The C+ President

(Cartoon by Jim Morin / Miami Herald (January 20, 2014) and featured at  MCCLATCHY DC.  Click on image to enlarge.)

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/19/214978/mcclatchy-cartoons-for-the-week.html#storylink=cpy

Yes, President Obama has done many good things in his six years in office, but I still maintain that he has a mixed record.  That's the reason for the grade of C+ I assigned in the title.  An article I read in McClatchy DC on Monday will illustrate my point.

BERLIN — The world’s richest 85 people control the same amount of wealth as half the world’s population, according to a report issued Monday by the British-based anti-poverty charity Oxfam.
That means the world’s poorest 3.55 billion people must live on what the richest 85 possess. Another way to look at it: Each of the wealthiest 85 has access to the same resources as do about 42 million of the world’s poor, a number equal to the populations of Canada, Kentucky and Kansas, taken together. ... 
The report also said that while the recent financial crisis was an enormous burden on the world’s poor, it ended up being a huge benefit to the rich elite. The very wealthiest people on Earth collected 95 percent of the post-crisis growth, the report said.
 
The report said that the trend is more pronounced in the United States than in other nations, but hardly limited to the U.S.  [Emphasis added.]

Now, I am willing to admit that the Democrats don't control both houses of Congress.  The GOP, especially the Tea Partiers (and those who are afraid of them), run the House of Representatives and that group has made it clear that it will obstruct any and all legislation proposed by the President.  That, however, doesn't make the president powerless, far from it. 

First of all, he has executive powers.  His administration could have done some real investigations into the nefarious actions of the large banks providing mortgages and their buying and selling of those mortgages on the derivative markets.  And, after the investigations, meaningful penalties/fines/prison terms for the malefactors could have been imposed.  What we got instead were a few gentle slaps on various wrists.

Second, the president has a bully pulpit.  He can use his Saturday radio address to announce his intentions to address the issue of wealth inequality.  He can call a press conference at which he can announce plans to address the issue and to answer questions in which he can outline the specifics on his plan.  He can urge the public to swamp their elected representatives with demands to pass legislation to extend unemployment benefits, to fund the WIC and SNAP programs.

So far he hasn't done anything along those lines.  The subject somehow just doesn't appear on his agenda, at least hasn't since he got elected in 2008.

Maybe I was too generous in giving him a C+.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/20/215140/worlds-richest-85-people-have.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/20/215140/worlds-richest-85-people-have.html#storylink=cpy

Following the Money

Not unsurprising that Time magazine's comprehensive review of the big obstacles health care must get over starts with those costs that were not a problem for the atrocities of the worst administration in history. The economy is in the toilet because of wars and unconstitutional, deregulated executive branch policies. Now that toilet status is being foisted off as the biggest obstacle to the public interest.

Before considering the plan itself, the review reminds us that we have to pay through the nose on our way to decent health care.

A lot of different avenues for cost cutting have been explored, including preventing fraudulent claims in Medicare and Medicaid and cutting programs and services that aren't deemed cost-effective. But one of the most recently touted potential methods, creating an independent board to take away from Congress the job of overseeing the rates of Medicare payments, took a hit late last week when the CBO estimated it would only save $2 billion over ten years. The CBO did acknowledge that the savings could turn out to be higher in the long run, but that qualifier only highlighted one of the biggest problems for health care backers; so much of the potential cost savings of overhauling the entire health care system is unknown and impossible to predict with any accuracy. The CBO, for instance, has no real way to determine how much investments in prevention might save down the line.
(snip)
Hard to believe, but money is actually only half the problem. The flip side of cutting costs is adding coverage for the nearly 50 million uninsured Americans. To that end both the House and Senate HELP bills include a public plan that would compete with existing private plans - a highly controversial idea that Republicans say is tantamount to the socialization of health care, but which many Democrats (including Obama) say is essential for any overhaul of the system. The Senate Finance Committee's bill takes a middle-of-the-road approach, including a coop plan, essentially a non-profit version of a government plan that some critics say couldn't possibly compete effectively the way a public option could. The legislation does include provisions for a public plan, but such an approach would only be triggered if the coop plan doesn't prove to work in certain states or locales - a backup model based off of President George W. Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. But many wonder if that will garner enough votes in the Senate, since it will likely lose votes from both ends of the spectrum. (Emphasis added.)

Of course, there are reasons in the review that I am not covering in the excerpt, but the main arguments are in it. The twists and turns of the opposition combine the expense - which never bothered them while they pitched the country into economic disarray - and the mantra that government is the enemy, especially when it comes between the public and insurance adjusters, contain most of the heat in this arena.

While those of us who have seen the country's dive into the mess of having health too expensive for the public are hardly ignorant of the savings of making it accessible to all, CBO is charged with convincing those who would rather kick those on lower economic levels into the emergency room than let them in the doctor's office. This is a negation of common decency, and distressingly inhumane.

That view of society is one that this generation of unembarrassedly empathetic bloggers needs to return to concepts about the public and our standards that rise above those of antisocial wingers. When we leave out our humanity, profit becomes the overriding concern.

The worst administration in history fought for corporate welfare, free market for wage earners, and brought us to disaster. We are better than that, and to rejoin the civilized world we need to return our government to the role of protecting public interests.

Pulping Deregulation

Are our grandchildren safe now? It seems that a lot of the removal of protections for them is being seen for the threat to our future that it was, and in its turn removed. Today, the forest service has been returned to actual service, instead of used as another environmental hazard.

A federal judge has struck down the Bush administration's change to a rule designed to protect the northern spotted owl from logging in national forests.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled from Oakland, Calif., on Tuesday that the U.S. Forest Service failed to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of changing the rule to make it easier to cut down forest habitat of species such as the spotted owl and salmon on 193 million acres of national forests.

"I am hopeful that this is the last nail in the coffin to (President George W.) Bush's assault on our public forests," said Pete Frost, an attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center in Eugene, which represented plaintiffs in one of two cases challenging the rule.

At stake was a provision of the National Forest Management Act that required maintaining viable populations of species that indicate the health of an ecosystem, such as the spotted owl. The Bush administration changed the rule last year so it required a framework of protection, rather than maintaining viable populations of wildlife.

The ruling marked the third time federal courts have turned back attempts to change the 1984 version of what is known as the viability rule within the National Forest Management Act.

The judge wrote that an environmental impact statement done by the Forest Service "does not evaluate the environmental impacts of the 2008 rule," and the agency failed to comply with Endangered Species Act requirements to consult with other federal agencies on whether the rule changes would jeopardize the survival of endangered species.

The world is safe for now from the depredations that were perpetrated over the years that the wingers dominated. The threat continues, though, while destructive claims continue to be heard equally, through the media, with reputable voices.

