Steele's Take on Obama Health Care Speech

Wow, socialist power grab, you say? What the hell? I better get off my butt and donate to the RNC! "Are you now or have you ever been a socialist, President Obama?" You can't trust an Obama Democrat as far as you can throw one, am I right, people?

Seriously, is this what conservatives are truly worried about, a socialist power grab? How does health care reform benefit the gov't and elitist liberals by providing insurance for those who don't have it? Let's see...The public option could allow more people to get lower-cost health insurance so that insurance company profits could go down, which in turn could mean dwindling political donations and lobbyist monies to the RNC and others who are pro-insurance companies...Damn it, we better stop them now!

Steele's Response to Obama Speech via HuffPo

Fwd: The False Hope of Bipartisanship - BRM

Apologies to BRM as the article below (and others which I will post here shortly) had been stuck in our Google Groups site since Feb. Doh! And for some reason, I did not have email forwarded from that site, so I never received it. Since we don't really check that site, please post to our blog, not that we're "crazy go nuts" blogging all the time. ;-) Appreciate your support.

Thanks, BRM, for the article. I think this is quite telling and topical even months later, given the current health care debate, distortion and disinformation. More comments to come after reading the article more thoroughly.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Brian Menard" <brian_men...@hotmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 11:05 am
Subject: The False Hope of Bipartisanship
To: AMoMaI Group

Friends:

Great piece by political scientiest Alan Abramowitz, from Larry
Sabato's Crystal Ball (see Sabato's Crystal Ball - Vol. VII, Iss. 6 -
SENATE 2010 UPDATE - @ Larry J. Sabato
<goodpolit...@virginia.edu<mailto:goodpolit...@virginia.edu>>).

In it, a not-by-any-measure-conservative academic argues effectively the point that is the source of great frustration with President Obama for conservatives like me. I disagree soundly - though not surprisingly - with Abramowitz's suggestion that we stop pretending to be bipartisan and just push the socialist agenda. I agree soundly, though, that President Obama is trying to push two incompatible rhetorical lines. To put my own priority in place of Abramowitz's preference for the abandonment of bipartisanship, I echo his essential point that you can't claim you want bipartisanship without being willing to make concessions to bipartisanship. I wrote an unpublished op-ed (after Senator Obama announced formally his candidacy on the steps of the Springfield Capitol two years ago) that argued his bipartisan/postpartisan appeal essentially said, "Hey, all you Republicans, if you would just join our left-wing socialist agenda and get out of the way, we could work together to do great things for the country." While I had the audacity to hope the new administration would prioritize its rhetoric pushing bipartisanship over its rhetoric pushing leftist policies, President Obama seems to dismiss the moderates who helped elect him and conservatives like me who didn't but nonetheless want to work with him on a truly bipartisan basis. As Newt Gingrich stated a couple weeks ago on ABC's "This Week", you can't bake the cake yourself and then write the other side's name in the frosting on top to call it a bipartisan effort. "We won" keeps getting shoved in the face of such folks like a scoop of misplaced doggie-doo to remind people that - contrary to claims of messianic Barack disciples - we should not repeat the mistake they made in electing someone who promised to change the tone of Washington. I argued during the campaing that McCain was the real candidate for changing how things are done in Washington. Obama made a much better case, though, disingenuous as it was. After the election I argued that President-Elect Obama had a special opportunity to make real change, not just partisan policy change, and that doing so would elevate him from being another partisan President to being a real statesman and leader. He has gone the wrong direction in this regard, and he is killing fast the good will that people like me have maintained. I will hold on to hope. Increasingly, though, whether because the President is too naïve/weak/insecure to lead the left-wing leadership of Congress or because his rhetoric of bipartisanship/postpartisanship is truly meaningless, what I see is just audacity without much cause for hope in the long run.

