Democrashield.com


And Then There Were 60…

Senator Al Franken (D-MN) was sworn in today as the 60th member of the Senate Democratic caucus.

Watch:

Sen. Franken was accompanied onto the Senate floor by Minnesota’s other Democratic Senator, Amy Klobuchar, as well as former Vice President Walter Mondale, also a Minnesotan.

He will now assume seats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee.



BREAKING: MN Supreme Court: Franken Won (UPDATED X2)

It’s been nearly 8 months since Election Day.

It’s been more than 6 months since Inauguration Day.

And, finally, Minnesota’s outstanding Senate race has been decided.

Minnesota’s Supreme Court has affirmed [PDF] that Al Franken is the duly-elected junior Senator from Minnesota, having garnered more votes than former Senator Norm Coleman.

Of course, Franken still needs a certificate of election signed by his state’s governor, Republican Tim Pawlenty. But Pawlenty said that he would abide by the Supreme Court’s decision:

Minnesota law does not allow the governor to sign an election certificate until the state court process is complete. And when it is, and they direct me to sign the certificate, I’m going to sign it. There’s not going to be any undue delay or the like. But I’m going to follow the direction of the courts in that regard and we’re going to be having a decision here in the coming weeks … I have to follow the law. If the Minnesota Supreme Court says, “You sign the certificate” — and there’s not an appeal or some other contrary direction from a federal court — you know, that’s my duty. I can’t just ignore that or say I don’t feel like following a directive from the Minnesota Supreme Court. That would not be the responsible thing to do.

[Emphasis mine]

There’s a chance that Coleman could appeal this decision to the federal judiciary, which may give Pawlenty room to once again put off signing a certificate.

But the Minnesota Supreme Court should be the final say in this case, and they have resoundingly affirmed that Al Franken is the junior Senator from Minnesota.

UPDATE: I should note that the decision was unanimous–the court ruled 5-0 in Franken’s favor.

Here’s the key part of the ruling:

For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court that Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under Minn. Stat. § 204C.40 (2008) to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota.

UPDATE II: Norm Coleman just conceded; congratulations to Senator Al Franken!

Comments Off


Right-Wing Political Violence (UPDATED X2)

On July 27th, 2008, Jim Adkisson walked into Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church and opened fire, killing two. What was his motivation?

An out-of-work truck driver accused of opening fire at a Unitarian church killing two people, left behind a note suggesting that he targeted the congregation out of hatred for its liberal policies, including its acceptance of gays, authorities said Monday.

A four-page letter found in Jim D. Adkisson’s small SUV indicated he intentionally targeted the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church because, the police chief said, “he hated the liberal movement” and was upset with “liberals in general as well as gays.”

On April 4th, 2009, Pittsburgh’s Richard Poplawski fired upon a group of police officers responding to a domestic violence complaint, killing three of them. What was his motivation?

We’re gathering more information about Richard Polawski, the 23-year-old man who decided to kill three Pittsburgh police officers and wound three others because it appears he was afraid they — at the behest of the Obama administration — were going to take his guns away

[...]

Poplawski feared “the Obama gun ban that’s on the way” and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon,” said Edward Perkovic, his best friend.

On May 31, 2009, Scott Roeder shot and killed Dr. George Tiller as he was standing in the foyer of his church in Kansas. I bet you can guess what motivated Roeder:

In recent years, someone using the name Scott Roeder has posted anti-Tiller comments on various Internet sites. One post, dated Sept. 3, 2007 and placed on a site sponsored by Operation Rescue [a radical anti-abortion group] called chargetiller.com, said that Tiller needed to be “stopped.”

It seems as though what is happening in Kansas could be compared to the ‘lawlessness’ which is spoken of in the Bible,” it said. “Tiller is the concentration camp ‘Mengele’ of our day and needs to be stopped before he and those who protect him bring judgment upon our nation.”

On May 19, 2007, a Scott Roeder commented on an invitation by Operation Rescue to join an event being held May 17-20 in Wichita, “the ‘Nation’s Abortion Capital,’ to pray for an end to George R. Tiller’s late-term abortion business and for all pre-born babies everywhere to once again come under the protection of law.”

The post said: “Bless everyone for attending and praying in May to bring justice to Tiller and the closing of his death camp. Sometime soon, would it be feasible to organize as many people as possible to attend Tillers church (inside, not just outside) to have much more of a presence and possibly ask questions of the Pastor, Deacons, Elders and members while there? Doesn’t seem like it would hurt anything but bring more attention to Tiller.”

And on June 10th, 2009, James W. von Brunn opened fire at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., killing a security guard. von Brunn was yet another right-wing fanatic:

An 88-year-old white supremacist with a rifle walked into the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, one of the capital’s most visited sites, on Wednesday afternoon and began shooting, fatally wounding a security guard and sending tourists scrambling before he himself was shot, the authorities said.

[...]

The gunman was identified by law enforcement officials as James W. von Brunn, who embraces various conspiracy theories involving Jews, blacks and other minority groups and has at times waged a personal war with the federal government.

[All emphasis mine]

There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from all this: right-wing violence is on the rise.

Now, I’m not saying these guys are mainstream conservatives–they’re clearly not, and every political movement attracts it’s fair share of crazies–but I am saying that radical conservatives are suddenly committing spectacular acts of violence with an alarming frequency.

The conservative movement is part of the problem–they have been mainstreaming radicalism for a long time, but particularly since the 2008 campaign. How many times have conservatives called Barack Obama a fascist or a socialist, or warned about the government trying to “take your guns away”? How many times have conservatives compared Obama to Hitler or Stalin or Mao and warned that the government was taking too much power? How much fear and paranoia have conservatives stoked when it comes to the Obama administration?

Look, words have meanings. What conservatives need to realize is that–when they spew this vile rhetoric–there are people out there who will take their words extremely, deadly seriously. There are people who will actually believe that Barack Obama is a fascist and that they must do everything in their power to stop him, which leads to violent acts like the ones listed above.

