Obama is smarter than I am

I never doubted it, but Obama keeps proving not only how intelligent he is but what political wisdom he has.

I was so angry at HolyJoe Lieberman that I wanted the Democratic caucus to strip him of his important committee chairmanship. And I didn't care if he joined the Republican caucus. But Obama put in a good word for him, and he stayed. Then it became obvious how politically astute this was. Lieberman now owes him, big time.

Then Obama was quick to put McCain's campaign smears behind them and reach out to him in a collegial way, asking for his help. I was so angry and disgusted with McCain that I was ready to heep bitter scorn on him for the rest of his days. But now McCain is on TV praising Obama and calling on his fellow Republicans to work with him instead of trying to score political points. And he specifically praised his national security team appointees and gave highest praise for Leon Panetta as head of CIA.

Lieberman and McCain together will be able to bring along some other moderates, like Susan Collins, Olympia Snow, as well as their croney Lindsey Graham some of the time.

Eureka! On some very important issues, we may have the 60th vote, and more, to get some vital legislation passed.

Lieberman gets to redeem himself; McCain gets to reclaim his reputation as a bipartisan maverick. And it gives the Democrats the strength to do what needs to be done.

It's so refreshing to have a president who is smarter than I am.

Ralph

today's numbers

7.2% = latest unemployment figures

524,000 = jobs lost in December

114 to 1 = the vote to impeach Blagojevich

10 = days Bush remains president

Some bad, some good.

Ralph

Selective Blindness

In another exit interview/spin cycle, this one with the Associated Press, VP Cheney said this about President Bush and the economic crisis: "I don't think he needs to apologize. I think what he needed to do is take bold, aggressive action and he has. . . . I don't think anybody saw it coming."

Just like they've claimed that they didn't see the 9/11 attacks coming, despite dire warnings included in the president's daily briefing a few weeks before. And they did not foresee the possibility of Katrina's devastating effect on New Orleans, depite Corps of Engineering warnings for years. And they didn't foresee or plan for the aftermath of our invasion of Iraq, despite those in their own administration who tried to tell them.

Instead, they saw things that weren't there, such as widespread voter fraud that necessitated firing state attorneys who wouldn't prosecute non-existing cases (only one of their perversions of our justice system); and all those millionaires who would make our economy stronger if we just gave them tax cuts (see how well that worked); and the danger to our moral fabric of comprehensive sex education (kids who have abstinence only sex ed have higher rates of pregnancy), along with the risk to our economy if we allowed the government's own scientists to report their findings on global warning and other environmental risks (we can only hope it's not too late).

So -- of the four worst disasters that occurred on Bush's watch, they didn't "foresee" any of them, while throwing money at other non-existent problems. How many trillions of dollars does that all add up to? Enough at least to provide health care for all Americans for generations, plus college education for all the kids, with enough change left over to rebuild the infrastructure and make a start on new energy sources and global warming.

The saddest words in the English language: what might have been.

Ralph

"an era of profound irresponsibility"

In his speech today on the economy, President-elect Barak Obama said:

This crisis did not happen solely by some accident of history or normal turn of the business cycle, and we won't get out of it by simply waiting for a better day to come, or relying on the worn-out dogmas of the past. We arrived at this point due to an era of profound irresponsibility that stretched from corporate boardrooms to the halls of power in Washington, DC. For years, too many Wall Street executives made imprudent and dangerous decisions, seeking profits with too little regard for risk, too little regulatory scrutiny, and too little accountability. Banks made loans without concern for whether borrowers could repay them, and some borrowers took advantage of cheap credit to take on debt they couldn't afford. Politicians spent taxpayer money without wisdom or discipline, and too often focused on scoring political points instead of the problems they were sent here to solve. The result has been a devastating loss of trust and confidence in our economy, our financial markets, and our government.

Now, the very fact that this crisis is largely of our own making means that it is not beyond our ability to solve. Our problems are rooted in past mistakes, not our capacity for future greatness. It will take time, perhaps many years, but we can rebuild that lost trust and confidence.

Now I am predisposed to thinking Obama is precisely the leader our country needs right now; but I also think, as dispassionately as I can, that this sounds like a man who understands the problem and has a plan to repair and restore, not only our trust in the economy but in our government.

Compare what President Bush said in a farewell interview with Cal Thomas about the same issue and specifically about his conservative critics saying he behaved like a socialist because of the massive bailout spending.

He says he still believes in less government spending, but when Henry Paulson, secretary of the U.S. Treasury, and Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, tell him that if he doesn't act, the result will be worse than the Great Depression, "you can sit here and say to yourself, 'Well, I'm going to stick to principle and hope for the best, or I'm going to take the actions necessary to prevent the worse."

In other words, Bush does not rethink his principles, based on evidence; he sticks to his principles and simply acts pragmatically to avert a crisis that he's been told will happen if he doesn't. And no thought seems to be given to the possibility that the principle was wrong or to preventing the same from happening again. That kind of thinking got us into this mess -- people acting on their 'principles' without any corrective based on evidence.