-BRM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­------------------------
The False Hope of Bipartisanship
[from Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball: see Sabato's Crystal Ball - Vol.
VII, Iss. 6 - SENATE 2010 UPDATE - @ Larry J. Sabato
<goodpolit...@virginia.edu<mailto:goodpolit...@virginia.edu>>]

Alan Abramowitz

It's not a matter of "if." It's a matter of "when." As in, when will all of the feel-good rhetoric about Democrats and Republicans joining hands to solve the nation's problems come to an end and open partisan warfare resume in Washington? In fact, that time may already be here. Despite Barack Obama's efforts to reach out to Republican leaders and conservative intellectuals since his election and his willingness to modify his economic stimulus package to accommodate Republicans' desire for smaller spending increases and larger tax cuts, the President isn't getting much love from the other side of the aisle.

One day after Mr. Obama ventured to Capitol Hill to urge Republican lawmakers to support his $819 billion stimulus package, House Republicans voted 177-0 against the bill. And despite intense efforts to reach an agreement acceptable to moderates in both parties, only three Republicans ended up supporting the bill in the Senate--just one more than the bare minimum needed to avert a filibuster. Meanwhile, conservative pundits and talk-show hosts have been hammering the President's plan as old-fashioned pork-barrel politics or socialism in disguise, and some former Bush Administration officials, including Dick Cheney, have been suggesting that his orders to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and ban the use of waterboarding and other
"enhanced interrogation techniques" are jeopardizing the safety of the American people.

The new president is still enjoying a honeymoon with the public. According to the Gallup Poll, almost two-thirds of Americans approve of the job that he is doing so far. That's quite a change from his predecessor who left office with an approval rating of about 30 percent. Even among Republicans, Mr. Obama started his term with a 43 percent approval rating and only a 30 percent disapproval rating--which is why most Republican leaders and conservative commentators, with the notable exception of Rush Limbaugh, have been reluctant to criticize the new president too harshly, claiming that they wish him well despite their disagreements.

Don't expect the honeymoon to last very long, though. The more decisions the president makes, the more he is going to offend the Republican base and the more free Republican leaders and conservative pundits are going to feel to attack him. That's because many of the policies that Mr. Obama supports, from withdrawing American troops from Iraq and lifting the ban on American aid, to international organizations that provide abortion counseling, to expanding government-sponsored health insurance and making it easier for unions to organize workers, are anathema to the large majority of Republican voters as well as the large majority of Republican office-holders.

One of the most important characteristics of public opinion in the United States today is polarization. Americans agree that the country has serious problems but they disagree sharply about what needs to be done about the economy, health care, climate change, the war in Iraq, gay rights, abortion, and a host of other issues. Democrats generally line up on one side of these issues while Republicans generally line up on the opposing side. And the biggest differences are found among the most interested, informed, and active members of the public--the people whose opinions matter the most to political leaders.

Journalists and editorial writers tend to see partisan conflict as a product of petty rivalries and personality clashes. They assume that Democratic and Republican leaders could settle their differences if they really wanted to, and that policies with broad bipartisan support would be better for the country than policies supported by only one party. But the major reason why partisan conflict has been so intense in the United States in recent years is not that Democratic and Republican office-holders don't like each other, but that they have fundamental disagreements on the major issues facing the country.

Since the 1970s the Democratic Party has been moving to the left, the
Republican Party has been moving to the right, and the center has been disappearing. The conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans who once exercised considerable influence in Washington are almost extinct. There are so few remaining moderates, and the ideological gulf separating the parties is so wide, that bipartisan compromise on most issues is almost impossible. And rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans, especially those who pay attention to politics, have been moving apart as well. As a result, politicians who try to compromise with the other side risk antagonizing their own base.

Contrary to the claims of some pundits and editorial writers, there is no clear relationship between bipartisanship and good public policy. The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 had broad bipartisan support. Twenty-nine Senate Democrats and 82 House Democrats voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq; almost all of them ended up regretting it. And some very successful policies have been produced by highly partisan decision-making processes. In 1993, President Clinton's first budget passed Congress without a single Republican vote. Despite claims by Newt Gingrich and other GOP leaders that the tax increases included in that budget would throw the economy into a tailspin, the result was eight years of economic growth and shrinking deficits.

