Mitt Romney's Deception... I Have To Speak Out

Republican Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney recently allowed a shockingly dishonest attack ad on TV.   The story was hot for a day or two, and then the media let it fade. 


This is the kind of story that should be played to death, until those responsible are forced to recapitulate, or apologize.  Even more shocking, there are scores of voters who actually fell for the ruse...or are willing to accept any lie that would hurt the reputation of Barack Obama.


In the ad, which was basically an attack ad on President Obama, Romney and his campaigners sought to cast doubt on Mr. Obama's commitment to help solve the country's economic problems.  They ran the film clip while in the background the President can be heard saying:

"If we keep talking about the economy, were going to lose."


Here's what Mr. Obama actually said, in context:

"...my opponent's (John McCain's)campaign announced earlier this month that they want to "turn the page" on the discussion about our economy so they can spend the final weeks of this election attacking me instead. Senator McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, "if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose..."

Read more at the American Presidency Project: Barack Obama: Remarks in Londonderry, New Hampshire http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=84555#ixzz1fFJw6Bzb

When questioned about this, a Romney spokesman defended it by saying that   "he did say the words... that was his voice." Romney himself responded thus:

"There was no hidden effort on the part of our campaign...it was instead to point out that what's sauce for the goose is now sauce for the gander."

 No other explanation was offered, as though a line of honesty had not been crossed. 

Of course politicians are manipulative, dishonest, and are willing and able to say anything, even contradict themselves, to sway the opinions of the electorate. But how cynical must a candidate be?  How low must a candidate condescend?  What it the lowest common denominator to which a candidate has to appeal?  And why aren't more people, especially media watchdogs, still crying foul?

More people like Arianna Huffington, that is, who wrote a brilliant editorial in the November 29 2011 HuffPost ("Mitt Romney Brazenly Lies and the Media Let Him Slide")

My voice is barely audible...but I had to speak out.

If Mitt Romney is capable of this kind of unapologetic, outright lying to win the office, to what extent will he lie through his time in office?  It wasn't even a subtle act of re-interpreting a candidate against himself, but a lazy lie that is so easily exposed that voters ought to be insulted.

In the video below, the statement in question appears beginning at 7:10.

A Political Rant On Tax Hikes, Deficit Reduction, and American Voters

President Obama is now adamant about reducing the deficit by at least 3 trillion dollars in 10 years. He unveiled a plan at the white house to cut spending and ask the most fortunate citizens to increase their fair share in tax revenue.

I had some random thoughts about Obama's new strategy, and his chances for getting elected for a second term, considering the state of our electorate.....

--As far as the tax hikes, there have been many articles about what Obama's administration is calling the "Buffett Rule". It is named for Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor, who is tired of the rich being coddled with lower tax rates than most middle-class Americans.... 

--Obama made the tax-the-wealthy plan one of the planks of his election.  His vehemence at this particular time has caused many pundits, even his supporters (even Jon Stewart) surmise that he is merely campaign posturing.

Stewart had a great editorial a week ago about "Campaign Obama" (click HERE). 

--Ah, education...I could go on and on.  As Bill Clinton said this morning on the Today Show, many American voters adopt an ideology, even when it has no basis in fact.  And these Americans cast their votes accordingly.  I totally agree, in the eloquent statement made by a friend and fellow writer, that "ignorant, and naive voters probably do best by staying away from the polls..."

--Ironically, politicians, in spite of what they say, do not want an educated electorate.  For one thing, the current method of campaign advertising would not work among a high-functioning, thinking and reasoned populace.

--The Republicans have co-opted many of the disenfranchised and disadvantaged, and have appealed to their fears about issues that have little to do with their best interests.... 

--The "tea partiers" seem to be those who are comfortable with regimentation, who prefer to take orders, and WHO DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD...which is why they look for a a "parental" leader, a "priestly" leader, even a "militaristic" one (follow orders, don't question them). These voters are easily led, are uncomfortable with logic, and vote "en masse", like lemmings.

--They can feel good about exercising their "patriotic duty" without having to take personal responsibility for their choices.

--Democrats have a harder road, in general.  They trade in abstract ideas (like civil rights. justice, etc.) which are ambiguous, not concrete.  Their voters require a thoughtful internalization of ideas before accepting them, and then they can take action.  For this to occur, these voters should be better-educated.  Democrats find it harder to appeal to the emotions of their core constituents.

