Category: White House

Frank Rich: Sarah Palin Is No Cunning Linguist

Posted on by TL

New York Times columnist Frank Rich makes it clear in today’s column that Sarah Palin has not set a trap for liberals all over the world when she wrote crib notes on the palm of her hand last week to carry her through speeches and interviews at a Tea Party convention. Calling Palin "nothing if not cunning," Rich first asks us to consider if Palin, by playing stupid, is actually engaged in a brilliant scheme to cement "her cred with the third of the country that is her base. Her hand hieroglyphics may not have been speaking aids but bait."

Is Sarah Palin a brilliant, master baiter? Not at all.

More from Frank Rich, who is almost even-handed in his criticisms of Repbulicans and Democrats, for now, at least, beginning with a poke at President Obama:

Instead of praising bailed-out bankers, the president might have more profitably instructed his press secretary to drop the lame Palin jokes and dismantle the disinformation campaign her speech delivered to a national audience. Palin, unlike Obama, put herself on the side of the angels, railing against Wall Street’s bonuses and bailout, even though she and John McCain had supported TARP during the campaign. Palin also bragged that she had “joined with other conservative governors” in “rejecting some” stimulus dollars when in reality she rejected only a symbolic 3 percent of those dollars — soon to be overruled by the Alaskan Legislature, which took every last buck.

This disingenuousness is old hat for Palin, who hired lobbyists to pursue $27 million in earmarks while serving as mayor of the town of Wasilla (pop. 6,700) and loudly defended her state’s “bridge to nowhere” until her politically opportunistic flip-flop. What’s new is the extent to which her test-marketed dishonesty has now become the template for her peers in the G.O.P. “populist” putsch. Adopting her example — while unencumbered by her political baggage — the party is exploiting the Tea Party movement to rebrand itself as un-Washington while quietly conducting business as usual in the capital.

There’s “no difference” between G.O.P. and Tea Party beliefs, claims the House Republican leader, John Boehner. Not exactly. The three senators named “porkers of the month” for December by the nonpartisan Citizens Against Government Waste were all Republicans: Richard Shelby of Alabama, Susan Collins of Maine and Thad Cochran of Mississippi. Shelby is so unashamedly addicted to earmarks that he used a senatorial “hold” to halt confirmation votes on 70 Obama administration appointees until his costly shopping list of Alabama pork projects was granted. Or so he did until his over-the-top theatrics earned him unwelcome attention and threatened to derail his party’s pious antispending posturing.

While more brazen than his peers, Shelby is otherwise typical of them. Jonathan Karl of ABC News last week unearthed photographs of various G.O.P. congressmen posing in their districts with stimulus checks that they had publicly opposed. The Washington Times uncovered more than a dozen other Republican lawmakers who privately solicited stimulus money from the Department of Agriculture while denouncing the stimulus to their constituents and the news media, often angrily.

Even the G.O.P./Tea Party heartthrob of the hour, Scott Brown, is not the barn-coat-wearing populist he purports to be. In her speech, Palin saluted him as “just a guy with a truck” who was doing “his part to put our government back on the side of the people.” In reality Brown’s Massachusetts Senate campaign benefited from a last-minute flood of contributions from financial industry donors — with 80 percent of the haul coming from outside the state. It says all you need to know about our politics that his Democratic opponent, Martha Coakley, matched him by holding a fund-raiser largely sponsored by lobbyists for the health care and pharmaceutical industries.

According to Rich, Palin’s only substantive suggestion last week was that we should seek "divine intervention" to help us face our problems:

So it went with Palin last weekend. Her only concrete program for dealing with America’s pressing problems came in the question-and-answer session. “It would be wise of us to start seeking some divine intervention again in this country,” she said, “so that we can be safe and secure and prosperous again.” That pretty much sums up her party’s economic program, at least: divine intervention will achieve what government intervention cannot. That the G.O.P. may actually be winning this argument is less an indictment of Palin than of Washington Democrats too busy reading the writing on her hand to see or respond to the ominous political writing on the wall.

And here I am, once again, blogging about Sarah Palin, the GOP’s Talk-Head-In-Chief.

