Yeah, I am back again. But this may be the only one for a while.

Reading blogs today I found a reference to a blog post at DailyKos from 2005. Now I normally don't read much at the big orange anymore because I just can't stomach most of what I see there.

That's actually why I had stopped for so long. The negativity out here is awful and I had to get away from it for a while. I am very tired of the so called emoprogs bashing the President for everything he does. Tired of the blame Obama first crowd and all the others who just seem to never be able to give him credit for what he does.

Anyway.. enough about me. Some of the blogs are better than others, we all know that, and I have been trying to stay with them. The People's View is one that I enjoy the most. They always have a reasoned discussion for everything and seem to find the good in things. Today was no exception.

The blog post they referenced was written by a Senator from Illinois explaining his vote against John Roberts and some other things he felt he needed to defend. Just so you won't have to give them a click, I will post it here.

I read with interest your recent discussion regarding my comments on the floor(1, 2, 3) during the debate on John Roberts' nomination. I don't get a chance to follow blog traffic as regularly as I would like, and rarely get the time to participate in the discussions. I thought this might be a good opportunity to offer some thoughts about not only judicial confirmations, but how to bring about meaningful change in this country.

Maybe some of you believe I could have made my general point more artfully, but it's precisely because many of these groups are friends and supporters that I felt it necessary to speak my mind.

There is one way, over the long haul, to guarantee the appointment of judges that are sensitive to issues of social justice, and that is to win the right to appoint them by recapturing the presidency and the Senate. And I don't believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position. I am convinced that, our mutual frustrations and strongly-held beliefs notwithstanding, the strategy driving much of Democratic advocacy, and the tone of much of our rhetoric, is an impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country.

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn't swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

A plausible argument can be made that too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt. That certainly was the operating assumption of the advocacy groups involved in the nomination battle.

I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning. But short of mounting an all-out filibuster -- a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations -- blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.

In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn't become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution's design.

The same principle holds with respect to issues other than judicial nominations. My colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin, spoke out forcefully - and voted against - the Iraqi invasion. He isn't somehow transformed into a "war supporter" - as I've heard some anti-war activists suggest - just because he hasn't called for an immediate withdrawal of American troops. He may be simply trying to figure out, as I am, how to ensure that U.S. troop withdrawals occur in such a way that we avoid all-out Iraqi civil war, chaos in the Middle East, and much more costly and deadly interventions down the road. A pro-choice Democrat doesn't become anti-choice because he or she isn't absolutely convinced that a twelve-year-old girl should be able to get an operation without a parent being notified. A pro-civil rights Democrat doesn't become complicit in an anti-civil rights agenda because he or she questions the efficacy of certain affirmative action programs. And a pro-union Democrat doesn't become anti-union if he or she makes a determination that on balance, CAFTA will help American workers more than it will harm them.

Or to make the point differently: How can we ask Republican senators to resist pressure from their right wing and vote against flawed appointees like John Bolton, if we engage in similar rhetoric against Democrats who dissent from our own party line? How can we expect Republican moderates who are concerned about the nation's fiscal meltdown to ignore Grover Norquist's threats if we make similar threats to those who buck our party orthodoxy?

I am not drawing a facile equivalence here between progressive advocacy groups and right-wing advocacy groups. The consequences of their ideas are vastly different. Fighting on behalf of the poor and the vulnerable is not the same as fighting for homophobia and Halliburton. But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, "true" progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive "checklist," then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.

Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority. We won't be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate. Because the truth of the matter is this: Most of the issues this country faces are hard. They require tough choices, and they require sacrifice. The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress may have made the problems worse, but they won't go away after President Bush is gone. Unless we are open to new ideas, and not just new packaging, we won't change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy or fiscal policy that calls for serious sacrifice. We won't have the popular support to craft a foreign policy that meets the challenges of globalization or terrorism while avoiding isolationism and protecting civil liberties. We certainly won't have a mandate to overhaul a health care policy that overcomes all the entrenched interests that are the legacy of a jerry-rigged health care system. And we won't have the broad political support, or the effective strategies, required to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens out of numbing poverty.

The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives' job. After all, it's easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it's harder to craft a foreign policy that's tough and smart. It's easy to dismantle government safety nets; it's harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It's easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it's harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that's our job. And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist." In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).

Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility and sustained attention that can achieve those goals, and try to create the sort of serious, adult, consensus around our problems that can admit Democrats, Republicans and Independents of good will. This is more than just a matter of "framing," although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required. It's a matter of actually having faith in the American people's ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.

Finally, I am not arguing that we "unilaterally disarm" in the face of Republican attacks, or bite our tongue when this Administration screws up. Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; and whenever they gear up their attack machine, we should respond quickly and forcefully. I am suggesting that the tone we take matters, and that truth, as best we know it, be the hallmark of our response.

My dear friend Paul Simon used to consistently win the votes of much more conservative voters in Southern Illinois because he had mastered the art of "disagreeing without being disagreeable," and they trusted him to tell the truth. Similarly, one of Paul Wellstone's greatest strengths was his ability to deliver a scathing rebuke of the Republicans without ever losing his sense of humor and affability. In fact, I would argue that the most powerful voices of change in the country, from Lincoln to King, have been those who can speak with the utmost conviction about the great issues of the day without ever belittling those who opposed them, and without denying the limits of their own perspectives.

In that spirit, let me end by saying I don't pretend to have all the answers to the challenges we face, and I look forward to periodic conversations with all of you in the months and years to come. I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up. And I, in turn, will always try and show you the respect and candor one owes his friends and allies.

As you have probably guessed by now, this was written by Sen. Barack Obama. One of the main things that drew my attention is highlighted and I think it is something we need to think hard about. It is so true and so very fitting to today's crowd.

Nobel Prize Winner, Barack Obama

I have seen and heard so many people saying President Obama should not have won the Nobel Peace Prize. For various reasons, it seems but for the most part it is either because it seems no one thinks he has done enough, or he has carried on too many of the war policies.

However, Rachel Maddow takes on all critics last night in her opening segment and blows them away. Rachel is not known for her war mongering and is quite the peacenik herself so for her to come out in favor of this and to strongly support the President getting the Prize says a lot in my book.

Watch if you haven't seen it.. and maybe you might learn a lot about the selection process.

Gays and Marriage, Bill Maher, New Rules, 06-19-09,

Last nights New Rules were pretty good. Bill had some very valid points about our members of Congress and the members of the Democratic party.

We knew who Barack Obama was when we voted him into office, or we should have. Anyone who thought he was any different than a centrist or a pragmatist really didn't know Barack Obama. If they thought he was a bleeding heart liberal, they hadn't been paying attention.

The Republicans and McCain did everything they could to try to paint him that way, calling him the most liberal, the farthest left of anyone, and it went on and on. The scare factor of the Republicans is always high, and to a certain extent it worked. People still think that, and believe he is betraying them, because he isn't doing what they believe he stood for. Well he didn't stand for a lot of the things they think he did, he never said he was for same sex marriage, he has always said he was for civil unions, but he always wanted the same civil rights for all, no matter the sexual orientation.

I may disagree with him, and so may lots of others, but he isn't saying you can't get married, he is just saying that is his belief, and he says that shouldn't be a federal law. Which is why he wants DOMA struck down by legislation through Congress, which it has to be done. He can't just do an Executive Order, which everyone needs to realize.

DADT is another one. This is NOT something that can be changed by Executive Order. Oh, I know people think it can, but they are naive, and need to educate themselves. This has to be done by law, through Congress. That is the only way it can be changed. That is because it is a law, not just a policy. If it had been enacted through an Executive Order, then the president could just overturn it with the stroke of his pen, but Bill Clinton signed it into law, with an act of Congress, therefore it takes an Act of Congress to overturn it or the Supreme Court.

UPDATE Here is the relevant article you need to look at, Only congress or the SCOTUS can do anything about DADT. Congress must repeal or supersede 10 U.S.C. § 654.

So, rail against the president all you want, protest in the street, yell, scream say he is breaking a promise, but you look like a fool unless you know what you are talking about. And you don't.

WHEN YOU HAVE OPENLY GAY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO HAVEN'T SENT A BILL THROUGH FOR OVERTURNING DADT AND DOMA, WHO IS BETRAYING WHO?

