"A brilliant political move"

Breaking News. President Obama met with the House Republicans at their retreat today and, as Huffington Post's Sam Stein headlined his article: "Obama Goes to the GOP Lions Den -- and Gores the Lions."

The high point was that, at the White House's request, they had agreed last night to let the cameras continue to roll during the question and answer period. MSNBC reporter called it "A brilliant political move" and said: "For an hour and a half, Obama refuted every single Republican talking point used against him on the major issues of the day." And he did it to their faces, on live TV -- and he did it without notes or an earpiece feeding him the answers.

I guess he was just warming up Wednesday night when he scolded the Supreme Court justices to their faces at the SOTUS.

In fact, it was so effective, someone observed, that FOX News cut away from it 20 minutes before the end. And Republicans have been quoted as saying he scored a lot of political points and saying it was a mistake to have allowed it to be televised.

Here's some more from Sam Stein's account:

[Obama] delivered a performance that was at once defiant, substantive and engaging. For roughly an hour and a half, Obama lectured GOP leaders and, in a protracted, nationally-televised question-and-answer session, deflected their policy critiques, corrected their misstatements and scolded them for playing petty politics. White House officials told the Huffington Post they were absolutely ecstatic. . . .

What resulted was what one Democratic strategist described as "amazing theater" -- certainly for cable news. Standing on a stage, looking down at his Republican questioners, Obama assumed the role of responsible adult to the GOP children, or, at the very least, of a college professor teaching and lecturing a room full of students. . . .

He rebuked a questioner who insisted that the monthly deficit is higher now than Bush's annual deficit. "That's factually just not true," he said. "And you know it's not true." He lampooned Republican lawmakers seated in front of him for portraying his health care legislation as "some Bolshevik plot." He mocked Republicans for railing against the stimulus package and then showing up at "the ribbon-cuttings for some of these important projects in your communities." And he did it all while calling for "a tone of civility instead of slash and burn will be helpful. . . ."

Whether it was chutzpah, political savvy, or both, it certainly was refreshing. Reporters were thrilled with the British Parliament-style exchange between president and lawmakers. . . Ezra Klein of the Washington Post labeled it "the most compelling political television I've seen...maybe ever. NBC's Chuck Todd added: "The president should hold Congressional 'town halls' more often. Public needs to see this if they'll ever trust Washington again."

HE'S BACK !!!!! YEAH !!!!!

Ralph

Orrin's hypocrisy

Orrin Hatch, songwriting Mormon senator for Utah, has made a startling (!) declaration:

If the Democrats try to pass health care reform legislation via the reconciliation process, it will lead to "permanent war" between the two parties.

Senator, what do we have now? Thanks to you and your sanctimonious fellow GOPers? Permanent peace?

Add to the mix the fact that Hatch has voted for many Republican bills that were passed through the reconciliation process -- most of them having to do with taxes.

Thanks to Greg Sargent at The Plum Line blog for this info.

Ralph

Murder in Kansas

Scott Roeder had confessed to shooting Dr. George Tiller as he ushered at his church on a Sunday morning. In fact, he had planned it for some time and had even gone to the church once before intending to kill him. But Tiller was not there that morning.

This time, on May 31, he was there, passing our church bulletins and taking his turn as an usher. Roeder walked up to him and shot him point black in the forehead.

Roeder's trial has been going on this week in Wichita. He had pled not guilty on the basis of his conviction that the only way to stop Tiller from killing more "babies" was to kill him, since no legal cases to stop him had been successful.

Of course, Dr. Tiller had been performing a legal procedure. The fact that Mr. Roeder believed that it was murder does not change the fact that Dr. Tiller was doing no wrong in the sight of the law. I believe we used to call this "vigilante justice."

Today, jurors needed only 37 minutes of deliberation to convict Roeder of premeditated, first degree murder. He faces a mandatory life sentence, with possibility of parole in 25 years, although the prosecutor will argue for a minimum time of 50 years.

This is a just verdict. No matter how one feels about abortion, civilization is in jeopardy if we allow individuals -- no matter how sincere in their beliefs -- to resort to murdering someone for doing what society has deemed a legal medical procedure.