Radical words lead to radical deeds. The leaders of the conservative movement need to step back and realize that their rhetoric is encouraging domestic terrorism, and that they’re pushing a lot of unstable people who are already dangerously close to the edge. If the right doesn’t tone down their extreme, eliminationist rhetoric, there will be more instances of right-wing violence carried out by crazies who have their darkest fears of government control dangled before them just one too many times.

UPDATE: A few months ago, the Department of Homeland Security released a report–begun when George W. Bush was still President–examining the rise of right-wing extremism in America.

When the report became public, conservatives were apoplectic–they called the report’s warnings about increased political violence by right-wing extremists outrageous and absurd. Not only did they dispute that such right-wing extremism (and violence) was on the rise, they demanded that DHS both retract the report and apologize for allegedly tarnishing conservatism itself.

Well, conservatives were wrong. DHS’ warnings about right-wing extremism and violence were absolutely accurate and prescient, and conservatives’ vehement criticism of the report was nothing but unfounded political posturing. Remember they key portions of the DHS assessment:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

[Emphasis mine]

How much does that assessment match the four instances of right-wing political violence listed above?

This just exposes the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the modern conservative movement. Instead of taking the DHS report to heart, instead of taking a step back and looking for extremism in their midst and snuffing it out, conservatives instead stuck their fingers in their ears and insisted that DHS must be wrong, that no such violence or extremism existed in their movement.

Meanwhile, as conservatives were trying to bury that ugly truth about their movement (instead of actually taking steps to eliminate such extremism), men like Poplawski, Roeder and von Brunn were planning their attacks.

DHS was right. Conservatives were wrong. But I certainly won’t hold my breath waiting for Conservatives to acknowledge as much, nor will I hold my breath waiting for conservatives to clean up their rhetoric, denying men like von Brunn the ideological and intellectual support they need to carry out their violent attacks.

UPDATE II: Ben Smith:

Von Brunn’s white supremacist roots put him under the rubric of a “right-wing extremist,” but the substance of his views — which included everything from believing that President Bush may have been in on the September 11 attacks to denying that President Obama is an American citizen — are too far on the fringe to fit into conventional political classification.

I believe that’s basically right– von Brunn is a right-wing extremist, he just also happens to hold a variety of crazy, conspiratorial beliefs that can’t really be classified.



BREAKING: Arlen Specter To Switch Parties, Run As Democrat In 2010 (UPDATED X5)
Welcome home, Arlen.

Welcome home, Arlen.

The Washington Post has it:

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to sources informed on the decision.

Specter’s decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken’s victory in the state Supreme Court.)

“I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary,” said Specter in a statement. “I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.”

[Emphasis mine]

This changes everything.

UPDATE: First, there’s the question of what Specter’s switch puts back on the table–since he doesn’t have to pander to the right wing of his party anymore, will he vote more liberally? Will it be easier for the Democrats to win him over on key votes now?

Second, this puts even greater pressure on Norm Coleman to step aside in Minnesota–Al Franken would give the Democrats a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority, thus making the resolution of MN’s Senate contest even more important.

Third, this throws the entire PA-SEN race into disarray. Will more Republicans join Pat Toomey in vying for the GOP nod? Will any Democrats challenge Specter in the Democratic primary?
If a Democrat challenges Specter from the left, could he be pressured to vote more liberally–like how Toomey’s challenge from the right pressured Specter to vote more conservatively?

We have no answers yet, but this is undeniably good news for the Democrats and bad news for the GOP. I wonder how small the Republicans’ tent can get–it’s already looking pretty tiny from where I’m standing.

UPDATE II: MSNBC is reporting that one of the conditions of Specter’s switch is that nobody is allowed to challenge him for the Democratic nomination. I’m not exactly happy about that, but I guess I’ll accept it.

And I want to remind everyone that Specter won’t be a party-line vote–in fact, I predict there will be a number of times he votes against the Democratic caucus, just as he voted against the GOP caucus. He won’t be a reliable 60th vote, but he will be a 60th vote, and that’s what matters.

UPDATE III: The entire conservative movement is currently having a sour grapes party; you can practically smell the vinegar from here.

Even though Specter’s switch puts the GOP’s Senate caucus at 40 members, the fewest they’ve had since January of 1979, they’re still pretending that Specter’s departure is a good thing.

Because sitting by and watching all the moderates abandon your party in droves has done wonders for the GOP since 2005, right?

UPDATE IV: Whether or not you think this is good news for the GOP depends on whether or not you think Pat Toomey can beat Arlen Specter.

Problem is, PA has been trending bluer for a long time. For instance, compare the results of the 2000 Senate election to the 2006 Senate election:

2000

Rick Santorum: 52.4%

Ron Klink: 45.5%

2006

Rick Santorum: 41.3%

Bob Casey: 58.6%

Or look at how many Congressional seats have changed hands in the past 4 years alone:

2005

GOP: 12

DEM: 7

2009

GOP: 8

DEM: 11

Or look at the popular vote shift between the 2004 and 2008 Presidential elections:

2004

Kerry: 51%

Bush: 48%

2008

Obama: 54%

McCain: 44%

No matter how you look at it, PA has been trending bluer in the past few years; it isn’t particularly fertile ground for Republicans, let alone far-right Republicans like Pat Toomey.

Plus, Specter has the advantage of being a longtime incumbent, is regarded as a well-respected Senate moderate, and his party switch is already being spun as him putting his beliefs ahead of partisanship.

Toomey won’t win. He might be more popular than Specter among Pennsylvania Republicans, but Pennsylvania Republicans haven’t been the majority in Pennsylvania for a good long time.

