SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: zeta1961 who wrote (68686)1/22/2010 4:06:08 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
US Policy: More War, Less Relief
______________________________________________________________

by Sarah Lazare

Published on Friday, January 22, 2010 by CommonDreams.org

As Haiti asks the world for help turning around the destruction wrought by the January 12th earthquake, the U.S. is funding destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Obama is expected to ask for another $33 billion for the military budget this year, on top of the $1 trillion that has come out of U.S. taxpayers' pockets since 2001, to fund the so-called War on Terror.

In contrast, the president has pledged $100 million in aid to Haiti, amounting to not much more than the mortgage on a rich person's house.

The U.S. government has sent over 5,000 U.S. military personnel to Haiti, with the total expected to reach 10,000, as aid becomes increasingly militarized in the wake of this disaster. Some aid groups are openly complaining about the U.S. military presence: Doctors Without Borders said that five of its airplanes carrying medical equipment were turned away by the U.S. military and rerouted to the Dominican Republic. French and Mexican planes carrying medical aid were also turned back. U.S. soldiers are now patrolling the streets of Haiti, many with large weapons slung over their shoulders.

And many Haitians are suspicious of the influx of U.S. troops, claiming that the U.S. has been looking for excuses, for a long-time, to regain U.S. military control of their country.

With the inundation of images of death, injury, and collapse in Haiti, realities are emerging about the global relationships that set the stage for these kinds of catastrophes and divert resources to war and militarism instead of real relief.

Over eight years of war and occupation in Afghanistan and six in Iraq have left those countries utterly devastated. More than a million Iraqis and thousands of Afghanis have died, with countless people in Iraq and Afghanistan displaced to neighboring countries. Infrastructures, homes, schools, and mosques lie in ruin, and those who remain must deal with societies destabilized and ethnically polarized by wars that fuel these divisions, on top of the constant U.S. and international military presence. As we enter 2010, there is no end in sight to the occupations, and viable alternative social structures in these countries have been flattened by devastating military campaigns.

If the images of these wars were widely circulated in the media, they too would shock and horrify the world.

Now, as Haiti lies in shambles, the Obama administration is asking Americans to reach deep into their pockets to fund an escalating military campaign and countless more years of destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the same troops being sent to fight these wars are also being deployed to Haiti, a country desperately in need of humanitarian aid, not military presence.

As we live this painful historical moment, the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. - whose birthday was celebrated Monday - in reference to the Vietnam War, are eerily relevant:

We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now, let us begin. Now, let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter-but beautiful-struggle for a new world... Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., April 4th, 1967
_______________

*Sarah Lazare is an anti-militarist and GI resistance organiser with Dialogues Against Militarism and Courage to Resist. She is interested in connecting struggles for justice at home with global movements against war and empire.



To: zeta1961 who wrote (68686)1/22/2010 4:18:36 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
What Scott Brown Knew In 2010 and Barack Obama Knew In 2008

huffingtonpost.com

Don't Worry About Scott Brown - It's Not About Obama, It's About the Kennedys

newser.com



To: zeta1961 who wrote (68686)1/22/2010 6:18:50 PM
From: ChinuSFO  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 149317
 
Looks like there is panic in the Democratic party and also on Wall Street.

finance.yahoo.com



To: zeta1961 who wrote (68686)1/23/2010 1:27:34 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
They Still Don’t Get It
______________________________________________________________

By BOB HERBERT
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
January 23, 2010

How loud do the alarms have to get? There is an economic emergency in the country with millions upon millions of Americans riddled with fear and anxiety as they struggle with long-term joblessness, home foreclosures, personal bankruptcies and dwindling opportunities for themselves and their children.

The door is being slammed on the American dream and the politicians, including the president and his Democratic allies on Capitol Hill, seem not just helpless to deal with the crisis, but completely out of touch with the hardships that have fallen on so many.

