Former Obama advisor says efforts aren't enough

Former Obama advisor Steve Hildebrand, who played a huge role in getting Obama elected, has a few harsh warnings for fellow Democrats in Washington.

"I think that there is a real shot we [Democrats] are going to get
slaughtered in elections this fall if we aren't leading the efforts to reform
Washington," Hildebrand said. "We campaigned in '06 and '08, and if voters don't
see that change, we haven't lived up to that promise."
...
He came to the White House on Wednesday for a quiet meeting with the
president's senior adviser, David Axelrod, to express a fear that Republicans
are seizing the high ground on cleaning up Washington, on issues such as the
ethics probe of Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-New York.

Hildebrand is pushing for a strong outside body to oversee congressional
ethics so that lawmakers are no longer policing themselves, and he is lobbying
on behalf of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would limit federal campaign
contributions to $100 to try and cut the influence of big money donations.

"Voters want solutions, but voters know that it starts with getting
money out of politics first," Hildebrand said before his meeting with Axelrod.
"And I'm going to push that with David, I'm going to push that with anyone that
will listen."

Pressed on whether the president is doing enough on lobbying and
campaign finance reform, Hildebrand said, "I don't think anyone in Washington is
doing enough on this."
...
"Point is, things [are] happening today in Washington under Democratic
leadership that were happening under Republican leadership that we went after pretty hard as a party," Hildebrand said. "We went after that culture of corruption, and I don't believe there is a culture of corruption, but I do
believe there is an image problem that Washington in general has to deal with.
And Democrats are in trouble now and if they don't do anything."

Read the rest of the article here.

I liked some of his ideas, as well as his criticism of the Democrats in Washington. They campaigned on some big promises, and so far, most of them just haven't materialized, if not flat out broken. Sure, little promises have been kept. But big ones, like transparency, closing GTMO, executive priviledge, DADT, and ending croneyism? Those I am still waiting for, and I'm sure many others are as well.

It's nice to hear this from a Democrat, though.

Obama's Gay Dodge

I saw this on Republicans United today. Here's the whole article if you want to read the entirety (I'd recommend it).

Obama's Gay Dodge
by Meghan McCain

...On Saturday night, President Obama addressed the largest gay-rights group and promised to end the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in the military, emphasizing that his commitment to achieving equal rights was “unwavering.” The support he received from the crowd was overwhelming.

But my response to this speech and my message to the gay community is this: Stop rewarding the president’s speeches. Because for me, that’s all it is—pretty words delivered by a beautiful orator.

Obama offered no timeline for phasing out this policy and, as usual, no real specifics. But the president verbalized his commitment to ending it—which is not insignificant. Unfortunately, I am a bottom line type of girl and I see no bottom line here. During the election, Obama pledged that the very first thing he would do as president would be to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Although I thought it was an ambitious promise, I believed him. It's now almost a year into his presidency and other than making speeches, nothing has happened.

Let me tell you a little something about what I know about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: I have two brothers serving in the military and as far as I’m concerned, when an Arabic translator is kicked out of the military for being gay, it quite literally makes my brothers and our troops less safe. For me, Don't Ask, Don't Tell isn't just an equality issue. It is also a national-security issue...

Now, I cannot speak for my brothers, but I know many men and women who serve in the military. Let’s give them more credit. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, I suspect it could be said that there is no homophobia in foxholes either. I find it hard to imagine that when a soldier is in a Humvee fighting terrorist insurgents, that the thing on his mind is who his fellow soldier chooses to sleep with when he’s off duty.

What’s more, the gay community can no longer place all the blame of marriage equality and Don't Ask, Don't Tell on Republicans. Yes, the Republican Party has a long way to go. But right now, we have a Democratic president and a Congress with a Democratic majority. The Republican Party can no longer be the only scapegoat for the arrested development of gay rights in this country. This is a president who made promises to the gay community—hold him responsible.

Of all the things I worry about in my life, my country's national security is by far at the forefront. I am a daughter of a famous military hero and the sister of two soldiers. Mr. President, Don't Ask, Don't Tell makes my family and this country less safe. Put a timeline on repealing it, stop making speeches, and show me the bottom line.

--------------------

I think this says it all. Republicans are generally pretty tough on gays, but Democrats squarely shoulder the blame right now. And "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is ridiculous and does harm our national security.

Right-wing paranoid delusions: We are better than that.

From the Progressive Republican's article Nightmares
and Dreamscapes:
----------------------------------------------------
In a conference room. Maybe seven or eight government employees in their late 30s-early 40s. They’re wearing suits from Ann Taylor, or Men’s Wearhouse sitting on one side of a conference table that looks like it came right out of the Office Depot catalog In one hand they’re holding cups of coffee, or cans of Diet Coke (or some other caffeinated drink - they’ve been working late the last couple of nights) , the other hand busily hammering the keyboards of their mid-tier laptop computers, jotting down notes, trying to capture what the lady on the side of the table is saying.