I think it is time to ask yourselves that question. Listen to what Bill Maher has to say, he is really spot on with his statements here..

Remember When the Republicans said the Democrats Hated the Military? UPDATED! UPDATE II

Yeah, I know.. it's supposed to be the proper thing now to say we aren't funding this war effort.. well sorry, you will never hear me say that. We have military in harms way. We have troops who need funding. This needs to be done. I don't want to hear your crap.

I remember this mess from Cindy McCain during the campaign and it made me so angry when she pulled this 2 faced nonsense. John McCain as Senator didn't vote for the GI Bill, and didn't vote for most of the supplementals during his time in the senate. His record on Veteran affairs was terrible. Yet, this is what she said about then Sen. Obama, when he voted against a supplemental bill, because there was no deadline for withdrawl in it.

Cindy McCain today joined in the stepped-up attacks on Democrat Barack Obama.

"I'm proud of my sons, but let me tell you, the day that Senator Obama decided to cast a vote to not fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body," she said, drawing a chorus of boos.

"Let me tell you: I would suggest that Senator Obama change shoes with me for just one day, and see what it means, and see what it means to have a loved one serving in the armed forces, and more importantly, serving in harm's way."

McCain, who said Tuesday that Obama has "waged the dirtiest campaign in American history," is referring to a vote that Obama cast last year against a defense funding bill because it did not include a timeline for pulling out of Iraq. He subsequently voted for a version that included a timetable.

Jimmy McCain, then 18, served with the Marines in Iraq last year before returning in February.

Now, lets see what happens when the new bill comes up for vote tonight or tomorrow in the house and the senate. Will Sen. McCain vote for the new supplemental bill? Or will he stand in lock step with the rest of the hypocritical republicans and let his sons stand on the battlefield with no money?

UPDATE As of 5:43 PM CDT, June 16, 2009 the bill had passed the House 226 to 202. Now it is on to the Senate to see what they will do.

UPDATE II Around 5:00 PM CDT June 19,2009 the bill passed the Senate with a vote 91-5, voting against the bill were Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Jim DeMint, R-S.C.; Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.; Russ Feingold, D-Wis.; and Bernard Sanders, I-Vt.

Was Ronald Reagan an Even Worse President Than George W. Bush?

Listening to Morning Joe hawk his book, hearing Newt Gingrich sound bites from last night, Sarah Palin from her introduction speech which borrowed copiously from the Newtster, (and of course the introduction was of none other than the son of Ronald Reagan, Michael,) you would think Ronnie was still alive and running for President again.

The myth that is Ronald Reagan is one that drives me crazy. I lived through the years of Reagan and I truly don't remember him being all that wonderful. There were tax increases, inflation, poverty, higher defense spending, and lots of shady dealings.

Robert Parry has a great piece up at AlterNet about this very thing. I was reading it yesterday and was struck by how he systematically destroys the myth that is Ronald Reagan.

I tried to listen to the President Friday in Germany when he went to Buchenwald and everyone kept wanting to compare him to Reagan. I wanted to throw something at the TeeVee or something. What is it that makes these idiots want to compare Pres. Obama to a former occupant of the White House?

But, getting back to Parry's article. It is pretty lengthy, but it is worth the read I think. Some of the highlights are:

When it came to cutting back on America's energy use, Reagan's message could be boiled down to the old reggae lyric, "Don't worry, be happy." Rather than pressing Detroit to build smaller, fuel-efficient cars, Reagan made clear that the auto industry could manufacture gas-guzzlers without much nagging from Washington.

The same with the environment. Reagan intentionally staffed the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department with officials who were hostile toward regulation aimed at protecting the environment. George W. Bush didn't invent Republican hostility toward scientific warnings of environmental calamities; he was just picking up where Reagan left off.

Reagan pushed for deregulation of industries, including banking; he slashed income taxes for the wealthiest Americans in an experiment known as "supply side" economics, which held falsely that cutting rates for the rich would increase revenues and eliminate the federal deficit.

Over the years, "supply side" would evolve into a secular religion for many on the Right, but Reagan's budget director David Stockman once blurted out the truth, that it would lead to red ink "as far as the eye could see."

Then he takes on the "cold war" myth and the role Reagan played in it.