The Senate now has a sufficient majority of Democrats, which should keep the world safer for awhile. This assumes that the new majority will see through the winger sham of deregulation's being good for business. As one safety scare after another has disrupted our markets (food poisoning from spinach and peanut butter for instance) it should have become clear enough that deregulation is a threat, not a benefit.

The future of our world is in better hands today. Now, while they have the advantage, the sane members of Congress should put in place solid members of the judiciary and executive branch, continuing protections for the public for as long as possible.

Dying in Vain

It was inevitable that the ex-Darth would bark over from the dark side about letting go his dream war. The exit from Iraq which should have taken place long years ago, and which has wasted lives and our economy, just hurts him so much.

Naturally,the ex non-warrior loves his war, and speaks out against letting it go to waste.

A milestone is being reached today in Iraq. U.S. troops are pulling out of 15 Iraqi cities. It is the first phase of an overall departure plan that has American soldiers out (for the most part) of the country by the end of 2011.

The Washington Times radio show "America's Morning News" spoke with Dick Cheney, one of the architects of America's involvement in Iraq,

"What he says concerns me: That there is still a continuing problem. One might speculate that insurgents are waiting as soon as they get an opportunity to launch more attacks," said Cheney. "I hope the Iraqis can deal with it. At some point they have to stand on their own, but I would not want to see the U.S. waste all the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point."

Waste is the very essence of his war, but of course ex-Darth can't acknowledge that all the lives and the packets of money are his waste. If he had ever actually been involved personally in war, he might have had a better sense of the attitude of soldiers. They are fighting to save lives, not destroy them. In fact, in this assymetrical warfare, they were fighting to save Iraqi lives as well.

Only a total inability to revere humanity and/or life could lead to the attitude that more lives should be thrown into a worthless fray for avoidance of his own regret. One of the most completely evil thugs ever to rise to power in the country is well represented in his statements today, that 'waste' is involved in pulling out to avoid more loss of life.

Only war profiteers like Halliburton gained by this war. For a real indication of ex-Darth's loyalties, the formula is what was true of his former maladministration; "Follow the money".

That Victory

Free at last, free at last, thank Godalmighty, free at last!

U.S. troops pulled out of Baghdad on Monday, triggering jubilation among Iraqis hopeful that foreign military occupation is ending six years after the invasion to depose Saddam Hussein.

Iraqi soldiers paraded through the streets in their American-made vehicles draped with Iraqi flags and flowers, chanting, dancing and calling the pullout a "victory."

One drove a motorcycle with party streamers on it; another, a Humvee with a garland of plastic roses on the grill.

U.S. combat troops must pull out of Iraq's urban centers by midnight on Tuesday under a bilateral security pact that also requires all troops to leave the country by 2012.

All had left the capital by Monday afternoon, Major-General in Staff, Abboud Qanbar, head of Iraqi security forces in Baghdad, told Reuters.

Another Iraqi official who would not be named, said some units in cities outside Baghdad would leave at the last minute. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said 30 bases remained to be handed over. There are still some 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Addressing military leaders in Baghdad, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said: "Our sovereignty has started and ... we should move forward to build a modern state and enjoy security which has been achieved."

This isn't total freedom yet, for any of the parties to this disastrous war. That will take more time, and more working out handovers. It's a beginning though, and despite the violence that has broken out lately it is what we should have done long ago, second only to never starting the war in the first place.

The costs to all involved are so great, in so many areas, that it's hard to see how we will ever recover. The expense added immeasurably to our country's debts, and deprived this country of any number of programs that we now suffer the lack of. We will have the ill will of the Middle East for generations to come.

How Low Can You Go?

Leonard Pitts, Jr. has done it again. He has written a column that brought me to my feet cheering. The man is good, and while he hasn't quite yet replaced the departed Rosa Brooks in my heart, he's coming damned close.

The modern GOP was created in 1965 with a stroke of Lyndon Johnson's pen.

If that is an exaggeration, it is not much of one. When Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, he made a prediction: In committing the unpardonable sin of guaranteeing the ballot to all citizens regardless of race, he said, he would cause his party to lose the South "for a generation."

And indeed Southern Democrats, who for a century had bombed schools, lynched innocents, perverted justice and terrorized millions in the name of intolerance, responded by leaving their ancestral party in droves. They formed the base of a new Republican Party, a reality acknowledged by Ronald Reagan when he opened his 1980 campaign at a segregationist fair in a town where three civil rights workers were infamously martyred, by declaring, "I believe in state's rights."

In embracing its new Southern base, the Republican Party became the Repugnant Party on matters of race, a distinction it has done little to shed. So some of us were disappointed but not surprised last week when Sherri Goforth, an aide to Tennessee state Sen. Diane Black, came under fire for an e-mail she sent out. It depicted the 44 U.S. presidents, showing the first 43 in dignified, statesmanlike poses. By contrast, the 44th, the first African American, is seen as a pair of cartoon spook eyes against a black backdrop. Goforth's explanation: The e-mail, which went to GOP staffers, was sent "to the wrong list of people."

You may wish to let that one marinate for a moment.

And please, don't bother reminding me of Democrat Robert Byrd's onetime membership in the Ku Klux Klan; I make no argument that the Democrats are untainted by bigotry. Rather, my argument is that the GOP is consumed by it, riddled with it, that it has shown, sown, shaped and been shaped by it, to an abhorrent degree.

You think that's unfair? Well, after Goforth's e-mail, after "Barack the Magic Negro," and John McCain's campaign worker blaming a fictional black man for a fictional mugging, and a party official in Texas renaming the executive mansion "the black house," and an official in Virginia claiming Obama's presidency would see free drugs and "mandatory black liberation theology," and a Republican activist in South Carolina calling an escaped ape one of Michelle Obama's "ancestors," it seems wholly fair to me. Indeed, overdue.

Why, yes. Yes, I think that captures the GOP as currently constituted quite nicely. What is so stunning to me is that the racism being promoted by Republicans no longer is hidden behind code words or euphemisms: it's now showing up directly and brazenly. Apparently the election of an African American man to the presidency so galls these knuckle draggers that they've dispensed with the polite veneer.

Apparently Republicans prefer the 19th Century to the 21st. What they don't realize is that most Americans have grown up and moved on. That's why an African American Democratic president and a Democratic Congress was elected in 2008.

Enjoy your obscurity and irrelevance, Republicans. You've earned it.

Just Another Day At The Office

Poor Norm Coleman. The soon to be ex-Senator from Minnesota continues to contest the election results and has or will soon file an appeal with that state's Supreme Court requiring that more ballots be counted, or thrown out, or something. That's possible because the Republican Party is paying the bills for all of this legal action in order to keep Al Franken from taking his seat and giving the Democrats the magical number of 60 in the Senate which would thwart any filibustering.