Across the table is a woman in her mid 60s. Her blouse and pants recently purchased from the local Wal-Mart, her shoes from Payless Shoes. She’s nervously playing with her purse handles as she shuffles her feet. She’s not sure how to answer this last question. She should have been prepared for this question. She was…until just this second.
“We’d all like to get out of here today, Ma’am, so please answer as best you can,” the Committee chair sighs as she asks the question for the third time, “When you the government no longer finds you insurable…” she pauses, not for effect, but because she still can’t believe she has to ask the question.
“…how do you want to die?”
Chilling isn’t it? Cold, bureaucratic evil, like a scene out of the film CONSPIRACY. If certain right wing celebrities are to be believed this won ‘t be that far from the truth should Barack Obama’s health care plan pass both House of Congress.

But they are not to be believed. This is a a nightmare scenario crafted by self-styled leaders of the Republican Party. This is the kind of thing that has to stop.


Let’s be honest: Obama’s Plan is a bad one. It’s costly beyond comprehension. It adds bureaucratic roadblocks to an already excessively bureaucratic process. And, despite all the costs, it only provides additional care for a small percentage of the nation’s uninsured.
It’s a bad plan with any number of weaknesses that Republicans can point to as reasons we should be vehemently against it. Is it necessary to make things up about it?

Who is helped by devising scenarios like the one described above? Does Sara Palin making up spooky stories about Obama’s DEATH PANEL, really add weight to the argument against the real plan?

Does comparing the health plan to Nazis [limbaugh-20090806-hitler.flv] like friend of the blog, Rush Limbaugh, has done?

No. This type of rhetoric serves only to cheapen the debate.

Yes, Democrats spent a large portion of President Bush’s Presidency engaging in these very same tactics. Whether it was calling the President a Nazi for the War in Iraq or shouting down Republican members of Congress, the extreme left showed their true colors by acting insane on the public stage in support of their various causes. We justifiably condemned them for that behavior. We don’t need to turn around use those same tactics.

Not when we have the facts on our side. House Republicans have made some very clear arguments why they are against the current bill :

…was unnecessarily rushed through the Committee without proper understanding or even a reading of the bill by Members;
The massive spending and tax increases will damage an already reeling economy;
Americans will lose coverage they have and like;
The bill gives the government control over Americans’ personal health decisions
Clear, cogent arguments from the men and women we have elected to represent us in Congress. This is what we should be basing our resistance on. Not the overblown rhetoric of extreme right-wing celebrities. We have more sense than that.
-----------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't have said it better myself. People screaming "socialism!" "Nazis!" "Communism!" "Death Panels!" or other such nonsense are detrimental to the cause.

Stick to the facts: this plan sucks. We need a better one, not false and crazy accusations.

Economy Stabilizing

Apparently the economy is starting to stabilize, and the recession may starting to be finally over.

The "Bush Recession" may finally be coming to an end, reports both CNN and FoxNews. Economists are putting the start of this recession at December 2007 (as much as the Obama-deranged would like to blame our current President of eight months).

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks sustained gains Wednesday after the Federal Reserve held interest rates near historic lows and signaled the economy has finally started to stabilize.

FOX NEWS: Economists date the start of the recession to December 2007 -- defining much of Ben Bernanke's term as Federal Reserve chairman -- and a majority in a Wall Street Journal survey agree that the recession is coming to an end.

As much as I disliked the bailouts and stimulus package, I have to say, they may have worked.

FOX NEWS: However, in the current recession, companies have been using the productivity gains to bolster their bottom lines in the face of declining sales. Many companies have been reporting second-quarter earnings results that have beaten expectations despite falling sales, due largely to their aggressive cost cutting.

So we are going to start seeing the economy move up for once. Thankfully.

But CNN warns:

"The Fed reinforced what investors already knew, that the economy has gotten a little better," said James Barnes, fixed income portfolio manager at National Penn Investors Trust.
"But until we see more news that either reinforces the belief that the recovery is here or says we've gone too fast too soon, you're not going to see a bigger reaction."

Hopefully this will mean that we'll be fully recovered within a year. If that is the case, I don't know if 2010 will look too good for Republicans.

If it takes longer, 2010 won't look good for Democrats.

We'll see.

Leftwing vs Rightwing vs liberal vs conservative vs moderate vs progressive...

I was reading this article on Progressive Republican about the terms that get thrown around. I liked it a lot, so I'm going to paste much of it here. Basically, the author, William Golden, is tired of labels being thrown at the other side and back as insults. Especially when "liberals" or "progressives" are labelled as "left-wing" and "conservatives" are called "right-wing"...

Here are his definitions. I think I agree with them:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Left-wing and Right-wingers often sound like liberals and conservatives but are not afraid to trample truth in order to achieve their political goals. “Propaganda” is often too strong a term to even begin to describe the logic and the veracity of what passes as political discussion from both ends of the spectrum.