UPDATE V: More proof that PA has been getting more hostile toward Republicans:

1998

Arlen Specter: 61%

Bill Lloyd: 35%

2004

Arlen Specter: 52.6%

Joe Hoeffel: 42%


Comments Off


Biting The Hand That Feeds You

Gail Collins:

Louisiana has gotten $130 billion in post-Katrina aid. How is it that the stars of the Republican austerity movement come from the states that suck up the most federal money? Taxpayers in New York send way more to Washington than they get back so more can go to places like Alaska and Louisiana. Which is fine, as long as we don’t have to hear their governors bragging about how the folks who elected them want to keep their tax money to themselves. Of course they do! That’s because they’re living off ours.

Here are the top ten states that receive the most federal tax money per every dollar they pay, color-coded by how they voted in the 2008 Presidential election:

  1. New Mexico
  2. Mississippi
  3. Alaska
  4. Louisiana
  5. West Virginia
  6. North Dakota
  7. Alabama
  8. South Dakota
  9. Kentucky
  10. Virginia

Here are the top ten states that receive the least federal tax money per every dollar they pay, color-coded by how they voted in the 2008 Presidential election:

  1. New Jersey
  2. Nevada
  3. Connecticut
  4. New Hampshire
  5. Minnesota
  6. Illinois
  7. Delaware
  8. California
  9. New York
  10. Colorado

[Source]

So, if we actually listened to Republicans and cut federal taxes, the Republican-voting red states  would be hurt the most.  Turns out that the GOP’s grandstanding on taxes is nothing more than hot air–they have no problem railing against high taxes while simultaneously taking tax dollars hand-over-fist from blue states.

Comments Off


Missouri Loves Company

Former Missouri State Treasurer–and failed 2008 Gubernatorial candidate–Sarah Steelman will challenge former House Minority Whip Roy Blunt for  MO’s open Senate seat in 2010:

“I’m in the process of laying the groundwork that I need to get done before making an official announcement,” Steelman told POLITICO. “I’m definitely strongly leaning towards doing this.”

[...]

In the interview, Steelman took some sharp jabs at Blunt, describing the seven-term congressman Blunt as being part of the “old-boys’ network” who has spent too much time in Washington.

Roy Blunt is another white guy in a suit, and I think the public wants change,” Steelman said. “There’s a good old boys’ network out there that’s hard to penetrate… and it’s not always in the best interest of the party or for conservative principles.”

[...]

In an interview with the St. Louis-Dispatch, Blunt flatly said that “Steelman can’t win the primary.”

I smell a bruising primary fight.

Blunt is part of the failed GOP establishment–he was the interim Majority Leader after Tom DeLay’s resignation and served as the #2 Republican in the House during the 110th Congress. In addition, his son Matt served an unremarkable term as Missouri’s Governor.

But Steelman’s record leaves a bit to be desired.  She served one term as the State Treasurer before losing the Republican Gubernatorial primary to Kenny Hulshof, who went on to lose to Democrat Jay Nixon in the general election.

Personally, I think Steelman would be a better bet if for no other reason than all of the political baggage Blunt brings into the race.  No matter what, though, it looks like there’s a bloody primary fight brewing, which could very well cripple the GOP’s shot at holding onto this seat.



Is The Future Still Cao?

Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao–the Republican who beat scandal-plagued Congressman William Jefferson last fall–stood with his Republican brethren in voting against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, despite his pledge to support it .  As Cao said at the time:

“I’m voting along what my conscience dictates and the needs of the 2nd Congressional District dictate, even if I were to be the only member of the GOP to vote for the stimulus package…I believe that more likely than not, I will vote for it because the 2nd Congressional District needs a stimulus package.”

Needless to say, that was a pretty glaring piece of hypocritical flip-floppery. And, as it turn out, Cao’s constituents don’t appreciate his lie or his vote:

Papers have been filed with the Office of the Louisiana Secretary of State which started the process requiring sufficient signatures to force a recall election for the office held by Representative Cao.

Cao represents a majority African American community many who were outraged by Cao’s vote. Cao made national news with his victory over Bill Jefferson.

[...]

The group of ministers who filed the petition want to make sure that he faces a recall which could be a very daunting act, if not impossible act in Louisiana based upon the state’s history.

No, I don’t think it will succeed.  And I think it’s pretty moot since Cao probably won’t get re-elected, anyway. But I think Republicans should have to pay a political price for opposing economic recovery, especially when their own constituents are in desperate need of help.

Comments Off


Voter Fraud

They told me that if I voted for Obama, conservatives would be investigated…and they were right!:

The New York Daily News reports that Ann Coulter is under investigation by the Connecticut Elections Enforcement Commission for allegedly voting in that state while registered to vote in New York City.

Of course, the same Republicans who spent the fall hysterically hyping ACORN’s non-existent “voter fraud” have responded to this story with deafening silence.

Comments Off


Sense And Sensibility

This morning, we learned that America’s unemployment rate has jumped to 7.6%, the highest it’s been in 17 years.  As it stands, we’ve lost roughly 3.6 million jobs since this recession started.

There is a job creation bill languishing in the Senate as you read this.  Why hasn’t it been passed? Why haven’t we already begun putting Americans back to work?

Well, because the Republicans are holding it up.  They only have a problem with 2% of the job creation bill, but apparently that’s enough to shoot it down and kill millions of potential jobs.  Whatever happened to bipartisanship and compromise?

Plus, the GOP’s rhetoric on the stimulus shows they know next to nothing about economics, which is why we’re in this mess to begin with–why do you think the Republicans lost the past two elections? Because they spent 8 years running a prosperous economy into the ground.

Steven Pearlstein says it better than I ever could:

As long as we’re about to spend gazillions to stimulate the economy, I’d like to suggest we throw in another $53.5 million for a cause dear to all business journalists: economic literacy. And what better place to start than right here in Washington.

My modest proposal is that lawmakers be authorized to hire personal economic trainers over the coming year to sit by their sides as they fashion the government’s response to the economic crisis and prevent them from uttering the kind of nonsense that has characterized the debate over the stimulus bill during the last two weeks.

[...]