Ralph

At last, no more DA/DT

In his State of the Union speech last night, Obama said that he "will work with our Congress and the military" to repeal the policy that forces gay and lesbian service members to live a closeted life or face discharge. It has been a disaster. Among other ways, it has forced the discharge of some 30 much-needed linguists who speak Arabic and other languages of that region at the same time that we have a severe shortage of service personnel to translate the intercepted messages in our war zone.

Today, Reuter's reports that next week the Pentagon will unveil the plan that they have ready to lay the groundwork for the repeal. In other words, the military is ready.

But not John McCain (whose wife and daughter both publicly support gay marriage). Reuter's also reported that McCain, senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said: "I believe it would be a mistake to repeal the policy. . . This successful policy has been in effect for over 15 years and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels."

Would you please define successful, Senator Out-of-Touch and Not-Very-Bright? Please tell us how has it been successful? And what about the polls that say the majority of our troops will support it? And even if they didn't, it's the right thing to do and it will be just fine. As Harry Truman proved when he ended racial segregaton in the military, despite the warnings of the politicians and military brass that it couldn't be done.

Ralph

Supreme fallout

President Obama boldly confronted the assembled Supreme Court justices (missing Scalia and Thomas) arrayed in their splendid black robes immediately in front of him during last night's SOTU speech:

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people . . ."

Moreover, in granting corporations the same power as a citizen to exercise "freedom of speech" by contributing to political campaigns without limits, the court was in essence conferring "personhood" on corporations. Justice John Paul Stephens in his dissenting opinion noted that there is a difference between corporations and persons, one being that we don't allow corporations to vote or run for office.

Send in the clowns.

Now Murray Hill, a public relations firm in Maryland, and hence a corporation, is ridiculing that aspect of the decision by announcing that it -- the corporation -- will run for a congressional seat in Maryland. They're calling the (obviously satirical) initiative: "First Test of 'Corporate Personhood' In Politics."

It's no laughting matter, though. This could cement what was already almost true: that we are no longer a democracy but a corporatocracy. Even more than we know. It will now just be more out in the open; they won't have to jump through so many hoops and look for loopholes to totally control our governmental process.

Ralph

PS: Does this also nullify any limits on campaign contributions by individuals? Suppose Bill Gates wanted to buy us a renewable energy president and spent more money than Wall Street and BigPharma for their candidate? Maybe there's a silver lining.

Obama resilient

I have grown so weary with the bad news in politics and government, that I almost didn't watch the SOTUS tonight. I thought I would just read about it tomorrow. I would have missed something special.

Obama was feisty and lightly humorous, with chatty asides more like a campaign talk at times; but he also was cajoling and deftly scolding (of the Supreme Court, all seated in front of him; of the Republicans on many things, and of the Democrats on a few: "We have a big majority; don't just run for the hills."

He was also determined ("I don't quit."), challenging ("I want a jobs bill on my desk as soon as possible."), and confrontive (referring to the huge deficit that was there "before I walked in the door, based on fighting two wars without paying for them and big tax cuts."). He even spoke directly to "the Republican leadership," saying that "if your policy is to just say no to everything that is proposed, that is not leadership." And he took on the partisan squabbling and the lobbyists that keep Congress from doing the job that the people sent them to Washington to do.

But he was also humble and took responsibility for mistakes.

And -- on health care: don't give up now (to the Dems: ). We're closer now than we've ever been before. We can get it done.

He even said: "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."

As someone commented about the speech: he hit the reset button. Now let's see what happens.

Ralph

News blackout ??`

There's something going on in London that we are not hearing about. It's called the Chilcot Inquiry, and it should have major implications for us and our government, to say nothing of its expose of the Bush administration.

It's the high level, official governmental hearings on how Tony Blair led Britain into collaborating with George Bush in his determination to invade Iraq in 2003. Cabinet members and major figures on Blair's staff are testifying; records are open and transparent. Tony Blair will testify later on Friday.

The truth will out -- at least bouncing back to us from across the pond

This should be bombshell news in this country. But I have not seen a word of it in the New York Times or even on Huffington Post.

Why not? Do even the liberal news hounds think this is not news? Is there some behind scenes effort to suppress it?

Thanks to Mickey Nardo, you can read all about it, including reports from live blogs from the proceedings, at http://1boringoldman.com/

Thanks, Mickey for being the one source I read regularly that's covering this.

Ralph