To win Republican support for his budget, President Clinton would have had to give up the tax increases on upper income Americans that were a critical component of his economic plan. Similarly, to win more than token Republican support for his economic stimulus package, President Obama will almost certainly have to agree to much larger tax cuts and much smaller increases in public expenditures than his economic policy advisors believe are desirable.

Barack Obama was elected on a promise of bringing change to Washington. But during the campaign he talked about two kinds of change: change in the content of public policy and change in the way Washington works and especially in what he described as the excessive partisanship of the Bush era. The problem is that these two kinds of change may be incompatible. Appointing a few Republicans to the cabinet and inviting some Republican members of Congress over to the White House to watch the Super Bowl may win Mr. Obama some compliments, but it's unlikely to win him any votes on legislation. That would require making significant concessions on the content of that legislation.

The last two elections have drastically reduced the number of moderate Republicans in the House and Senate, leaving the party more dominated than ever by hard-line conservatives who represent safe Republican districts and states. In order to win more than token support from congressional Republicans, therefore, President Obama would have to make major policy concessions to these hard-line conservatives--concessions that would almost certainly be unacceptable not only to the vast majority of congressional Democrats, but also to the vast majority of politically engaged Democrats in the country. Such concessions would require him to abandon commitments that he made to key Democratic constituencies during the 2008 campaign on issues such as health care, education, climate change, reproductive rights, and labor law reform.

Despite the President's rhetoric about the need for both parties to work together to solve the country's problems and his efforts to reach out to Republicans and conservatives, there is no indication that he is willing to make such concessions and he would be foolish to do so. It would only be seen as a sign of weakness and would lead to demands for even bigger concessions in the future.

Like it or not, in order to produce the kinds of policy changes for which he campaigned, Mr. Obama is going to have to depend overwhelmingly on the support of his fellow Democrats in the Congress and in the country. So expect more party-line votes in the House and Senate, more complaints from Republican leaders about being ignored, and more strident attacks on the president by conservative pundits and talk-show hosts. As a wise man once said, "politics ain't beanbag."

"Gifted and Flawed" Teddy Kennedy Dies

I suppose you could say "Gifted and Flawed" about a whole slew of politicians who came and went. Regardless of your politics, it is the end of an era. Even Orrin Hatch would listen to Teddy on the health care issue; now who will fill his shoes?

NY Times Obit on Kennedy

It's Like That (and That's the Way It Is)

I was listening to Run-D.M.C. this morning on the bus, and these words from 25 years ago still ring true today. There be some wisdom in them old-school rap! And the words are not one-sidedly political, either. Yet another testament to the fact that if you live long enough you see that history tends to repeat itself, for better or worse. Enjoy.

Unemployment at a record high
People coming, people going, people born to die
Don't ask me, because I don't know why
But it's like that, and that's the way it is

People in the world tryin to make ends meet
You try to ride car, train, bus, or feet
I said you got to work hard, you want to compete
It's like that, and that's the way it is
Huh!

Money is the key to end all your woes
Your ups, your downs, your highs and your lows
Won't you tell me the last time that love bought you clothes?
It's like that, and that's the way it is

Bills rise higher every day
We receive much lower pay
I'd rather stay young, go out and play
It's like that, and that's the way it is
Huh!

Wars going on across the sea
Street soldiers killing the elderly
Whatever happened to unity?
It's like that, and that's the way it is

Disillusion is the word
That's used by me when I'm not heard
I just go through life with my glasses blurred
It's like that, and that's the way it is
Huh!

You can see a lot in this lifespan
Like a bum eating out of a garbage can
You noticed one time he was your man
It's like that (what?) and that's the way it is

You should have gone to school, you could've learned a trade
But you laid in the bed where the bums have laid
Now all the time you're crying that you're underpaid
It's like that (what?) and that's the way it is
You know its like that and thats the way it is
Because it's like that and thats the way it is

One thing I know is that life is short
So listen up homeboy, give this a thought
The next time someone's teaching why don't you get taught?
It's like that (what?) and that's the way it is

If you really think about it times aren't that bad
The one that flexes with successes will make you glad
Stop playing start praying, you won't be sad
It's like that (what?) and that's the way it is
Huh!

