Category Archives: President Obama

Dealing with Revolting Joe.

Posted on by

Recently, Joe Lieberman said he would not be one of the 60 votes necessary to bring the Senate health care reform bill to the floor. What a shock! After all, this is a man who ran against his party’s nominated candidate as a so-called independent. He campaigned and voted for his pal, John McCain, for President. He spoke at the Republican National Convention.
Then, following the election, he came back to the Democratic caucus so he could retain the chair of a powerful Senate committee.

Now, he claims that he’ll refuse to vote for cloture on the health care reform bill out of “principle.” His concern is that the bill contains a public option. So he’s willing to help Republicans filibuster in order to kill the bill. This from a man who worked to eliminate filibusters as a freshman Senator in 1994.

So what changed?

Likely he’s more concerned about the insurance companies that are headquartered in Connecticut than he is about the citizens of his state. And perhaps he feels he owes big insurance for campaign donations toward his re-election. That would make his stance more about principal than principle.

So what are Democrats to do about Revolting Joe? If he kills health care reform by siding with Republicans, they could take away his chairmanship. But that would likely drive him to the Republican caucus which would mean that the Democrats would no longer be able to block any Republican filibuster.

On the other hand, if Democrats do nothing to punish him, Revolting Joe would continue to caucus with Democrats, but his vote would be unreliable and he would be free to use his position to kill Democratic legislation or to extract concessions.

I propose that Democrats call his bluff. Let him help Republicans filibuster health care reform. Let Joe and his conservative buddies prattle away on the Senate floor for days on end. Turn the whole affair into an exhibition of stupidity. Let Americans see the “Party of No” at work. I believe that would make it virtually impossible for Republicans to gain many seats in the House or Senate in 2010. It would make Revolting Joe a pariah among his constituents, save for the insurance companies. And although big insurance can fund his campaign, they can’t re-elect him.

If Sarah Palin is “Going Rogue”, what the heck is Michelle Bachmann doing?

Posted on by

The Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota doesn’t claim to see Russia from her doorstep.  But she does claim to see conspiracies throughout the Obama administration.  For example, she believes that the Census is a liberal plot to identify Republicans so they can be rounded up and placed in internment camps – a concept that was even too crazy for Glenn Beck.  That’s right, that Glenn Beck.  The one who fills an hour a day on Fox Noise crying crocodile tears for his so-called lost America; an America where everyone is white, Christian, heterosexual and Republican. 

Since it’s not easy to out-crazy Glenn Beck, this Congresswoman certainly has earned closer examination – preferably by people in white coats.

Bachman’s official website states that “In only her first term, Congresswoman Bachmann developed a reputation as a ‘principled reformer’ who stays true to her conservative beliefs while pushing for real reform of the broken ways of Washington.”  Well, if that’s true, in her second term she’s developed a reputation as a loon. 

As evidenced by her stand on the Census, Bachmann has supported every wacky idea put forward by right wing media hosts, and a few that are even too wacky for them.  Further, she seems to see liberal conspiracies around every corner.  On Hardball with Chris Matthews she said that “I am very concerned that he [Barack Obama] may have anti-American views.”  She went on to say, “I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out – are they pro-America or anti-America?”

She claims that “evolution is a theory that has never been proven” (except by 99.9 percent of all scientists).  Of global climate change, she says “Carbon dioxide is “natural; it is not harmful…”  She finds it unnecessary to “create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occurring in the Earth.”  Therefore, she believes the Cap and Trade Bill is unnecessary.   Of health care reform, she said “What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing.  We have to do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass.”  Finally, in regard to Iran, Bachmann says that a nuclear strike “shouldn’t be taken off the table.”

It appears that Bachmann sees herself as the Minnesota version of Sarah Palin.  And like Sarah, she needs to put together a book of her exploits.  I’d like to suggest a title:  Instead of “Going Rogue”, it could be “Going Insane”.   

The cost of war.