Liberals and Conservatives both have principles and represent what is best in America. They just disagree. They may even see truth differently but they both try to put America first. America is not a victim when these two meet — preferably over a beer or some other wholesome American pasttime. America is blessed because at the end of the day we all, liberal and conservative alike, are challenged in our views and there wisdom and answers from both.

A Moderate is absolutely the finest blending of red, white and blue. Moderates are perhaps the most practical of all Americans — their focus is on consideration of the facts and selecting the best solutions. Unlike liberals and conservatives they seldom have the hurdle of having to get past their pride to get on with getting on to finding an answer. Unfortunately perhaps, being a political moderate does not work everywhere in the USA and the result is that moderate politicians are often caught crossing the street when the light turns against them. God bless them.

Progressives are made up of liberals, moderates and conservatives. A progressive will normally claim fondness for one of the aforementioned political outlooks. The two greatest differences between progressives and their other American kinfolk is that they are proactive, rather than reactive; and they live in the land of ‘why not?!’ Progressives sometimes share the same challenges that moderates do, except they’ve figured out how to run like hell across the street when they see the lights change.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like these definitions. Anyone want to add to them?

Global warming is to Democrats as Global terrorism is to...

Read an interesting article over at New Majority, which brought up some interesting points regarding the cap & trade bill, Democrats & Republicans, and the tendancy of Politicians to fling baseless accusations along the lines of "treason."

In a phone interview with MSNBC, Representative Henry Waxman, D-CA, accused the Republican party of being unamerican in voting against the cap & trade, stimulus, and budget measure. Waxman used some surprisingly familiar rhetoric when he said that the GOP has been "rooting against the country" by voting no on the Democrats' bills.

In the article, the author first gives part of Rep. Waxman's accusations:

So far, this Congress -- since Obama became President -- the Republicans have said no to an economic stimulus bill, they’re saying no to a global warming bill... They want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished that may be beneficial to the Democrats. They're rooting against the country and I think in this case, even rooting against the world because the world needs to get its act together to stop global warming. I wish they were playing a more constructive role. Some Republicans doubt the whole science of global warming, even though the consensus is overwhelming. They don’t want to believe it.

The author then points out the similarities in the rhetoric from the left on global warming, and the rhetoric from just a few years ago from the right on global terrorism. He takes Waxman's quote, and replaces "global warming" with phrases about the war on terror and Iraq:

So far, this Congress -- since they became the majority -- the Democrats have said no to the troop surge, they’re saying no to a war funding bill... They want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished that may be beneficial to the Republicans. They're rooting against the country and I think in this case, even rooting against the world because the world needs to get its act together to stop global terrorism. I wish they were playing a more constructive role. Some Democrats doubt the whole success of the surge, even though the consensus is overwhelming. They don’t want to believe it.

Hmm. Interesting. Never thought about it that way. The similarities are striking.

Don't believe it? Here's Paul Krugman from the NY Times:
Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.

Whoa.

The author of the article points out that both sides are looking for "snakes in the garden," being vigilant against those they view as trying to ruin the country. But, he points out, "his accusation was both wrongly directed and poorly applied."

That happens on both sides of the aisle. It really should stop. I like how he ends the article:

...In Waxman's recent episode, legitimate concern was mistaken for callous sedition, quite possibly because he (like Krugman and others) truly believes global warming is a more deadly threat than radical Islam. In his world, regrettably, basic policy skepticism is “treason” and the largest tax on the middle class in more than a decade, in the words of another Democrat, is “patriotic.”

Funny, you could switch that around as well.

Progressive Republicans: Time for Red Dogs?

I read an interesting entry over at The Progressive Republican.

In the article, it talks about how the Blue Dog Democrats are the only real opposition to Obama's big plans, like health care, cap & trade, stimulus(es), federal budgets, etc.

What I like about Republicans as they prepare for 2010 is their ability to offer new ideas, to put alternatives on the table, to meet philosophical challenges head on with … oops, its the Blue Dog Democrats doing that. Where are the Republicans?

Its a great point. Where are the Republicans? Since Obama's inaugeration in January, the Republicans have not offered any real alternatives to Obama's plans; they have merely been blind opposition [read, whiners]. The Blue Dogs have been the only ones offering real solutions, alternatives (with real numbers, too!). What is going on?

The GOP is falling sharply in popularity these days (the latest studies indicate another 2 points dropped). Strange, since some studies also indicate the country is mostly conservative (thanks, Bluepitbull!)...

So just what is going on?

The GOP is killing itself by making everyone adhere to the party orthodoxy. Latest example: the eight GOPers who voted for cap & trade at the behest of their constituents are being asked to leave the party by other GOPers.

This happened to the Democrats, too. How did they survive? By getting more liberal and kicking out all who wouldn't toe the party core? No.

The Blue Dog Democrats, and the New Democrats, rose in to balance the party out. And now they run this country.

I blogged about this before, here, here, here, and here.