When you feel you fail sometimes it hurts
For a meaning in life is why you search
Take the bus or the train, drive to school or the church
It's like that, and that's the way it is

Here's another point in life you should not miss
Do not be a fool who's prejudiced
Because we're all written down on the same list
It's like that (what?) and that's the way it is
Huh!

You know it's like that, and that's the way it is
Because it's like that, and that's the way it is

Whither Healthcare Reform?

The Obama honeymoon's been over for a while, so we should pick up the debate of the moment. Will healthcare reform die on the vine once again like the many previous efforts to insure all Americans? Will the health insurance companies escape unscathed and actually benefit via the proposed reforms being considered in the Congress now? Big-money lobbying efforts will win out again? Will this country ever take its collective head out and figure out what the hell is going on?!! From gun-toting protesters to shoutings at town halls made to look like grassroots uprisings, you didn't really think this was going to be easy, did you, Obama?

Daiy Kos - L.A. Times: Insurers winning health reform battle
The LA Times article referenced above

Fwd: "happening world of Politics"

From BRM via googlegroups... I think we received this one before but posting to our blog anyway.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Brian Menard" <brian_men...@hotmail.com>
Date: Jul 6 2009, 1:50 pm
Subject:
To: AMoMaI Group

Read the attached from one of my UVA friends who is an assistant
professor political science at Bentley University. No surprise to any
of us, but good to confirm academically that we are in the happening
world of politics.

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=120429506564&h=Be5Pl&u=AHVm...<http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=120429506564&h=Be5Pl&u=AHVm...>

Reps' Bipartisan Lip Service BS

As I suspected but hoped would not be the case, it is quite evident that the Republicans in the House want absolutely no part of this stimulus package. That's a message, to me at least, that the Limbaugh-agreeing mob mentality in the party are herding as a block; i.e. they will bet on this package to fail and don't want any bit of its "stink" hanging on them, hoping to charge a comeback in power in 2010. And that in a word is bullshit, and in three words, bipartisan lip service. What more do the Reps want, tyranny by the minority? Already there's the compromise of about a third of it going to tax cuts, not to mention the $70 billion alternative minimum tax cut that will do virtually nothing to stimulate the economy.

I believe the bill as is does not do enough to help those who really need it, namely the unemployed, the uninsured and the foreclosed. Yes, I will agree with a Nobel Prize-winning economist over some Rep party leader from Ohio.

Get a load of these comments from the Reps:

Originally I was going to link the NYT article but WSJ had a more thoroughly assessed article so here it is: House Passes Stimulus Bill Without Republican Support

Petraeus Tests Obama

Joe Biden got a talking to when he said that world leaders will test the "young president" Obama. It appears that most of the tests in his first 3-4 weeks have been coming from leaders within our own country, first the Republicans in Congress and now General David Petraeus, who apparently has some political aspirations of his own. But doing an end-around the president is not too smart, is it? Yet another sideshow to distract him from the economic troubles at home? Thanks, but no thanks, General.
Petraeus Leaked Misleading Story on Pullout Plans

WASHINGTON, Feb 9 (IPS) - The political maneuvering between President Barack Obama and his top field commanders over withdrawal from Iraq has taken a sudden new turn with the leak by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus - and a firm denial by a White House official - of an account of the Jan. 21 White House meeting suggesting that Obama had requested three different combat troop withdrawal plans with their respective associated risks, including one of 23 months.

The Petraeus account, reported by McClatchy newspapers Feb. 5 and then by the Associated Press the following day, appears to indicate that Obama is moving away from the 16-month plan he had vowed during the campaign to implement if elected. But on closer examination, it doesn't necessarily refer to any action by Obama or to anything that happened at the Jan. 21 meeting.

The real story of the leak by Petraeus is that the most powerful figure in the U.S. military has tried to shape the media coverage of Obama and combat troop withdrawal from Iraq to advance his policy agenda - and, very likely, his personal political interests as well.

