Category Archives: Obama

A Milestone in Colossal Stupidity

27 Saturday Nov 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Obama, Obama administration, Pentagon, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Proving Santayana right, today marks a milestone in the Afghanistan quagmire. A milestone in colossal stupidity:

“On Saturday Nov. 27, the United States and its allies will reach a grim milestone: they will have been in Afghanistan a day longer than the Soviet Union had been when it completed its 1989 withdrawal.”

And the end is not in sight:

“Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell last week made clear that the 2014 date for an end to combat operations agreed by NATO was an “aspirational” deadline. And an Afghanistan progress report by the Pentagon to the U.S. Congress released Tuesday made clear that despite the Obama Administration’s “surge” of some 30,000 extra American soldiers into the war zone, progress has been modest and the insurgency continues to expand.”

2014? What happened to July 2011?

“…it appears as if President Obama isn’t prepared to cut his losses in the war and order a sharp drawdown of troops next July, when, at least according to his stated policy, US forces will begin to leave Afghanistan. Worse, it looks like the much anticipated December 2010 presidential review of war policy is being reduced to a rubber-stamp approval of General David Petraeus’s counterinsurgency scheme.

…Obama is increasingly in harmony with Petraeus. The president and the general are “meshing well, advisers say,” they reported, adding that the president strikes a “deferential tone” toward Petraeus even though Petraeus “has made clear that he opposes a rapid pullout of troops from Afghanistan beginning next July.”

A “deferential tone?” Who’s in charge here? That would be a rhetorical question, the answer is obvious.

“When asked by a reporter about the US “exit strategy” for Afghanistan, the senior defense official took issue with the term. “We don’t have an exit strategy. We have a transition strategy. The US commitment to Afghanistan is continuing, enduring, and long-lasting.”

A “transition” that, according to the former number two U.N. diplomat in Afghanistan, Peter Galbraith, could take 100 years:

“We’re talking about something that will take 100 years, generations,” says Galbraith, “You can equip them. You can provide some training, but you can’t make them honest. You can’t make them literate. You can’t make them committed to the notions of policing that we have in the West,” he says.”

Once again, we’ve been here before. Apparently the lesson was unlearned. More on the Pentagon’s report to Congress, with the appropriate editing inserted:

“The Pentagon’s semiannual report to Congress on the war in Vietnam Afghanistan paints a picture of a country where corruption remains rampant, violence has increased, and a well-funded Vietcong Taliban insurgency continues to make troubling gains.

The report, “Progress Toward Security and Stability in Vietnam Afghanistan,” which was released this week, actually cites little in the way of progress in the war, a major US undertaking that is rapidly losing popular support among Americans and threatens to become a political burden on President Johnson Obama.”

The song remains the same, only the names have changed.

Look in the Mirror, Democrats

02 Tuesday Nov 2010

Posted by in Democrats, Obama, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If the election results go as expected tonight and Republicans take control of at least the House, the hand-wringing and ‘what happened?’ from the Democratic side of the aisle will commence shortly thereafter. In the search for someone or something to blame I suggest Democrats, including President Obama, need look no further than the nearest mirror. This blurb from Politico pretty much sums up the problem:

“…even White House advisers quietly admit a far more jobs-focused, targeted stimulus would have been more effective as a policy and political tool.”

Ya think? Do ya freakin’ think so? That epiphany comes about 18 months too late, but I guess better late than never. Maybe if the president had listened to someone outside of his inner circle jerk of “advisers” who were saying that from the get-go he wouldn’t be preparing to deal with a Republican Congress in January.

But that wasn’t the only serious misstep that put Obama and the Democrats in the situation in which they find themselves. It goes back to before Inauguration Day of 2009. Beginning when the candidate who said he wanted to change the way business was done in Washington named a poster child of the way business is done in Washington to be his chief of staff.

Then, faced with an economic crisis not seen in this country since the 1930′ s, he named as his chief economic adviser one of the main culprits in creating the conditions that led to the financial meltdown, Larry Summers. He then nominated as his Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, a protégé of another architect of the collapse, Robert Rubin. Enjoy your stay at the henhouse, Mr. Fox.

This was the change we could believe in?

When it came to the stimulus package there were a number of economists (outside of that sacred inner circle) who were saying that it needed to be bigger and focused almost entirely on spending to create jobs. They were summarily ignored. An arbitrary figure was arrived at–$1 trillion–which for political purposes the stimulus could not exceed. And in the spirit of bi-partisanship, a good chunk of the package was made to include tax cuts. This was done to supposedly draw Republican support for the stimulus. How did that work out?