So this is what we need: Red Dog Republicans. Where the far-left Democrats were choking the fiscal conservative Democrats, the far-right is choking the social progressives within the Republican party. You want proof? The more the GOP swings to the right, going back to "Reagan", the more the party shrinks. The Conservative Bloggers keep talking about the party becoming more conservative, yet every time that has happened recently the party has grown smaller and loses more points. Could they be wrong? Could swinging to the right actually be the reason the GOP is shrinking?

Red Dogs:

• Social Progressives (not necessarily liberal). Example: I'm pro-life, yet also pro-gay marriage.
• Fiscal Conservative (not Reaganomics [voodoo economics], but truly fiscally conservative). Example: I'm not a fan of Obama's spending, but neither am I a fan of supply-side. I don't believe in trickle down; but neither do I believe in hand-outs.

Any others to add to the list? Anyone else want to be a Red Dog?

Minnesota update: Court declares Franken the winner.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has declared Al Franken the winner of the contested Minnesota senate race against Norm Coleman. Coleman's challenge was dismissed in an unanimous vote, stating that Franken "received the highest number of votes legally cast" and is entitled "to receive the certificate of election as United States senator from the state of Minnesota."

Its about time! Franken was selected by the Minnesota citizens eight months ago...and they have been denied a senate seat since during Coleman's court challenges.

Coleman could still take it to the Federal level, but its unlikely that would change anything. In the meantime, Minnesota will finally have their senator, as the govenor promised that he would sign Franken's election certificate if the court ruled that way.

Republican and the Cap and Trade Bill

There were eight Republicans that voted for the controversial cap and trade bill that passed Friday. Those Reps were:

Mary Bono Mack, CA-45
Mike Castle, DE
Mark Steven Kirk, IL-10
Leonard Lance, NJ-7
Frank LoBiondo, NJ-2
John McHugh, NY-23
Dave Reichert, WA-8
Chris Smith, NJ-4

On some conservative blogs, these eight reps are being treated as "traitors" and are being asked to leave the party. Not a good idea, conservatives. You really can't afford another eight Republicans gone, just over one vote. Dee, at Conservatism with Heart, has a better idea. If you are displeased (and in their districts), call them and let them know. She has links, phone numbers, etc.

I read a great article on this whole thing today on The Progressive Republican, which had some really great points on this whole thing. Basically, these eight Representantives represent districts that favored this bill (Chris Smith being the exception). The author of the article asks "...they were simply reacting to the demands of their constituents. Since when did it become unacceptable to do what one’s constituents want a member of Congress to do?"

Good point. These eight Reps are representing a district. They are supposed to do what is asked of them by their constituents, not their political party. Example: Mark Kirk's district, IL-10, was for Obama's plan 61% for, 38% against.

I wish more Representatives would actually vote on issues based on what their constituents want, and less how their political party's leaders (radio gods nonewithstanding) say they should vote.

By contrast, a quick survey of liberal web sites found no demands that the 44 Democrats who voted against the legislation be purged or punished in any way. This is why the Democrats control Congress and why Republicans won’t for a long time to come.

Republicans: Denounce Norm Coleman

Seriously. The Minnesota citizens have waited long enought for representation. Its been now eight months since they voted. And they still don't have their senator.

The party that cried "Sore Looserman!" in 2000 (Gore was being a bit of a tool with all those recounts (and his invention of the internet haha)) needs to take their own advice.

Al Franken leads Coleman by at least 312 votes after all recounts. Yet he is still fighting. This isn't a noble fight, however.

Its a blatant voter rip off. The people spoke. They chose Franken. Deal with it dude. Stop being such an ass, and stop putting your career above the people you swore to serve. They don't want you!

The lower courts of Minnesota have spoken: Franken is the winner. Coleman is the loser. Stop denying the Minnesota Citizens democracy for your stupid partisanship.

Please, Republican Party: If you really stand for what you say you stand for, denounce Coleman and let the people speak.

Source

The Case for Moderates in the Republican Party

There is a growing feeling among conservatives in the GOP that moderates should "get out." People like Rush Limbaugh and [neoconservative] Dick Cheney seem to be leading the charge.

I've been told the same on many occasions, especially here on this blog.

On many occasions I have stated that the GOP needs its moderates. People like me. People like John McCain. And people like Colin Powell.

A few posts back I talked about what Colin Powell should do if he truly believes the same; he should help found a Republican counterpart to the Democrats' DLC.

Here's another parallel we need: The Democrats have the Blue Dog Coalition: Fiscally conservative Democrats who strive for bipartisanship and balance out the far-left.

Such a group is sorely needed within the incredible shrinking GOP.

Reagan, who pushed for a "big tent party," had many traditionally Democrat voters in awe of him, as well as many Democrats in the Government (including the Blue Dogs, who supported his tax cuts):
From wikipedia:

The term Reagan Democrat also refers to the vast sway that Reagan held over the House of Representatives during his presidency, even though the house had a Democratic majority during both of his terms.

The GOP needs its moderates just as the Democrats need theirs.