First Black RNC Chairman?

From The Root giving some perspective on the vote for the new RNC Chairman. An excerpt:
"It’s true that two black men--of very different political leanings--are among the six men fighting to represent the party of Abraham Lincoln. Blackwell is a rock-ribbed conservative who writes for the far-right Town Hall, belongs to the Family Research Council as well as the National Rifle Association. Steele is a moderate who helms the revived Republican Leadership Council, a centrist political action committee, alongside others like Christine Whitman, Jane Swift and Tom Ridge. But how can we forget that Chip Saltzman, another potential RNC head, recently sent supporters an e-mail making fun of “Barack the Magic Negro?” Just this week, a fake cover of USA Today began to circulate among RNC membership, with the unpleasant headline “RNC Members Choose ‘Whites Only’ Chairman”—a reference to Katon Dawson, a South Carolina operative said to be the front-runner, who joined a private club that does not admit blacks."
Grand White Party: Can Republicans get down with the brown?

Conyers Subpoenas Rove for US Attorney Firings

See, we'll never run out of stuff to blog about. Oh, that John Conyers! Conservatives hate him as much as liberals hate Rush Limbaugh, I bet. Give 'em hell, John, but we shall see if Rove ends up at your hearing first. So much for post-partisan D.C.? Hey, the law is the law, and you must pay if you broke it in the most egregious way possible.

Ball in Obama's Court on Rove's US Attorney Testimony
Here's an interesting bit from the above article:
"And just now, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, told TPMmuckraker that he had already forwarded Conyers' subpoena to the Obama White House, asking them to give an opinion as to whether President Bush retains his ability to assert executive privilege.

In other words, the Obama White House will decide, essentially, whether to back Rove's claim of privilege, or to deny it. (And given that Rove is supposed to appear February 2, that decision from the White House should come soon.) In the latter case, said Luskin, a negotiation would ensue between the Obama White House, President Bush, and Rove. That would likely result in the matter going to court."

Well, the Sierra Club is pleased...

Yes, I am on their email list. Here's what I received today entitled, "Now That's What I Call a President!":

President Obama Wastes No Time

If anyone was still wondering whether President Barack Obama would make a significant difference in the White House, it took less than a week to settle the question. The announcement that President Obama had requested that EPA Director Lisa Jackson to look into granting California a waiver for its clean car law is, by itself, a stunning break with the policies of the past. Significantly, it's also one of four "Clean Slate" energy initiatives that more than 50,000 Sierra Club supporters asked President Obama to enact immediately upon assuming office. (You can still encourage him to act on the remaining three.)

But that was only some of the good news last week. President Obama also indicated that his administration will issue new fuel-economy standards in the coming months that will go beyond what the Bush administration had started. Equally exciting was an announcement that the EPA, for the first time ever, would oppose a coal-fired power plant permit (the Big Stone II project in South Dakota).

In addition, President Obama lifted the "global gag rule" that has prohibited U.S. funding for international organizations that speak about abortion to women and girls seeking reproductive and family-planning services. And Abraham Lincoln's Bible probably hadn't even made it back to the Library of Congress before the Interior Department announced that it was withdrawing a rule change that would have prematurely dropped gray wolves in the Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains from the endangered species list.

Of course much work remains before eight years of environmental neglect can be reversed, but what a start!

---------------
I promise our blog won't be just a long list of gushers for "President Obama." Still can't get over how good that sounds...

Obama Inauguration Thoughts

I will confess that I played hooky and called in sick so I could stay home to watch and to tape the inaugural proceedings. It starts from the various dignitaries entering the platform to the actual inauguration (botched oath and all) to the luncheon (NBC screwing up the report that Byrd had a seizure instead of Kennedy) to the parade to the D.C. Neighborhood Ball to the first half of that night's edition of Charlie Rose. All in all, eight hours of VHS recorded. Is that so wrong? I'm only sorry that I couldn't capture it digitally on a DVD and even that the tape was recorded in EP mode instead of SP for better picture quality.