However, a strong case can be made that the Cold War was won well before Reagan arrived in the White House. Indeed, in the 1970s, it was a common perception in the U.S. intelligence community that the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was winding down, in large part because the Soviet economic model had failed in the technological race with the West.

-snip-

Though the Afghan covert operation originated with Cold Warriors in the Carter administration, especially national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, the war was dramatically ramped up under Reagan, who traded U.S. acquiescence toward Pakistan's nuclear bomb for its help in shipping sophisticated weapons to the Afghan jihadists (including a young Saudi named Osama bin Laden).

While Reagan's acolytes cite the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan as decisive in "winning the Cold War," the counter-argument is that Moscow was already in disarray – and while failure in Afghanistan may have sped the Soviet Union's final collapse – it also created twin dangers for the future of the world: the rise of al-Qaeda terrorism and the nuclear bomb in the hands of Pakistan's unstable Islamic Republic.

Trade-offs elsewhere in the world also damaged long-term U.S. interests. In Latin America, for instance, Reagan's brutal strategy of arming right-wing militaries to crush peasant, student and labor uprisings left the region with a legacy of anti-Americanism that is now resurfacing in the emergence of populist leftist governments.

In Nicaragua, for instance, Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega (whom Reagan once denounced as a "dictator in designer glasses") is now back in power. In El Salvador, the leftist FMLN won the latest elections. Indeed, across the region, hostility to Washington is now the rule, creating openings for China, Iran, Cuba and other American rivals.

And now comes the neo-cons and the "librul media" creation we all hear so much about. Yes, Reagan had a hand in that too.

In the early 1980s, Reagan also credentialed a young generation of neocon intellectuals, who pioneered a concept called "perception management," the shaping of how Americans saw, understood and were frightened by threats from abroad.

Many honest reporters saw their careers damaged when they resisted the lies and distortions of the Reagan administration. Likewise, U.S. intelligence analysts were purged when they refused to bend to the propaganda demands from above.

To marginalize dissent, Reagan and his subordinates stoked anger toward anyone who challenged the era's feel-good optimism. Skeptics were not just honorable critics, they were un-American defeatists or – in Jeane Kirkpatrick's memorable attack line – they would "blame America first."

Under Reagan, a right-wing infrastructure also took shape, linking media outlets (magazines, newspapers, books, etc.) with well-financed think tanks that churned out endless op-eds and research papers. Plus, there were attack groups that went after mainstream journalists who dared disclose information that poked holes in Reagan's propaganda themes.

As you can see, Parry pulls no punches and he is literally destroying the myth that is Reagan.. But, it needs to be done. This has gone on so long, people have believed this and bought into this for the last 20 years and it is so wrong.

Now we are going to talk about the economy under Reagan. This is another issue that we hear a lot about. How wonderful it was. Well, I guess that depends on which side of the spectrum you were on.

While he played the role of the nation's kindly grandfather, his operatives divided the American people, using "wedge issues" to deepen grievances especially of white men who were encouraged to see themselves as victims of "reverse discrimination" and "political correctness."

Yet even as working-class white men were rallying to the Republican banner (as so-called "Reagan Democrats"), their economic interests were being savaged. Unions were broken and marginalized; "free trade" policies shipped manufacturing jobs abroad; old neighborhoods were decaying; drug use among the young was soaring.

Meanwhile, unprecedented greed was unleashed on Wall Street, fraying old-fashioned bonds between company owners and employees.

Before Reagan, corporate CEOs earned less than 50 times the salary of an average worker. By the end of the Reagan-Bush-I administrations in 1993, the average CEO salary was more than 100 times that of a typical worker. (At the end of the Bush-II administration, that CEO-salary figure was more than 250 times that of an average worker.)

Many other trends set during the Reagan era continued to corrode the U.S. political process in the years after Reagan left office. After 9/11, for instance, the neocons reemerged as a dominant force, reprising their "perception management" tactics, depicting the "war on terror" – like the last days of the Cold War – as a terrifying conflict between good and evil.

The hyping of the Islamic threat mirrored the neocons' exaggerated depiction of the Soviet menace in the 1980s – and again the propaganda strategy worked. Many Americans let their emotions run wild, from the hunger for revenge after 9/11 to the war fever over invading Iraq.