From ProgressiveRepublican.com:

Many in the party, hard-line conservatives for the most part, are calling for a return to the roots of the Republican Party. Fair enough. I think that is precisely what we should do. And to do this, the facts that can be bothersome to some must be brought to the forefront of this internal debate. The roots of the party, of course, must be from the very beginning of its conception.

The Republican Party was formed in the late 1850’s in response to the democrats who supported the expansion of slavery into the new territories, which the new party was vehemently opposed to. The party was from the beginning, a progressive party and by no means a conservative one. It was a party that sought to modernize the country, not to keep the status quo especially if the status quo was not working for Americans. They sought to modernize the country by supporting higher education, free homesteads to farmers (a rather non-conservative thing to do), free soil policies against slavery, banking, railroads, industry and cities. This was a party that not only was aiming for the rural vote via homesteads, but also one that had a heavy lean towards urban America. Again something that is not apparent with today’s conservative controlled Republican Party. It was a party that believed industry and free markets were superior to slave driven ones. These were the founding principles of the party and it is these principles that should define real republicanism instead of what has crept into the party over the last few decades. Taking into account these founding ideas must also include Abraham Lincoln himself who was a man of principle as well as pragmatism in being the first iconic leader of the Republican Party. Lincoln from his early years warned against the slave holding southerners continuing power growth of the government...

...With Lincoln and his “pragmatic idealism” being at the beginning of the Republican Party’s creation, we can now look at how the party can return to its actual roots that we have slowly abandoned over the years and that we centrists as the “true” republicans must realize and stand up for. The party was a party that stood against slavery because it easily recognized the obvious evil of human enslavement, but also easily recognized the potential of industry to transform the nation towards progress and to end the inefficient slave driven agriculture of the south. This would have the potential therefore, to not only do a great good for a people suffering injustice but also to possibly lead America down a path of modernization and prosperity never before seen before. This would be a prosperity that would be aimed towards all Americans and not merely a small segment of the population. With Lincoln at the beginning and at the helm for those important years, he along with the other beginning Republicans set the stage for the party to drive this thrust for progress, prosperity and justice and the flexibility needed to accomplish this for many years to come.

In other words, Republicans used to be progressive, which is different from liberal. The Republicans came into power by being progressive. By shifting right and becoming hard-line conservative, the GOP will wither and possibly die, much like the Democratic Party withered for a time before the centrist "New Democrats" came onto the scene.

The Republican Party needs its moderates and centrists in order to survive.

ObamaCare

The GOP is making this too easy for Obama.

I mean c'mon, seriously? More talking points? All you are doing is alienating more people than you already did. Bring back the big tent. Bring some REAL alternatives. Not just vague criticisms and blind opposition.

Now before you conservatives get all on me and tell me to get out of the party, back off for a minute.

Here's what I'm talking about:
-----------------------------------
On Sunday, a senior Senate Republican made his case against the Democrats’ plan for a “public option” for health insurance.
He explained that the public option would "be the first steps in... destroying the best health care system the world has ever known."

There are very good arguments against the health care proposals being advanced by the Democrats.

This is not one of them. And with only weeks before the full Senate considers a comprehensive health care reform package, such talking points will only undermine the Republicans’ efforts to challenge and improve upon the Democrats’ efforts.

...the Democrats’ modest sounding public option would in fact deal a fatal blow to the private health insurance most Americans enjoy.

Disincentivize employer-provided group insurance through an employer-mandate and the taxation of benefits.

Establish politically motivated benefit packages with coverage mandates, that along with guaranteed issue and community rating, will drive up the cost of insurance.

And create an individual mandate with generous government subsidies.

It is clear where this will wind up. With nowhere else to turn and no serious proposals for “bending the growth curve,” American taxpayers will be on the hook for another growing entitlement that will be paid for either by tax increases or government rationing of care.

Not a pretty picture.
---------------------------------------

Merely spewing talking points and opposition reminds me too much of late march and early April. Remember the Federal Budget Proposals? The Democrats had a bad proposal. The Republicans? No proposal. Well, a proposal that was more of a non-proposal, with no numbers. Then they put out another non-proposal with made up numbers and a writing style akin to a high schooler turning in a report they wrote the night before. No real research. So what happened when the alternative wasn't an alternative? More Republicans voted against it than than Democrats voted against theirs. You know there's a problem when you can't get your own to vote for you.

Healthcare is too important for the GOP to repeat its own history. Give us a REAL alternative. Don't wait til the last minute this time, guys. Get it together.

Clay continues:
-----------------------------------

While certainly decent compared to the alternatives, objectively speaking our health care system is a mess. The government subsidizes the care of the elderly by stiffing doctors, who then pass along those costs to the privately insured. In a post-industrial national economy, individual insurance decisions are subject to the regulations of 50 state insurance commissioners, undermining portability. The government provides massive and regressive subsidies to employer-provided coverage, while providing practically meaningless tax breaks to those who seek care in the individual marketplace.