(And politicians are a prime example that you don't have to be intelligent to be wealthy...)

Enjoy the Jon Stewart video..

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Transformer - Campaign-Based Economy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Three Questions About Bin Laden's Death

1. Was bin Laden found due to the results of waterboarding or other extraordinary means of interrogation?

--Why ask?  The very question lends a hint of legitimacy to the practice.  A civilized culture must not resort to this treatment.  The end does not justify the means.

2. It seems impossible that Pakistan could not have known about Bin Laden's whereabouts; should Pakistan be held responsible for protecting Bin Laden?

--While the idea is worth exploring, it's silly to jump to this conclusion based on what little information has been released.  The FBI's Ten Most Wanted list contains the names of fugitives sought for crimes committed as early as the mid-1980's. (Notice that Bin Laden, also on the list, is marked Deceased.) Why can't the US, with its world-class intelligence apparatus, find these men?  Suppose one of them is found residing in Washington DC?  I doubt that means that the U.S. is protecting him.

3. Should pictures of Bin Laden's body be released for public scrutiny as proof of his death?

--I heard of the capture while waking up to the news.  Still fuzzy from sleep, I remember hearing that "they got him", and had waking dreams of the Trial of the Century. Then I heard he was killed, and raised an early morning eyebrow (in need of trimming!) when I heard Bin Laden was already buried at sea.  As I pulled myself together, I gave this some thought, and assumed that there was some cultural or religious explanation, or that any burial place other than the ocean would become vulnerable. 

I don't think it is necessary to air photos of a deceased Bin laden with his head blown apart.  I would ask: Would it be possible for the American public to see the video that was being scrutinized by Mr. Obama and his team, in which their reaction is captured in a now-famous photograph (shown below)?  I don't require proof; but I think the pictures they were seeing would be interesting as history, and would provide closure.

And it would nip the conspiracy theories in the bud if there is nothing to hide.

*        *        *        *        *       
Tomorrow: 

Obama's Birth Certificate: Time To Call Their Bluff

Good to be back...a lot to catch up on....Cloris Leachman speaking up for abused animals...the death of the "Poetry Man" singer....and some interesting movies to share and review...but tonight, I must rant....

  
President Obama's disclosure of his long form Birth Certificate was, as some have opined, an unfortunate day for this country and for Enlightenment in general.  This President, unlike any other, had to finally take steps to halt a dangerous juggernaut launched by a group of "infantile" Americans (aka cranky Republicans). 

He did this for the sake of enlightened voters who reside in "backward" States; he did this to prevent his own name from being left off any state's Presidential election ballot.

A number of  state Legislators, basking in the support of the cretins they call their "base", have sponsored "birther" bills.  These bills require Presidential candidates to offer proof of their natural-born citizenry, or else have their names withheld from the ballots in their states.

Had this been an issue in, say, 1948, I would say this is a reasonable request in order to uphold Constitutional eligibility to hold the office.

But now, during this Presidency, it appears an nothing more than a case of blatant racism. No one has convinced me that this sudden call for "proof" from Mr. Obama was urgently needed for the good of Americans everywhere.

For a list of states who have sponsored these bills, check out this good article in the Daily Kos.. All of the bills were sponsored by Republicans. Most of them failed in Committee.

A bill was recently passed by the Arizona legislature but vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer, who surprised her party by claiming that the issue was a "distraction" and that we have to "move on". 

The Arizona bill, had it passed, would have considered as legitimate proof of American citizenship, in addition to Birth Certificates, such documents as an early baptismal certificate, circumcision certificate, hospital birth record, postpartum medical record signed by the person who delivered the child or an early census record.

I would love to see a political movement that would demand a circumcision certificate from a female Presidential candidate.  Call it the Wee Party.


President Obama had urgent reason to produce this document. It was a smart political move. In a time when states can pass such laws to prevent its citizens from voting for legitimate candidates with "Trumped-up" accusations of questionable citizenship, and all with the blessing of an incredibly ignorant electorate-- Mr.Obama did the right thing.

I wish he would take it a step further, if only for the sake of irony.  I wish he would state publicly that he supports any state legislature to pass laws to withhold the name of any candidate who could not show proof of citizenry with a birth certificate. I wonder how many potential candidates would pass scrutiny.

