his Blackberry, though limits were installed. The President mentioned yesterday, as he was answering questions at the Health Care Summit, that he reads ten letters a day sent to him by the public. The Washington Post had a great article on how this works a few weeks ago. To quote:

Each morning when he arrives at the Oval Office, President Obama asks his staff to deliver him a package containing 10 letters. It is a mere sampling of the 40,000 or so that Americans send to the White House every day . . .

Obama has learned during his first 40 days in the White House that he must fight to preserve such direct connections to the citizens he leads. Obama's life as president is outsourced to about 25 assistants, 25 deputy assistants and 50 special assistants who act as a massive siphon to control the information that reaches his desk and schedule the meetings and public appearances that shape his days. A correspondence staff sorts through his mail and selects the 10 letters that he reads.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner needs some help. His office is not staffed at the level required, given the workload coming from the current economic crisis. Two nominees have recently withdrawn their names from consideration as political appointees. Annette Nazareth was to be Geightner's deputy and Caroline Atkinson was to be undersecretary of international affairs. Nazareth probably withdrew due to a potentially bruising confirmation process. The reason for Atkinson's quitting is unknown, according to Politico.com.

Julius Genachowski is President Obama's pick to head the Federal Communications Commission, according to NPR. (2/4/09) They have known each other since attending Harvard together. The nominee headed the technology arm of the Obama campaign. He has a history in private industry, as well as working for the FCC under the Clinton administration.

A number of Congressional Democrats find it difficult to help President Obama get the Omnibus spending bill to his desk to sign. After work on the bill is complete. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has vowed to work with the President to reform the earmarking process, according to CQ Politics. However, as Politico's Jonathan Martin reported Thursday, the bill has not yet been passed. To quote,

In the context of the trillions of dollars being thrown around in Washington these days, the renewed fight over earmarks is relatively small potatoes. . . . taunts vividly illustrate some of the pressures from divergent constituencies on the new president — pressures that are proving a good bit harder to reconcile in office than they were on the campaign trail.

Obama can either walk in lockstep with legislative leaders of his own party, people he needs to push his agenda. Or he can keep the good-government credentials that are part of his public image. But it will be tough to do both.

President Obama will continue to need the help of a strong Democratic party apparatus. Governor Tim Kaine is the new head of the Democratic Party, taking over for Governor Howard Dean, who has gone back to Democracy for America. J.P. Green wrote a very interesting essay at The Democratic Strategist, "Needed: More Discussion About Party-Building," (2/27/09). A couple of his points:

Most of the recent debate about the pros and cons of bipartisanship has centered around it's effect on the quality of legislation. But there is also a legitimate concern about how it impacts the growth and development of the Democratic Party . . .

It's a lot to think about. But a broader, ongoing and inclusive discussion of future directions in party-building would help lay a solid foundation for a new era of progressive reform.

Needing help is not a bad thing. The problems are serious and we all have a stake in the solutions. The health care system is broken, and so is the economic system. Though President Obama has high public approval ratings, Congress does not. And bipartisanship if far from a reality. One thing to remember is that we have just come away from an administration that prided itself on not needing help. Foreign alliances disappeared, and so did the rule of law under a president some are now saying was a dictator. Needing help now feels like a good thing, a breath of fresh air.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

36th. Best. President. Ever

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Show George W. Bush some love. After all, he may not be the worst president ever.

A new "non-partisan, judicious and fair-minded" poll of historians -- has Lincoln at the top, Buchanan at the bottom (#42), and Bush at #36.

In addition to Buchanan, Bush is ahead of, from 37-41, Fillmore, Harding, Harrison, Pierce, and Johnson.

Yes, that's right, he's just one spot ahead of the guy who signed the Fugitive Slave Act (Fillmore); two spots ahead of the guy whose administration was rocked by the Teapot Dome scandal (Harding, who, to his credit, created the Bureau of Veterans Affairs, signed peace treaties with Germany and Austria; and pardoned socialist Eugene V. Debs); three spots ahead of the guy who served for just 32 days (Harrison); four spots ahead of the guy who repealed the Missouri Compromise and supported the Confederacy (as a northerner) (Pierce); five spots ahead of the guy who opposed civil rights legislation after the Civil War, appeased the vanquished South during Reconstruction, and was impeached (holding onto his job by a single vote) (Johnson); and six spots ahead of the guy who supported the Confederacy (like Pierce, another "doughface"), defended slavery (he actively pushed for the Supreme Court's pro-slavery ruling in Dred Scott), and guided the country, through negligence and incompetence, into civil war (Buchanan).