Sarah Palin's hand

Wash. Post Says Obama Favors Targeted Killings of Terrorists Over Captures

Posted on by TL

From the Washington Post:

When a window of opportunity opened to strike the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa last September, U.S. Special Operations forces prepared several options. They could obliterate his vehicle with an airstrike as he drove through southern Somalia. Or they could fire from helicopters that could land at the scene to confirm the kill. Or they could try to take him alive.

The White House authorized the second option. On the morning of Sept. 14, helicopters flying from a U.S. ship off the Somali coast blew up a car carrying Saleh Ali Nabhan. While several hovered overhead, one set down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of the remains for DNA verification. Moments later, the helicopters were headed back to the ship.

The strike was considered a major success, according to senior administration and military officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified operation and other sensitive matters. But the opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S. terrorism targets was gone forever.

I’m not sure what to make of this. If this report had come out under the Bush Administration, no doubt I would have been critical, but I still would have tried to understand. This certainly shifts the debate on which party is tougher on terrorism. According to the report, "The Obama administration has authorized such attacks more frequently than the George W. Bush administration did in its final years, including in countries where U.S. ground operations are officially unwelcome or especially dangerous." Republicans charge that the administration has been too reluctant to risk an international incident or a domestic lawsuit to capture senior terrorism figures alive and imprison them, according to the Post.

I’m not ready to render judgment — need to keep reading, see if there really has been a shift in policy, or if this article represents the armchair conclusions of a pair of journalists.

At least we don’t have to worry about charges of waterboarding under President Obama.

Turns Out President Obama Never Forgot His Promise to Repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

Posted on by TL

gay soldiers

From the New York Times:

President Obama and top Pentagon officials met repeatedly over the past year about repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the law that bans openly gay members of the military.

But it was in Oval Office strategy sessions to review court cases challenging the ban — ones that could reach the Supreme Court — that Mr. Obama faced the fact that if he did not change the policy, his administration would be forced to defend publicly the constitutionality of a law he had long opposed.

As a participant recounted one of the sessions, Mr. Obama told Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, that the law was “just wrong.” Mr. Obama told them, the participant said, that he had delayed acting on repeal because the military was stretched in two wars and he did not want another polarizing debate in 2009 to distract from his health care fight.

But in 2010, he told them, this would be a priority. He got no objections.

On Tuesday, in the first Congressional hearing on the issue in 17 years, Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen will unveil the Pentagon’s initial plans for carrying out a repeal, which requires an act of Congress. Gay rights leaders say they expect Mr. Gates to announce in the interim that the Defense Department will not take action to discharge service members whose sexual orientation is revealed by third parties or jilted partners, one of the most onerous aspects of the law. Pentagon officials had no comment.

Gay rights groups are calling the hearing historic even as they question how quickly the administration is prepared to act. But Republicans are already signaling that they are not eager to take up the issue.

I hope that our friends in these gay rights groups start to understand that the president was actually working on repealing the ban on gays in the military almost non-stop since taking office, meeting "repeatedly" with top Pentagon officials, in addition to talking about the wars the previous president started.

Maybe, just maybe, there’s more involved in being President of the United States than viewing everything through the lenses of one issue?

The ban should be repealed, and I hope it is soon.

I’m near the end of Frank Schaeffer’s Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don’t Like Religion (or Atheism). Schaeffer’s son John is a United States Marine. Near the end of the book, Frank writes a very compelling and stirring account of the boot camp process where one becomes a Marine. I was moved today as I read it, while walking on a treadmill for two miles. I plan on finding Schaeffer’s Keeping Faith: A Father-Son Story About Love and the U.S. Marine Corps.

When I was a child (to paraphrase St. Paul), I did not trust the military. Now that I am a man, I have an incredible respect for those who serve this country in uniform. Some liberals really go overboard slamming the military, and they should not. These men and women learn to move beyond preoccupation with the self. They think of the other, the platoon, the United States of America, before they think of themselves. Those in uniform are worthy of our respect and support.

Gays and lesbians are more than capable of serving openly, thinking of others first, the platoon, the United States of America, before they think of themselves. Gay and lesbian soldiers serve openly in the military of other countries every day.

Gay and lesbian soldiers have been serving the United States of America in the military for centuries. Let them finally and proudly serve openly.

Sole Openly-Gay Candidate to Pull Out of IL Senate Race, Support Giannoulias

Posted on by TL
Alexi Giannoulias

Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias is scheduled to get a big boost Sunday when Jacob Meister withdraws from the Democratic primary. Meister is expected to endorse Giannoulias.