Just as an aside here, President Obama later said that he underestimated the size and intensity of the opposition from Republicans in Congress. Was he asleep during the 90’s when Republicans impeached a Democratic president for…well, you know what for. His estimation of the GOP opposition should have been Clinton X 10.

On health care reform, the candidate who ran on a public option and no individual mandate did a sudden 180 and became the president of no public option and an individual mandate. The candidate who promised lower prescription drug prices by way of drug importation from Canada and elsewhere cut a backroom deal with Pharma to insure their monopoly.

Also on health care reform, if the president and Democrats would ask those who supported them in ‘08 (instead of calling them whiners and telling them to buck up) they might find out that just as many, if not more, will tell them too little was done in the way of “reform,” not too much.

The candidate who railed against the Bush “war on terror” constitutional and civil liberties abuses not only continued those policies but now seeks to increase them by expanding the government’s wiretap powers and targeting American citizens who are suspected of terrorist ties for assassination. Not to mention tripling down on the number of troops in Afghanistan,  and expanding the drone war and covert operations into Pakistan, Yemen, and only God and the CIA knows where else.

And they wonder why there’s an enthusiasm gap?

Democrats in Congress don’t escape blame either. In two consecutive elections, 2006 and 2008, they were given overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress, including a filibuster-proof number in the Senate, plus the White House. Memo to Democrats: American voters didn’t  give you those majorities because of your sparkling personalities, they wanted things done.

Just for future reference, if and when you get that kind of power again—use it. Don’t squander it bickering amongst yourselves. Take a page from the Republican playbook and enforce some party discipline. By whatever means necessary. It would help to have a Senate Majority Leader with something resembling a spine. You had the Republican Party down for the count, but you let them up and look at what is about to happen.

A Tale of Two Presidents

22 Wednesday Sep 2010

Posted by in economy, Obama, Politics, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

There’s good news and there’s bad news. First, the good:

“White House officials expect Lawrence Summers to leave his job as the president’s National Economic Council director after November’s congressional elections, according to three people familiar with the matter.”

Now the bad:

“Administration officials are weighing whether to put a prominent corporate executive in the NEC director’s job to counter criticism that the administration is anti-business, one person familiar with White House discussions said. White House aides are also eager to name a woman to serve in a high-level position, two people said. They also are concerned about finding someone with Summers’ experience and stature, one person said.”

A “prominent corporate executive?” To “counter criticism that the administration is anti-business?” A tale of two presidents. President Franklin Roosevelt:

“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering….Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”

President Barack Obama: ‘If I give them this maybe they’ll stop saying mean things about me.’

Let’s see, a prominent corporate executive with Summers’ experience and stature who’s a woman. Just convince Bob Rubin to have a sex change and you’re there.

Beware Wannabe Speakers Bearing Gifts

13 Monday Sep 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Conservatives, Democrats, economy, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Speaker-in-waiting (he hopes) John Boehner says a few reasonable sounding words on Face the Nation and the headlines are about a ‘shift in policy,’ a ‘crack in Republican solidarity,’ a ‘victory for the Obama administration,’ and ‘Republicans caving on the tax cut battle.’ Three words of advice:

Don’t buy it.

First, why would anyone believe a word Boehner says? Then look at the entirety of his comments. Yes, he said,  “If the only option I have is to vote for some of those tax reductions, I’ll vote for it.” He also added, “But I’m going to do everything I can to fight to make sure that we extend the current tax rates for all Americans.” One hand giveth, the other taketh away.

Here’s what the Orangeman is doing as I see it. One, he’s taking a campaign issue away from the Democrats. He’s not going to let them beat the GOP over the head with ‘defenders of the rich’ for the next seven weeks, so he appears to show willingness to compromise.

Two, Boehner uses the qualifier “if the only option I have is…” because he knows that’s not the only option he’s going to have. He knows that, like everything else, the battle over extending the tax cuts is going to be in the Senate, not in the House. He knows that there are already 4 Democratic Senators—Bayh, Conrad, Nelson, and Webb—plus Joe Lieberman, who have come out in support of extending all the tax cuts for at least some period of time.

That’s why he also said this during the interview: “I don’t control the agenda on Capitol Hill. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do…”

Here he’s painting the Democrats into somewhat of a corner. He and the Republicans can say, ‘See, it’s not us, it’s them. We’re not the obstructionists here. We’re willing to compromise but the president can’t get members of his own party to go along with him.’

Boehner hasn’t turned reasonable, it’s all a political calculation. Caveat emptor—let the buyer beware.