In another exit interview, Bush said one of the things he was most proud of was that he didn't betray his principles while in office. "I came into office with one set of principles, and I'm going out with the same principles." Of course, there are some basic principles that should be unchanging (like equality, justice, and liberty); but if one of his principles is "the government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem," then he did betray that principle out of expediency. And, worse, he did not consider whether the principle is wrong. The fact that he still believes in the principle is just part of that blithe ignoring of cognitive dissonance that characterizes his thinking.

Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics at Princeton, New York Times columnist, and winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in economics, wrote in an article, "What To Do," in The New York Review of Books (12-15-08):

What we're going to have to do, clearly, is relearn the lessons our grandfathers were taught by the Great Depression. . . . the basic principle should be clear: anything that has to be rescued during a financial crisis, because it plays an essential role in the financial mechanism, should be regulated when there isn't a crisis so that it doesn't take excessive risks.

Applying John Maynard Keynes' statement to our own times, Krugman says our "true scarcity is not in resources but in understanding." And he concludes:

We will not achieve the understanding we need, however, unless we are willing to think clearly about our problems and to follow those thoughts wherever they lead. Some people say that our economic problems are structural, with no quick cure available; but I believe that the only important structural obstacles to world prosperity are the obsolete doctrines that clutter the minds of men.

And that is one more vital reason for hope with an Obama presidency. Unlike his predecessor, he has the capacity to think, the willingness learn from evidence, and the wisdom to change course when necessary.

Ralph

spin, unlimited

The Bush/Cheney era is down to its final 12 days. They will leave behind their wreckage for Obama's capable team to clean up, and blithely fly off westward in a fog of denial and spin.

The denial and spin are so far removed from the Reality Based World that most of us live in, that it is hard to do anything but laugh at the absurdity. The latest is from Dick Cheney, who has proclaimed himself misunderstood and says that he's really lovable.

Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday that his image has gotten a bad rap in the press and that he is in fact “a warm, lovable sort.”

Cheney conceded in an interview with CBS radio that he sometimes expresses himself “rather forcefully toward some of my compatriots, like Pat Leahy from Vermont” but dismissed as a caricature the idea that he is a “Darth Vader-type personality.”

“I think all of that’s been pretty dramatically overdone,” the vice president said. “I’m actually a warm, lovable sort.”

Cheney also insisted that his influence within the Bush administration was overstated throughout the past eight years. “The notion that somehow I was pulling strings or making presidential-level decisions. I was not,” he said.

“There was never any question about who was in charge. It was George Bush. And that’s the way we operated. This whole notion that somehow I exceeded my authority here, was usurping his authority, is simply not true. It’s an urban legend, never happened."

Yeah, right. We never thought that he shoved Bush out of the way and sat at his desk to sign bills into law. No, he was more subtle than that: like directing that all of Condo Rice's emails be sent through his office before they even went to her, when she was National Security Adviser. Or like controlling the flow of information to Bush, presenting the arguments to him in such a way that the decision Cheney wanted seemed to be the only right one. Or having secret meetings to determine energy policy; or like directing the leak of Valerie Plame's identity or pushing the CIA to give him the direct raw intelligence instead of the result of professional analysts, or declaring himself a fourth branch of government . . . and . . . and . . .

Lovable? I don't think so. I have only two good things to say about him. As far as we know, he didn't take bribes when he broke laws; it was to gain power. And he seemed to have a good, accepting relationship with his lesbian daughter.

And even those aren't without qualification, if you consider the Halliburton no-bid contracts while he still had financial ties to them; and when Mary Cheney's daughter was born, the photos released to the press were of Dick and wife Lynn holding the baby. The baby's two mothers were out of sight, the better to blur the fact that it wasn't the All-American Republican Family.

No, not lovable.

Ralph

the other one

The Bush Family Plan had long been that Jeb, the brighter and more talented brother, would some day carry on the family dynasty as president. Then Karl Rove and Dick Cheney chose Dubya to play the role of front man: Rove, for his schemes to remake the political landscape; and Cheney, for his scheme to subvert the Constitution and create an imperial executive branch. It was all about power, not public service, and they needed an affable, maleable empty suit who had his own grandiose need to prove himself to -- and surpass -- his powerful father.

He did neither. Instead, he proved his inadequacy. And the American people, the U.S. Constitution, and the world are paying the price.

Now, it appears that First Brother Jeb is another collateral damage of the disastrous reign of Bush II. Of course, that has been obvious for the short run; but now it seems the derailing of Jeb's political career could be permanent.

He had been reasonably successful as Forida's governor and had enough popular support to make him a front-runner for the upcoming Republican nomination for senator. Supposedly he would go to the Senate, build a national reputation, and use that as a springboard to run for president. Now, however, he has announced that he will not be running after all. One of my favorite political bloggers, Digby, writing at Hullabaloo, had this to say:

. . . Jeb, no great shakes in his own right, is collateral damage to the worst President in American history. You will not be able to be elected dog catcher with the last name "Bush" for a generation or two. I don't think the burning bush could get elected at the Vatican (or even in the Bible Belt!) in this environment.