Posted on by

Our war in Afghanistan has now dragged on longer than the failed Soviet Union occupation.  And President Obama is faced with a decision to expand the war by adding up to 40 thousand new troops, engineering a withdrawal, or committing to something between those extremes. 

By all accounts, this was a war that could have ended several years ago if we hadn’t become preoccupied with Iraq.  But as the Iraq “liberation” dragged on, our real enemies in Afghanistan regrouped and gained in strength.  Now it seems that no option in Afghanistan is a “good” option – especially given our economic woes at home.

It was recently reported that the Afghan war has already cost nearly $230 billion.  It was also estimated that the war costs $500,000 (Pentagon estimate) to $1 million (Congressional estimate) to maintain one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan for one year.  That cost includes transportation, equipment, support facilities and all incidentals.  If those figures are correct, adding 40 thousand more troops to the conflict will cost the U.S. an additional $20-40 billion over the next year.   And given that we still have combat troops stationed in Germany and Japan more than 60 years after the end of WW II, the cost will likely continue for many years to come. 

Not included in that estimate is the cost of VA to treat lasting injuries and psychological damage.  There are also the sums paid to veterans for disabilities.   And, of course, it’s impossible to place a price on the lives lost in action.   

Add to these costs the price of the war in Iraq which some estimate to total more than $2 trillion.

All of this is background to the debate over health care reform and economic stimulus.  The economic stimulus package that was signed by President Obama included $787 billion to create or save jobs by rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure.  And the cost of health care reform bills being considered are estimated to  cost more than $800 billion over 10 years.  Of course, the conservatives are horrified by these numbers.

So they must be apoplectic over the cost of Bush’s wars?  Not exactly.   The conservatives can’t wait to send more troops to Afghanistan and spend more money (and more lives) on open-ended, no-bid contracts for the likes of Halliburton and Xe.  They even trotted out the dark one (former V.P., and former Halliburton CEO, Dick Cheney) to attack Obama for “dithering” over the decision to commit more troops. 

Conservative logic goes something like this:  It’s un-American and un-patriotic to spend our own money on our own citizens for jobs and health care.  But it’s absolutely necessary to spend trillions to kill a few knuckleheads on the other side of the globe. 

Does this make any sense?  I think you know the answer.

Conservative nonsense, cont’d.

Posted on by

As I’ve stated before, I used to be an independent.  But I quit voting for Republicans when they decided to raid mental hospitals for candidates.  Never has the mental illness of conservatives been more apparent than since President Obama’s election. 

Consider the charges which have been leveled at the President by Conservatives:

President Obama is a Muslim who is not even a U.S. citizen.  He’s a Kenyan.  No, he’s Indonesian.  Obama is a racist.  He’s an elitist.  He’s a socialist.  No, he’s a communist.  He’s a Nazi.  Obama is overseeing the take-over of private corporations.  Obama is increasing our national debt in order to bankrupt the U.S. so it can be taken over by socialists and communists.  Obama is going to take away our guns.  Obama’s televised speech to schools is an attempt to indoctrinate children.  His call for volunteerism is an attempt to put young people in camps where they can be indoctrinated.  His health care reform will lead to a government take-over of health care.  His health care reform is designed to kill the elderly.  It’s designed to kill Republicans.  H1N1 is a plot by the Obama administration to kill Republicans.  The delay in H1N1 vaccine is a plot to kill the elderly.  The H1N1 vaccine is designed to indoctrinate citizens.   Obama’s challenge to Fox Noise is a blatant attempt at censorship.  The President is “dithering” on the Afghan war.  He’s emboldening our enemies.  Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize is an international plot to indoctrinate US citizens.   

These charges have gone well beyond politics.  They’re evidence of paranoia – certifiable lunacy which begins in the tortured minds of people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin.

At first, I took a perverse sort of amusement in listening to the charges.  Then I realized there are people who actually believe this stuff.  It’s time for the institutions to reclaim their patients.  If they can find enough straight jackets. 

Maybe we should reconsider all of our troop deployments.