Making Sense of the Tax Cut Extension Contradictions

11 Saturday Sep 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, economy, lobbyists, Obama, Politics, Republicans, special interests

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

A couple of things don’t make sense in this debate over letting the tax cuts for the top 2% expire. Don’t make sense on the surface, that is. Dig a little deeper and it becomes perfectly clear.

Why is there such angst in Congress about raising taxes on the wealthy? Members of both the House and the Senate in both parties say they are so concerned with the deficit, but yet extending the cuts will add about $700 billion to the deficit. Many say raising taxes will kill job creation, but those same cuts led to little or no job creation during the 9 years they have been in effect. So what’s the big deal about raising taxes on millionaires?

Because they would be voting to raise taxes on themselves. One percent of Americans are millionaires, but 44% of the members of Congress are millionaires—237 out of 535. They would be voting not only to raise taxes on themselves, but their friends, their associates, and most importantly to them, the people who write the large campaign contribution checks.

Here’s the other thing that doesn’t appear to make sense. Naturally, most Republicans are against letting the cuts expire, for no other reason than that President Obama is in favor of it. But why are an increasing number of Democrats coming out in favor of an extension? Besides the fact that many if them are included in that number of millionaires, that is.

I know some probably get tired of me beating the drum for the importance of organized labor, but unions were once the largest constituency group and voting bloc who stood up and spoke out for working and middle-class people. Into the “vacuum” left by decreasing union membership and its influence on politicians and policy has stepped corporate interests and their money. From Winner-Take-All Politics via Kevin Drum at Mother Jones:

“Unions…are the particular focus of business animus. As they decline, they leave a vacuum. There’s no other nationwide organization dedicated to persistently fighting for middle class economic issues and no other nationwide organization that’s able to routinely mobilize working class voters to support or oppose specific federal policies.

With unions in decline and political campaigns becoming ever more expensive, Democrats eventually decide they need to become more business friendly as well. This is a vicious circle: the more unions decline, the more that Democrats turn to corporate funding to survive. There is, in the end, simply no one left who’s fighting for middle class economic issues in a sustained and organized way. Conversely, there are lots of extremely well-funded and determined organizations fighting for the interests of corporations and the rich.”

In my opinion, this also explains why some who vote Republican and support Republican policies, other than those who are simply anti-anything Obama related, are against raising taxes on the wealthy even though very few would be affected by an increase on those making over $250,000 a year. They’ve bought into the corporate-interest saturated media theme that unions are evil and that the wealthy special interests are looking out for them.

Is 9% Unemployment the New Norm?

28 Wednesday Jul 2010

Posted by in economy, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, Unemployment

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Considering this:

“Nearly half of the unemployed—45.9%—have been out of work longer than six months, more than at any time since the Labor Department began keeping track in 1948…Overall, seven million Americans have been looking for work for 27 weeks or more, and most of them—4.7 million—have been out of work for a year or more.”

And this:


How do you get to this?:

“Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the economy has now recovered sufficiently for government to begin to make way for private business investment.

Mr. Geithner’s comments on Sunday, which echo previous sentiments expressed by President Barack Obama, reflect a turning point in the government response to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, a period marked by deep federal intervention in the financial, housing, auto and other industries.

“We need to make that transition now to a recovery led by private investment,” Mr. Geithner said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Led by private investment? Corporations are sitting on nearly $2 trillion of profits now and unemployment is still hovering around 10%. Just when is this private investment going to kick in and start hiring?

“A survey last month of more than 1,000 chief financial officers by Duke University and CFO magazine showed that nearly 60 percent of those executives don’t expect to bring their employment back to pre-recession levels until 2012 or later — even though they’re projecting a 12 percent rise in earnings and a 9 percent boost in capital spending over the next year.”

“2012 or later” huh? Something else significant is scheduled for 2012, isn’t it? Conspicuously convenient timing for the unemployment picture to start improving if you ask me.

Why aren’t corporations hiring now? The Chamber of Commerce claims it’s because of the “onerous regulations” being placed on them by the Obama administration. Now if one had a conspiratorial mind one might think that big business wants to keep the unemployment numbers high through 2012 so that they get a Republican Congress this year to be followed by a Republican president in 2012 who would cancel all those “onerous regulations.” One might think that, and one would be right, in my opinion.

Sadly, the administration seems to be willing to accept 9% or higher as the new norm:

“The White House said Friday it expects that unemployment will stay at or above 9% until 2012, but at the same time forecast that the economy will grow by at least 4% in 2011 and 2012.”

To whom it may concern at the White House:

If you seriously think that the economy has “recovered sufficiently” so that the government can get out of the way and let private investment take over on job creation; if you’re willing to accept unemployment at 9% or above through 2012; schedule the moving vans for the morning of January 20, 2013.

