Remember, never to forget.

 

One would think that Americans would remember the mess that Barack Obama inherited from the Republicans, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Given the average American’s attention span, perhaps that should not be surprising, but traumatic events usually remain in the forefront for more than just two years. Apparently, GOP-driven bad news has the life expectancy of tsetse fly.

Just two years ago, the global economy teetered on the brink of depression, led by a historic collapse of the American financial marketplace. During the Bush years, the National Debt doubled and job growth was stagnant. We were involved in two wars, neither of which was truly winnable and America’s future was ominously bleak.

Two long years down the road, the same band of characters claim that they have all the answers to solve all of America’s problems – it’s all very simple – more tax cuts and, ah, reduce spending.

In a GOP-tinted world, the answer to most any question is “cut taxes.” Times are good – cut taxes. Times are bad – cut taxes. Behind in the fourth quarter – cut taxes.

Cutting  spending is a bit more of a difficult task. It all sounds very good, but the bloom wears off the rose very quickly when it comes down to actually making spending reductions. Military spending – too many bad guys out there. Earmarks – just cut your’s, not mine. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – not a chance. 

Life can be rather frustrating, but nothing is more frustrating than trying to get a rational, straight answer out of a Republican candidate. Create jobs – sure, how are you going to do it now when you didn’t for years? Secure the borders – why didn’t you do that ten years ago? Defeat terror (sic) – what did Iraq have to do with terrorists? Protect families – huh? Is that code for banning abortion?

So, we stand at the crossroads once again, on the verge of handing power back to the very folks that led us down this road just a few short years ago. The struggles of the Bush years are now a distant, foggy memory. America seems to have chosen to forget the lessons of the past and is ready to give it another try.

When will we ever learn?

 

(Thread photo by the author – appropriate apologies have been delivered to the elephats of Sedgwick County Zoo.)

 

William Stephenson Clark

 

Bush and Obama Tax Plans

So how are the Republicans going to sell their plan to keep those Bush tax cuts for the 2% who are wealthiest?  What kind of spin will they put on this one?  It would be entertaining if it weren’t so desperately serious.

fnord

What to do, what to do, oh, what to do?



Since Barack Obama took office on January 20, 2009, he has received a barrage of criticism from the Right regarding his priorities. Some is well-intended and some is obviously just criticism for the sake of criticizing. I have often said that if Barack Obama cured cancer tomorrow, the Republicans would condemn him for not doing it today.

Some recent commentary from the Right has got me to thinking (yes, that is fairly rare on both counts) just what should have been Barack’s priorities coming into office and, on this date, what should his priorities be moving forward?

Obviously, when President Obama took office, he had a full plate of serious issues to handle – an economy in the tank, two wars, the Bush legacy of disaster, Gay Right’s issues, Wall Street corruption and not the least of all, filling a cabinet and appointing people to positions critical to his administration.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but all of us indulge in looking at the past. Looking at the future is a bit more difficult, but I have it on good authority that all Pop Bloggers are equipped with the ability to see into the future with uncanny accuracy.

So, my fellow low-life liberals and progressives, what should he have done and what should he do now?

(Feel free to toss in some of your patented humor for good measure!)

William Stephenson Clark

What is Meant by the Statement that “America is a Christian Nation”?

This Washington Post article examines the question of what is meant by the assertion that America is a Christian nation.  They cover the 1790s treaty that asserted we were not a Christian nation, Andrew Jackson’s efforts to resist the starting of a Christian political pary, and Lincoln’s burying of a Christian amendment to the constitution.

The article also describes the statements made Obama that led to him being seen as a non-Christian.  Sarah Palin’s assertions that we are a Christian nation are described as well.

The article finally asks the question what do we mean when we say America is a Christian nation?  What are your thoughts?

iggydonnelly

Obama Hostile to the Press?

Dana Milbank of the WashPo reports on Obama’s alleged hostility to the press. I am inclined to see these reported actions as “smart management” of the 4th estate, rather than supression of my right to know.