Posted on by

The current discussion regarding the appropriate level of US troops for Afghanistan got me wondering about the total size of our military.  How many more troops do we have to send?

The most recent information I found shows that we have nearly 1.4 million active duty troops worldwide and another 1.4 million in active reserve.  Those totals include 130 thousand in Iraq and 62 thousand in Afghanistan with at least 68 thousand by year end.

In addition, we have 40 thousand in South Korea, 45 thousand in Japan, plus 5-30 thousand each in Italy, Spain and Turkey and 250 thousand in Germany!  The question is “Why?” 

I understand why we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But why do we still have troops in Japan?  The war has been over for more than 60 years and, although Japan is a threat to us economically, it certainly isn’t a military threat.  So what possible reason can there be to maintain such a large force?  If it’s to act as a counter to China, do we really think 45 thousand troops are a serious deterrent to China’s combined forces of more than 6 million?

You also have to wonder about our troop levels in Germany.  After all, Hitler and the Third Reich were defeated in 1945 and the Cold War has been over for more than 20 years.  

South Korea?  Okay, I understand that one.  The Korean War has never been declared over – we simply signed an armistice that paused the fighting.  And even though that was 56 years ago, the country to the north has nuclear weapons, missiles and a huge standing army. 

Perhaps the most puzzling deployments are the thousands of troops in Italy and Spain.  For what purpose?  Shopping?  Supplying wine to the rest of our troops?  Working on their tans?  Because Don Rumsfeld favored Tuscan cooking? 

The real question is this:  If we have 1.4 million troops, why are so few bearing the brunt of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan?  If my figures are correct, fewer than 15 percent are deployed in those countries.  Yet many of our soldiers are already on their 4th and 5th tours of duty in combat. 

As long as President Obama and the Department of Defense are considering troop levels in Afghanistan, why not look troop levels everywhere?  They could begin by declaring victory in Germany, Italy and Japan, and finally bring those troops home.

Are Republicans suffering from award envy?

Posted on by

Since Republicans and other conservatives seem so troubled by President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, I think they should receive awards, too – just so they don’t feel left out. 

Here are a few suggestions: 

Congresswoman Michelle Bachman receives an award for the most convincing impersonation of an insane person.

Sara Palin earns the award for best eyesight. (After all, she can see Russia from her living room and that’s a distance of nearly 600 miles.)

To Senator John McCain goes the award for most accurate nickname – McNasty.

To Senator Sam Brownback goes the “Love-The-Unborn-Hate-The-Living” award for trying to pass legislation that would give the death penalty to abortion providers.

Congressman Jim DeMint receives a nasty rash of unknown origin for wishing that health care reform becomes President Obama’s Waterloo.

Former Congressman Tom DeLay gets an award for happy feet, not just for participating in Dancing With The Stars, but for his Texas two-step around campaign finance laws and his creativity in coming up with the most Rorschach-like congressional districts in gerrymandering for Republican benefit.

Glenn Beck should get the daytime Emmy of his fantasies for his role in creating fiction.

Finally, George W. Bush gets an award for making President Obama look so good by comparison.  (Heck, he even made Herbert Hoover look good!)

Like father like daughter.

Posted on by

When Dick Cheney held the office of vice-president, we all held our breath (and our noses) whenever he emerged from his dark cave.  We knew that his emergence could only mean trouble for the free world.  Either he was going to start another war, announce a new surveillance scheme for innocent Americans, or he was going to devise new ways to torture suspected terrorists and/or Democrats.

Now that the election of President Obama has sent the Dark One scurrying back to his badger hole, it appears that his offspring has taken it upon herself to remind us of how lucky we are that he’s no longer in office.  No one to rattle sabers?  Liz Cheney will show up on Fox News to promote war against somebody.  No one to promote torture?  Liz Cheney will torture us with her opinions.  No one to blame the Bush administration’s failures on Democrats?  Liz Cheney knows who’s really at fault.