Ranting in Short takes: A Thursday Journal

~

GAYS IN THE MILITARY
--Well, the Justice Department asked to stay a Federal Judge's ruling to cease military discharges under Don't Ask Don't Tell.  Government lawyers also said they will appeal District Judge Virginia A. Phillips's ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

To me it is all political theater, and it's immoral, because it hurts innocent military personnel who serve honorably.  And Mr. Obama and his administration can get away with it, because there is no well-funded, well-organized, powerful gay voting bloc.  So the President can pay lip service to his belief that the law is wrong, and yet hide behind legal procedures to avoid taking a leadership role to actively repeal the ban.
  
It is confusing: Many, many commentators declare that Obama has had the authority, since Day 1, to reverse the law through Executive Order.  Some point out that because the law was a Congressional decision and not a statute (as military segregation was in the 1940's), it can only be overturned by an act of Congress.  But then again, Mr. Obama IS the Commander-in-Chief...can he not give an order?  The Military is civilian-run, and it is not a Democracy.  What do you think?


GAY MARRIAGE
--To add more salt to the wound, the Obama administration decided recently to "appeal Boston district judge Joseph Tauro's ruling that the federal Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.   Judge Tauro made the ruling back in July on the grounds that DOMA violated the Tenth Amendment, which protects states' rights and grants equal protection. The lawsuit was filed both by the state of Massachusetts and by gay couples seeking health-care coverage for their spouses." 

Democratic leaders (like Mr. Obama) must maintain the appearance of sympathy with the right of gay couples to marry, and yet must also wish this issue (like DADT) would go away until after the midterm elections. 

The Dems' urgent appeal to voters (with Mr. Obama leading the charge) is that a loss of Democratic seats in Congress will undo the work that has already been done....  Yet, can anyone tell me if a so-called Democratic majority has made much difference?   Rather than appeal for votes based on the ideals for change that were convincigly laid out during the last campaign, the Dems threaten supporters with the likes of "there's nowhere else for you to go, and to sit on the sidelines would be irresponsible." 

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
--Groups like the American Chamber of Commerce, which because of their tax-exempt status are technically forbidden to engage in political activity, are committing huge sums of money to fund candidates that would seem to protect their special interests.  After the disastrous Citizen's United Supreme Court Decision,  other shady groups with dubious memberships are funding many campaigns, and they are not required to disclose the sources of their funding.  And these groups are supporting Republican candidates over Democratic ones 9 to 1.

The problem with the hateful campaign ads is that they work.  They appeal to the fears and ignorance of voters who feel helpless.  That's why politicians aren't so enthused about having a truly educated electorate.

BUSH TAX CUTS
--It's astonishing and insulting when I hear politicians claim that not re-extending the tax breaks on the wealthiest citizens is a job-killer and will add to the deficit.


WHY doesn't anyone point out that the during the tax breaks, which have been in effect for years, more jobs have been lost than any time since the Great Depression, and the deficit is due in large measure to unreported budget spending on defense?  Perhaps the media don't discuss this because it hits many of them in their own pocketbooks.  Tax the lot of them.

PUPPY MILLS AND THE TEA PARTY
--I will devote an entire post to this outrage soon....


In short, there is a ballot measure, Proposition B, in Missouri to criminalize the cruel treatment of animals in puppy mills, in effect phasing out this horrible business and leaving the breeding of dogs to responsible professionals. This is the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. You can read the whole measure on this link.

Puppy mills are kennels in which female dogs are bred repeatedly to produce as many puppies in their lives as possible, before they themselves are destroyed.  Conditions are horrendous: dogs are sick with fur and skin diseases, and internal infections of all kinds; food and water are contaminated with vermin and bacteria; mother dogs live their whole lives in uncomfortable and filty cages; and the puppies are taken from the mothers too young, shipped to pet stores, with inherent health problems.


To my screaming shock, it was recently reported that John McCain's old "common man" campaign supporter, Joe the Plumber, has joined with his Tea Party cronies TO OPPOSE THE BILL, along with other animal breeding groups.  He claims that by enforcing measures such as adequate shelter, clean food and water, and limiting the number of animals an owner can breed, it violates the basic rights of business, and the cost would make it more difficult for the average American family to own a dog.