Let’s review some of the more silly arguments about the stimulus bill, starting with the notion that “only” 75 percent of the money can be spent in the next two years, and the rest is therefore “wasted.”

As any economist will tell you, the economy tends to be forward-looking and emotional. So if businesses and households can see immediate benefits from a program while knowing that a bit more stimulus is on the way, they are likely to feel more confident that the recovery will be sustained. That confidence, in turn, will make them more likely to take the risk of buying big-ticket items now and investing in stocks or future ventures.

Moreover, much of the money that can’t be spent right away is for capital improvements such as building and maintaining schools, roads, bridges and sewer systems, or replacing equipment — stuff we’d have to do eventually. So another way to think of this kind of spending is that we’ve simply moved it up to a time, to a point when doing it has important economic benefits and when the price will be less.

Equally specious is the oft-heard complaint that even some of the immediate spending is not stimulative.

“This is not a stimulus plan, it’s a spending plan,” Nebraska’s freshman senator, Mike Johanns (R), said Wednesday in a maiden floor speech full of budget-balancing orthodoxy that would have made Herbert Hoover proud. The stimulus bill, he declared, “won’t create the promised jobs. It won’t activate our economy.”

Johanns was too busy yesterday to explain this radical departure from standard theory and practice. Where does the senator think the $800 billion will go? Down a rabbit hole? Even if the entire sum were to be stolen by federal employees and spent entirely on fast cars, fancy homes, gambling junkets and fancy clothes, it would still be an $800 billion increase in the demand for goods and services — a pretty good working definition for economic stimulus.

[...]

What really irks so many Republicans, of course, is that all the stimulus money isn’t being used to cut individual and business taxes, their cure-all for economic ailments, even though all the credible evidence is that tax cuts are only about half as stimulative as direct government spending.

[...]

Personal economic trainers would confirm all this. Until they’re on board, however, here’s a little crib sheet on stimulus economics:

Spending is stimulus, no matter what it’s for and who does it. The best spending is that which creates jobs and economic activity now, has big payoffs later and disappears from future budgets.

[Emphasis mine]

Democrats are trying to invest in America and Republicans are fiddling while the economy burns.  That’s really all there is to it.



Republicans Fiddle While America Burns

Robert Reich, a man far more knowledgable about the economy than I will ever be, makes his case:

How do we get out of this downward plunge?

Regardless of your ideological stripe, you’ve got to see that when consumers and businesses stop spending and investing, there’s only entity left to step into the breach. It’s government. Major increases in government spending are necessary, and the spending must be on a very large scale. In the last several weeks the President has put forward the outlines of a stimulus plan, and has left it to the House and Senate to fill in the details. A tiny portion of the details that made it into the House version should be stripped away because they seem like old-fashioned pork. But most spending in the bill is absolutely appropriate. My worry is there’s not nearly enough of spending to fill the shortfall in overall demand.

Yet at this very moment, Senate Republicans are seeking to strip the President’s stimulus package of many of its spending provisions and substitute tax cuts. Part of this is pure pander: They know tax cuts are more popular with the public than government spending, even though spending is a far more effective way to stimulate the economy (more on this in a moment). Another part is pure partisan politics: Republicans are emboldened by Obama’s willingness to court Republicans (taking three Republicans into his cabinet, bringing Republican leaders into the White House for consultations, putting all those business tax cuts into the stimulus bill in order to gain Republican favor) without getting anything at all back from the GOP. House Republicans snubbed the bill entirely. So, Senate Republicans say to themselves, what’s to lose?

Plenty. Millions more jobs and a full-fledged Depression, for example.

Can we get real for a moment? Take a look at this chart, which comes from calculations by Mark Zandy and his colleagues at economy.com. You see that each dollar of spending has much more impact than each dollar of tax cut.

http://www.economy.com/dismal/graphs/blog/mz_012208_1t.GIF

[Emphasis mine]

Tax cuts just aren’t cost-effective stimulus.  As much as Republicans love them, they don’t give us as much bang for our buck as government spending.  And in an economy as bad as ours, the government is the only entity big enough to step in and get the economy moving again.  You and I can’t create a new job, even if we get a big fat tax cut; the federal government, on the other hand, can step in and create millions of new jobs, something we need right now.

The Republicans lost the last two elections because their ideas failed and because they were not good stewards of the economy or the country.  If we have to pass this stimulus over their objections, so be it.  But years from now, when the 2010 elections are bearing down on us and the GOP is getting hit for voting against creating millions of new American jobs, they should remember that they had a chance to do some good for this country but threw it all away.



The President Is Right

Barack Obama, yesterday:

Now, in the past few days I’ve heard criticisms of this plan that echo the very same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis – the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can ignore fundamental challenges like energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject that theory, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. So I urge members of Congress to act without delay. No plan is perfect, and we should work to make it stronger. But let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the essential. Let’s show people all over our country who are looking for leadership in this difficult time that we are equal to the task.

Today, Republicans control just 41 Senate seats, their smallest Senate caucus since the 95th Congress convened in 1977. They control just 178 House seats, their smallest House caucus since the 103rd Congress convened in 1993. There’s a reason the number of Republicans in Congress is at historic lows: the GOP failed and the American people took their power away.

The Democrats aren’t engaging in nasty partisanship by refusing to include every Republican proposal in the job creation bill; they’re exercising their rightful power as a majority duly elected by the American people. While I certainly don’t believe in majoritarianism–the rights of the minority have to be protected–the GOP minority doesn’t have the right to force every idea they have into this bill. Republicans lost because the American people rejected their  ideology–they need to realize that their lack of influence is what the American people wanted, not some kind of idiosyncrasy or aberration.

It’s ironic how the idea of a mandate–which the GOP embraced after George Bush’s razor-thin victory in 2004–has gone out a window now that a popular Democrat is President. And it’s funny how the idea that ‘elections have consequences’ was also thrown out the window at around the same time. The truth is, yes, elections do have consequences, and the main one is that the losers have a diminished capacity to influence legislation. The GOP might not like it–just like the Democrats didn’t like it when we were in the minority–but it’s a reality they need to learn to live with. Obstructionism will not get them their power back, nor will trying to force their unpopular agenda through Congress against the will of the American people.