Arguably, the descent into this dark fantasyland – that Ronald Reagan began in the early 1980s – reached its nadir in the flag-waving early days of the Iraq War. Only gradually did reality begin to reassert itself as the death toll mounted in Iraq and the Katrina disaster reminded Americans why they needed an effective government.

Still, the disasters – set in motion by Ronald Reagan – continued to roll in. Bush's Reagan-esque tax cuts for the rich blew another huge hole in the federal budget and the Reagan-esque anti-regulatory fervor led to a massive financial meltdown that threw the nation into economic chaos.

Love Reagan; Hate Bush

Ironically, George W. Bush has come in for savage criticism, but the Republican leader who inspired Bush's presidency – Ronald Reagan – remained an honored figure, his name attached to scores of national landmarks including Washington's National Airport.

Even leading Democrats genuflect to Reagan. Early in Campaign 2008, when Barack Obama was positioning himself as a bipartisan political figure who could appeal to Republicans, he bowed to the Reagan mystique, hailing the GOP icon as a leader who "changed the trajectory of America."

Though Obama's chief point was that Reagan in 1980 "put us on a fundamentally different path" – a point which may be historically undeniable – Obama went further, justifying Reagan's course correction because of "all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s, and government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability."

While Obama later clarified his point to say he didn't mean to endorse Reagan's conservative policies Obama seemed to suggest that Reagan's 1980 election administered a needed dose of accountability to the United States when Reagan actually did the opposite. Reagan's presidency represented a dangerous escape from accountability – and reality.

As I said this is a long but great story. I tried to get the biggest and best points out here. However you can read the rest I didn't put in if you want. I didn't leave out much.

Robert Parry is a great writer. He writes at Consortium News and I have mentioned the site before. I think it was Broadway Carl who pointed me in their direction first. He makes no apologies and calls it like he sees it.

I would love to see your responses and hear your opinions. Let me know what you think.

Cheney was key in clearing CIA interrogation tactics

Repost from an earlier date:

Cheney was key in clearing CIA interrogation tactics

From the LA Times

The vice president says that the use of waterboarding was appropriate and that the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should stay open until 'the end of the war on terror.'

By Greg Miller

December 16, 2008

Reporting from Washington -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that he was directly involved in approving severe interrogation methods used by the CIA, and that the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should remain open indefinitely.

Cheney's remarks on Guantanamo appear to put him at odds with President Bush, who has expressed a desire to close the prison, although the decision is expected to be left to the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama.

Cheney's comments also mark the first time that he has acknowledged playing a central role in clearing the CIA's use of an array of controversial interrogation tactics, including a simulated drowning method known as waterboarding.

"I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared," Cheney said in an interview with ABC News.

Asked whether he still believes it was appropriate to use the waterboarding method on terrorism suspects, Cheney said: "I do."

His comments come on the heels of disclosures by a Senate committee showing that high-level officials in the Bush administration were intimately involved in reviewing and approving interrogation methods that have since been explicitly outlawed and that have been condemned internationally as torture.

Soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney said, the CIA "in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it."

Waterboarding involves strapping a prisoner to a tilted surface, covering his face with a towel and dousing it to simulate the sensation of drowning.

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden has said that the agency used the technique on three Al Qaeda suspects in 2002 and 2003. But the practice was discontinued when lawyers from the Department of Justice and other agencies began backing away from their opinions endorsing its legality.

Cheney has long defended the technique. But he has not previously disclosed his role in pushing to give the CIA such authority.

Cheney's office is regarded as the most hawkish presence in the Bush administration, pushing the White House toward aggressive stances on the invasion of Iraq and the wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

Asked when the Guantanamo Bay prison would be shut down, Cheney said, "I think that that would come with the end of the war on terror." He went on to say that "nobody can specify" when that might occur, and likened the use of the detention facility to the imprisonment of Germans during World War II.

"We've always exercised the right to capture the enemy and hold them till the end of the conflict," Cheney said.

The administration's legal case for holding detainees indefinitely has been eroded by a series of court rulings. Obama has pledged to close the facility, which still holds 250 prisoners.