Every bone in my animal-shelter-volunteering body shuddered with rage.
It occurred to me then that my disgust for the Tea Party movement was rooted in a basic disregard for the suffering of the innocent, in a blatant infantile preoccupation with self-satisfaction (under the guise of "self-reliance"). And as long as the Republicans (who MUST regard this movement with contempt) keep the anger level of the Tea Partiers high, candidates are sure to reap the benefits of  the"voter enthusiasm" gap,  get elected, and then brush the Tea Partiers aside until the next election cycle.

Congressional failure...Ugly Political Campaigns....Discrimination...The Tea Party.... If I can distill all of this corruption into one image,   a modern Dorian Grey-esque portrait of the our current American political situation, it would be this picture of these unfortunate creatures....And these are by all means not the worst I have seen....To me, this is the face of the Tea Party, and of all of corrupt politics....

I will take this image with me to the ballot box.

~

~

A "Mosque" and Obama's Religion: Coddling the Dangerously Ignorant

I see a connection between the furor over building a Muslim community center (containing a mosque) in lower Manhattan, and the controversy over some polls that show about a fourth of Americans believe Barack Obama is Muslim.

Both of these "news" items were manufactured to distract a willfully uninformed electorate from the lack of solutions our elected "leaders" have to address America's failing economy, education system, and infrastructure.

But that isn't the connection I have in mind.

Simply, we are allowing racism and  ignorance to guide public discourse.

Creating a furor over the proposed cultural center, just because it is sponsored by a Muslim organization (and has a mosque inside of it), belies the carelessness and cynicism of a public that continues to equate a single religion with the terrorist act on September 11, and doing so to perpetuate fear, and sway opinion through self-righteousness. 

This is nothing more than morally bankrupt politicians, who prey on the ignorance of what seems to be an increasingly uneducated public, to garner votes.

Obama's religion is an even bigger So What.  Except that the media, and especially Obama's supporters, are going out of their way to "reassure" people that Obama is "really a Christian"....  The implication here being that he is certainly not one of those nasty Muslims....

Really?  Is it easier, and more politically expedient, for the President's handlers and the media to assuage the uninformed back into their misconceptions, by convincing them that there really isn't a monster under their beds?  Isn't this pandering to the basest, most obvious prejudice?  Or are a sizeable block of voters really that far beyond reason?...Is this the issue that will elect or unseat a politician?

Doesn't anyone see that these two "issues" represent a form of sanctioned racism?

Poll Shows More Americans Wrongly Believe Obama Is Muslim




Confusion about the president's beliefs appears to be growing among the population, according to a new poll from the nonpartisan Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. The poll found that 18 percent of those surveyed wrongly identified Obama as Muslim, up from 11 percent in March 2009. At the same time, the number of Americans who said they believed, correctly, that Obama is Christian has declined from 48 percent in March 2009 to 34 percent today. But 43 percent of Americans now say they don't know what Obama's religion is at all.
The Pew poll was conducted between July 21 and Aug. 5, before Obama weighed in on the controversial plan to build an Islamic center near the site of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.
The misinformation continues to exist despite the president's own declarations of his Christian faith and the statements of his spiritual advisers.

Prop-8 Struck Down In California--Weekend Journal

I am reminded of the final line in Part 1 of "Angels in America", delivered by the Angel as s/he descends on Prior Walter in visitation:


"The great work begins."


Judge Vaughn's ruling effectively overturning the ban on gay marriage in California is the end of a trial, but the beginning of a struggle that could decide the future for same-sex couples for generations.


With the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court, the split along ideological lines would seem to be intact. 


And therein lies an insidious irony:


Conservatives argue that Judge Vaughn should have recused himself because, as a gay man, the judgment he rendered could not be impartial.  They also insist that Supreme Court Justices be completely impartial, with no opinions whatsoever; and so they refused to support Kagan's nomination on the basis of potential "activism" and "bias" in her court decisions.  The irony here is that the SCOTUS is a partisan as ever; there is so little expectation that the current Justices will rule in a case except according to party lines, that most assume that the Gay Marriage appeal to the Court will be decided by the swing vote of one judge: Anthony Kennedy.