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Attorney Jacob Meister will pull out of the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate Sunday and throw his support to State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, Meister said tonight.

“Alexi is well ahead in the polls,’ Meister said. “He’s going be our party’s nominee and I think we need to come together around him.”

At recent debates Meister frequently tore into challenger David Hoffman but had few cross words for Giannoulias.a

But Meister called ‘preposterous” the suggestion that he was a Giannoulias pinch-hitter from the start.

The Sun-Times says Miester is the only openly gay candidate in the race, but Meister says he is satisfied that Giannoulias is committed to the causes Meister supports.

I voted for Alexi. I hope he wins the seat. We need another good, thinking liberal in the United States Senate.

Remember, “Liberal” is a good word, especially in this case. Giannoulias is a banker, and bankers are notoriously conservative … when it comes to money. Good bankers are fiscally conservative. Giannoulias is socially liberal.

And that’s a good mix. Something no Republican understands.

More on my thoughts on today’s Republicans later. I finally have them figured out. Really. Finally.

Vote for Alexi Giannoulias. And then vote for him again in the general election.

More here at the Sun-Times.

Weekly Address: President Obama Pledges to Rein in Budget Deficits (Video and Text)

Posted on by TL

Washington, D.C.–January 30, 2010.

At this time last year, amidst headlines about banks on the verge of collapse and job losses of 700,000 a month, we received another troubling piece of news about our economy. Our economy was shrinking at an alarming rate – the largest six-month decline in 50 years. Our factories and farms were producing less; our businesses were selling less; and more job losses were on the horizon.

One year later, according to numbers released this past week, this trend has reversed itself. For the past six months, our economy has been growing again. And last quarter, it grew more quickly than at any time in the past six years.

This is a sign of progress. And it’s an affirmation of the difficult decisions we made last year to pull our financial system back from the brink and get our economy moving again.

But when so many people are still struggling – when one in ten Americans still can’t find work, and millions more are working harder and longer for less – our mission isn’t just to grow the economy. It’s to grow jobs for folks who want them, and ensure wages are rising for those who have them. It’s not just about improvements we see in quarterly statistics, but ones people feel in their daily lives – a bigger paycheck; more security; the ability to give your kids a decent shot in life and still have enough to retire one day yourself.

That’s why job creation will be our number one focus in 2010. We’ll put more Americans back to work rebuilding our infrastructure all across the country. And since the true engines of job creation are America’s businesses, I’ve proposed tax credits to help them hire new workers, raise wages, and invest in new plants and equipment. I also want to eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and help small businesses get the loans they need to open their doors and expand their operations.

But as we work to create jobs, it is critical that we rein in the budget deficits we’ve been accumulating for far too long – deficits that won’t just burden our children and grandchildren, but could damage our markets, drive up our interest rates, and jeopardize our recovery right now.

There are certain core principles our families and businesses follow when they sit down to do their own budgets. They accept that they can’t get everything they want and focus on what they really need. They make tough decisions and sacrifice for their kids. They don’t spend what they don’t have, and they make do with what they’ve got.

It’s time their government did the same. That’s why I’m pleased that the Senate has just restored the pay-as-you-go law that was in place back in the 1990s. It’s no coincidence that we ended that decade with a $236 billion surplus. But then we did away with PAYGO – and we ended the next decade with a $1.3 trillion deficit. Reinstating this law will help get us back on track, ensuring that every time we spend, we find somewhere else to cut.

I’ve also proposed a spending freeze, so that as we increase investments in things we need, like job creation and middle class tax cuts – we cut spending on those we don’t, like tax cuts for oil companies and investment fund managers, and programs that are redundant, obsolete, or simply ineffective. Spending related to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected – and neither will national security – but all other discretionary government programs will.

Finally, I’ve called for a bi-partisan Fiscal Commission – a panel of Democrats and Republicans who would sit down and hammer out concrete deficit-reduction proposals by a certain deadline. Because we’ve heard plenty of talk and a lot of yelling on TV about deficits, and it’s now time to come together and make the painful choices we need to eliminate those deficits.

This past week, 53 Democrats and Republicans voted for this commission in the Senate. But it failed when seven Republicans who had co-sponsored this idea in the first place suddenly decided to vote against it.