Cheney's remarks are the latest in a series of interviews granted by Bush and senior officials defending their decisions as they prepare to leave office. Bush recently said his main regret was that U.S. spy agencies had been so mistaken about Iraq's alleged weapons programs. Cheney and the Bush administration have been accused of "cherry-picking" intelligence to support going to war with Iraq.

Cheney said that those mistakes didn't matter, and that the U.S. invasion was justified by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's ability to reestablish destructive weapons programs. The vice president brushed off a series of findings questioning that view, including a 2006 Senate report concluding that Hussein lacked a "coherent effort" to develop nuclear weapons and had only a "limited capability" for chemical weapons.

"This was a bad actor and the country's better off, the world's better off, with Saddam gone, and I think we made the right decision in spite of the fact that the original [intelligence] was off in some of its major judgments," he said.

Our President Can Write An Op-Ed to the World

Image by jmtimages via Flickr

A worldwide letter from our president. He wrote this letter and sent it to over 30 papers around the world, arguing for "the urgent need for global economic cooperation."

I just think this is wonderful that we have a president who reaches out. He is going to the G-20 next week in London and wanted to get this out there before he goes. His next step in the process is getting new regulations passed for banking and the stock market, so this kind of thing can't happen again.

According to the White House, the op-ed ran in the following papers:

1. Al Watan (Gulf States)
2. Arab Times (Gulf States)
3. Asharq Al Awsat (Arab-wide paper in Arabic)
4. The Australian (Australia)
5. Baltimore Sun (United States)
6. Bangkok Post (Thailand)
7. Chicago Tribune (United States)
8. Clarin (Argentina)
9. Corriere della Sera (Italy)
10. Die Welt (Germany)
11. El Pais (Madrid)
12. El Mercurio (Chile)
13. Eleftyropiea (Greece)
14. Estado de Sao Paulo (Brazil)
15. Gulf News (Gulf States)
16. The Hindustan Times/ The Hindu (India)
17. International Herald Tribune (London)
18. Kristeligt Dagblad (Denmark)
19. Le Monde (Paris)
20. Lidove Noviny (Czech)
21. Los Angeles Times (United States)
22. The News (Pakistan)
23. NRC Handelsblad (Netherlands)
24. Saudi Gazette (Saudi Arabia)
25. South China Morning Post (Hong Kong)
26. Straits Times (Singapore)
27. Sunday Times (South Africa)
28. Svenska Dagbladet (Sweden)
29. Syndey Morning Herald (Australia)
30. WProst (Poland)
31. Yomiuri Shimbun (Japan)

A time for global action
By Barack Obama
Monday, March 23, 2009

WASHINGTON: We are living through a time of global economic challenges that cannot be met by half measures or the isolated efforts of any nation. Now, the leaders of the Group of 20 have a responsibility to take bold, comprehensive and coordinated action that not only jump-starts recovery, but also launches a new era of economic engagement to prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.

No one can deny the urgency of action. A crisis in credit and confidence has swept across borders, with consequences for every corner of the world. For the first time in a generation, the global economy is contracting and trade is shrinking.

Trillions of dollars have been lost, banks have stopped lending, and tens of millions will lose their jobs across the globe. The prosperity of every nation has been endangered, along with the stability of governments and the survival of people in the most vulnerable parts of the world.

Once and for all, we have learned that the success of the American economy is inextricably linked to the global economy. There is no line between action that restores growth within our borders and action that supports it beyond.

If people in other countries cannot spend, markets dry up -- already we've seen the biggest drop in American exports in nearly four decades, which has led directly to American job losses. And if we continue to let financial institutions around the world act recklessly and irresponsibly, we will remain trapped in a cycle of bubble and bust. That is why the upcoming London Summit is directly relevant to our recovery at home.

My message is clear: The United States is ready to lead, and we call upon our partners to join us with a sense of urgency and common purpose. Much good work has been done, but much more remains.

Our leadership is grounded in a simple premise: We will act boldly to lift the American economy out of crisis and reform our regulatory structure, and these actions will be strengthened by complementary action abroad. Through our example, the United States can promote a global recovery and build confidence around the world; and if the London Summit helps galvanize collective action, we can forge a secure recovery, and future crises can be averted.

Our efforts must begin with swift action to stimulate growth. Already, the United States has passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- the most dramatic effort to jump-start job creation and lay a foundation for growth in a generation.