In other words, the system is pretty lousy and needs work. Conservatives helped to make this case, first in the think tanks, then in President Bush’s proposal for health care reform, and finally during Senator McCain’s campaign.

It may be that the vast majority of Americans with private health insurance are satisfied with their coverage. But they certainly worry, particularly in this economy, about a health insurance system that largely ties your opportunity for coverage to your employment. And they understand that their share of coverage is consuming an ever larger portion of their income.

In other words, they might be satisfied with the system, but they aren’t ecstatic about it.

And if Republicans’ opening shot is that the Democrats’ plan will undermine the greatest health care system on earth, Rahm Emanuel is somewhere smiling.
----------------------------

PAYGO.

Finally, the President actually does something fiscally that makes sense.

PAYGO, a simple stragety for bringing down the deficits in the budget, is being pushed by President Obama.

"The 'pay as you go' rule is very simple. Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere," Obama said, as he announced that he was submitting to Congress a proposal to make PAYGO law.

This is part of the same system used in the 1990s to bring down the Federal Deficit, under President Clinton and the Republican Congress.

Obama repeated his vow to halve the deficit by the end of his first term, and he said PAYGO is an important step toward making that happen.

"Paying for what you spend is basic common sense. Perhaps that's why, here in Washington, it has been so elusive," the president said Tuesday.

It would be nice if the Feds could do what the average citizen's household must do: Not spend more than we make, and pay back what is borrowed.

But Republicans were quick to question the administration's sincerity.

Republican Whip Eric Cantor charged that the administration's focus on PAYGO "seems more driven by polling and PR strategy than a serious commitment to fiscal discipline."
"It seems a tad disingenuous for the President and Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi to talk about PAYGO rules after ramming trillions in spending through Congress proposing policies that create more debt in the first six months of this year than in the previous 220 years combined," Cantor, R-Virginia, said in a statement Tuesday.

Republicans point to the $787 billion stimulus package as evidence that Obama is not following
his own advice.

Cantor and the Republicans have a great point here.

However, a group of fiscally conservative Democratic representatives known as the Blue Dogs say Obama's proposal is responsible and necessary.
"President Obama inherited an economy in free fall and a $10.6 trillion national debt," said Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee, vice chairman of the Blue Dog Budget and Financial Services Task Force. "While short-term spending was necessary to get the economy moving again, our long-term fiscal problems became that much more urgent."

I know this seems very partisan. The Republicans against it no matter what Obama proposes, and the Dems supporting it. But I think it goes further than that. The Republicans, while it is true that they come off as whiny, have a great point. Obama, so far, has done the opposite of what he is proposing.

And the flip side, the Blue Dog Democrats, are supporting it. But I think it goes beyond blind support: they believe PAYGO is a good step, but even they doubt the President's promise to halve the deficit:

But when it comes to reducing the deficit, even the Senate Budget Committee's Democratic chairman doubts the president can deliver on his promise.
Asked if Obama could halve the deficit -- given the recent government spending --- Sen. Kent Conrad said, "I don't believe so. I don't believe anybody could."

So, to summarize, the President is finally doing something fiscally responsible. PAYGO is a great and much needed step. But it isn't enough. Let's see some more of THAT, please.

The way Powell could prove his statements.

I know I've posted in the past, being quite unfriendly towards Dick Cheney.

All ugliness aside, I just plain disagree with him on where the Republican Party needs to go.

I have noticed that there is a war of sorts raging within the GOP. Cheney and Limbaugh are on one side, and Powell and McCain are on the other.

First of all, I believe all four individuals above do want to see the GOP remain Grand.

Second, all personal opinion aside, if Powell wants to actually succeed in helping the Republican Party become more "big tent" and moderate, he needs to take a page from the Democratic Party's handbook. No, I'm not talking about becoming more liberal. I'm talking about the DLC: The Democratic Leadership Committee, an independent entity responsible for the "New Democrats," namely the Clintons. Bill Clinton came from the DLC's leadership, which worked to counteract the negative image associated with Jesse Jackson Sr's Presidential run in '84 and '88. They feared the extreme left continuing their takeover of the Democratic Party.

What Powell needs, and I personally believe we need in the GOP, is our own DLC to balance the far-right. If Powell really believes that the Republican Party needs to start bringing in the moderates and social liberals (but fiscal conservatives), he needs to be part of the leadership of said committee. In other words, he needs to back up his words with actions.

CNN's Roland S. Martin has the same idea. From his article at CNN.com:
If such an organization was created, and all of a sudden you had chapters forming in states across the country, you would have the infrastructure to identify candidates to run in local and state races, and challenge the people Powell and others think are driving the party further into isolation as a largely southern and regional party.
It's clear the GOP has enormous problems in the Northeast part of the country, and with Obama winning a sizeable portion of the Hispanic vote, and the party's staunch opposition to illegal immigration, it is going to have a hell of a time in the Southwest and West. And with a fractured party, there is no better time to create an alternative that people can believe in and rally behind.