While the nation was suffering through the worst economy since the Depression, the Democrats wasted a year squabbling like unruly toddlers over health insurance legislation. No one in his or her right mind could have believed that a workable, efficient, cost-effective system could come out of the monstrously ugly plan that finally emerged from the Senate after long months of shady alliances, disgraceful back-room deals, outlandish payoffs and abject capitulation to the insurance companies and giant pharmaceutical outfits.

The public interest? Forget about it.

With the power elite consumed with its incessant, discordant fiddling over health care, the economic plight of ordinary Americans, from the middle class to the very poor, got pathetically short shrift. And there is no evidence, even now, that leaders of either party fully grasp the depth of the crisis, which began long before the official start of the Great Recession in December 2007.

A new study from the Brookings Institution tells us that the largest and fastest-growing population of poor people in the U.S. is in the suburbs. You don’t hear about this from the politicians who are always so anxious to tell you, in between fund-raisers and photo-ops, what a great job they’re doing. From 2000 to 2008, the number of poor people in the U.S. grew by 5.2 million, reaching nearly 40 million. That represented an increase of 15.4 percent in the poor population, which was more than twice the increase in the population as a whole during that period.

The study does not include data from 2009, when so many millions of families were just hammered by the recession. So the reality is worse than the Brookings figures would indicate.

Job losses, stagnant or reduced wages over the past decade, and the loss of home equity when the housing bubble burst have combined to take a horrendous toll on families who thought they had done all the right things and were living the dream. A great deal of that bleeding is in the suburbs. The study, compiled by the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program, said, “Suburbs gained more than 2.5 million poor individuals, accounting for almost half of the total increase in the nation’s poor population since 2000.”

Democrats in search of clues as to why voters are unhappy may want to take a look at the report. In 2008, a startling 91.6 million people — more than 30 percent of the entire U.S. population — fell below 200 percent of the federal poverty line, which is a meager $21,834 for a family of four.

The question for Democrats is whether there is anything that will wake them up to their obligation to extend a powerful hand to ordinary Americans and help them take the government, including the Supreme Court, back from the big banks, the giant corporations and the myriad other predatory interests that put the value of a dollar high above the value of human beings.

The Democrats still hold the presidency and large majorities in both houses of Congress. The idea that they are not spending every waking hour trying to fix the broken economic system and put suffering Americans back to work is beyond pathetic. Deficit reduction is now the mantra in Washington, which means that new large-scale investments in infrastructure and other measures to ease the employment crisis and jump-start the most promising industries of the 21st century are highly unlikely.

What we’ll get instead is rhetoric. It’s cheap, so we can expect a lot of it.

Those at the bottom of the economic heap seem all but doomed in this environment. The Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston put the matter in stark perspective after analyzing the employment challenges facing young people in Chicago: “Labor market conditions for 16-19 and 20-24-year-olds in the city of Chicago in 2009 are the equivalent of a Great Depression-era, especially for young black men.”

The Republican Party has abandoned any serious approach to the nation’s biggest problems, economic or otherwise. It may be resurgent, but it’s not a serious party. That leaves only the Democrats, a party that once championed working people and the poor, but has long since lost its way.

Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company



To: zeta1961 who wrote (68686)1/23/2010 6:00:29 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
Obama Calls Team From 2008 for Races in Fall

nytimes.com

By JEFF ZELENY and PETER BAKER
The New York Times
January 24, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Obama is reconstituting the team that helped him win the White House to counter Republican challenges in the midterm elections and recalibrate after political setbacks that have narrowed his legislative ambitions.

Mr. Obama has asked his former campaign manager, David Plouffe, to oversee House, Senate and governor’s races to stave off a hemorrhage of seats in the fall. The president ordered a review of the Democratic political operation — from the White House to party committees — after last week’s Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race, aides said.

In addition to Mr. Plouffe, who will primarily work from the Democratic National Committee in consultation with the White House, several top operatives from the Obama campaign will be dispatched across the country to advise major races as part of the president’s attempt to take greater control over the midterm elections, aides said.

“We are turning the corner to a much more political season,” said David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, who confirmed Mr. Plouffe’s role. “We are going to evaluate what we need to do to get timely intelligence and early warnings so we don’t face situations like we did in Massachusetts.”