Reading between the lines of Jeb's statement, however, leads me to think that he still has plans that diverge sharply from Dubya's legacy. From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

[Jeb] Bush pledged to be involved in rebuilding the Republican Party by advocating conservative ideas and policies. But in a written statement, he also called on his fellow Republicans to "raise the level of debate to reflect the American people's desire for change and bipartisanship, embodied by November's historic election."

He must realize that the only hope for a political future for himself lies in repudiating what his brother's administration stood for. And he has to do it without seeming to openly repudiate him. He did that with what could be simply a gracious concession to the man who defeated his party's presidential candidate. But it goes further than necessary to do that. I read it as a signal that he is distancing himself from Big Brother Dubya.

"President-elect Obama ran a tremendous campaign, and I am proud to call him my president," [Jeb] Bush said.

Don't count The Other One out yet. He may just have a longer-range, strategic plan.

Ralph

comments

I just discovered that my "who can comment?" option was set for "registered users only." I've changed it to "anyone." I apologize to anyone who has tried to leave a comment and couldn't. Please try again and let me know if you have trouble. rroughton@bellsouth.net

Ralph

YES !!!!

This article speaks for itself. I will only add that this is probably one of the most significant appointments Obama will make toward cleaning up the mess Bush and Gonzales made of our Justice system.

Obama's Justice nominees signal end of Bush terror tactics

By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — In filling four senior Justice Department positions Monday, President-elect Barack Obama signaled that he intends to roll back Bush administration counterterrorism policies authorizing harsh interrogation techniques, warrantless spying and indefinite detentions of terrorism suspects.

The most startling shift was Obama's pick of Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen to take charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, the unit that's churned out the legal opinions that provided a foundation for expanding President George W. Bush's national security powers.

Johnsen, who spent five years in the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration and served as its acting chief, has publicly assailed "Bush's corruption of our American ideals." Upon the release last spring of a secret Office of Legal Counsel memo that backed tactics approaching torture for interrogations of terrorism suspects, she excoriated the unit's lawyers for encouraging "horrific acts" and for advising Bush "that in fighting the war on terror, he is not bound by the laws Congress has enacted."

"One of the refreshing things about Dawn Johnsen's appointment is that she's almost a 180-degree shift from John Yoo and David Addington and (Vice President) Dick Cheney," said Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe, referring to the main legal architects of the administration's approval of harsh interrogation tactics.

Walter Dellinger, a Duke University law professor, said that Johnson's appointment "sends a very strong message that the administration intends to make sure that its power is exercised in conformity with constitutional rights and respect for civil liberties."

Let the cleansing waves roll in.

Ralph

Bush's legacy

George Bush and his administration insiders are busy with the whitewash. His only hope, in the short term, is that he has created so much havoc that has to be dealt with that we won't have the stomach -- and the Dept. of Justice and Congressional committees won't have the time -- for investigating and sorting through the mess to expose blame. There's too much repair work to be done, and we'll just throw up our hands and say -- let's move on.

That would be a mistake. Along with repairing the damage to our economy, our standing in the world, our national spirit, the environment, and so much else, it is imperative that We the People understand how much damage has been done to our system of Constitutional government. This must be investigated and exposed in the full light of a high level commission, with supboena powers and mandate to make a full public disclosure.

Mickey Nardo's blogs yesterday and today, "memories" and "flip" are particularly good on this. He includes a video clip of the real David Frost interview of Richard Nixon, in which Nixon declares, "If the president does it, it means it's not illegal." Go to: http://1boringoldman.com/

Here's an excerpt from Mickey's blog:

I don’t think that there’s ever been an Administration like the Bush Administration, at least not in my lifetime. We’ve had a sick President [Nixon], a misguided President [LBJ - Gulf of Tonkin], a silly, senile President [Ronald Reagan], and a Philanderer [Bill Clinton]. But I don’t recall us ever having an Administration like this one. Bush and Cheney did not believe in the American system of government. And I don’t think that we’ve ever had to deal with that before. George Bush actually said it in an outburst:

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper."

The above exchange can't be independently verified, but it has never been denied by the White House. It was originally reported by Doug Thompson of Capital Hill Blue on Dec. 5, 2005. He attributed it to three different sources who were present in a White House meeting with Republican leaders complaining to Bush about portions of the USA Patriot Act.

Whether it is literally true, or simply a believable apocryphal story, it captures the attitude that seems to have been operating in the Bush administration -- from the politicization of the Department of Justice; to the signing statements where Bush declared that he wouldn't obey the law he had just signed into being; to the manipulation of evidence to fool Congress into giving him the power to wage war with Iraq; to the apparent destruction of email evidence and refusal to abide by Congressional subpoenas . . . and the list goes on.

We cannot let them all just ride off into the sunset. The truth must come out and, at the least, be recorded for history.

Ralph