So let's have some thoughts on this historic day and beginning of a presidency.

Prelude to the Inauguration - BRM/YHK

From: Brian Menard
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 7:03:37 AM

Young:

Been thinking about you much as we get closer to Inauguration Day. Johanna, who lives just outside DC, will have no floor space in her apartment as every inch will be filled with out-of-towners joining the throng on the Mall for the big event. I'm very jealous - just 'cuz I didn't vote for him doesn't mean I can't appreciate the incredibly historic moment this is in our nation's history. You know, of the two inaugurations I've attended, one was GOP (1973) and one was Dem (1993).

So far I am about as pleased as I could HOPE to be with the way Obama has set things up. There are things I really don't like, people he's bringing in that worry me greatly or that just make me nervous regarding what I expect they will do, etc. But that's part of reaching across the aisle, and so far I believe he IS following through on his rhetoric to do so. He's pre-governing quite differently than his campaign policy pronouncements implied, probably as much to your chagrin as to my relief. Not that I'm pleased with the policy overall; were it up to me, I'd move things much further my direction; but, I'm pleased that he's making the early movements to bring folks together in a way that both you and I can be equally displeased with the ultimate output! That's what deliberative democracy is all about, right?

Cheers in the new year!
Brian

----------------
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 3:48 PM

Well, I know one thing; our blog is awfully lonely these days. ;-) I know I sound like a broken record, but let's get more of our thoughts there.

I may have given many people here and elsewhere the impression that I am some sort of a fan or a diehard supporter of Obama, but I realized over the course of our emailing/blogging that I'm more of an ideologue/pragmatist but probably an extremist when seen from conservative views. However, I would never partake in anything even remotely resembling a "cult of personality," let alone over a politician. When I saw/read the contents of the Time Person of the Year issue, it made me cringe. For one thing, I don't get the hubbub over Rick Warren being chosen for the invocation. Not that I totally agree with the man, but is this where the liberals must draw the line? And always over the gay rights issue? Are we to dismiss people who have strongly held religious beliefs whether they are right or wrong depending on the argument?

It is obvious that many are/will be disappointed with the Obama transition's and future admin's decisions and policies. The pre-election PBS Frontline program illustrated and foreshadowed this by telling the fallout from Obama becoming the Harvard Law Review president. He ended up removing the doubts of the conservative wing and disappointing the liberals. So I have no illusions of Obama being the savior of the liberal agenda. I believe he has and will always follow the prudent and compromising path, not to mention that the current economic and national security concerns will dictate his limited options and no-drama decisions. As you said, in the end, he will disappoint and displease both parties, and I have been ready for a while to accept that as the reality. Obama will set his mark as a politician and a statesman in this fashion, much like Lincoln and FDR, as I can only hope. One thing I do still wonder about him is where will he draw the line and take a stand (e.g. economic stimulus, universal healthcare and the Iraq war) or will his "achievements" be a string of lukewarm compromises and could-have-beens?

My best to you as always,
Young

------------------
From: Brian Menard
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 1:29:01 PM

Agreed on the issue of "the line". He could be a statesman like Lincoln or FDR, or he could merely be a policy production factory like LBJ. As always, time will tell.

Let's hope for the good, and keep doing our part to come together. I think it was Mike Huckabee who said recently that it is good Obama won decisively, so he can clearly be the president for all of us. I think that is one deficit from which Bush could never break free. His Texas record was very much crossing party lines and working in bipartisan fashion, but because there was so much bad blood over 2000 (and even 2004), folks were not inclined to move that way in DC. As I've maintained previously, Obama has a great opportunity that allows him to be a statesman instead of just another politician. There is much he can do to screw that up, and little he can do to keep that opportunity alive. So far, I've got to give him credit for sticking to the harder, higher, better path.