I had not seen this amusing photo before.

iggydonnelly

The Threat of Bioterrorism

Bioterrorism – the next phase of the War on Terror?  Where will the billions for this war come from?    We’ve been at risk for a long time but we are still too busy debating the merits of the wars we have already spent billions on (and currently spending) trying to kill all radical Muslims – and that has not done much good, has it?

Will Bioterrorism be the next political football that gets kicked down the road for someone else to promise to fix?

Lilac

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/26/us-unprepared-for-bioterr_n_436785.html

Obama may want to look at this….

Thursday, Jan 14, 2010 18:26 EST –  Salon website

Doomsday for Obama in 2012? Not quite

New poll shows Obama losing to unnamed challenger in 2012, but outlook may not be quite as bleak as it seems

By Emily Holleman

Depending on what side of the aisle you’re on, you may have woken up to some dispiriting – or validating – news this morning: A  National Journal poll in which 50 percent of respondents said they’d vote for “someone else” other than President Obama if the presidential election of 2012 were held today. Just 39 percent of those polled said they would “probably” or “definitely” vote to reelect the president.

The results broke fairly predictably along party lines with 86 percent of Republicans saying they would vote for someone else and 77 percent of Democrats reporting they’d vote to keep Obama in office. Among independents, the story’s a bit more troubling for Obama — just 33 percent in that group said they would vote to reelect him, while 54 percent said they’d opt for the alternative to-be-named.

Now, this clearly isn’t great news for the Obama camp, but the outcome isn’t nearly as damning as it appears at first glance.

The results may have been as dim as they are in large part because the question pitted Obama against an unnamed opponent from an unspecified party. Although pollsters often use this type of generic question, it tends to yield the worst imaginable outcome for incumbents, since respondents are free to picture the anonymous opponent any way they like.

“It’s going to tend to be a worst case scenario, because it allows you to imagine whoever you want,” Pollster.com’s Mark Blumenthal says. “If you’re an unhappy progressive, you may be imagining a primary challenger, even though you might be voting for a Democrat in a general election. If you’re a Republican, you may be thinking of your ideal candidate. It may be different if the Republican candidate is Sarah Palin or someone else you’re less happy with.”

Obama: A Wall Street Liberal?

E.J. Dionne wrote in today’s Washington Post that Obama needs to overcome the combined disrespectful label as a “Wall Street Liberal”.  The conservatives have made hay for years discrediting liberals and the populist loathing of Wall Street has never been higher.   Contrary to the arguments, not only does Obama’s record argue against him being a liberal, he has not caved into Wall Street to the extent he has been blamed for doing.  Dionne reports, “never mind that Wall Street is fighting Obama on financial reform, particularly on his excellent proposal to create a financial consumer protection agency. The fact is that the Wall Street tag is sticking, and Obama was always going to battle the L-word.”

Dionne offers some antidotes to the Wall Street Liberal tag.  Chief among them is moving the tax burden away from middle America to those earning huge investment incomes.  There is a reason that Warren Buffett decries the fact that his receptionist’s salary is taxed at a higher rate than his own.  Our government needs the money, one sector has a disproportionate amount of same – taxation can take care of that.

Dionne explains moving the tax burden to the investment class will have the added benefit of “challenging the Tea Party movement to come clean on whether it really is populist, or merely using populist rhetoric to pursue the same old low-tax, low-regulation agenda that got us into this mess.”

Sorry, I have been MIA. 

iggydonnelly

Truthful or Agenda Driven?

Does Joan Walsh have a point about these unnamed sources?   Is this another book that is clearly one of those that people will see what they want to see and disregard those parts that don’t fit their personal agenda?

Lilac

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/index.html?

Harold Meyerson: Obama in the Failed Liberal President Group?

Harold Meyerson reviews the liberal Democratic presidencies of the 20th century.  He finds two who succeded (Roosevelt and Johnson) and two who failed (Carter and Clinton).  (Read the editorial here.)  The primary difference between the two categories is that under Roosevelt and Johnson there were influencial movements on the left, whereas this was not true during the Carter and Clinton terms.  In fact, especially under Clinton, there were successful right-leaning movements.