OK, politics as usual, especially when it comes to the Senate. I suspect that the GOP has set aside enough money for a challenge to the US Supreme Court, should that become necessary. However, the question now is whether the GOP is going to be willing to fork out money for some personal legal expenses that Norm Coleman just might be facing in the near future.

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

The FBI continues to investigate the relationship between former U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman and a close friend who has been a major political donor, according to a source who was questioned by the FBI.

The source, who asked not to be identified, said the interview with two FBI agents occurred within the past two weeks. They asked questions about an allegation that Bloomington financier Nasser Kazeminy paid for suits and other items for Coleman and his wife, Laurie, at Nieman Marcus in Minneapolis.

"They said they've been talking to a lot of people,'' the source said Thursday.

Depending on if and when the alleged purchases occurred, the arrangement could violate Senate rules regulating gifts to members.

Kazeminy is a wealthy businessman whose friendship with Coleman dates to when Coleman was mayor of St. Paul. Kazeminy has been a major contributor to Coleman's campaigns and to the Republican Party.

In the two weeks before the November U.S. Senate election, two lawsuits were filed, accusing Kazeminy of funneling payments from a Texas company he controls to a Minneapolis insurance firm where Laurie Coleman was employed to benefit the Colemans.

To be fair, Norm Coleman issued a statement when word came out on the investigation that he would of course cooperate with the investigation of his good friend. Smart move. The investigation by the Justice Department began before the new administration took office or was even elected, so he couldn't very well claim any kind of vendetta.

The problem is that it is entirely possible that the investigation will heat up while Coleman continues his quixotic quest to set aside the fact that 300 or so more Minnesotans voted for Al Franken than for him. As the investigation gets more personal and the story gets out beyond the Minnesota newspapers, will the Republican Party be quite as anxious to support him at all costs?

That's hard to tell, given the current make-up of the Republican leadership (such as it is). Mr. Coleman had better hope that his party will help with the legal expenses. A man who has re-financed his home as often as Norm Coleman has probably can't go forward with the continuing legal fees without that help.

The only thing that keeps me from being as smugly satisfied as this kind of story would normally make me (why, yes: I am vindictive) is that in the meantime the state of Minnesota is short one senator in the 111th Congress. This whole debacle is hardly fair to those citizens. I just hope those citizens have a long memory.

Cleaning Up

These are followups to earlier posts.
*************************************************
The words are there, but it doesn't look like the Obama White House gave GOPervs a win in the fight for controlling appointments to Texas judgeships, detailed in an earlier post here. The article in the Dallas Morning News is titled; GOP senators rule day on judges. The information is that the formerly secret committee that TX Senators Cornyn and Hutchison used for screening applicants has new Democratic members and the WH will accept nominees from TX Dems as well.

Texas' Republican senators refused to cede control of judicial nominations, and now the Democratic White House seems to have struck a deal in their favor: The senators will continue screening applicants, though Texas Democrats will get input.

"We have an understanding with the Obama administration," Sen. John Cornyn said Thursday. "We've worked out a pretty good arrangement."

The dozen Texas Democrats in Congress had insisted on full control of sending the names of possible nominees to the White House. They apparently lost the argument.

On Thursday, the senators – both Republicans – issued an invitation for lawyers to apply for the U.S. attorney openings in Dallas and Houston.

Aides said the invitation was issued with at least tacit approval from the White House, and the Democrats' point man in the feud, Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Austin, offered no direct objection.

While President Obama has gotten a lot of flack about being too bipartisan, his approach seems to head off trouble from the blatantly anti-public service wingers. It appears to me that he has given himself room for making reasonable choices while giving the mudwrestling wingers he has to work with wriggle room in their favorite arena, the media.

The News calls a victory, but has to give the details which don't support its view. And while it would be nice to have the satisfaction of blowing off the dirtballs, having to work with them would make that a truly pyrrhic victory.

****************************************************

In another wrap to a story told in the cab earlier, trading in illegally trapped turtles and other reptiles has been shut down by a sting operation.

The smugglers moved their goods across borders using secret compartments, a Maryland meat processing plant and the help of a corrupt Louisiana turtle farm. Their lucrative product: rattlesnakes, snapping turtles and salamanders.

This was the portrait of a trade in illegal reptiles and amphibians that New York State environmental authorities painted on Thursday, when a two-year undercover investigation called Operation Shellshock ended with criminal charges against 17 people. More charges were filed by officials in other states and Canada, the New York officials said.

The case had the familiar ring of a drug bust, but it was instead built in the unlikely world of herpetological shows and included charges against leaders at organizations like the New York Turtle and Tortoise Society, the Long Island Herpetological Society, and the pet Web site turtlesale.com, a Florida-based company that is also facing New York charges.

“Our investigators began this operation with a simple question: Is there a commercial threat to our critical wildlife species?” Pete Grannis, the commissioner of the State Department of Environmental Conservation, which conducted the investigation, said in a statement.

What they found alarmed them. “A very lucrative illegal market for these creatures does exist, fostered by a strong, clandestine culture of people who want to exploit wildlife for illegal profit,” Mr. Grannis said.

Turtles taken from the Trinity are not safe for use, as reported earlier, and their suspected export abroad - or use here at home - has been ended. The threat to anyone's health from unconventional food sources is just not worth the savings.

My little garden, and possible pond, grows ever more attractive.

Election 2008 Happy Endings

I had the great good fortune to watch Sen. John McAyn rant on the floor of congress about the appropriations bill he guided into its present form. Sen. McAyn introduced a Continuing Resolution, that would substitute for increased spending the same rate of expenditure as the previous year.

The failed presidential candidate took issue with our President of two months for his support for appropriations representing real support of failing economy.

This reminded me of a few years ago, when the Party of Nope was in control and brought its appropriations bill to the floor of congress late at night, thousands of pages long, and the same Sen. McAyn declared that never again would he allow that to happen - most especially since a provision that allowed anyone to access individuals' IRA records with the permission of the Chairman or representative of the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee was almost passed over in the rush.

None of this was mentioned, of course, in yesterday's tirade, not even that the same thing occurred the next year despite the Senator's promise that he would never allow it again.

McAyn of the present day at no point acknowledged a basic fact, that the funded projects entail jobs. Rather, he was determinedly inveighing against things he styled as whimsical.

"If it sounds like I'm angry," the senator from Arizona explained, "it's because I am."

This disclosure hardly seemed necessary. For while McCain's topic was familiar -- he was protesting the inclusion of earmarks in a spending bill -- the source of his ire was less notable than its intensity. His pair of speeches on the Senate floor, delivered within minutes of each other, resembled a public experiment in primal-scream therapy.