Now, it’s one thing to have an honest difference of opinion about something. I will always respect those who take a principled stand for what they believe, even if I disagree with them.

But what I won’t accept is changing positions because it’s good politics. What I won’t accept is opposition for opposition’s sake. We cannot have a serious discussion and take meaningful action to create jobs and control our deficits if politicians just do what’s necessary to win the next election instead of what’s best for the next generation.

I’m ready and eager to work with anyone who’s serious about solving the real problems facing our people and our country. I welcome anyone who comes to the table in good faith to help get our economy moving again and fulfill this country’s promise. That’s why we were elected in the first place. That’s what the American people expect and deserve. And that’s what we must deliver.

Thank you.

Source: whitehouse.gov

Justice Samuel Alito Says ‘Not True’ During State Of The Union When Prez Calls Out SCOTUS

Posted on by TL

Watch Justice Samuel Alito’s lips. He’s sitting on the far left (no pun intended) behind Cheif Justice John Roberts. Justice Alito says, "Not true," when President Obama shares his reservations about the latest Supreme Court ruling regarding corporate spending in elections.

Watch the video closely.

Obama Declares ‘I Don’t Quit’ in First State of the Union Address

Posted on by TL

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Declaring “I don’t quit,”‘ an embattled President Barack Obama vowed in his first State of the Union address Wednesday night to make job growth his topmost priority and urged a divided Congress to boost the still-ailing economy with fresh stimulus spending. Defiant despite stinging setbacks, he said he would not abandon ambitious plans for longer-term fixes to health care, energy, education and more.

“Change has not come fast enough,” Obama said before a politician-packed House chamber and a TV audience of millions. “As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may be, it’s time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.”

Obama looked to change the conversation from how his presidency is stalling — over the messy health care debate, a limping economy and the missteps that led to Christmas Day’s barely averted terrorist disaster — to how he is seizing the reins.

A chief demand was for lawmakers to press forward with his prized health care overhaul, which is in severe danger in Congress, and to resist the temptation to substitute a smaller-bore solution for the far-reaching changes he wants.

“Do not walk away from reform,” he implored. “Not now. Not when we are so close.”

Republicans applauded the president when he entered the chamber, and even craned their necks and welcomed Michelle Obama when she took her seat. But the warm feelings of bipartisanship disappeared early.

I don’t know how “embattled” President Obama is right now. Every president is “embattled.” I found the tone of the SOTU remarkable. But Congress needs to remember how to be a parliament, and they’re not there yet. Republicans say, “NO!” Democrats let the tail wag the dog and give up the fight. The intelligence factor in Congress is rather low right now, I fear, on both sides of the aisle. Republicans are too dumb to realize that there is more to life than cheap politics, and Democrats are too dumb to know how to make Congress work.

Too bad.

I’m glad this president does not “give up.” We still have work to do.

Christopher Hayes: Health Care Moving in the Right Direction

Posted on by TL

From Chris Hayes at The Nation:

For the first time since the Massachusetts debacle, I’m cautiously optimistic about the fate of health care reform. Here’s why: In the wake of Scott Brown’s election, what was most dispiriting was the total leadership vacuum and chaotic, every-man-for-himself atmosphere among congressional Democrats. There didn’t seem to be any hard consensus on what to do next. Some said: break it up into smaller pieces, radically pare down the bill, go back and find Republican support (ha!) or let the thing die. Every one of these options would actually spell the death of health care reform, and one of the most stunning legislative failures in recent memory. To even consider such a move seemed insane, and yet those of us paid to observe Congress have spent the last two weeks watching, with mouth agape, as congressional Democrats slowly raised a loaded gun to their collective mouths and volubly considered pulling the trigger.

But sanity has, tentatively, provisionally prevailed. After spending much of yesterday talking to folks on capitol hill, it’s clear there is increasingly consensus on a path forward: As I explained last night on Rachel Maddow, it involves a few steps, but is relatively straightforward. The House has to come up with a list of changes to the Senate bill that will get them to 218 votes (and will also pass muster with the procedural constraints of “reconciliation”. For more on that you can listen to last week’s episode of The Breakdown.) They then send those changes to the Senate leadership, which can pass them through reconciliation, a process that requires a simple majority. Once that process has moved forward or (better!) is completed, the House can then pass in quick succession the Senate bill, and the amended fix.