Although I believe Judge Vaughn's decision is a milestone, and will be a necessary and measured piece of thinking during the appeal, I remain, as always, cautious.


Just as the House of Representatives' vote to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell has not yet stopped military discharges (Lt. Dan Choi is the latest high-profile victim), there is no guarantee that the nation's highest court will overcome its ideological blinders in the gay Marriage case.  Ideally ( and idealistically) however,  the court has a duty to protect the Civil Rights of citizens beyond the irrational thinking and superstition of the electorate, the "tyranny of the majority".  This is not an issue to be decided in the voting booth. 

As far as the Executive Branch, Mr. Obama has a tricky line to walk.  A large segment of voters who supported Prop. 8 are the same minority voters the President needs to have any hope of winning a second term.  He is inextricably linked to these voters, and they represent a voting block larger than the gay and lesbian constituents who nevertheless fought hard to elect him.  It's unfortunate, but Obama is doing the politically expedient thing by keeping his response to the California trial muted. 


It's no wonder many of Obama's gay supporters feel confused and betrayed:

Asked for White House reaction to Wednesday’s ruling, spokesman Ben Labolt pointed out that President Barack Obama has publicly opposed the same-sex marriage ban “because it is divisive and discriminatory.” However, he said the President “will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.”
Nevertheless, Obama has also publicly opposed same-sex marriage, and a White House aide said the president’s position has not changed.
“He supports civil unions, doesn’t personally support gay marriage though he supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and has opposed divisive and discriminatory initiatives like Prop. 8 in other states,” said the official, who asked not to be named.

It's unfortunate, to say the least, that Mr. Obama may not have to do much more for gay and lesbian constituents except ride out the present controversies over gay marriage, DADT and Employment Non-Discrimination with empty promises and platitudes.  Because in 2012, what other choice will we have?  Mr. Obama knows that, and sadly, so may we.


But it need not be so.  We can be aggressive, be more vocal...keep on writing....gathering....marching....

We can't rest satisfied simply because "it could be worse".  Gotta push a little....

Margaret Flowers, and My Last Post on Health Care Reform (for now)--Sunday Journal

This is in appreciation of Margaret Flowers, a soft-spoken and practical individual who is true to her dream of providing health-care reform and coverage for all Americans.   She is a pediatrician and Congressional Fellow for Physicians for a National Health Program, and a member of the National Single Payer Alliance. This alliance represents over 20 million people nationwide from doctors to nurses to labor, faith and community groups who are in  favor of a national Medicare-for-All health system.

So much has been written about health care reform from all sides.. A lot of forecful, sensible, impassioned words have passed through the blogosphere.  A lot of people I admire, from Bloggers to The Huffington Post, have said it all and said it well.  I don't think I can add anything of eloquence, or originality, to the fading hope of American health care reform.  So rather than come back regularly to rehash old arguments, I have decided to abandon this subject until a different angle comes into view, and I discover something noteworthy and helpful to contribute and to write. 

By now it's clear that Mr. Obama's plan to reform health care in America is irreparably damaged. Even if some bill manages to pass, it will be nothing close to what stirred my hopes early in the process.  There will be no "universal" care. The interests of insurers, drug manufacturers, and health administrators will be protected.  There will be no government-run plan that would keep check on runaway insurance costs.  By being conciliatory to the obstructionists in both houses, the majorities in those houses allowed an opportunity to slip by, and the minority party successfully intimidated, threatened, lied, and appealed to ignorance to stall the process.

Good old American politics...will be our undoing.

I know a person has a right to change his mind.  I even understand that Mr. Obama is subject to political considerations, and influence.  But I can't deny that I held out some great hope after hearing him speak, as a convincing idealist, the following words to the AFL-CIO in Illinois in 2003:

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program.  I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."

Of course, I will continue to monitor the "dying patient", as it were, for signs of life, but I fear said "patient" will never walk again, let alone run.  I can only sigh in disappointment, and impotent anger.  I am one voice, one drop of water, in a churning ocean of words, so loud that it is now an unintelligible roar.

Before setting aside this subject for now, I wanted to share a bit from Bill Moyers Journal from last Friday. 

Some of you may already know Margaret Flowers.  She is one of the strongest proponents (still!) for a single-payer plan.  I was introduced to her story on Moyers' show, and I wanted to record it in my journal for future reference and to share it with my readers.  She is, to me, a reasonable voice with a sensible message. 