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman makes a good point:

But the part that really got me was [Columnist David] Broder saying that we need “the best ideas from both parties.”

You see, this isn’t a brainstorming session — it’s a collision of fundamentally incompatible world views. If one thing is clear from the stimulus debate, it’s that the two parties have utterly different economic doctrines. Democrats believe in something more or less like standard textbook macroeconomics; Republicans believe in a doctrine under which tax cuts are the universal elixir, and government spending is almost always bad.

Yes, there is a fundamental disagreement over how to best stimulate the economy and, to some extent, neither party will be happy with a compromise bill.  But, again, the Democrats are the majority and the Republicans are the minority; the American people rejected the Republican Party and their ideas for two elections in a row. For that reason alone, the GOP should not have a significant amount of influence over what goes into this bill  (which is fortunate, since Republican proposals are not as cost-effective as Democratic proposals). That’s how representative democracy works–the fewer people you represent, the less power you have.

I’m glad to see that the President is finally going on the offensive over this bill.  The Republican’s obstructionism and politicking are more than shameful and it’s time for our President to use his significant political capital to get this bill passed.   The American people are on his side and Republican Senators are “scared to death” of his popularity, so it’s time for President Obama to wade into this mess and set things straight once and for all.

Comments Off


Republicans Are Wrong (Again)

The Republicans are going all-out to promote their alternative to the Democratic jobs bill, despite the fact that the Democratic bill already passed through the House of Representatives by a 60-vote margin.

Anyone who stayed awake through Economics 101 knows that both tax cuts and increases in government spending are expansionary fiscal policies; which one you use depends on what you’re trying to accomplish. Right now we need to create jobs, which raises the question, whose policies are better for job creation? Democrats or Republicans?

The graph below compares progressive economic policies (blue) to conservative economic policies (orange) in terms of their effect on job creation:

graphic11

And the following analysis from economist Mark Zandy shows the return on investment for several forms of tax cut versus several forms of government spending:

graphic2

As you can see, the most effective tax cut–a payroll tax holiday–produces $1.29 for every $1 spent toward implementing those cuts.

But every spending increase is a more worthwhile investment than even the best tax cut; policies that increase spending produce returns of anywhere from $1.36 (aid to state governments) to $1.73 (increases in food stamps) for every dollar spent.

And, as it turns out, the Republican proposal will cost three times as much as the Democratic job creation plan in the long run:

graphic3

It’s clear that the Republicans have no idea what they’re doing.  The GOP controlled Congress for 6 out of the past 8 years and they controlled the White House for 8 of the past 8 years.  This economic crisis happened on their watch and it happened as a result of their policies–their deregulation, their tax cuts, their irresponsible spending policies, their governance.

They proposed tax cuts when the economy was good, they proposed tax cuts when the economy was bad, and now they’re proposing tax cuts when the economy is worse.  No matter how bad things get, the GOP will still be pushing tax cuts despite the fact that–as the above analyses show–they’re just not cost-effective forms of economic stimulus. The GOP will continue throwing good money after bad as long as it gets them more tax cuts.

We can’t afford to keep following the same people who got us into this mess in the first place.  Republicans complain that they’re being shut out of this process, but they had their chance–they ran the economy for the past eight years and look at where it got us. That’s why the Democrats now control both houses of Congress and the White House–because the Republicans failed.

So let’s stop pretending the GOP has any credibility left on economics and just pass the job creation bill so we can get our economy back on track after 8 years of Republican mismanagement.



The Rise And Fall Of Adam Putnam

Instead of running for re-election, Florida Congressman Adam Putnam will retire from the House of Representatives to run for…state agriculture commissioner.

Putnam was first elected in 2000 at the age of 26, making him the youngest member of the House. Six years later, Putnam was elected to the Republican Leadership, becoming third in command before the end of 2006.

But Putnam paid a price for his party’s failure–he dropped out of the leadership after the 2008 elections and will be dropping out of the House entirely after the 2010 elections.  While he very well might become agriculture commissioner–which he hopes will lead to the Governorship–this still represents a decline for a once-rising star.  It would be like–had the Democrats lost the 2006 elections–Barack Obama resigning from the Senate to run for Illinois Attorney General. You can’t deny it’s a step down.

But it makes sense for Putnam–the national Republican Party doesn’t have a future, but he could certainly carve out a large niche for himself in Florida. He has a very real chance to succeed Charlie Crist as Governor, which would definitely be a bigger role than remaining as one out of 435 Congressmen.  But his departure shows just how weak the national Republican Party has become, with one of it’s best and brightest stepping down to run for a mid-level state office.

Can Democrats win Putnam’s district? Honestly, I don’t know.  If you crunch the numbers you see that, in 2004, the district voted for Bush over Kerry 58%-42%, yet voted for McCain over Obama by only 51%-48%; while two points does not a trend make, it’s certainly a step in the right direction.  Florida’s 12th is not inhospitable ground for Democrats, it’s just a matter of finding the right person for the job. The question is, who is that person?

Comments Off


Commerce Secretary Judd Gregg (UPDATED: Eric Holder Confirmed)

It’s official–New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg (R) will be named as President Obama’s nominee for Commerce Secretary.

Accepting the appointment is, without a doubt, in his best interest–Gregg would have been up for a tough  re-election in 2010.  By becoming a member of the cabinet, Gregg can prolong his political career by avoiding a bloody–and possibly losing–re-election campaign. Plus, Gregg is well-liked and well-connected in the Senate, giving him the ability to shepherd some of Obama’s policies through Congress.

Of course, Gregg’s acceptance was conditional on his replacement in the Senate being a Republican.  While a strongly-partisan part of me would like Governor John Lynch to appoint a Democrat, thus giving the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, I understand why this is necessary.