Sounds about right to me.

Restoration and renewal: The self-restraint of the Obama presidency

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Andrew Sullivan has an excellent post up on one of the key differences, perhaps the overarching one, between Obama, whom he dubs "The Presider," and Bush, who dubbed himself "The Decider":

If Bush was about the presidency as power, Obama is about the presidency as authority. It's fascinating to watch this deep difference in understanding slowly but unmistakably realize itself in public actions. Somewhere the Founders are smiling. The system is correcting itself after one of the most unbalanced periods in American history. But it took the self-restraint of one man to do it.

Make sure to read the whole thing.

Trivia Question of the Day

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Other than Obama, who is the only graduate of Harvard Law School to be elected president of the United States?

Answer here.

**********

Hints:

-- He was born in Delaware, Ohio.

-- He attended Kenyon College.

-- He practised law in Cincinnati.

-- He served two terms in Congress.

-- He served two terms as governor of Ohio.

-- He did not win the popular vote and was elected by a Congressional Electoral Commission.

Still don't know? Click on the link above.

(Via Scheiber.)

How do we get from here to there?

By Carol Gee

The road through Transition to Obama Administration is full of ruts and streams to ford. Our car, the economy, is wearing out and in need of repair. How can our country's sputtering economy avoid completely breaking down* along the way?

What would a breakdown look like? The stock market is one gauge of the pressures on the economic tires under us. Right now they are going flat and we fear they will fail to get us there. The wheels of employment and business survival are about to fall off because not enough regulations hold them in place. The engine of public opinion and public confidence runs noisily.#

We have a current president sort of in the driver's seat, but his hand is only occasionally on the wheel. We elected a new driver, someone to take his place, but it is not his turn to drive yet. Thus the new driver is forced to ride in the passenger seat until January 20. Decision makers try to see clearly ahead into the future, but the mud of confusion and obfuscation obscures the view. Shifting gears could move us ahead or progress could grind to a halt.

The Presidential Transition road is rutted with historical precedent and the Constitution's rule of law which feel like impediments to many people. However, if we drive out of the ruts we will surely get stuck. High water crossings, too many debts,# threaten to drown the economic engine. Our driver must pay attention and drive at the right speed or we will get stuck in midstream. The president-elect passenger can give advice but his foot is not on the throttle. As passengers, we are aware of the kind of driver with whom we are riding. We do not know whether he alert, or talking on the cell phone and distracted.

We could be headed for a wreck at the train crossing, where U.S. and international economic interests meet. We worry that our current driver will not see the train coming, or that he might go around the cross arm at the crossing. The signals, clear communication must be working, and the U.S. must find out who is the engineer in charge. Whether it is Europe or China or other entities, raises the question of whether a committee is competent to steer the engine. International transaction rules about the size of the debt loads must be within safe limits. A car/train wreck could stop the international movement of currency.

With an incompetent driver at the wheel, a train coming, and a winding, muddy and dangerous road ahead, what are the options for action? When would we need to say speed up or slow down . . . or stop? Do we go for repair, detour or park for the moment to let the engine cool down? Which choice will best get us from here to there? No matter what the chattering class says about it, we cannot stop the car and change drivers. Everyone but our current president (OCP) is a passenger. The train is run by other nations. And we are in the uncomfortable position of having to stay in the ruts with loose lug nuts, with four questionable tires, a noisy engine and a muddy windshield, to get to dry road. All this means that we must trust that the passenger in the front seat can convince the driver to steer correctly and baby our economic vehicle enough to get us all there in one piece.

Unfortunately, we are all along for the ride. Therefore, it is only a matter of time, and we must be patient.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo"* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

The Defense of the Nation

By Carol Gee

It will be assured by a well-executed presidential transition plan. The American people are curious about whether current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will be staying on after President-elect Obama takes the oath of office. It looks like there is some possibility that he will, based on these news items: Gates and Danzig? -- A former Navy secretary praises the man whom he might eventually replace. "Obama Mulls Plan to Keep Gates at Pentagon," from the 11/11/08 CQ Politics. To quote:

President-elect Obama is strongly considering keeping Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates in that post for a limited time in the new administration, several sources close to the discussions said Tuesday.