Onward...e pluribus unum, meus amicus.
Brian

---------------------------
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 1:41 PM

And you know I have to respond as to the following:

1) LBJ the "policy production factory"? I suppose you refer to the War on Poverty/Great Society (and the Vietnam War to a certain extent), as many conservatives pinpoint that as the great downward spiral into a welfare society. Would you include the Civil Rights Act as a product of that factory as well? That seriously demeans the accomplishment, which was a landmark legislation in US history, wouldn't you say?

2) Dubya had many, many chances to "cross party lines", especially after 9/11 when the political support was overwhelmingly behind him and our nation. But what were his bipartisan iniatives to reach out to Dems? I don't agree that he wasn't given a chance (let alone how he ascended to the presidency); he squandered it, mainly with the ill-conceived Iraq War. I'm sure there will be many a Dubya apologist in the next few years (e.g. no terrorist attacks since 9/11, etc.), but really there's not much there in terms of what he accomplished over two terms, and certainly not in a bipartisan mode. The country is worse off by his administration in all aspects.

I must say that there are plenty of GOPers and conservatives who definitely are breathing a collective sigh of relief that they are not running show and not (necessarily) directly responsible for cleaning up and fixing all of the current problems.

"What is past is prologue"...let's look to the future but not forget how we got here.

-------------------------
From: Brian Menard
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 6:16:14 PM

No intent to demean any of the legislation itself (I'll spare the debate over the failure of the Great Society, and will remind you that the civil rights legislation passed in the 1960s was passed only with the help of congressional Republicans over the opposition of many leaders among congressional Democrats who had stopped it up in committee for years), nor to take away from LBJ's acumen as an accomplished legislator. Remember that he was the Senate Majority Leader before he went to the executive branch. My intent was to distinguish LBJ's legislative style (figure out what we can pass and get it passed) from statemanlike leadership. Much of LBJ's agenda he inherited from the Kennedy administration, rather than initiating it himself. LBJ, bigoted Texan that he was, never would have pushed for the Civil Rights Act - or the Voting Rights Act, which you left off your list - from his own moral volition. What he cared about more than the details of policy was legislative accomplishment, whatever the details needed to make things work out. Speaking as a political scientist, not as a partisan, prioritizing legislative accomplishment is often antithetical to statemanship, and vice versa.

Deepak Chopra from Huffington Post

Mike sent me this link. Well said, Mr. Chopra. I don't see anything wrong with what he said here, not one iota. I like to think that Obama shares this view for the most part, in terms of being against the Iraq war, which is the main reason why I decided to support him. I wish more people would get the picture of what is really happening in our world.

My Uncensored Interview with Deepak Chopra

De Facto Clinton Restoration?

Is that what is happening here? What do you guys think? It's practically official; Hillary accepts the State position.
Clinton Decides to Accept Post at State Dept., Confidants Say

I can appreciate Obama's penchant for Lincoln's "Team of Rivals", but now the latest is that Bill Richardson is being considered for the Commerce job? Really?
AP source: Richardson serious Commerce contender

And after picking off all the top Dem players at the federal and state levels for cabinet positions, doesn't this leave openings for the Reps to move in? Not that I'm a big party politics backer, but it does look like the same ol' same ol'. Kinda disappointed but reserving full judgment. I'm sure the conservatives are gagging while having a field day at the thought of being able to drudge up the tired, old Clinton lines again. And Letterman, Leno, Stewart and all the other comedians are screaming, "Thank you, God!"

Why Obama Wants Hillary for His 'Team of Rivals' and all the baggage that comes with it...I have a bad feeling about this.

Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla

Another selection from Mike (who steadfastly avoids posting anything to our blog directly ;) where Dick Cavett weighs in on the Palin "mystique".

The Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla

It's Morning in America (Again)!

Hey, just wanted to share the good news. The stock market is up; Obama is President; And my wife and I received a key to our new house, today. What a day. What a month. What a year!