McCain went after President Obama. "I just went through a campaign, Mr. President, where both candidates promised change in Washington, promised change from the wasteful, disgraceful, corrupting practice of earmark, pork-barrel spending," he said. Pounding the papers on his desk, he went on: "So what are we doing here? Not only business as usual; but an outrageous insult to the American people."

He went after Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), the 84-year-old chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. "We're going to spend $2 million for the promotion of astronomy in Hawaii," McCain said with disgust, glancing at Inouye. "I ask the senator from Hawaii: Why do we need $2 million to promote astronomy in Hawaii when unemployment is going up and the stock market is tanking?"

He went after White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, calling his explanation for the existence of earmarks in an omnibus spending bill "disingenuous on its face."

He went after budget director Peter Orszag, ridiculing his call to "move on" from the earmark dispute. McCain's shouts echoed in the chamber: "Nine thousand earmarks, billions and billions of dollars of unneeded and wasteful spending, and the president's budget person says, 'This is last year's business. We want to just move on.' That's insulting to the American people. . . . Does that mean that last year's president will sign this pork-barrel bill?"

Of course, he mentioned particularly offensive items such as termite research in New Orleans and honeybee research in Weslaco, TX. Right, most of us listen to the news and are aware that termites are a huge problem in the LA area, and the city's construction includes a lot of wooden structures that are being destroyed. We also know many growers are having a huge problem with the mysterious disappearance of bees that serve to pollinate their crops.

Then there was the 'pig odor' provision; that one includes research into many areas of improved production methods in pig farming, one of which is odor. Gang warfare in L.A. includes a program that erases gang tatoos which would otherwise alienate reformed gang members for life from other areas of society; to McAyn that was all tattoo removal with the prettification nature implied.

Despite having observed his paucity of rational qualities over the course of the campaign, I don't think the Senator is ignorant to the extent he pretended in yesterday's speech. On the other hand, he did prove that he is determined to appeal to those as ignorant as his speech assumed listeners are. The right wing should be on notice. Sen. McAyn wants you back.

The speech we heard yesterday was most likely a milestone. Sen. McAyn is impinging on Sarah Palin/Rush Limbaugh territory. He wants a place at the trough when it comes to the party's base, and he will use the primal scream technique to make that clear.

From comments to the article on McAyn's rant:

washpost18 wrote:
"$1.7M for pig odor research".

In reality, from http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/site_main.htm?modecode=36-25-15-20 :

"The mission of the Swine Odor and Manure Management Research Unit is to conduct basic and applied research to solve problems in the livestock industry that impact production efficiency and environmental quality. Multidisciplinary research teams generate and integrate knowledge for evaluation and development of new management practices that minimize nutrient excretion, malodorous emissions, and the release of pathogens into the environment as well as have a positive impact on animal health."

McCain(itworse) sounds like just another Pube who's afraid of science.
3/3/2009 2:18:28 AM
Recommended (20)

and another;

dandrbelf wrote:
Let's see. I just added up those earmarks and they amount to 0.0000000014% of a trillion-dollar budget. Not to defend so-called wasteful spending, but doesn't this demonstrate that McCain doesn't get, and never did get, the big picture? What would he be doing in the face of an economic meltdown? Reduce government spending at a time when private demand is in a freefall? McCain once criticised the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy; why doesn't he now praise Obama for wanting to roll them back? Now, those amounted to $1.0 trillion. So I would recommend that McCain do what I did: get out his calculator, realize how penny-ante this stuff is, take a deep breath, lower his blood pressure and shut up.
3/3/2009 8:31:56 AM
Recommend (7)

and I kept it simple this time:

jocabel wrote:
McAyn fails to realize that the programs he is inveighing against provide jobs. And the appropriations are overdue. But then when did he ever show an iota of good sense?
3/3/2009 4:25:15 AM
Recommended (7)

******************************************************

No, I don't read her blog, but ran across this at CNN:

One more thing: When liberals sit there and accuse the GOP convention of looking like “Nazi Germany,” you might not want to sit there, nodding your head, and respond, “I agree.”

Update: With a hat tip to John Hawkins, I re-listened to the exchange. It’s even worse than I noted. After Hughley rants about “Nazi Germany,” Steele says…”You’re right.”

Too much honesty even for the GoPervs, Michael Steele is history, I betcha.

Froomkin Chat

For those of you who didn't check in at the chat with Dan Froomkin today, there were a few significant statements he made there, that I wanted you to see;

(Q:) Farmington Hills, Mich.: Dan,

I have to say that I don't care for the new column format. It seems harder to read all your posts and the flow of the blog is really interrupted for me. I like the old way better, but who know maybe I'll get used to this.

After hearing Obama's speech yesterday I'm wondering if you believe he has the ability to change conservative thinking to accept government as long as it is good government. Can he move us beyond ideology in regards to the size of government and make us more pragmatic? Do you see this change happening or are the dividing lines too entrenched?

Dan Froomkin: As for your comment on the format, thanks. Perhaps we'll meet half way or something.

Your question is an excellent one. Certainly, there's no evidence yet that the Republican leadership is the least bit interested in moving beyond ideology at this point. They see Obama's pragmatism as liberalism in sheep's clothing -- and they aren't entirely wrong. And consider that contempt for government is sort of a hallmark of modern Republican politics.

But I also think it's possible that Obama is shifting the political center while the Republican leadership isn't looking. And that might spell real trouble for them.
**********************************************
(Q:)Shepherdstown, W.V.: Dan - Always enjoy your analysis, and I thought your posting about the speech was quite accurate. My question is, did you see the president talking with Sen. Shelby (R-Ala.)? Do you think he apologized to President Obama for casting doubts on his U.S. citizenship? That appears to be an issue that just won't die - I saw on a blog that some soldier is suing for the right to examine the birth certificate. I mean, gimme a break!

Dan Froomkin: Thanks. Obama apparently doesn't take any of that stuff personally. Which I just don't get. But I think it serves him extremely well.

_______________________

(Q:)But I also think it's possible that Obama is shifting the political center... : I think this is a great point, Dan. The MSM and the cable shows keep focusing on the fact that Obama is not getting much support from Republicans. They don't seem to connect that with the fact that there are demonstrably fewer Republicans than in the past and that the further away from Capitol Hill you get, the more Republicans you do find willing to give Obama some support.

He's already got the Dems and, most importantly, independents. Even with just a few Republicans supporting him, Obama and his party are developing a strong base from which to govern and win future elections.

Dan Froomkin: I think you may be correct, but I think any such reality will take a long time to penetrate the Beltway. The inside-the-Beltway mentality seems inimically linked to cable TV -- and cable TV shows no signs of adjusting its practice of "balancing" everything along the Bush-era right-left axis.
*********************************************************

(Q:) San Jose, Calif.: Hi Dan,

You haven't skipped a beat since the new administration came to the beltway. Keep up the good work.