On CNN last week, senior analyst Gloria Borger said there clearly is a civil war raging within the GOP, and Powell and Cheney are on opposite sides. I chimed in that in any war, I'd trust the guy who put on a military uniform -- Powell -- rather than the guy who ran from serving our country -- Cheney.

In other words, the only way for Powell to prove his point that the party would be stronger if it reached out to moderates more would be to create this kind of organization. If his hypothesis is correct, then the party would grow exponentially, with strong moderate candidates to run for office. If he's wrong, then the worst would be that the party would continue to shift to the right, a path it is already taking.

Powell cannot lose unless he does nothing.

GOP just doesn't get it.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
~Ben Franklin: February 17, 1775, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818).

An earlier variant by Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanack (1738): "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

According to this story, the GOP is not going to be reinventing itself. It is returning to an issue that is still closely tied to George W. Bush, the President with the lowest ratings in a century.

"House Republican leader

John Boehner released a lengthy Web video Thursday suggesting Democrats are not keeping Americans safe...The campaign-style video, created by a Boehner aide in his Capitol office, begins with the question, "What are Democrats doing to keep America safe?"
Then, with ominous music in the background, it splices sound bites from news reports and Republicans talking about the dangers of President Obama's decision to close Guantanamo Bay and to release Bush-era memos about harsh interrogation techniques.
The video's climax races through images of Obama hugging the Saudi king, shaking hands with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and ends with an image of the Pentagon burning on September 11, 2001, followed by a final question: "Do you feel safer?"

"Is it any wonder that voters and senators alike are running away in droves from the Republican Party? Looks like they have taken a page from the discredited Rove/Bush/Cheney playbook. This ad is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to play up the politics of fear and smear," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's spokeswoman, Katie Grant, said, "Republicans are once again resorting to fear tactics because they have no new ideas or constructive policies to offer. The American people have already rejected their politics of fear, and this will be no different."

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll earlier in April suggested Americans do not agree with Republicans that Obama is making them less safe.
When asked whether the president's actions increased chances of a terrorist attack in the United States, 26 percent said yes and 72 percent said no."

I'm sorry, Republican party, but I have to agree with the poll. This is not what you need to be doing to make a "comeback." There are many, many issues you could face off with Obama and the Democrats and win a majority of opinion again. This isn't one of them.

Using 9/11 images to gain power is despicable. You've used it to fear-monger us for eight years and I'm sick of it-as is most of the US. Get it together. Really. WWRD. What would Reagan do? I doubt he'd have a part of this.

Barack Dubya Obama

Same sh*t, different piles.

Okay, so remember how during Obama's campaign he got people like me to vote for him because he criticized George W. Bush's domestic spying surveillance program and said he'd end it?

Well, I do. That's a huge reason I voted for him. I was tired of Bush's trampling over our Constitution and treating us as terrorism suspects.

Remember when Obama's campaign website said that "The Problem" is described in part as the Bush administration having "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court"?

I do.

In February, President Obama's Justice Department quietly argued in a San Francisco court that it was maintaining the same position as President Bush's Justice Department on a case involving detainees trying to sue a private company for its role in their (allegedly) extraordinary renditions.

This time the issue was the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program, and whether courts would be able to assess its constitutionality in a case called Jewel v. NSA, where the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is challenging the NSA surveillance by suing on behalf of AT&T customers whose records may or may not have been caught up in the NSA "dragnet."
Last Friday, while President Obama traversed throughout Europe, his Justice Department sought to have Jewel v. NSA dismissed because "the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction with respect to plaintiffs’ statutory claims against the United States because Congress has not waived sovereign immunity" and "because information necessary to litigate plaintiffs’ claims is properly subject to and excluded from use in this case by the state secrets privilege and related statutory privileges."

Argued the Justice Department: Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair "has once again demonstrated that the disclosure of the information implicated by this case, which concerns how the United States seeks to detect and prevent terrorist attacks, would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security."

"President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a 'secret' that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again."

Exactly. Deja vu. French for WTF Obama? You are alienating those who voted for you. You know, the ones tired of Bush and his policies. But you are continuing them? Wow.

"beyond even the outrageously broad 'state secrets' privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they 'willfully disclose' to the public what they have learned...

"Everything for which Bush critics excoriated the Bush DOJ -- using an absurdly broad rendition of 'state secrets' to block entire lawsuits from proceeding even where they allege radical lawbreaking by the President and inventing new claims of absolute legal immunity -- are now things the Obama DOJ has left no doubt it intends to embrace itself..."

Obama, you are going to lose your base. People like me. The majority of Americans voted for you because we opposed these policies. Do you think we'll vote for you again if you continue them?

Get it together, man.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/on-state-secret.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/09/tpm/index.html

The Republican party is CLUELESS...

...and why I'm an angry (almost)ex-republican.