Under the still-tentative plan, former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig would become deputy secretary and take over the job when Gates departs, perhaps after up to one year. Gates has not formally been asked to stay, sources close to the Pentagon and the transition team said. A source close to Gates said he is reluctant but willing to stay on in the short term.

The general in charge of the Missile defense program is leaving his post soon and has prepared a briefing for President-elect Obama, should he want it. Obama has not said what his final views on the subject are, though he has not ruled it out. The story, "General Warns Obama on Missile Defense," is from the 11/12/08 CBS News. To quote the piece's sub-head, "Head Of Missile Defense Agency Says U.S. Would Be "Severely Hurt" If Plan Is Abandoned; Russia Rejects More U.S. Proposals." As for the Middle East war situation, "Obama faces major challenge in Afghanistan/Pakistan," from Juan Cole's (11/12/08) Informed Comment, is one of the very best available current background readings on the subject.

Public Diplomacy as an element of national security has been an abysmal failure under the Bush administration. Here is an example: "USC Study of Alhurra Withheld from Public; Inquiries of Network's Operation Deepen" from the 11/4/08 ProPublica. To quote:

The government board that oversees the US-funded Arabic satellite channel Alhurra has refused to make public an independent study commissioned last year to review the network’s content.

People who have read the study, which was completed in July, described it as highly critical of Alhurra, a four-year-old government broadcasting effort begun by President Bush that has cost U.S. taxpayers $500 million and has been shrouded in controversy.

Bush’s public diplomacy efforts have been widely criticized by Democrats and even within his own party and corners of his administration. It is likely that his successor will review some of the most expensive efforts such as Alhurra which was designed to promote a positive image of U.S. policies in the Muslim world.

Defense acquisition will need an enormous amount of revamping if the following two examples are any indication of how wrong-headed it has been under the Bush administration:

1. "Army Orders Pain Ray Trucks; New Report Shows 'Potential for Death'," is from the 10/10/08 Wired: Danger Room. To quote:
   
   

   After years of testing, the Active Denial System -- the pain ray which drives off rioters with a microwave-like beam -- could finally have its day. The Army is buying five of the truck-mounted systems for $25 million. But the energy weapon may face new hurdles, before it's shipped off to the battlefield; a new report details how the supposedly non-lethal blaster could be turned into a flesh-frying killer.

   The contract for the pain ray trucks is "expected to be awarded by year's end," Aviation Week notes. "A year after the contract is signed, the combination vehicle/weapons will start be fielded at the rate of one per month."

2. "Packs of robots will hunt down uncooperative humans"* comes from the 10/22/08 Short Sharp Science. To quote:
   
   

   The latest request from the Pentagon jars the senses. At least, it did mine. They are looking for contractors to provide a "Multi-Robot Pursuit System" that will let packs of robots "search for and detect a non-cooperative human".
   
   One thing that really bugs defence chiefs is having their troops diverted from other duties to control robots. So having a pack of them controlled by one person makes logistical sense. But I'm concerned about where this technology will end up.
   
   Given that iRobot last year struck a deal with Taser International to mount stun weapons on its military robots, how long before we see packs of droids hunting down pesky demonstrators with paralysing weapons? Or could the packs even be lethally armed?

In conclusion, as Commander in Chief, President-elect Obama will be challenged to restore and repair the U.S. military to full effectiveness. Our professional military has not been well-served by the current Commander in Chief. You can be assured that President-elect Obama would have an entirely different "take" on the last three stories in this post than our current president would have. Though Obama is a "techie," he would likely look askance at deploying pain ray trucks and pursuit robots. And because he is so bright, he would read with fascination my last story: "Scientists Identify Brain's 'Hate Circuit'"* from the 10/29/08 Yahoo! News. To quote:

British researchers say they've identified a "hate circuit" in the brain.

This hate circuit shares part of the brain associated with aggression, but is distinct from areas related to emotions such as fear, threat, and danger, said researchers Professor Semir Zeki and John Romaya, of University College London's laboratory of neurobiology.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo"* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Most unpopular ever; or, why Bush will not be another Truman

By Michael J.W. Stickings

A new CNN poll finds that Bush is "the most unpopular president since approval ratings were first sought more than six decades ago," with disapproval ratings above 70 this year.