What do you make of the things, national security matters in particular, on which the Obama Administration has NOT changed course from the previous administration? Specifically, the two court cases happening in my neck of the woods: the case of Jeppeson, the CIA contractor accused of planning extraordinary rendition flights and the case of the telecoms and their immunity to their possible involvement in a conspiracy to violate the fourth amendment, both of which the new justice department is taking the same position as the old justice department--they threaten national security secrets. Both plaintiffs' claims are legitimate, and in the case the telecoms, the judge is already questioning the constitutionality of the telecom immunity law. Your coverage of these cases has been great, but it seem that perhaps too much focus has been on what Obama is doing differently, and more focus should be on what is the same, and why.

Thanks.

Dan Froomkin: Thanks. I am, bluntly, shocked. I don't get it. And you know what else I don't get? Why they aren't explaining their position. Where's the vaunted transparency?

I weighed in on some of those issues here.

There's a theory which is that the Obama folks are just trying to buy a little time to firm up their positions, but that theory is wearing thin.

He also agreed with a lot of bloggers that on Saturday Night Live he expects Gov. Jindal will be portrayed well by Kenneth Ellen Parcell ("Kenneth the Page") from 30 Rock

The question and answer format occasionally gives the reporter/commenter a reason to say things that he/she doesn't have occasion to say in regular columns, and I thought Dan Froomkin had a few things of that nature in this section. I like the observation that GoPerv leadership looks like they're falling into a very big, wide open trap by begging for bipartisanship and slapping it down when it's offered.

Another point he makes is an unpleasant one, but I'm glad he made it. While I want to see President Obama doing everything I like to see, I have to admit I am like Froomkin, kind of shocked that he hasn't turned around the outlandish DOJ position on secrecy in the Gitmo/torture trials. I want this to change, too.

In other comments today at WaPo, there were hilarious ones when the article came out to the effect that earnings have declined 77%. You know I weighed in. And I'm sure you all know I said that the decline is well earned.

More Than A Kick in the Pants

Over the past couple of days, any number of times I have been annoyed to have commentators claim that the new president's inaugural address was all about the former cretin in chief. There is a lot of damage, but the repairs, not the recriminations, appeared to be the subject of all that I heard.

Last night I was wondering if everyone heard David Gregory declare that Obama's statement yesterday - that we were going to bring the U.S. back into power - 'was aimed straight at' the cretin no longer in chief.

Tom Brokaw this morning on his report said 'those were frontal attacks on presidential policies of the last four years' of the late unlamented occupant of the White House.

Dan Froomkin gives a number of cites from analyses that make the same claim, and even seems to think for himself that the inaugural was mainly directed toward the maladministration; I don't think so.

Obama, for his part, pulled no punches in his Inaugural Address, casting his presidency as a restorative to Bush's.

"Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America," Obama said.

Though he did not blame the smallness of our politics solely on his immediate predecessor, the message was clear: To Obama, the central meaning of the day was that it represented the long overdue end of an era to which Bush was the capstone.
(snip)
Maureen Dowd writes in her New York Times opinion column: "After thanking President Bush 'for his service to our nation,' Mr. Obama executed a high-level version of Stephen Colbert's share-the-stage smackdown of W. at the White House correspondents' dinner in 2006.
(snip)
George Packer blogs for the New Yorker: "The speech was, among other things, and in spite of the gracious gesture at its opening, a devastating repudiation of ex-President Bush, who seemed to be shrinking physically as well as historically whenever the camera found him, until, by the end, his unimportance was almost bewildering. Now he is gone."

At least one commentator who gets paid for his opinion pieces says what I insist, it was not about the past mistakes, it is about the public he is there for, and that chose him. David Marimiss is cited by Froomkin writing in WaPo:

"But more than that, it was about everyone out there in the crowds that stretched from the west side of the Capitol all the way to the Lincoln Memorial: every person with an individual story, a set of meanings and reference points for a moment that many thought would never happen in their lifetimes."

Just as he inveighed against the childishness we've been through, President Obama projected a message that went beyond recommitment to ideals that the past eight years trampled and cast aside. The message is about us, about the way forward and beyond the mire of all too recent a past.

The beginning of this new administration is casting a shadow because it has a lot to offer, not because it wants to wallow in the rotten smell of the past. We need to prosecute, in whatever manner, the crimes. We have a lot to do, a lot to offer, in redeeming a damaged economy, a neglected infrastructure, a rotted support system and functioning educational institutions.

The intention of this new president is not so simple as showing up the failures just past. The public interest has been despised, and now it is in the forefront. Without serving the public, President Obama would not be fulfilling his oath - however the Supremest mangled its form. The presidency is about the country's need for service, and I am looking forward to having a president worthy of the office, and the name of President.

We have done the casting off part, and the war criminals are out of the White House. Now we need to rout them in the rest of the executive branch, and do the work they've obstructed for all too long.

****************************************

Of course, it hasn't been all bad. Also from Froomkin:
Jon Stewart notes the end of an era. "The last eight years have been -- gosh -- just -- well, great for this show."

Celebrate The Day

Indeed President Obama, time to put off childish things. And thanks for the tribute to those who put this country on the right path, and recognized those duties to themselves, their nation and to humanity.

Yesterday I checked in on some of the pre-inaugural coverage on CSpan and saw film of several past inaugurations. Watching John F. Kennedy's proceedings, the luncheon afterwards was aired, and I got a great surprise. There in the luncheon, talking with poet Robert Frost, was my old boss, Senator Ralph W. Yarborough. He was smiling blissfully and proudly, so pleased that the candidate he'd chosen very early on as the best for the office of President, had won.

Since he was from Texas, you may have assumed he'd joined the forces behind Lyndon Baines Johnson, to attempt to boost his state's influence in D.C. You would have been wrong. Like so many principled legislators and other public servants, el Senador chose positions that often helped his principles and hurt his career. I am so hoping that the election of Barack Obama will give a boost to today's public servants, to make those hard choices again.

Today's inauguration may never have happened if earlier principled leaders had not stepped forward to support civil rights. Senator Yarborough was one of those. It is reported now as if it were a myth that southern legislators supporting civil rights knew they would lose their offices. The Democratic party did, as Lyndon Johnson predicted, lose the south for a generation. The individuals like Senator Yarborough who made that choice earned and deserve our gratitude.

When I went to work in his Capitol Hill office, it was 1966 and his career was winding down. As I recently had the pleasure of discussing with the son of President Johnson's last press secretary,John Christian, in Austin, there were advantages that had come out of being the last, principled, voter committing to put Civil Rights through the congress. The freedom he had because he really didn't need to run for office anymore was probably what gave him the courage to push through the Cold War G.I. Bill and the first legislation to give Federal protection to endangered species. As I came to the office in 1966, I had the rare privilege of working on that legislation.