Other members of the G-20 have pursued fiscal stimulus as well, and these efforts should be robust and sustained until demand is restored. As we go forward, we should embrace a collective commitment to encourage open trade and investment, while resisting the protectionism that would deepen this crisis.

Second, we must restore the credit that businesses and consumers depend upon. At home, we are working aggressively to stabilize our financial system. This includes an honest assessment of the balance sheets of our major banks, and will lead directly to lending that can help Americans purchase goods, stay in their homes and grow their businesses.

This must continue to be amplified by the actions of our G-20 partners. Together, we can embrace a common framework that insists upon transparency, accountability and a focus on restoring the flow of credit that is the lifeblood of a growing global economy. And the G-20, together with multilateral institutions, can provide trade finance to help lift up exports and create jobs.

Third, we have an economic, security and moral obligation to extend a hand to countries and people who face the greatest risk. If we turn our backs on them, the suffering caused by this crisis will be enlarged, and our own recovery will be delayed because markets for our goods will shrink further and more American jobs will be lost.

The G-20 should quickly deploy resources to stabilize emerging markets, substantially boost the emergency capacity of the International Monetary Fund and help regional development banks accelerate lending. Meanwhile, America will support new and meaningful investments in food security that can help the poorest weather the difficult days that will come.

While these actions can help get us out of crisis, we cannot settle for a return to the status quo. We must put an end to the reckless speculation and spending beyond our means; to the bad credit, over-leveraged banks and absence of oversight that condemns us to bubbles that inevitably bust.

Only coordinated international action can prevent the irresponsible risk-taking that caused this crisis. That is why I am committed to seizing this opportunity to advance comprehensive reforms of our regulatory and supervisory framework.

All of our financial institutions -- on Wall Street and around the globe -- need strong oversight and common sense rules of the road. All markets should have standards for stability and a mechanism for disclosure. A strong framework of capital requirements should protect against future crises. We must crack down on offshore tax havens and money laundering.

Rigorous transparency and accountability must check abuse, and the days of out-of-control compensation must end. Instead of patchwork efforts that enable a race to the bottom, we must provide the clear incentives for good behavior that foster a race to the top.

I know that America bears our share of responsibility for the mess that we all face. But I also know that we need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy. That is a false choice that will not serve our people or any people.

This G-20 meeting provides a forum for a new kind of global economic cooperation. Now is the time to work together to restore the sustained growth that can only come from open and stable markets that harness innovation, support entrepreneurship and advance opportunity.

The nations of the world have a stake in one another. The United States is ready to join a global effort on behalf of new jobs and sustainable growth. Together, we can learn the lessons of this crisis, and forge a prosperity that is enduring and secure for the 21st century.

Barack Obama is president of the United States. A Global Viewpoint article distributed by Tribune Media Services.

Debbie Wasserman Schulz is One Tough Lady, We Need To Watch Her

Image by veni markovski via Flickr

Debbie Wasserman Schulz is one lady we really need to watch, I have said this before and I will say it again, she is tough, smart, and is a powerhouse. Today she revealed that for the last year she has been battling breast cancer, all the while campaigning first for Hillary Clinton, then for Barack Obama. She made numerous TeeVee appearances, rally appearances and still took care of her congressional duties, 3 children and her surgeries.

From the Miami Herald comes this story today.

'

I wanted to be able to not just stand up and say, `I'm a breast cancer survivor.' . . . I wanted to find a gap and try to fill it,'' said Wasserman Schultz, 42.

In the past year, she underwent seven major surgeries, including a double mastectomy and reconstructive surgery, while balancing motherhood, Congress and her roles as a chief fundraiser for House Democrats and a political surrogate, first for Hillary Clinton and then for Barack Obama.

''I had a lot going on last year,'' she said with a laugh, sitting in the living room of the Capitol Hill town house she shares with two other members of Congress when she's in Washington. ``I'm a very focused, methodical person, and I wasn't going to let this beat me. I wasn't going to let it interfere with my life.''

Boy, I'll say she had a lot going on, and I don't think anyone ever had a clue. She was such a powerful voice for first Hillary and then Barack Obama. I remember seeing her on Hardball and at other times and she always was on message and had her arguments down pat.