As Mr. Obama prepares to deliver his State of the Union address on Wednesday and lay out his initiatives for the second year of his presidency, his decision to take greater control of the party’s politics signals a new approach. The White House is searching for ways to respond to panic among Democrats over the possible demise of his health care bill and a political landscape being reshaped by a wave of populism.

Yet improving the tactical operations addresses only one part of his challenge. A more complicated discussion under way, advisers said, is how to sharpen the president’s message and leadership style.

The reinforcement of the White House’s political operation has been undertaken with a sense of urgency since Tuesday when a Republican, Scott Brown, won the Massachusetts Senate seat that had been held by Edward M. Kennedy. The White House was caught off guard when it became clear that Democrats were in danger of losing the seat, and by the time alarm bells sounded from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, it was too late.

The president summoned Mr. Plouffe to the Oval Office hours before the polls closed in Massachusetts and asked him to assume the new role because of the implications the midterm elections hold. Mr. Plouffe built a reputation in 2008 as a master of the nuts and bolts of campaigns, and will assemble a team to provide unfiltered political information that serves as an early-warning system so the White House and party officials know if a candidate is falling behind.

The day-to-day political operation will be run by Jim Messina, a deputy White House chief of staff, but Mr. Plouffe will coordinate the effort.

The party is trying to become less reliant on polls conducted by candidates, which can often paint a too-rosy picture of the political outlook. The president’s leading pollster, Joel Benenson, will be among those conducting research for Mr. Plouffe, aides said, along with others who will divide the country by regions.

Mr. Plouffe, who did not follow Mr. Obama to the White House last year, has remained in the president’s tight circle of advisers and has frequently worked on projects for the party.

The first indication of Mr. Plouffe’s more prominent role came in an op-ed article he wrote for the Sunday issue of The Washington Post, presenting a blueprint for how Democrats could avoid big defeats in the fall. He acknowledged the challenges ahead, saying, “We may not have perfect results, but November will be nothing like the nightmare that talking heads have forecast.”

Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said he had “no interest in sugarcoating” the defeat in Massachusetts. Several party leaders said they expected Mr. Menendez to remain in his position for the rest of the election cycle, but the move by the White House had the effect of subverting at least some of the committee’s authority.

“Our own political operation will be more rigorously in communication with the other elements, so we can compare notes,” Mr. Axelrod said. “What we learned from Massachusetts is that we need to be more assiduous about getting our own data and our own information so we have a better sense of where things stand.”

The White House intends to send Mr. Obama out into the country considerably more in 2010 than during his first year in office, advisers said, to try to rekindle the relationship he developed with voters during his presidential campaign.

His first big chance will come when he delivers his State of the Union address.

Rather than unveiling a laundry list of new initiatives, advisers said, Mr. Obama will try to reframe his agenda and how he connects it with public concerns. In particular, he will focus on how his ideas for health care, energy and financial regulation all fit into the broader economic mission of creating what he calls a “new foundation” for the country, the key words being “rescue, restore and rebuild.”

While presidents typically experience rough patches, this one is particularly challenging for Mr. Obama. Liberals have grown disenchanted with what they see as his unwillingness to fight harder for their causes; independents have been turned off by his failure, in their view, to change the way Washington works; and Republicans have become implacably hostile.

The long and messy legislative fight over health care is a leading example of how Mr. Obama has failed to connect with voters, advisers say, because he appeared to do whatever it would take to get a bill rather than explain how people could benefit.

“The process often overwhelmed the substance,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director. “We need to find ways to try to rise above the maneuvering.”

The discussion inside the White House includes at least two distinct debates: Should Mr. Obama assume a more populist or centrist theme in his message? And should the White House do what it takes to pass compromise legislation or should it force votes, which even if unsuccessful can be used to carry an argument against Republicans in the fall?