Although I was marching outside the White House against the Vietnam War, I still want to give President Johnson full credit for the courage it took to stand, and fight firmly, for Civil Rights legislation. I know the sort of criticism he got from old friends, because I saw some of it come in to Senator Yarborough's office when I was there after that vote.

For the next few election cycles, only by committing to oppose civil rights could representatives from backwards areas (outside of Austin) get voted into office. There are still areas of this red state that require that kind of disgrace. I do believe that the transcendence of today's significance will make that tawdry aspect of politics here and in other areas of racist prejudice look ever more untenable. I do hope that the shining light of celebration for the soul will shrivel that kind of hate.

I wish pride to all of you who worked for better feelings and ideals. Congratulations.

Remember the courage of the ones who chose the right way to lead their lives even though they had to sacrifice their own careers to do it.

Promising Beginnings.

The appearance of President-elect Obama on This Week was disappointing only because he didn't declare that in nine days we will be able to prosecute the war criminals in the White House. He also didn't rule it out.

PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA: "We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth. And obviously we're going to look at past practices. And I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering up.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: "So no 9/11 Commission with independent seeking of power?"

OBAMA: "Well we have not made any final decisions but my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward, we are doing the right thing. That doesn't mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law. But my orientation's going to be to move forward," Obama said.

STEPHANOPOULOS: "So let me just press that one more time. You're not ruling out prosecution, but will you tell your Justice Department to investigate these cases and follow the evidence where it leads?"

OBAMA: What I -- I think my general view when it comes to my attorney general is that he's the people's lawyer. Eric Holder's been nominated. His job is to uphold the Constitution and look after the interests of the American people. Not be swayed by my day-to-day politics. So ultimately, he's going to be making some calls. But my general belief is that when it comes to national security, what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past."

First,as I have said here before, we have to get a functioning Justice Department. I wish as much as anyone that it was simple. I want probably more than any of you that the law had never been undermined, broken, made meaningless. I have been sick to see things accomplished by the fine and wonderfully dedicated people I worked with, saw defeated politically because they stood on principle, be subverted by the vile thugs in the occupied White House. I am very comfortable that the new administration knows what it has to do, and that it is doing that in the best fashion. It will be obstructed at every turn. They are digging in and doing the first steps, and it isn't easy. After returning our constitution, they can start eliminating the worst crimes, and criminals. What I see is very encouraging.

After we reinstitute Constitutional government, we can prosecute criminals. While it would be nice to come out swinging, that won't work.

In order to get laws passed, you have to get the votes. Diane refers to the process as grinding sausage, and that's sometimes what it looks like. If we were all honest upstanding citizens it would be easy. Sorry, that's just not the case. Or even casings (to use sausage language).

Rick Warren Invokes Hate

Rick Warren stands for several things that are destructive of progressive goals. For me, televangelism is an evil, and one I have suffered directly. It diverts particularly those who are alone and confused, and turns them to the uses of a cult group. The hate it uses to activate fundraising has traditionally been turned against progressives, and has particularly hit on abortion/women's rights and gay rights as unifiers of the 'flock'. His recent activities to lead a drive for Proposition 8 is an insult to the real Jesus Christ.

Proposition 8 was about denying gays the rights they are entitled to as American citizens for the reason that they do not have everyday sexual inclinations. Anyone who espouses this kind of measure may make any kind of qualifying statement about personal beliefs, but qualifications are specious: this is espousal of hatred.

The pastor, known for having amicable relationships with people he disagrees with, explained that he is opposed to redefining marriage.

“For 5,000 years that term, marriage, has represented a man and a woman,” Warren said. “And so, even some of gay leaders like Al Rantel, KABC, and others, have said why would we redefine marriage?”

But everyone should be given respect regardless of their lifestyle, religious beliefs and any other beliefs, Warren added.

“I think we live in a pluralistic society where we have to get along with each other and show common grace to each other. But I just didn't believe in redefining marriage,” he said.

Of course marriage in the Bible often was between a man and a woman and another woman, and then maybe several other women, depending on the ability of the particular patriarch to support others in his tents. There is no exact definition of marriage in the Bible. This whole argument sounds to me like we ought to live in the desert because that's what the biblical figures lived in. Of course, that's what the West is rapidly turning into, so maybe the televangelist sees divine will working its way in climate change. When he says we 'have to get along' he re-enters the door he just closed, verbally separating his own circle from those he disagrees with.

Rightwing religions have made the issue of gay bashing a uniting one, and fought against their rights. Proposition 8 is yet another instance of this activity. The depiction of the gay community as evil has been an activity that has appealed to 'church' people as no good works ever has. Any leader who chooses to lead in this direction is diverting his 'flock' from the good they could be promoting. While it unifies the 'flock' by giving it a purpose to serve, even more it serves as a great fundraising gimmick. Rick Warren is visibly making that a major function of his 'church'. Those funds are hardly being used for good works when they are directed against gays. Anyone who can cite any passage of the Bible that calls for uniting to make gays be what they are not, please let me know.

Waking up, getting online, and finding out that some one promoting recidivism and making his personal fortune off of it is going to be a featured speaker at Obama';s inauguration makes me really annoyed. I was excited about the inauguration, volunteered to assist with staffing it, and would have already bought my ticket except that I am working on getting the price down. A lot of us who comment and get together under the eschatonian family tent were getting together, as well as some of The Seminal group, while I am in the D.C. area. I'm not sure about that, now.

I got on the Obama/Biden website this morning, began a blog, and made this entry:

Televangelist Warren
By Ruth Calvo - Dec 18th, 2008 at 7:21 am EST

I am someone who has watched an aging elderly relative be drawn into the trap of trusting the godliness of a wealth-directed televangelist, Pat Robertson. She was enticed into giving all her extra cash and listening only to telephone communications from the organizations, rejecting news, family, and reason on the grounds that only the voice of Satan would oppose the healing graces from tidewater Virginia. This is a degrading end, and that relative now lives in a house that is falling down around her, desperately trying to believe she has followed the voice of god when that is not so, obviously.

Rick Warren is an insult to anyone rational, and I will bring extra shoes with me on the off chance I can get a good angle to heave one at him.

I understand there are other opinions on this, and hopefully I will always be able to have an open mind in all things. I keep up a dialogue with those I disagree with. I do, however, condemn those who take advantage of and live off of the weakminded. And my work for the Obama campaign is sullied, that my support has been used to elevate the kind that work against progressives and human rights.