The Republicans are critizing Obama's plans for....well everything. They have nothing good to say about him or his policies, any of them. But when the President asks for any alternatives, they just complain futher about socialism or more tax cuts for the rich. WTF? Why?! Oh yeah, the rich that "create" jobs. That may have been true in Reagan's time...but now the rich only create jobs in India and other countries (can you say outsourcing?)

Oh wait, the republicans do have an idea! Impeach Obama and the Dems in Congress because their plans haven't worked yet! Its Obama's fault! Riiiiiiiight. Put the Republicans back in power. Because the last 8 years haven't been damaging enough. You know, two wars and a doubled deficit, and then a stock market crash. Right. Its all Obama's fault.

I'm not a Democrat, either. I don't like some of Obama's policies. But at least he's trying something new. Unlike the tired old "Reaganomics" that the Republicans keep proposing that only worked during Reagan's presidency. In fact, the Republicans let a short term solution that got the US out of a specific recession and turned it into a macro-solution for every problem. I used to like the Republican party. But now they have to blame a new President who has tried to reach across the aisle, who is trying some new things, and blame the economy on him, instead of looking inward and seeing that in the last 29 years, we've had a Republican in the White House for 22 years of them. And oh yea, didn't the deficit spending decrease under Clinton's budget proposals and the public debt increase only slightly (due to interest) while falling as a percentage of GDP? I'm no Clinton fan. I feel that he wasted a ton of his presidency fooling around with Monica and then lying about it. But at least, for a time, he did something and we prospered. But under the last Republican Presidency of eight years and Republican Congress of six, we have gone nowhere. (Except, of course, in doubled deficit-land, Afghanistan, Iraq, and a flooded Katrina superdome)...

What happened, Republican party? You used to stand for something. Under Reagan, you had some new ideas that got us out of a recession. You used to have leaders. Now what do you have? Rush Limbaugh, Jindal, and Palin?

I'm not a Democrat. But I'm sure as hell not a Republican anymore.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/25/gop-leaders-introduce-housing-plan/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover

Cheney defends Administration

Paul Begala's commentary at Cnn.com talked about Dick Cheney's recent interview with CNN--the first post administration interview granted--and has put the hypocrisy of our previous administration in a great--albeit a little harsher than I would--manner. I'm just going to repost part of the commentary here, but if you want to read the entire thing, click here.

Cheney says U.S. can torture but can't heal.
Dick Cheney has finally found the limits of government power.

According to recently released legal memos from the Bush-Cheney administration, the former vice president believes that the federal government can ignore the First Amendment and suppress free speech and freedom of the press as part of its "war on terror."

An October 23, 2001, memo from Justice Department lawyers John C. Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty said, "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully."

Former Vice PresidentCheney also believes, according to these same memos, that the federal government can send troops to burst into the homes of American citizens without a search warrant, despite the Fourth Amendment's protection against such unreasonable searches. He believes that the federal government has the right to arrest an American citizen on American soil and hold him in prison without charges. He believes that the federal government can listen in on your phone conversations without a court order.

Cheney believes that the federal government can ignore the Geneva Conventions, binding treaties largely written by the United States, signed by the president and ratified by the Senate. He believes that the federal government can commit torture, despite laws and treaties making torture a crime.

As the Washington Post reported, "Starting in January, 2002, Cheney turned his attention to the practical business of crushing a captive's will to resist. The vice president's office played a central role in shattering limits on coercion of prisoners in U.S. custody, commissioning and defending legal opinions that the Bush administration has since portrayed as the initiatives, months later, of lower-ranking officials."

The newspaper said, "Cheney and his allies ... did not originate every idea to rewrite or reinterpret the law, but fresh accounts from participants show that they translated muscular theories, from Yoo and others, into the operational language of government."
In fact, Yoo has said the federal government has the power to grab your young son and crush his private parts if the president thinks that will help the "war on terror."

Think I'm kidding? Here's the verbatim exchange from a debate between Yoo and Notre Dame professor Doug Cassel:
Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty ...
Cassel: Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo ...
Yoo: I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that.

...If the government can censor the free press, restrict free speech, listen in on your private conversations, burst into your home, take you away, hold you in prison without charges and torture you, it raises an interesting question: What on Earth does Dick Cheney think the federal government can't do?

Thanks to John King, we now know: Cheney believes that the government cannot help with health care, improve education or wean America off Middle East oil. I'm not kidding.

Cheney, whose authoritarian impulses run deep, is suddenly worried that the federal government might become too powerful under President Obama.

"I worry a lot," he told King, "that they're using the current set of economic difficulties to try to justify a massive expansion in the government, and much more authority for the government over the private sector. I don't think that's good. I don't think that's going to solve the problem."

...Set aside the hypocrisy of the Bush-Cheney Medicare prescription drug entitlement, the greatest expansion of the federal role in health care since President Lyndon B. Johnson...

...Cheney is comfortable with a government that has the authority to torture, imprison, censor and kill. Just not a government that has the capacity and compassion to write a health insurance policy or take on Big Oil.