Most recently, she appeared on Fox News to react to President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize.  (After all, who would know more about peace than someone whose father is so versed in war, torture and draft deferments.)  Not surprisingly, she believes that Obama is totally undeserving of the award.  She explained that Obama has not proven anything yet – he hasn’t invaded Iran or North Korea.  Why he hasn’t even acquiesced to the military’s request for more troops in Afghanistan yet. 

The Dark One’s offspring even had a suggestion for President Obama.  Instead of traveling to Oslo to pick up the Peace Prize, she announced that the president should send the mother of a dead American soldier in his place.  (Perhaps Ms. Cheney hasn’t yet realized that any mother we would send is likely grieving as a result of a decision by Dick Cheney.)  Liz said she believes it would make a great statement to let the world know that it’s the lives of American soldiers that keep the world safe.  Apparently, in the Cheney family, nothing says peace like a grieving mother and the promise of more wars. 

For our economy, let’s give credit where credit is due.

Posted on by

The so-called teabaggers and wing nuts claim their attacks on President Obama aren’t the result of racism or ideology.  They say their demonstrations are about the national debt which they believe has increased to staggering new levels under the Obama administration. 

There are three flaws with their argument.  One is that the debt only really matters if we plan on selling our nation sometime soon.  Otherwise, it’s merely a number.  Second, while it’s true that the debt has reached an all time high in actual dollar amount, as a percent of GDP (gross domestic product) it has been higher before.  And third, very little of the current debt can be attributed to actions by President Obama.

Following the Great Depression and WWII, the national debt as a percent of GDP stood at 120 percent.  It steadily decreased each year until the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.  Under Reagan the administration so overspent on military weapons that the national debt nearly tripled.  The debt continued to increase during the George H.W. Bush administration.  When Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992, he prioritized the economy and succeeded in significantly reducing the debt.  Then, under George W. Bush, the debt nearly doubled again until, by the time he left office, it had risen back to 80 percent of GDP.  (One has to wonder where the tea parties and town halls were then.)

In reality, the recent increase in our national debt is the result of two wars begun by the Bush administration (one based on false information) that have cost more than $2 trillion – a figure that doesn’t even include the cost of health care, disability compensation and death benefits for those who have served in these wars.  Contributing to the increase was the creation of the massive Homeland Security department by the Bush administration.   And, of course, the primary cause was Republican-led deregulation of banks and commodities resulting in runaway greed and wild speculation.  When the banks’ risky investments failed, the Federal Government was faced with a decision of bailing out those responsible for this mess.  Or letting the nation slide into a 2nd Great Depression. 

By the time of his inauguration, President Obama was facing the worst economy since Herbert Hoover.  And, like FDR, he has little choice but to try to create jobs through stimulus funds and loans.  Yet, despite having created this mess, Republicans have fought Obama at every opportunity.  Not a single Republican in the House voted for the stimulus package and all but three Republicans in the Senate voted against it. 

It appears they would rather make some sort of political statement than uphold their commitment to serve our nation. 

Republicans have also tried to block health care reform and the proposed cap on carbon dioxide emissions intended to head off more severe climate change.  (They wouldn’t want to interfere with the profits of our large corporations, would they?)

Perhaps the most absurd attack on President Obama is his trip to promote Chicago as host of the Olympics.  They claim that he should be spending more time in the Oval Office.  Hmmm, I wonder what they thought of Bush’s vacations while in office.  The final statistics show that “W” spent 977 days (33 percent) of his two terms on vacation, including the days immediately following Hurricane Katrina.

In my opinion, everyone needs to be more patient with this president.  Republican presidents had nearly 30 years to get us into this mess.  Let’s give President Obama more than 9 months to get us out of it.

Grand Old Party? More like Grumpy Old Party.