NAACP Strikes a Nerve

14 Wednesday Jul 2010

Posted by in Conservatives, Obama, Politics, Racism, Republicans, Tea Party

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A wise man once told me, “When you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the one that gets hit is the one that yells first and loudest.” Yesterday, the NAACP threw (emphasis added):

“Late this afternoon the NAACP passed a resolution calling on all people — including tea party leaders — to condemn racism within the tea party movement.

“We feel it’s very important that we educate our membership about the tea parties,” said Anita Russell, head of the Kansas City branch of the NAACP, as the debate on the resolution began. “We are concerned that there is a racist element within the tea parties.”

Delegates said they wanted to make it clear, however, that the resolution wasn’t indicting the entire tea party movement as racist.”

And immediately, without reading the entire statement, the St. Louis Tea Party yelled:

“Normally, we ignore childish hostility from belligerent people and groups. But the NAACP today intends to condemn 20 million tea party activists as racists.”

The St. Louis TPers also referred to  the NAACP as a “bigoted”  “partisan attack dog organization” Then the people that allegedly wants the government out of everyone’s lives called on the IRS to investigate the NAACP and consider taking away their tax-exempt status.

The TPers often claim that the racist signs on display at their rallies are just a few isolated incidents, and don’t reflect the sentiments of the tea party movement as a whole. Having attended local tea parties I don’t buy that, but for the sake of argument let’s imagine that’s true—it’s just a few random people scattered among the crowd. What about the leadership?

What about Dale Robertson, founder of teaparty.org who carried this sign at the Houston Tea Party last February:


What about Mark Williams, chairman of the Tea Party Express? Williams wrote on his blog last September that President Obama is “an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug, and a racist in chief.” Williams in May of this year called Muslims “animals of Allah” who “worship a monkey-god.”

What about Amy Kremer, national coordinator of the American Tea Party movement? Last July Ms. Kremer wrote in support of David McKalip who was forwarding this picture on a tea party mailing list:


“David, we all support you fully and are here for you. I can assure you of one thing and that is we will protect our own. We all have your back my friend!

Let me know what I can do to help. I am here for you if you need me David.”

That’s the leadership of the tea party movement, not just a few random nuts carrying a few random signs. I’d say the NAACP is being lenient, it’s not just a racist element within the tea party movement. This fish is rotting from the head.

Obama and Axelrod’s Mixed Messages

12 Monday Jul 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, economy, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

To whom it may concern at the White House and the DNC:

If you want to lose the House and possibly the Senate in November, if you want to increase the possibility of the 2 most dreaded words in the English language—President Palin—becoming a reality in 2012, keep the lack of a cohesive message coming. And keep on waiting for the GOP to get on board.

First have President Obama come out on a Thursday with a speech focusing on job creation—saying how we can’t afford to give the keys back to the Republicans because they’re the ones whose policies “gave us the economic crisis” and drove the economy into the ditch. This is called firing up the base for the upcoming mid-term elections. (BTW, mid-term elections are all about turning out the base, and in case you haven’t noticed the Republican base is ready to vote today).

Then have David Axelrod go on This Week on Sunday and say that “there is no great desire on Capitol Hill” for more spending to stimulate the economy and that “we’re hoping we can persuade enough people on the other side of the aisle to put politics aside and join us.”  This makes your base throw up their hands (or just throw up) and say ‘For cryin’ out loud, somebody get a freakin’  clue. The Republicans don’t want anything that resembles economic growth, now or in the next 2 years. When are you guys gonna get it?’

Here are some steps you might want to consider and some advice you might want to listen to. First from Atrios:

“So let’s say Obama’s people have correctly deduced that there’s no chance in hell of getting anything through Congress. They have two basic options. First, they could get on the teevee every day and say, “This is my plan to help. Republicans in Congress won’t pass it.” They could hold rallies in Maine. Allies could run ads. At least people would know who is for and who is against…and just what it was that people are for or against.”

Option two is back off proposals you’ve previously made and have Axelrod get on the teevee and say, “there is some argument for additional spending in the short-run to continue to generate economic activity.”

Paul Krugman adds:

“I have no idea what they’re thinking. It would be one thing if polls suggested a tolerable outcome in November, so that playing it safe could possibly make sense as a political strategy. But that’s not the way it is; and it’s hard to see what possible motivation there is for pulling punches.”

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly:

“My sense is that President Obama really hates — and actively avoids — picking fights he fully expects to lose…The defeat would leave him weaker, exacerbate intra-party tensions, and at the same time signal that the White House lacks confidence in the strength of the economic recovery.