Which makes him more unpopular than Nixon... and Truman.

Yes, yes, I know, look what happened to Truman: Vindicated by history, now considered to be one of the best of the last century, if not one of the best ever, celebrated by Democrats and Republicans alike.

All I can say is, W. is no S.

Truman was the great exception, assuming the presidency at a difficult time, upon FDR's death, and ending up in Korea. Bush's admirers, ever optimistic, if delusionally so, point to him precisely because he was an exception -- because, of course, they hope Bush will be one, too, deeply unpopular at the end of his presidency but ultimately resurrected.

One has one's doubts. Truman may or may not deserve his vindication -- I would argue that he deserves some of it but that the pendulum has swung too far in his favour -- but he was nonetheless an admirable man who presided over the early years of post-war America, laying the groundwork for so much of what was to come both in terms of foreign and domestic policy, much of it positive.

As for Bush, he has presided over the implementation of a mostly right-wing agenda, cultivating the culture of fear and division and weakening America both at home and abroad. Some historians may eventually give him some of the benefit of whatever doubt remains, but an exception like Truman he will never be.

Monday in the Bush

By Carol Gee

White House:

On the official White House website (above) "Transition" is listed above "The Economy." That actually reflects an apparent reality. Politician to the end, our current president (OCP) intends to use a successful transition to attempt to refurbish his badly tarnished image. If, at the end of the day, our next president (ONP) does not feel like he has made a safari into the bush, it will be of benefit to the tenor of the transition.

Today "Obama heads to White House for first post-election visit," is the headline from Deborah Charles' (11/10/08) story at Reuters. The visit takes place earlier in the transition than in the past, because of all the crises facing the nation. I imagine both men were eager to make it happen for that reason. It fits in well with President-elect Obama's "hit the ground running" governing agenda. To quote:

Accompanied by his wife Michelle, Obama will visit for about 90 minutes. The Obamas will look around the house that will become their home, and Bush and the president-elect will then sit down to discuss issues including the transition of power, the ailing U.S. economy and the war in Iraq.

[Bush] . . ."Ensuring that this transition is seamless is a top priority for the rest of my time in office," Bush said on Saturday in his weekly radio address.

"In the coming weeks, we will ask administration officials to brief the Obama team on major ongoing policy issues, ranging from the financial markets to the war in Iraq."

[Obama] . . . "This speaks to a fundamental recognition that here in America we can compete vigorously in elections and challenge each other's ideas, yet come together in service of a common purpose once the voting is done," Obama said on Saturday in his radio address. "And that is particularly important at a moment when we face the most serious challenges of our lifetime."

Since this important meeting appears to be a win/win for both sides, everyone will be on their best behavior. And the two couples may actually have a very pleasant time this afternoon. A good story from Sheryl Gay Stolberg at the 11/9/08 New York Times describes the challenges as: "A Visit Both Historic and Perhaps Awkward." To quote:

As the president-elect, he will be welcomed at the White House as an honored guest of its current occupant, Mr. Bush, for a meeting that could be as awkward as it is historic.

. . . there will also be a subtext to the session: the personal chemistry between two leaders whose worldviews are miles apart.

. . . with Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama over the economy. Mr. Bush has invited world leaders to Washington on Friday and Saturday for an international conference on the economy. Mr. Obama and his team have declined to attend. Mr. Obama supports a new economic stimulus package; the Bush White House is cool to that idea.

Meanwhile the work of transition continues. It looks like this gossipy little column, "In the Loop," by Al Kamen in The Washington Post, will be a good way to stay in touch with the latest. For example, he thinks former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack may have a lock on the Agriculture Secretary position. Kamen also weighs in, in a fun way, on President-elect Obama's official transition website, closing with more information on potential other appointments.

Into the bush, the wilds of Washington, is the way these men, and President Clinton -- relatively speaking -- experienced and will experience the early days and weeks of their terms. Each president had to watch out for carnivores lurking in the grass. Clinton had Gingrich, Bush had terrorists, and Obama will encounter the full import of the decisions and events of the past 8 years. Former Presidents Clinton and Bush 41 will leave town, and President Obama will head home to the upstairs of the White House. To each man on January 20, 2009, we can all rightfully say, "Bon Voyage!"

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)