Her methods could be criticized as misguided; yet without histrionics, without casuing harm to anyone (except her own police record), Flowers demonstrated her passion and dedication to this cause, and kept the message of universal health care alive.

There's a complete summary of Flowers and her story on the web site Single Payer Action. 

In brief, Mr. Obama, in his State of the Union Address last month, challenged listeners:

“If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I’m eager to see it.”

....After this entreaty, Ms. Flowers appeared at the White House with a letter to deliver, asking the President and his advisors to re-examine her plan and that of her organization. Instead, she was arrested.  Here's a video of her visit to the White House gate:



You can also find the text of her remarkable letter Here....

I also recommend a look at the Bill Moyers Journal web site.  On the site is a brief  explanation of the Single Payer plan.

Intermission 1: State of the Union

I watched and listened to Barack Obama's State of the Union Address last night, and remembered why I supported him in his Presidential campaign over a year ago.  There was the intelligent, measured cadence of his delivery, the easy rapport with the listener/viewer.  He provided reassurance with his declared support for the issues that his supporters rallied around and voted him in office to address.  Then I felt sick at heart, because I knew I had heard this before, and I stopped trusting in my own naive hope for the future. 

It was certainly a great speech...but essentially I fear it will change nothing.

He said what he had to say, and made his applause-points to all of the issues people are angry about, scared about, the issues writers blog about and that voters destroy political careers over.   Yes, it was an excellent speech. But, I thought he said everything he HAD to say....assuaged fears, gave us vicarious pleasure in lambasting Republicans, the supreme court, filibusters, etc.



Obama declared a new jobs bill, and urged Congress to get one on his desk without delay. I remember hearing a similar urgency once with his Health Reform Bill.

The Health Care Bill was not mentioned until nearly a half-hour into the speech.  He was right to keep the tone light, and place a large measure of responsibility on himself for its being grossly misunderstood by the public.  While he assured listeners that he has not given up, and that he wants to see the bill passed, it's a far cry from the urgency and importance it commanded just months ago, and it is not the bill many rallied behind with enthusiasm.

He cleverly stated that he would work with Congress to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell.  But he could have declared this already, at least by de-funding the current military expulsions. If he works with Congress here as effectively as he did with Health Care, then repeal of DADT is doomed.

Obama made sense when he accused politicians of doing nothing more than campaigning to get re-elected. He himself earlier this week told ABC's Diane Sawyer that he would rather be a "good 1-term President than a mediocre 2-term one."  I hope he has the courage of his convicitons.  He MUST ignore the churlish bunch on his left, who sulk silently at every point.  He MUST decide that he will do what is right and not what is politically expedient for him (since, if he meant what he said, he will not make his elected office a campaign for re-election, as he blames others for doing) and he will concentrate on his supporters, use his powers to persuade and lead, get a job done, and leave office with some modicum of success.

Obama must realize that he can no longer appeal to the Republicans for any help, or applause, or approval.  They are showing themselves to be almost psychotic in their lack of reason.  If they truly are representing the best interests of their constituents by behaving in this manner, then the country may be better off by ignoring them to silence.   Mr. Obama needs to stop pandering to his adversaries, and keep an image of his diverse supporters firmly in mind as he shapes Year Two.


I hope he can "get health care done", pass a jobs bill, get money to Community Colleges, pass a campaign finance reform bill in reaction against the Supreme Court's recent ruling, take away tax breaks to companies that outsource..... I wish he can do that and more.  I have no big hope for pro-gay legislation beyond lip service. Yes, he stirred up the emotions I had during his campaign speeches......It was an excellent, outstanding speech to be sure. But that's about all.

Obama, Republicans, and Passing Health Care...Bob Cesca Said It Well -- Thursday Journal

Last night I posted a short piece on how the Democrats and Mr. Obama have handed victory to the Republicans, who are committed to blocking health care reform, and my thoughts on what went wrong (naive as I may have sounded).  I found a Huffington Post article by Bob Cesca that expressed my views as well as I would have hoped I could. 

I rarely, if ever, use this blog-journal as a way of simply copying the opinions of others: I like to research what others say, but sort of feel I've cheated simply by reproducing their words.  Today, though, I am appreciative of Cesca's thoughtful words,  in a post that so closely expresses my humble views, in letter and spirit.