Gregg would become a political pariah if he was responsible for giving the Democrats 60 seats. Plus, it wouldn’t be very democratic–after the last election, Republicans controlled 41 Senate seats.  That’s what the American people voted for, and that’s the way it should be until the next election.  As much as I would like to have that seat, I want the Democrats to earn it; I don’t want to get it through a series of backroom deals and appointments.

Still, I think this will be good for both Obama and his administration. I look forward to Gregg’s confirmation and I look forward to beating whoever ends up getting appointed to replace him in the Senate.

UPDATE: Also in cabinet-related news today, Eric Holder was confirmed as Attorney General by a vote of 75-21.

Those voting against him represent some of the best and brightest of the Roadblock Republican Caucus:

Barrasso (R-WY)

Brownback (R-KS)

Bunning (R-KY)

Burr (R-NC)

Coburn (R-OK)

Cochran (R-MS)

Cornyn (R-TX)

Crapo (R-ID)

DeMint (R-SC)

Ensign (R-NV)

Enzi (R-WY)

Hutchison (R-TX)

Inhofe (R-OK)

Johanns (R-NE)

McConnell (R-KY)

Risch (R-ID)

Roberts (R-KS)

Shelby (R-AL)

Thune (R-SD)

Vitter (R-LA)

Wicker (R-MS)

Comments Off


RNC Chair Election (UPDATED X10)

[Bumped]

Right now, the members of the Republican National Committee are voting to decide who their next Chairman will be.

The results of the first ballot are:

Mike Duncan (Incumbent): 52

Michael Steele: 46

Katon Dawson: 28

Saul Anuzis: 22

Ken Blackwell: 20

More as it comes…

UPDATE: Second ballot:

Mike Duncan: 48

Michael Steele: 48

Katon Dawson: 29

Saul Anuzis: 24

Ken Blackwell: 19

UPDATE II: Ballot three:

Michael Steele: 51

Mike Duncan: 44

Katon Dawson: 34

Saul Anuzis: 24

Ken Blackwell: 15

UPDATE III: The fourth ballot is being counted, but Mike Duncan has announced that he is withdrawing from considering. Given that, it’s likely that Michael Steele will emerge the winner.

UPDATE IV: Fourth ballot:

Katon Dawson: 62

Michael Steele: 60

Saul Anuzis: 31

Ken Blackwell: 15

UPDATE V: Ken Blackwell has dropped out and has pledged his 15 votes to Steele. Now it’s down to Dawson and Steele, with Anuzis and his 31 votes playing the role of kingmaker.

UPDATE VI: Saul Anuzis is speaking.

UPDATE VII: Anuzis is out and gives no endorsement. Here are the results of the fifth ballot:

Michael Steele: 79

Katon Dawson: 69

Saul Anuzis: 20

UPDATE VIII: The new Chairman of the Republican National Committee is Michael Steele.

UPDATE IX: Clearly, the GOP is a lagging–not a leading–indicator. Barack Obama won a Senate seat in 2004, so the GOP ran Michael Steele in 2006. Barack Obama was elected President in 2008, so the GOP elected Michael Steele their chairman in 2009.

More importantly, though, what does Steele bring to the Party? Not very much. Steele failed in his 2006 bid to succeed Paul Sarbanes in the United States Senate, and his performance wasn’t particularly impressive. Steele’s campaign wasn’t innovative, it didn’t pioneer new technologies or fundraising methods, it didn’t build any kind of grassroots movement nor did it set any kind of high water mark for raising money.

Listening to Steele’s victory speech right now, he didn’t offer any kind of policy proposals or specifics; his speech had a lot of “we’re going to win again” but no indication of how, exactly, the GOP will go about doing that. Also, it doesn’t help that Steele is a bit of a serial liar.

UPDATE X: And don’t forget that 2006 incident where Steele, off the record, criticized George Bush and the Republican Party and went as far as describing the Republican ‘R’ next to his name as “a scarlet letter.”

But when it was revealed that Steele was the person being quoted in that article, Steele disingenuously backpedaled by trying to play his comments off as a joke, finally claiming that Bush was his “homeboy.”

Hey, maybe that can be the RNC’s new slogan–”Bush is my homeboy.”

Comments Off


Obama: More Political Capital Than Reagan?

Nate Silver lays it out:

polcap1

polcap

Of course Republicans, who see Ronald Reagan as the patron saint of modern conservatism, won’t give Obama as much support as they give to Reagan.  Still, we should keep these numbers in mind–Obama has wide, deep popular support for his agenda, and Republicans obstruct him at their own electoral peril.

Comments Off


CO-SEN: Suthers Out

Attorney General John Suthers, the only Republican elected statewide in Colorado, will not challenge newly-minted Senator Michael Bennet in 2010:

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers pulled himself out of both the U.S. Senate race and the gubernatorial contest next year, announcing today that he would instead seek re-election.

Suthers said in a statement he considered running for both governor against Bill Ritter and the senate seat held now by Michael Bennet. But as the sole Republican holding statewide office, which leaves him without GOP heavy hitters to assist in fundraising and campaigning, either race would take him away from his duties as attorney general, he said.

In addition, former Rep. Scott McInnis, who lost to Mark Udall in the 2008 Senate election, has also signaled that he won’t challenge Bennet.

This means that the GOP’s two biggest potential Senate candidates won’t be running; it’s unclear now who will end up challenging Bennet.  But this development indicates that it will be far harder for the CO GOP to win this seat back than first imagined.

Comments Off


The Audacity Of Audacity (UPDATED)

Senator Burris: Without me, there would be no President Obama.

Actually, without President Obama, there would be no Senator Burris.

Now, I would never belittle Burris’ status as the first African-American elected statewide in Illinois. But I don’t think he singlehandedly enabled Obama’s election. It’s not like he was Obama’s political mentor or anything–Burris and Obama barely knew one another.