To be honest, I want to read this in depth later on.  Just placing a link to Hayes’ post here so I can come back to it later on.

But this is good news.

Weekly Address: President Obama Addresses This Week’s Supreme Court Decision (Video and Text)

Posted on by TL

Washington, D.C.–January 23, 2010.

One of the reasons I ran for President was because I believed so strongly that the voices of everyday Americans, hardworking folks doing everything they can to stay afloat, just weren’t being heard over the powerful voices of the special interests in Washington. And the result was a national agenda too often skewed in favor of those with the power to tilt the tables.

In my first year in office, we pushed back on that power by implementing historic reforms to get rid of the influence of those special interests. On my first day in office, we closed the revolving door between lobbying firms and the government so that no one in my administration would make decisions based on the interests of former or future employers. We barred gifts from federal lobbyists to executive branch officials. We imposed tough restrictions to prevent funds for our recovery from lining the pockets of the well-connected, instead of creating jobs for Americans. And for the first time in history, we have publicly disclosed the names of lobbyists and non-lobbyists alike who visit the White House every day, so that you know what’s going on in the White House – the people’s house.

We’ve been making steady progress. But this week, the United States Supreme Court handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists – and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence. This ruling strikes at our democracy itself. By a 5-4 vote, the Court overturned more than a century of law – including a bipartisan campaign finance law written by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold that had barred corporations from using their financial clout to directly interfere with elections by running advertisements for or against candidates in the crucial closing weeks.

This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way – or to punish those who don’t. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act.

I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.

All of us, regardless of party, should be worried that it will be that much harder to get fair, common-sense financial reforms, or close unwarranted tax loopholes that reward corporations from sheltering their income or shipping American jobs off-shore.

It will make it more difficult to pass commonsense laws to promote energy independence because even foreign entities would be allowed to mix in our elections.

It would give the health insurance industry even more leverage to fend off reforms that would protect patients.

We don’t need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

And we don’t intend to. When this ruling came down, I instructed my administration to get to work immediately with Members of Congress willing to fight for the American people to develop a forceful, bipartisan response to this decision. We have begun that work, and it will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done.

A hundred years ago, one of the great Republican Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, fought to limit special interest spending and influence over American political campaigns and warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending. His message rings as true as ever today, in this age of mass communications, when the decks are too often stacked against ordinary Americans. And as long as I’m your President, I’ll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you.

Source: whitehouse.gov

Obama Proposes Tough Limits On Largest Banks

Posted on by TL

From the Washington Post:

President Obama expanded his new offensive on Wall Street on Thursday, proposing rules that would impede the growth of the largest banks and bar them from making what he called "reckless" investments.

The proposal comes as the administration is shifting from its year-long effort to save financial firms toward a new willingness to confront them with explicit prohibitions on activities that fueled the economic crisis. In essence, Obama is now aiming to force the firms to choose between the federal benefits that come with being a bank and the unbridled pursuit of profits.

After opposing proposals such as hard limits on executive bonuses, the administration is embracing a tougher line — more evidence that Obama has the industry in his sights as he seeks to show Middle America that he feels its economic pain.

Obama’s plan would bar banks from making investments that are not intended to benefit customers, including the creation of proprietary investment funds solely to benefit employees and shareholders. New limits also would make it difficult for the largest banks to become any bigger, effectively stopping domestic expansion at well-known companies such as Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase.

While the proposed restrictions are narrower than the now-defunct law that segregated Wall Street trading from commercial banking for much of the 20th century, they share a similar goal: to subsidize banking — which the administration considers vital to the economy — without having taxpayers subsidize highly speculative activity.

According to the Washington Post, the bankers are not happy. This, coupled with Obama’s proposed a fee on big banks to recoup losses from the government’s $700 billion program to bail out financial firms, some bankers say they wish they could take their votes — and monetary contributions — back from Obama.

Did they think they were buying the presidency?

I heard comments disguised as reporting on Chicago’s WBBM today claiming that the drop in the stock market today is directly because of this announcement by the president.

So, did the value of the stocks of the various banks take a dip today? Then they were worth too much to begin with. A bank that is too big to fail is too big to fail. We’ve heard that so many times over the past year or so, and it’s true.

Bring it, Barry. And then bring some more.