Thanks Bob!  Here's a small excerpt:

"While I'm fully aware that the Senate requires 60 votes for cloture, especially when the Republicans have opted to filibuster everything, there are other solutions. The Democrats still hold an 18 seat margin in the Senate. They hold a gigantic 78 seat margin in the House. They lost just one seat yesterday to an empty shirt who, for some reason, thought it would be awesome to auction off his daughters on live national television last night. Weird and creepy...... This bill is about providing affordable, life-saving health insurance to 30 million Americans and ending a cycle of abuse at the hands of a corporate cartel.

"Instead, the Democrats plan is to wait until Scott Brown is seated and their 60 vote supermajority is gone, leaving them with one less option. They're waiting up. They're literally sliding an extra ace across the poker table to the sweaty, drunken degenerate on the other side. Here, we thought you might need some help, Biff. I'm sure you'll return the favor.

This, of course, is just plain dumb. If and when the tables are turned, don't count on the Republicans to return the favor....

"...Nothing will ever motivate the Republicans to join with the Democrats in a spirit of bipartisanship. And, beyond Congress and in terms of swing, independent and Obama-Republican voters, they're either going to like or hate the health care reform bill. How it's passed isn't really going to matter at this point, especially after enduring the long, painful legislative push through the sausage casing.

But okay. The president and certain Democratic members of Congress want to wait until Pimpin' Scott Brown is seated. So be it."

Scott Brown and A Year of "Hope": Wednesday Short Take #1

Wow..I really need the comfort and inspiration of those goofy bassett hounds now....


So the Republican, Scott Brown, won Ted Kennedy's venerable Senate seat in Massachusetts.  Early polling suggests (as seen tonight on Keith Olbermann) that it was the Wall Street bailout, not health-care reform, that was the most important reason that many independents, who voted for Obama's presidency, then voted for Brown for the Senate.


Either way, the health bill will never approach anything near to its original dream.  No government option will be open to everyone; no reduced drug benefits; no competition to big hospitals and pharmaceuticals; and to top it off, it has gone from "everyone will have the chance to be insured by a competitive single-payer" to "insurance, based on competitive market prices, is mandatory". Read here for a good summary back in July, on Huffington Post, on the President's stated support for a public option, and the beginnings of the tide turning. 


Mr. Obama needs to work quickly to shake things up.  He has to be more visible; it's more crucial now than ever.  When he had the polls and the affections of the public in his favor, he was everywhere in the media.  He must appear before his constituents now--those that are still supportive of him, and especially those that are beginning to question his direction.  Maybe he needs to send a strong message by firing a few of his inner circle....starting with Mr. Emanuel.


We are seeing the snaky results of Obama's appeals to bipartisanshp. With a (technically) filibuster-proof majority in the senate, and majorities in both houses, it was important for Obama to rally his party and keep his vision before them, as he did in his campaign.  But he placed too much stock in their ability to bring acceptable legislation to his desk.

He had what he needed--the popular support, the congress---and then appealed to "bipartisan solutions" which amounted to his asking the permission of his adversaries to proceed, and opened the door to them...they who made it clear that they were committed to his failure from the start.  That mistake will haunt a generation.  And now we seem headed for a time when America will be directed by the ignorant and the loud...  Those with the smarts and moral authority to see us move in the best direction are not intimidating enough.

Today, one may rightly take exception to the notion of the pen being mightier than the sword...Democrats ought to have tea parties of their own, and out-intimidate the bullies on the playground.  Illiterates can't be persuaded with written words.  And there have been so many words about this.....in blogs, web sites, publications.... Not enough.

Or maybe Corporate America doomed it all from the start.

And now....There is little hope.  A year later, after an inaugural event filled with energy and hope, the real enthusiasm  surronding the change that might just be possible, has slipped away like a dream barely remembered upon awakening. 

What Might Have Been..What Could Yet Be...A New Year's Day Journal

Can one be realistic and hopeful at the same time?  I saw this picture, and wondered if 2010 would be a year of reckoning for our political system and global crises, or if there would be more of the same gnawing anxiety and disappointment I've experienced of late.  I want so badly to remain optimistic.