It’s actually pretty audacious for someone who hasn’t held elected office since 1995 and who lost the last 4 elections he ran in to claim credit for Obama’s victory. I think a lot of other people–including Obama himself–deserve far more recognition than Burris.

And what’s with Burris’–and, for that matter, Blagojevich’s–penchant for ceaseless self-aggrandizement? These guys have become walking embarrassments to the Democratic Party. Primary, please.

UPDATE: Speak of the devil:

One of President Obama’s close friends and basketball buddies is considering a campaign against Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) in the Democratic primary.

Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias is holding conversations with leading Illinois Democrats in preparation for a possible candidacy, according to a Democratic operative familiar with his decision-making process.

[...]

At 32, Giannoulias has been on the fast track in Illinois politics since leaving his job as a bank vice president to run for state treasurer in 2006. Inspired by Obama’s Senate campaign, he ran against the Democratic candidate backed by the party establishment and, aided by Obama’s endorsement, prevailed.

Comments Off


‘I Need A Hero’

In The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol writes that the GOP’s helpless disorganization is a good thing, because Republicans were disorganized until Ronald Reagan came along to save America. Or something.

What Kristol doesn’t acknowledge is that charismatic, transformational presidents like Reagan only come along once in a generation, if that.  In the 20th century, there were only two presidents who permanently changed the electoral map–Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.

Barack Obama might or might not fall into that category, it’s far too early to tell.  But when they were out of power, the Democratic Party  didn’t sit around waiting for a messiah to come.  They got to work building the 50-state strategy, building a network of online small donors, crafting messaging, drafting legislation and working on a unified front.  The Democrats no strong leader in 2006, but they won  because they made fundamental changes to the way they campaigned, raised money and presented their message. And if Democrats hadn’t started doing that work, Barack Obama would never have won the White House.

Elections aren’t magic–they’re won or lost for real, concrete reasons. The Republican Party might need a new, charismatic leader to be able to win again, but that doesn’t mean the GOP shouldn’t be building the infrastructure that will help that person get into office.  It’s foolish and naive to think that some conservative savior will come along and singlehandedly change everything with no help whatsoever.   A lot has changed since 1980; Republicans need to do more than to sit around praying for the next Reagan.

Former Republican Congressman Tom Davis wrote this a few weeks ago:

[D]oing nothing, I hope Republicans will agree, is not an option.

Apparently Bill Kristol thinks it’s not only an option, but that it’s the best option.  And while he and his fellow Republicans are waiting for their electoral Godot, they will end up ceding election after election to the Democrats.

Comments Off


Spoils (UPDATED)

When discussing negotiating the economic stimulus package  with Republicans, Rep. Jim Clyburn makes a good point:

I do believe that Barack Obama campaigned last year on this certain kind of economic relief that we will give to working men and women. This proposal that [Republicans in House] are coming forward with right now is the same proposal that they took out to the American people before last November. The American people voted for Barack Obama. So that would indicate to me that we ought to be doing what Barack Obama proposed, because it was ratified by the vote. This is one of those philosophical differences that exist between us and them; and we won.

President Obama put it more succinctly:

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning – but he also left no doubt about who’s in charge of these negotiations. “I won,” Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

Republicans are going to have to realize that they don’t hold a lot of cards anymore.  Sure, they can filibuster, but the American people want their government to get things done; if the GOP filibusters everything, the American people will punish them even more. Plus, if the GOP caucus loses a single Senator, their filibusters will be overridden and they’ll look foolish; they can’t always bank on party-line votes.

The GOP is going to have to learn how to compromise.  They’re going to have to learn to negotiate, to cede ground, to pick their battles and keep their powder dry.  They just can’t successfully stand in the  way of everything.  As the old Bush-era mantra said, elections have consequences, and now the GOP has very little ground to stand on anymore.

UPDATE: When it comes to being so firmly entrenched in the minority, I have no sympathy for the Republican Party–they made their  bed and now have to sleep in it. That’s how democracy works.

I’m sure the above story will lead to conservatives to complain about a lack of  bipartisanship.  But bipartisanship doesn’t mean Democrats always caving to Republicans, particularly when Republicans dig in their heels and do nothing but make unreasonable demands.  Bipartisanship is a two-way street; if Republicans won’t negotiate or make any concessions then there’s no reason for Democrats to even engage with them.  Unless Republicans show they’re willing to find a solution that’s mutually agreeable to both parties then there can’t be any bipartisanship in Washington,; the blame for that will fall squarely on the GOP leadership.



Cashing In

Now that the greatest political soap opera in American history is over Sarah Palin is looking to cash in:

According to the Los Angeles Times, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin wants as much as $11 million for the book she’s reportedly pitching to publishers.

Of course, Palin is really just looking for a way to keep her name in the headlines.  How else is she supposed to stay relevant enough to run for president in 2012?

Personally, I wonder how she’ll pretend to be part of a regular middle-class family when she’s a multimillionaire.

Comments Off


Throwing In The Towel (UPDATED)

Former Senator Norm Coleman has found himself a new job:

Last session’s senior senator from Minnesota Norm Coleman, still battling Al Franken to be seated in the Senate, has taken a paid job as a consultant to the Republican Jewish Coalition, which harshly attacked Obama last fall, its executive director, Matt Brooks, said.

Coleman will join the group as a “consultant and strategic advisor,” and will also travel the country fundraising on the group’s behalf, Brooks said.

“It’s an opportunity for him to, now that he’s got some down time on his hands, to really help us while this case is being adjudicated,” Brooks said. “He hasn’t given up at all” on retaking the Minnesota seat.

That’s not the behavior of a candidate who won his last election; it’s the behavior of a candidate who packed up his office and is moving on.

Coleman knows he lost, that much is obvious.  The question is, how long will it take him to officially give up the ghost? Now that he has endeared himself to the Republican establishment by keeping Al Franken out of the Senate–landing himself a nice right-wing welfare job in the process–how long will he keep the charade up? When will he finally let the people of Minnesota enjoy their right to full representation in the Senate?