It remains an open question how much new legislation will pass Congress, but the coming months will help frame the campaigns. While some form of financial regulation and job creation measures may pass, Obama aides said, the larger initiatives like health care, a cap on carbon emissions and an immigration overhaul may have to wait, even though the White House denies trimming its ambitions.

“I wouldn’t say the door is shut on trying to find some places where you can develop a strategy for a bipartisan vote in the Senate,” said John D. Podesta, a former White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton who advises the Obama team.

But he said Republicans appeared determined to oppose any initiative Mr. Obama offers. “They would try to deny him passing the Mother’s Day resolution,” he said.

Some veterans of the Clinton White House have advised their friends in the West Wing to take a breath and not make lasting decisions in the immediate aftermath of the election, when it might be tempting to overreact.

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff and himself a Clinton alumnus, gave a pep talk at the senior staff meeting last week. “These things go in cycles,” participants recalled him saying. “We’ve got a lot of work to do. Keep your head up and keep going.”

Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company



To: zeta1961 who wrote (68686)1/27/2010 5:54:10 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Obama's Test: Will He Be a Manager or a Leader?
______________________________________________________________

by John Nichols

Published on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 by The Nation

A new president gets a full year to prepare his initial State of the Union address.

That is a blessing and a curse.

An immediate address, given a week or two after the inaugural, would offer an opportunity to subtly blame everything on an inept, evil or crooked predecessor.

An address delivered after a full year in office does not afford such an opportunity.

There is no alternative for the sitting president but to describe the state of the union under his watch.

This will be Barack Obama's circumstance tonight, as he delivers the first of what he and his aides hope will be seven State of the Union addresses.

Obama will, of course, find much to celebrate. Presidents always do, as they play the political game of linking their service with all that is good, decent and appealing in the land -- think Ronald Reagan's "morning in America..."

But when all is said and done, Obama will have to face the fact that the American people, by now overwhelming majorities according to the polls -- think the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Facing a fierce opposition, fearful allies and a frustrated electorate that has not seen enough "change" and is running out of "hope," Obama must offer a great deal more than rhetoric tonight.

The president blew the run-up to the speech by veering left, with populist bashing of banks, and then right, with talk of a domestic spending freeze, in a manner that made him seem reactionary rather than realistic. After the loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat of his liberal mentor, Edward Kennedy, and with it the 60-seat majority that gave his party a measure of congressional dominance, Obama seemed desperate and uncertain.

That's dangerous politically.

More than any specific policy (a little less health care) or theme (a little more fiscal responsibility) tonight, Obama must project a coherent sense of himself. The candidate who so many Americans were able to imagine as their political ideal is now a president who conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, and above all independents, see as less than that ideal.

Obama cannot and will not satisfy everyone tonight. And he should not try.

Rather, he must define himself and his vision. After a year of serving as a punching bag for the right and a source of frustration for the left, he has to talk about what he wants to do now.

An attempt to balance competing interests, an imagining of some bipartisan possibility that has somehow eluded him, a Clinton-esque triangulation, will muddy his message.

Tinkering will be seen as tinkering.

If Obama is not bold, clear and more aggressively progressive than he has ever been -- especially on job creation but, more importantly, on reaserting a vision of government as an essential force for good -- his speech will be meaningless exercise.

If the president bogs down in blather about deficits and balanced budgets -- employing the language of managers rather than leaders -- he will miss a rare opportunity to change the debate.

If he comes on strong, promising to invest in jobs and pay for the project not with new taxes on working Americans but with accountability taxes on banks and speculators -- he will of course engage his critics. But they live in a state of perpetual rage.

The president's job tonight is to excite his base and give wavering independents a clear sense of where he is headed.

The president's job tonight is not to outline the State of the Union in any formal sense.

The State of the Union is not good -- or, at the very least, not good enough.

The president must explain exactly what he is going to do to -- dare we employ the word -- change that state for the better.

*John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin. A co-founder of the media reform organization Free Press, Nichols is is co-author with Robert W. McChesney of The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again and Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy. Nichols is also author of Dick: The Man Who is President and The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism.

© 2010 The Nation