I took this candid photo of Mark on November 5, 2008, one day after the election of President Obama. 

I saw Mark searching the horizon, contemplating a vast sky of endless possibility, a river to explore, a bridge to cross....

We were in Tempe Arizona for a brief vacation, having voted early in our home state of Illinois.  What an ironic moment for us both, missing the huge victory celebration back home in Chicago, also Obama's hometown, while we waited, in McCain's home state, with our breaths held, for the returns. We screamed with joy and relief as the results came in.  And from our neighbors around us, silence....

The evening was characterized by the excitement of fitting in, of having our voices heard, of the triumph of science and reason, after eight agonizing years; it was also the fear of something going terribly wrong, and the threat of irrationality, and social and scientific regression, if the results went the other way.

My journal was strangely reticent...I wrote "around" the election, instead of commenting head-on.  I wanted to write about what lie underneath, about the almost ominous quietness of post-election day in Arizona, an undertone of caution--of guarded optimism--I wanted to describe the tranquility we both enjoyed, having borne the exhaustion of the endless campaigns, and survived the long, polarizing election......

From my journal:

--Election day, late afternoon: "Packed sandwiches, chips, grapes, water and drove to Tempe Beach State Park and sat on a bench near the Tempe Center for the Arts for a picnic supper.  The cool breeze, rattling the leaves in the young trees near us, and the long shadows cast by the late afternoon sun, recalled memories of Kodak photos of the past, a golden light shed on the whole scene...."

--The day after: "Rose early to catch news coverage of last night's election...John McCain's concession speech at the Arizona Biltmore, 3 miles from where we sat last night...Barack Obama's acceptance speech to 250,000 in Grant Park (as though an absolution for the riots at the Democratic Convention, on that very spot, 30 years ago...)...

Mark and I took a bench at Tempe Beach Park, across from the KPMG building, the company where my father worked, and retired 30 years ago...My father, a stalwart Republican, voted for Obama....Mark and I wrote in our journals (I'm writing this now, from this spot, and I just took Mark's photo).  Cool breeze, lawn behind us being mowed, water moving determinedly in the canal across the running path in front of us...."

2009 was the year for Barack Obama. It was a year  with the promise that intelligence, rational thought, peace, and pride would prevail.

I have been caught up in disappointments....I felt then that those who voted for Obama did so in good faith that an articulate and reasonable leader, with majorities in both houses, could get work done, without asking the permission of those who were doing everything to ensure his failure. 

Mark Barabak in the LA Times today published a piece about how the

GOP is poised for a comeback in the mid-year elections.  According to the article, "the results could hamper President Obama's legislative efforts as he prepares to seek reelection and reshape the political landscape for a decade beyond, as lawmakers redraw congressional and state political boundaries to reflect the next census."

I was finally happy to place my trust in someone who I felt represented my true feelings and beliefs, who was able to persuade, and to rally the energies of good-minded people to do amazing things.  So I was unprepared for the small betrayals along the way.  I think about how ideas like the public option, ending a dishonest war, and protection for gay rights in marriage and the military somehow got turned around; and that I, and people like me, were seen as merely "seeking perfection as the enemy of good".  I wasn't prepared to see hard-fought battles and promises compromised in the name of claiming "victory".  Was the leader I supported selling out and discarding his ideals? Could I accept his changes in direction and trust his first-hand assessments? or was I a victim of a bait and switch?   I read pundits and editorials, on all sides, doing my best to weed out the purely ideological, and found serious questions from those whose opinions I admired. 

I thought of the alternative, McCain/Palin, and admitted that in some ways we are so much better off than we could have been....aren't we? At least the Obama administration does not seem to be legislating on the basis of superstition and ancient prophecies, or backing down to special interests.. Right?  Is there a place for ideals in modern politics, no matter who's in? 

Yeah, I'm naive.....I knew then and still do that the world doesn't work that way, yet I believed, symbolically anyway, this was our last best chance for positive progress in my lifetime. 

Am I willing to let go of that and succumb to total cynicism?   Can I follow my better nature and believe that the world can be better?  What will I do this year to address that in a meaningful way?  Will I ever vote again?? Those questions I pondered as I looked at a couple of  photos I found of the victory rally in Grant Park, and remembered the feeling of complete happiness, sitting on that bench with Mark on that Arizona November morning.