I can’t imagine the people of Minnesota are too happy that their former Senator won’t let their duly-elected representative take office. And I can’t imagine the people of Minnesota will be very forgiving to the Republican Party in the future after this gambit is all said and done.

UPDATE: More from Nate Silver:

But what is Coleman’s angle here? Increasingly, I think this is being driven by John Cornyn and the [NRSC], and that they’ve given up on beating Franken but merely want to bloody him, casting doubt over the legitimacy of his election in order to make him a focal point for Republican angst. If this were a generic Democrat instead of Franken, in other words, I think the Republicans might already have given up. But because Franken has the potential to be a polarizing figure, there is more incentive for them to fan the flames a little bit; the recount merely provides the pretense for them to do so.

Comments Off


Palintology: A Play In One Act
January 22, 2009, 6:56 AM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Governors, Media | Tags: , , , ,

Sarah Palin [to Media]: LEAVE ME ALONE!

MEDIA looks over and notices SARAH PALIN

Media [to Palin]: Oh, are you still here?


Comments Off


44 (UPDATED X3)
January 20, 2009, 12:00 PM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Government, Media, Polls, Progressives | Tags: , , , , ,
obama441

The 44th President of the United States

I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God.

20081

The results of the historic 2008 election.

UPDATE: Here is newly-minted President Obama taking the oath of office:

UPDATE II: And here’s his inaugural address:

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors.  I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath.  The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace.  Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.  At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been.  So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood.  Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.  Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.  Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered.  Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics.  Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land – a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real.  They are serious and they are many.  They will not be met easily or in a short span of time.  But know this, America –  they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.  The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation:  the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given.  It must be earned.  Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less.  It has not been the path for the faint-hearted – for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame.  Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things – some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life.  They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today.  We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth.  Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began.  Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year.  Our capacity remains undiminished.  But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions – that time has surely passed.  Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done.  The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act – not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.  We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.  We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.  We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.  And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.  All this we can do.  And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions – who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans.  Their memories are short.  For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them – that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.  The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works – whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.  Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward.  Where the answer is no, programs will end.  And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account – to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day – because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill.  Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control – and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.  The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart – not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.  Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.  Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.  And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born:  know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.  They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please.  Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy.  Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort – even greater cooperation and understanding between nations.  We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan.  With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet.  We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.  We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers.  We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.  To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West – know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.  To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.  And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect.  For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains.  They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages.  We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves.  And yet, at this moment – a moment that will define a generation – it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies.  It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours.  It is the firefighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new.  The instruments with which we meet them may be new.  But those values upon which our success depends – hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism – these things are old.  These things are true.  They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history.  What is demanded then is a return to these truths.  What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility – a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence – the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed – why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled.  In the year of America’s birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river.  The capital was abandoned.  The enemy was advancing.  The snow was stained with blood.  At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

“Let it be told to the future world…that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”

America.  In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words.  With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come.  Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

UPDATE III: From CNN, this is what 2 million Americans look like.

Comments Off


Week 1

Not a bad start to the Obama administration:

On his first full day in office, Mr. Obama will order American military leaders to plan the speedy withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq and will direct his economic advisers to do everything possible to avert a prolonged downturn and double-digit unemployment, his top aides said Sunday

Within the first week, he might also issue executive orders calling for the closure of the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba even though the process might take time, Robert Gibbs, the incoming press secretary, told “Fox News Sunday.”

“We’ve talked about banning torture and closing Guantanamo, the process by which that will happen,” Mr. Gibbs said. In addition, Mr. Obama would issue executive orders tightening ethics and transparency rules affecting current and outgoing government workers.

“I think those are probably the big things that could happen as early as the first week,” Mr. Gibbs said.

And if you ever needed proof as to the honorability of Obama’s character, consider this:

Obama Reaches Out for McCain’s Counsel

Not long after Senator John McCain returned last month from an official trip to Iraq and Pakistan, he received a phone call from President-elect Barack Obama.

As contenders for the presidency, the two had hammered each other for much of 2008 over their conflicting approaches to foreign policy, especially in Iraq. (He’d lose a war! He’d stay a hundred years!) Now, however, Mr. Obama said he wanted Mr. McCain’s advice, people in each camp briefed on the conversation said. What did he see on the trip? What did he learn?

It was just one step in a post-election courtship that historians say has few modern parallels, beginning with a private meeting in Mr. Obama’s transition office in Chicago just two weeks after the vote. On Monday night, Mr. McCain will be the guest of honor at a black-tie dinner celebrating Mr. Obama’s inauguration.

Over the last three months, Mr. Obama has quietly consulted Mr. McCain about many of the new administration’s potential nominees to top national security jobs and about other issues — in one case relaying back a contender’s answers to questions Mr. McCain had suggested.

[...]

Fred I. Greenstein, emeritus professor of politics at Princeton, said: “I don’t think there is a precedent for this. Sometimes there is bad blood, sometimes there is so-so blood, but rarely is there good blood.”

I know it’s customary for Presidents-elect to reach out to their defeated opponents right after an election, but is there a precedent for this–not only giving your rival a courtesy call, but actually consulting with him on major issues and appointments? If there is, I can’t think of one.

McCain ran a poor campaign and I still wouldn’t trust him with the Presidency.  But he does have a lot of experience and can offer a depth and breadth of knowledge and insight to the President-elect that will be useful.  In addition, it’s worth noting that Obama and McCain have some common ground that puts McCain at odds with his own party; McCain could play a major role shepherding certain legislation through Congress on behalf of the Obama administration.

This is true bipartisanship, not the bipartisanship-in-name-only that usually passes for bipartisanship in Washington.  I’m glad to see this occurring and I hope it continues–the more inroads Obama builds among Republicans, the easier of a time he’ll have solving our nation’s problems.  Not all Republicans are Roadblock Republicans, and the more moderates Obama can befriend, the better.

Comments Off