Sitting on Top of the World
Wednesday 12 November 2008
by: Garrison Keillor, The Chicago Tribune


The city of Chicago is celebrating the rise of one of their own to the office of president of the United States. (Photo: Getty Images / AFP)

Be happy, dear hearts, and allow yourselves a few more weeks of quiet exultation. It isn't gloating, it's satisfaction at a job well done. He was a superb candidate, serious, professorial but with a flashing grin and a buoyancy that comes from working out in the gym every morning. He spoke in a genuine voice, not senatorial at all. He relished campaigning. He accepted adulation gracefully. He brandished his sword against his opponents without mocking or belittling them. He was elegant, unaffected, utterly American, and now (Wow) suddenly America is cool. Chicago is cool. Chicago!!!
We threw the dice and we won the jackpot and elected a black guy with a Harvard degree, the middle name Hussein and a sense of humor - he said, "I've got relatives who look like Bernie Mac, and I've got relatives who look like Margaret Thatcher." The French junior minister for human rights said, "On this morning, we all want to be American so we can take a bite of this dream unfolding before our eyes." When was the last time you heard someone from France say they wanted to be American and take a bite of something of ours? Ponder that for a moment.
The world expects us to elect pompous yahoos, and instead we have us a 47-year-old prince from the prairie who cheerfully ran the race, and when his opponents threw sand at him, he just smiled back. He'll be the first president in history to look really good making a jump shot. He loves his classy wife and his sweet little daughters. At the same time, he knows pop music, American lit and constitutional law. I just can't imagine anybody cooler.
It feels good to be cool, and all of us can share in that, even sour old right-wingers and embittered blottoheads. Next time you fly to Heathrow and hand your passport to the man with the badge, he's going to see "United States of America" and look up and grin. Even if you worship in the church of Fox, everyone you meet overseas is going to ask you about Obama, and you may as well say you voted for him because, my friends, he is your line of credit over there. No need anymore to try to look Canadian.
And the coolest thing about him is the fact that back in the early '90s, given a book contract after the hoo-ha about his becoming the First Black Editor of The Harvard Law Review, instead of writing the basic exploitation book he could've written, he put his head down and worked hard for a few years and wrote a good book, an honest one, which, since his rise in politics, has earned the Obamas enough to buy a nice house and put money in the bank. A successful American entrepreneur.
Our hero who galloped to victory has inherited a gigantic mess. The country is sunk in debt. The Treasury announced it must borrow $550 billion to get the government through the fourth quarter, more than the entire deficit for 2008, so he will have to raise taxes and not only on bankers and lumber barons. His promise never to raise the retirement age is not a good idea. Whatever he promised the Iowa farmers about subsidizing ethanol is best forgotten at this point. We may not be getting our National Health Service cards anytime soon. And so on and so on.
So enjoy the afterglow of the election awhile longer. We all walk taller this fall. People in Copenhagen and Stockholm are sending congratulatory e-mails - imagine! We are being admired by Danes and Swedes! And Chicago becomes The First City. Step aside, San Francisco. Shut up, New York. The Midwest is cool now. The mind reels. Have a good day.
---------
Garrison Keillor is radio host and author.

Same Ol' Dems: A View from the Left

Here's a decidedly opposite take on what Obama and the Dems might do, compared to what BRM wrote previously. I mostly agree with the author; however, given that the right and the left view Obama/Dems with suspicion, doesn't that kinda show that Obama will rule from the center? All the hubbub prior to him even being inaugurated certainly speaks to the excitement and opportunity that everyone feels and to what an intense microscope will be on the Obama administration. From Salon.com:
The Democrats of 2002 and 2007 haven't gone anywhere

Federalism as Solution to Abortion and Gay Marriage?

Is it really the solution to just let each state decide? I'm not sure about that, but perhaps that will help the Reps to straddle the fence, as it were, and get more centrist. I'll have to think about this some more, but I did start a short story several years back about abortion in an alternate future. Perhaps I should finish that...like some other writings I never finished. From Commentary:
"The solution is federalism."

Newsweek Behind the Scenes of 2008 Campaigns

Been meaning to send this link of Newsweek's "expose" on Obama and McCain campaigns. Haven't read it all, Michelle told me about some of it, and some of it reads like petty gossip for which Newsweek is well known. Would like to get your opinions on it.
Secrets of the 2008 Campaign