Posted on by

I’ve been interested in politics for a long time.  I remember watching Dick Nixon’s “Checkers” speech and telling my parents that I don’t like that man.  I watched the riots at the Democratic National Convention and questioned the future of our nation.  I saw the bruises on a reporter who apparently shot a photo that President Nixon didn’t want taken.  I intensely followed the Watergate cover-up, the Iran-Contra affair and all the other despairing moments since then.  Through it all, I considered myself an independent.

No longer.

Through all my years, I have never seen such a morally and ethically bankrupt group of politicians as today’s Republicans.  Never before have I seen members of one party vote so consistently for the wealthy and for big business.  Never before have I seen such blind partisanship despite so many attempts by the party in power to include their counterparts.  Never before have I seen Congressional representatives call our President a Socialist, a Communist and a Nazi.  And never before have I heard a Congressman scream “You lie” during a President’s speech to a joint session of Congress. 

Now, following the announcement of President Obama being named the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize we hear a chorus of boos from conservative radio and TV hosts, conservative columnists and even the chairman of the Republican Party.  These pillars of conservatism were stunned.  And before they could summon up some semblance of tact, they state that President Obama should refuse to accept the prize.  They say that it’s undeserved.  They play the race card by suggesting the honor is the result of “affirmative action.”  And that self-anointed paragon of patriotism, Rush Limbaugh, says “Something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about, and that is he doesn’t deserve the award.”

Nice.  These kinds of statements should make everyone question those who made them and the politics they support.  They should cause all Americans to scrutinize the party they represent and the positions of that party.  They should cause voters to look at the Republican senators who chose to vote against an amendment that would ensure that women subjected to sexual violence by employees of a defense contractor could seek legal remedies against the corporation.  They should cause voters to wonder about a party that tries to stonewall legislation designed to protect consumers from greedy insurance companies.  They should cause voters to wonder about a party that tries to limit regulation against large financial corporations who nearly collapsed our economy with their risky bets.

The list is far too lengthy to detail here.  Suffice it say, that there is precious little evidence to suggest that Republicans have the best interests of average Americans at heart.  And there is overwhelming evidence that they support large corporations and the wealthy.


Taking back our country.

Posted on by

No, I didn’t suddenly become a pitchfork wielding right-wing lunatic.  I don’t own a handgun or an assault rifle.  And I have no doubts that President Obama was born in Hawaii.  But I do believe our nation is in jeopardy. 

However, we don’t need violence to address the issues.  All we need is legislation.  And it’s not even new legislation.  Just return the U.S. to the tax structure and regulations that existed in the U.S. prior to Ronald Reagan. 

Want to prevent another financial crash like the one that happened in 2008?  Simply eliminate the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1994.  That legislation, sponsored by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, permitted bank holding companies to co-mingle financial institutions of deposit, investment and insurance which contributed to the collapse of our financial system last year.  You might also fire those in the Federal Reserve who failed to exercise the oversight that’s already within its power.

Want to eliminate the predatory tactics of the banks which issue credit cards?  Simply nationalize usury laws which limit interest rates in many states.  These laws were allowed to be circumvented in the 1980s by large bank holding companies. 

Want to reduce our national debt?  Simply return the highest marginal income tax to pre-Bush rates.   

Want to rebuild the nation’s failing infrastructure?  Return the highest marginal income tax to Eisenhower administration rates of the 1950s.  After all, that was the last era when our nation made significant investments in infrastructure.

Want to bring back manufacturing jobs and diminish unemployment?  Undo the relaxation of tariff laws that enabled “globalization” by our large corporations.  In reality, “globalization” is just another term for exporting jobs, undermining worker benefits and wages, increasing profits and avoiding corporate taxes.  (How many U.S. corporations have created a mailing address in the Bahamas or the Caymans to avoid U.S. taxes?)

Want to calm the angry rhetoric on radio and TV?  Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine which existed prior to 1987.  That doctrine, enforced by the FCC, required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance, and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced.  (Wouldn’t you like to see Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Fox News Network and Focus on the Family try to justify their existence under those rules?)The point is most of the problems in this country aren’t new.  We’ve addressed them all before.  We can do it again.