Sunday Sermon

Sometimes a blessed event seems to occur when it is appreciated, and today that happened to me. Visiting Progressive Eruptions, I came across a post on praying for the Supremes to find President-elect Obama an alien. In getting together a comment referring to Pat Robertson having originated the idea of praying for SC decisions by asking his Got to off a Justice or two, I found the following. I excerpted from a priceless letter which you will enjoy visiting. Even the ads are great.

Dear Mercurially Merciful Lord:

O Lord, we come before you today because we are sure that, by now, you know that Brother Pat Robertson has turned to you in solemn Christian prayer to righteously beseech you to kill off a few Supreme Court justices that have rudely treated those pesky so-called "gays" with respect. With bracing candor, Brother Pat is calling this a "prayer offensive." Ever helpful in thinking of ways to kill off liberals, Brother Pat hints: ``One justice is 83-years-old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition."

Call us timid, O Lord, but it makes us rather nervous when a man who just went through a bout of prostate cancer thinks it wise to ask his Creator to start going on a killing rampage, targeting people with cancer and heart conditions. After all, who will run the country if you take Dick Cheney from us? We are further concerned that you might respond to Brother Pat's imprecatory prayers in that mischievous, ironic way of Yours and, well, kill him, too. It is with your delicious penchant for technically giving people what they pray for in mind (like when John Kennedy, Jr. screamed, with the coarse impetuousness endemic in Democrats, : "Lord, do something to shut up that damned braying cokehead in Row A!") that we grow concerned for Brother Pat's safety.

Yes, it goes on and is good throughout. Nice job, Sister Shaw Kenawe and Sister Betty.

Two CSpan callers this morning referred to 'knowing' that our next president will not take office because he has been found not to be a citizen. Thank you host Steve Scully and guest Martin Kady, from Politico, for telling them that the president-elect was born in Hawaii and will be president. These people are nuts.

The Real Heritage

Neil Gabler had a thought-provoking essay in yesterday's Los Angeles Times about the true lineage of the current Republican party. While conventional wisdom usually traces modern conservatism to Barry Goldwater, Mr. Gabler suggests that the true source was someone else:

But there is another rendition of the story of modern conservatism, one that doesn't begin with Goldwater and doesn't celebrate his libertarian orientation. It is a less heroic story, and one that may go a much longer way toward really explaining the Republican Party's past electoral fortunes and its future. In this tale, the real father of modern Republicanism is Sen. Joe McCarthy, and the line doesn't run from Goldwater to Reagan to George W. Bush; it runs from McCarthy to Nixon to Bush and possibly now to Sarah Palin. It centralizes what one might call the McCarthy gene, something deep in the DNA of the Republican Party that determines how Republicans run for office, and because it is genetic, it isn't likely to be expunged any time soon.

The basic problem with the Goldwater tale is that it focuses on ideology and movement building, which few voters have ever really cared about, while the McCarthy tale focuses on electoral strategy, which is where Republicans have excelled. ...

...McCarthyism is usually considered a virulent form of Red-baiting and character assassination. But it is much more than that. As historian Richard Hofstadter described it in his famous essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," McCarthyism is a way to build support by playing on the anxieties of Americans, actively convincing them of danger and conspiracy even where these don't exist. ...

McCarthy, a Catholic, was especially adept at nursing national resentments among the sorts of people that typically did not vote Republican. He stumbled onto the fact that many of these people in postwar America were frightened and looking for scapegoats. He provided them, and in doing so not only won millions of adherents but also bequeathed to his party a powerful electoral bludgeon that would eventually drive out the moderates from the GOP (posthumous payback) before it drove the Democrats from the White House. [Emphasis added]

Mr. Gabler's theory certainly goes a long way towards explaining the Southern Strategy, Willie Horton, color-coded security alerts, and just about everything connected with the Bush administration. It also accounts for the fact that Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Tom Tancredo, and, yes, Sarah Palin have been able to wield such power in their party and to garner such attention from a stenographic press.

Do the Democratic successes of the past two elections mean the American people of finally had enough of that kind of demagoguery? That remains to be seen. It is just as likely that the sudden collapse of the economy and a sick-unto-death attitude toward two wars in which the treasury has been drained and thousands have been killed or maimed were responsible. Still, if the Democratic leaders can couple a strategy of appealing to the better parts of the American psyche with successful programs, we'll at least have some breathing space.

Ideal Scenario

While watching the unfolding of the Obama era in America, the rest of the world has not forgotten the horrors of the Bush era. Watching America continues to publish more than a few international articles on the Bush administration, including this one from Germany's Neues Deutschland. Written by Olaf Standke and headlined as "Cheney In The Dock", the article expresses a wish that the first trial of the International Crimes Commission had involved Dick Cheney.

...A grand jury in Texas alleges the Vice-President is complicit in the abuse of prisoners incarcerated in privately run prisons. It also alleges that Cheney summarily used the power of his office to prevent an investigation of the charges. Small wonder: Cheney is reported to have invested $85 million in companies who realize most of their profits from the private prison industry.

The accusation is appropriate for the White House’s second in command who, since September 11, 2001, has been accorded presidential privileges. The former CEO of the Halliburton energy services company has been more successful than anyone else in maximizing profits from dirty political deals. He and his team laid the policy strategy as well as the legal basis for a number of crimes. The keyword list is long and includes not only the Iraq war, Guantanamo and CIA torture, but also the savaging of political opponents to the point that their livelihoods are endangered. In addition, he is responsible for the creation of “Washington insider” energy, environmental and financial policies geared toward big profits.

Why, yes: that is a pretty fair summation, but far from complete. What is unfortunate is that while many Americans have been keeping track and would love to see Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush and the rest of his cohorts in the dock, our Democratic-led 110th Congress didn't have the time or the inclination for such a "divisive" policy. Democrats in an earlier Congress stood silent as a president was impeached for a blowjob, but they didn't have the guts to impeach those who were responsible for the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands and the death of the one thing that made America exceptional: her Constitution.

Now, as his term winds down, President Bush has the opportunity to "pardon" all those who assisted him the last eight years. One congressman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), has decided that enough is enough and has introduced a House Resolution which both urges the current president not to engage in pre-emptive pardons and urges Congress to fully investigate all of the wrongdoings of the last eight years.

If you think he's got the right idea, go on over to Democrats.Com and sign the petition which will be sent to your House member and both Senators asking them to sign on to Rep. Nadler's resolution. Our active participation worked earlier this month, and it will work now.

Do it.

Schadenfreude Again

Seeing the right wing defeat themselves has been enjoyable in many ways. It looks as if a leading light from Texas in the coming administration will be Chet Edwards. He is a Democrat who regained his seat after the dastardly redistricting imbroglio brought to you by the wingers in that 2003 purge.

Rep. Edwards isn't just a senior member who will have influence in this administration, he is a reminder. If the wingers hadn't purged out influential members of congress like Martin Frost, Texas would have much more representation in the government.