But the current alternative is far worse, especially given the fact that the White House should lack confidence in the strength of the economic recovery. It makes a lot more sense to push an ambitious jobs bill — like, now — invite Republicans to do what they always do, give Democrats something to fight for, and have the debate.

[…]

Yes, Republicans will block any measure intended to improve the economy, and it’s largely too late for a new stimulus effort to boost the economy before November. But it’s still worth having the fight — force the GOP to stand in the way of job creation, and show the public that Democrats are prepared to fight to improve on an unsatisfactory status quo.”

To sum up, you’re quickly approaching (if not already at) ‘nothing to lose’ stage. In sports terminology, this is not the time for basketball’s 4-corner offense or football’s prevent defense. (Long-time Houston fans can tell you how both of those work out, and it ain’t good. See UH–NC State and Oilers vs. Buffalo Bills). For those who don’t follow sports, let’s go with “faint heart never won fair maiden.” And faint heart never kicked the shit out of an obstructionist Republican either. It’s time to go bold and force the other team to re-act to you, not you to them.

Just my $0.02.

Time for a Leader, Not a Politician

07 Wednesday Jul 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, economy, Obama, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“The easiest thing in the world for a politician to do is tell you exactly what you want to hear.”—Senator Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign when the other candidates were calling for a gasoline tax holiday in the face of soaring oil prices.

It’s time for President Obama to take some advice from Senator Obama and not from his political advisers in the White House, like David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, who are telling him that the public mood is anti-spending and anti-deficit, and that it will be politically advantageous in the upcoming mid-term elections for him and the Democrats to play to the fear of a deficit boogeyman being ginned up by the right-wing noise machine and the president’s political opponents. Opponents who, let’s face it, don’t want to see unemployment go down or the economy improve between now and November. If the Republicans can get the president to focus on the deficit and cutting spending while unemployment hovers around 10%, they’ll be happy as pigs in slop, so to speak.

President Obama doesn’t help to counteract  the fearmongering when he does things like proposing spending freezes and initiating a debt commission stacked with deficit hawks and Social Security privatizers. In my opinion, this is a golden opportunity for a teaching moment.

If I were advising the president I would suggest a series of television appearances like Ross Perot did during his short-lived presidential campaign in 1992, (before he went all black helicopters, that is) complete with charts and graphs to illustrate his points. The American people, for the most part, aren’t stupid. We get a lot more than politicians and their political advisers give us credit for.

The president could start with a history lesson from 1937. About how FDR gave in to the deficit hawks of his day and started cutting spending before the country was out of the Great Depression which led to a “recession within the Depression” and delayed the recovery.

He could explain the stimulative effects of unemployment benefits. How that every dollar which goes out comes back as $1.64. How that almost half of the unemployed have been out of work for 6 months, something that hasn’t happened since the Labor Dept. started keeping that statistic in 1948. How the unemployed aren’t lazy bums looking for a handout—another popular meme of the noise machine—but that there are 6 applicants for every job opening, and that those over 50 who are disproportionately affected are Americans who have worked for the better part of their lives and have been caught up in an economic situation beyond their control. In their time of need they need our compassion, not our condemnation.

He could use the Gulf oil spill as a springboard to re-invigorate American manufacturing jobs in the field of clean energy, which leads to more people paying taxes and reduced deficits. We could be a country that makes things again, and in the process breathe new life into the rapidly disappearing American middle-class. As Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) said recently:

“We know what happens when the economy depends only on financial services and the creation of wealth through bookkeeping. Manufacturing jobs are good paying jobs that support families and communities, create spin-off jobs, and leads to innovation…We’ve spent the last 30 years pandering to those who have taken manufacturing off shore and in turn we lost the heart and soul of our country. We need to see ‘Made in the USA’ again.”

With signs of a slowing economy and the prospects of a double-dip recession looming, this is not the time for a politician with his finger in the wind gauging public opinion or re-acting to the misinformation and disinformation being put out by his opponents. This calls for someone to lead, educate to populace, and shape public opinion, not react to it.

Quote of the Day: Andrew Sullivan on British Torture Inquiry

06 Tuesday Jul 2010

Posted by in Obama, Politics, torture

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish after British Prime Minister David Cameron announced “an inquiry into the alleged collusion of British intelligence officials in the torture of detainees.”

“After July 4, only one country in the Anglo-American alliance is still dedicated to the rule of law and the prosecution of war crimes: the old country. And it has taken a Tory prime minister to do what Barack Obama has not the slightest spine (yet) to tackle here.”