Can a left movement be created that will benefit Obama.  That is not clear and the mechanisms of h0w these movements start and develop is not clear either.

Maybe Obama is correct it is more up to us than we had believed before.  What say you all?

iggydonnelly

Palin and Obama’s Reversal of Fortune?

The ultra-conservative New York Post recently commented on the reversal of fortunes of Palin and Obama.  This time last year Obama was the sensation, this year it is Palin’s turn.

To quote the article:  

“This flip-flop in fortunes stems from many factors, war and recession chief among them. Yet ultimately, Obama has mostly himself to blame.

“He’s aligned himself with the left wing of his party instead of the ordinary Americans who identify with Palin. His Ivy League eloquence seems tired next to her wrong-side-of-the-tracks passion.”

It is stunning to me how people like Rupert Murdoch and his employees can get reality so completely wrong.  Obama has not aligned himself with the left.  He has bent over backward to not do so.   Rather than being a non-partison solution, this strategy, is in fact, his major failing – i.e., refusing to work for and with his base. 

On what alternate universe do conservatives camp out?

Obama Losing the “Job Approval” Support of White People

Politico reports that this latest Gallup poll shows that Obama’s job approval among white people has dipped below 40%.  Previously his support among white voters was over 60%.  Black voters rate his job approval at about 90%.  His loss of support appears to be largely due to dropping support from white voters.

My question:  Does this racial breakdown really matter in any significant way?

Obama to Reform Critics, “Grab a Mop!”

Barack Obama has had crowds chanting “Grab a Mop” at more than one location.  In a speech in California, Obama states:

“What I reject is when some folks sit on the sidelines and root for failure,” he said at a fundraiser in San Francisco where he was joined by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

“I’m busy,” he told the crowd. “Nancy’s busy with her mop cleaning up somebody else’s mess. We don’t want somebody sitting back saying you’re not holding the mop the right way.

“Why don’t you grab a mop? Why don’t you help clean up?

“You’re not mopping fast enough,” the president said, imitating his critics’ comments.

“That’s a socialist mop.

“Grab a mop!” he demanded. “Let’s get to work.”

The theme has proven to be so popular, that Obama used it in a speech in New Jersey today.  I like it.  What do you guys think?  Can you think of better exhortations?

The Angry White Men May Have a Legitimate Gripe?

E.J. Dionne considers the question posed by this thread’s header.  While it is likely racism drives some of the opposition to Obama, it is also true that the antagonists have some ligitimate concerns.

For example, Dionne points out:  “Middle-income men, especially those who are not college graduates, have borne the brunt of economic change bred by globalization and technological transformation. Even before the recession, the decline in the number of well-paid jobs in manufacturing hit the incomes of this group of Americans hard. The trouble in the construction industry since the downturn began has compounded the problem.”

Interestingly, Dionne has an Austrailian friend who lived through a similar “Angry White Men” period in her country.  “Gillard [Dionne’s friend] argued that the key to battling the politics of rage is to acknowledge that it is driven by ‘real problems’ and not simply raw feelings.”

What would be the best way help the disenfrancised white men?  Does Obama have the political skill to reach out to this group?

Read the editorial here.

iggydonnelly

Obama to Speak to Human Rights Campaign Tonight

While the LGBT community has been understandably disappointed in Obama’s implementation of his professed support for gay rights, some, including Representative Barny Frank, contend that real progress is being made.  The progress Frank is referring to is the Hate Crime legislation that will include attacks motivated by the victims’ sexual orientation.

Also the LGBT community is reportedly pleased by the Obama’s appointment to his staff of approximately 100 openly gay persons.  Obama has taken heat from right wing groups who have attacked two gay members of his team: Kevin Jennings (Education Department) and Chai Feldblum (nominee to the Equal Opportunity Commission).

The reason the Team Obama gives for being so slow in implementing much for the LGBT community is that with wars, the economy, and joblessness, he already has “a lot on his plate.”  Okay, but human rights seem like an issue worthy of the POTUS’s attention, as well.

Read more here.