Now, with a relatively junior congressional delegation, two senators from the minority party and a White House brain trust likely to be devoid of Texans, the state of the Bushes and LBJ, Rayburn and Cactus Jack, Tom Clark and Tom DeLay faces a political future with "as little clout as in a century," said Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University.

"The days when Texans ran the Congress are over," Jillson said. "And we're not going to have the presidency any time in the near future."

Texas Democrats point the finger of blame at Bush, who is leaving office as the most unpopular president in modern American history, and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, who inspired a redistricting plan that cost several senior Democrats their jobs.

"It comes into clear focus now the price Texans are paying because of the partisan folly of the Tom DeLay-driven, mid-decade redistricting," said Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, the most influential Texas Democrat in Washington. "Instead of Texans being in charge of the powerful Rules, Agriculture and Homeland Security committees, their jobs now belong to New York, Minnesota and Mississippi."

For any of you who may have forgotten, an established practice of redistricting after census was ridden over by ambitious Republican party members who had visions of a permanent majority. They powered the mess through, and pitted Democrats in office against right wing electorates in the 2004 election. For a time, that gave them a majority, but it resulted to my glee in the election of a Democrat to replace Tom DeLay when his misdeeds got so out of hand his party wouldn't stand for him any longer. Redistricting had gone forward in his district on the assumption that he would hold on forever, and a large segment of mixed income, mixed race voters were put into that area. They voted in Democrat Lampson, though in this recent election Lampson was ousted by a Republican.

Under the last eight years, progressive projects did not have support in the nation's capitol. Members of the party in power are likely to redeem that long dearth of support.

"The Bush administration never asked for funding for the Trinity River project, under-funded NASA, did not adequately fund the deepening and widening of Houston's ship channel and spent three years trying to close Waco's VA hospital," he added.

Mr. Edwards will be a key player in such battles, given his place on the House Appropriations Committee. He chairs the subcommittee that funds military construction and veterans programs and is No. 2 on the panel that approves energy and water development projects.

The remains of American ideals that is left in the wake of the war criminals, as Diane delineates this morning in her post, will be hard to take back. The Texans who survived some of its worst battles will be ready to take on that chore. They've taken what the occupied WH and its minions dished out, and came out wiser and better.

The worst elements in our society manage to tear down a lot of the structure we need to survive. There are some of us left, even out here in flyover land. We're going to enjoy building back the shining city on a hill the wingers buried in filth.

Our Ms. Brooks: Leaving Extra Ws Behind

Rosa Brooks has noticed all the little gifts the Bush administration is leaving behind for the incoming Obama administration. The Federal Register is working overtime to keep up with all of the regulatory changes and executive orders which have issued in the past several months.

You knew that W & Co. wouldn't go gently into that good night, didn't you?

Please. We're talking about the people who brought us precooked intelligence, Guantanamo, torture and extraordinary rendition. Who developed bizarre legal doctrines, asserting that the commander in chief is allowed to ignore federal law, and the vice president doesn't "belong" to the executive branch. Who enthusiastically dismantled long-standing regulatory frameworks and who still insist (as George W. Bush did last week) that "too much" government regulation is our main problem, even as the economic crisis deepens.

You really didn't think these guys would exit meekly, did you? ...

These rules can be enacted by the outgoing Bush administration with relative ease and speed, but reversing them will be far more difficult for the Obama administration: extensive study, notice and comment requirements mean that reversals may take several years, during which a lot of damage will have been done.

Bush also has signed more than 250 executive orders since taking office. Some are innocuous; others, not so much (permitting the use of interrogation techniques most experts consider torture, for instance). Some are still classified. The Obama transition team will need to go through these with a fine-tooth comb, identifying executive orders that require immediate change or reversal.

And while all of the house warming gifts are ticking away in the White House, President Obama will also have to worry about all of the Bush appointees who managed to burrow their way into civil service in the various agencies, all looking forward to furthering the Bush agenda while undercutting that of the new administration. No wonder, Ms. Brooks argues, the President Elect is hiring so many Clinton administration members to assist him: they're the only ones with enough experience in Washington to know how to handle this sort of sabotage.

One thing is certain. The change we were promised will be difficult to accomplish at the start. The new administration will have its hands full just sweeping up all of the little "W's" left behind.

HHS Gains Friend to Women

I am particularly pleased the former Sen. Daschle has been named to the post of Secretary of HHS. The right wing has spent eight years making the powers of government inimical to women. This is some one who has publicly stood for health choice for women, and has had to fight with the Catholic Church to keep his beliefs.

In 2003, Daschle lost his seat in the U.S. Senate after a public fight with his local bishop over a woman's rights.

TOM DASCHLE may no longer call himself a Catholic. The Senate minority leader and the highest ranking Democrat in Washington has been sent a letter by his home diocese of Sioux Falls, sources in South Dakota have told The Weekly Standard, directing him to remove from his congressional biography and campaign documents all references to his standing as a member of the Catholic Church.

This isn't exactly excommunication--which is unnecessary, in any case, since Daschle made himself ineligible for communion almost 20 years ago with his divorce and remarriage to a Washington lobbyist. The directive from Sioux Falls' Bishop Robert Carlson is rather something less than excommunication--and, at the same time, something more: a declaration that Tom Daschle's religious identification constitutes, in technical Catholic vocabulary, a grave public scandal. He was brought up as a Catholic, and he may still be in some sort of genuine mental and spiritual relation to the Church. Who besides his confessor could say? But Daschle's consistent political opposition to Catholic teachings on moral issues--abortion, in particular--has made him such a problem for ordinary churchgoers that the Church must deny him the use of the word "Catholic."

Much of the discussion about Daschle's standing has gone on in private over the last few years, although Bishop Carlson and Senator Daschle had a very public spat about partial-birth abortion in 1997. During the run-up to a Senate vote on the issue, Daschle proposed what he called a "compromise," banning the procedure while allowing exemptions for any woman who claimed

mental or physical health reasons for having such a late-term procedure. Pointing out the way the exemptions gutted the ban, Carlson called Daschle's proposed compromise a "smokescreen" designed solely to "provide cover for pro-abortion senators and President Clinton, who wanted to avoid a veto confrontation."

Daschle, in turn, rose on the floor of the Senate in Washington to denounce his own bishop back in South Dakota for speaking in a way "more identified with the radical right than with thoughtful religious leadership."
(snip)
...Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued in Rome a "Doctrinal Note" on Catholics in political life. "A well-formed Christian conscience," the note declared, "does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals."

The courage to take on the right wing is one characteristic I am very glad to see in the administration of health matters in this country. The administration is showing responsible care for the country's health rather than blind ideology, a big change indeed. This is a good choice.