She said she decided to keep her cancer private, concerned mostly that her young children (then 8-year-old twins and a 4-year-old daughter) would worry, particularly with a mother who was also constantly on the go. They knew she was undergoing surgery, but she didn't tell them the cause.

'I knew from my doctors that if I went through their recommended course of treatment that I would get through it and I'd be fine, that I could come out the other side and confidently tell my children, `Mommy's fine,' '' she said. She planned to tell them Saturday night.

She scheduled her treatment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., during congressional recesses so she wouldn't miss votes in Congress.

Wasserman Shultz is one of the most influential Democratic House members from Florida. She was easily re-elected to her third term in November and is vice chair of the Democratic National Committee.

She said that keeping her illness to a small circle of family members and friends allowed her to ''maintain control'' over a situation that was otherwise out of control.

''I didn't want it to define me,'' she said. 'I didn't want when you wrote a story about me, I would become `Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is battling breast cancer.' I didn't want that to be my name because I knew I was going to be fine.

That sure says a lot about her to me. The article also says because she was at risk for Ovarian cancer she also had her ovaries removed. Like I said what a powerhouse and what a strong lady. To do all this and still run for re-election, be a voice for others, and collect money for the Democratic party, do her congressional duties, be a wife, and a mother of 3 young children. WOW..

These are the kind of leaders we need to keep around. The ones who really do put their Country and other first and not just as a slogan as we see so many times.

GOP Talking Points, from The Plum Line, Greg Sargents Blog

Image via Wikipedia

New GOP Talking Points: Obama Administration Is “Most Politically Obsessed White House In History”

A Republican sends over a new set of GOP talking points for House conservatives — privately circulated this week to scores of GOP press secretaries on the Hill — that blasts the Obama administration as “radical” and “reckless” and the “most politically obsessed White House in history.”

The talking points also make the claim that “the only approach that has not been tried is the conservative approach.”

The talking points represent the first major move this cycle by House conservatives to create united conservative messaging front, according to Roll Call (sub. only). They were sent out by the Republican Study Committee, a group of more than 100 conservative House Repubs headed by GOP Rep Tom Price — a sign that House conservatives are hoping to capitalize on the crisis to mount a comeback for what they’re labeling the “conservative approach” to the economy.

Among the GOP talking points’ highlights on Obama and Dems:

* “The budget is a radical proposal that will change the character of our nation, trampling on freedom and liberty.”

* “The only approach that has not been tried is the conservative approach – limited bureaucracy, lower taxes, and responsible regulatory structures.”

* “The administration is disingenuous, unfocused, and reckless.”

These claims are perhaps thrown into question when you think back to the approach employed by the Obama administration’s predecessors, but at least now you’ll know where this is coming from if you hear it.

As we continue to see, the republicans are going to continue throwing everything they can at Pres. Obama and his administration. Today and this week has been no exception. I have seen several Democrats doing the same. This has always been our problem. We just don't stick together.

No, I am not saying we have to just blindly follow our president. But just because it seems there is a rough patch when we are only 50 some days in and we are going to abandon him and everyone he trusts to work for him, to me is just wrong.

This is not why I voted for him, this is not why I have followed him and supported him for the last few years. It was because I thought he offered us the best hope to help change things in Washington and give us the changes we need to make this a better country. I still do. But I can't answer for any of you. That's your decision.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Party Of No Moves Into Phase II (dailykos.com)
• Cafferty: GOP becoming a cartoon (cnn.com)
• Perino claims Bush was responsible for last week's stock market climb. (thinkprogress.org)
• Steele spends limited GOP funds on redecorating his office. (thinkprogress.org)
• 'Moderate' Senate Democrats to formally announce formation of Blue Dog-style coalition. (thinkprogress.org)
• Obama Has "Full Confidence" In Geithner: Gibbs (huffingtonpost.com)
• Republicans in full whine mode because Obama is going to work around their obstructionist tactics (americablog.com)

AIG Just Gets Worse With Every Story

Image via Wikipedia

Now they even gave part of the money they got to Henry Paulson's old company Goldman Sach's. Maybe that was part of the deal in the first place?? You really have to wonder if that was part of the motivation behind the original bail-out.

Finally, today Bernanke said on 60 Minutes what I said about 3 weeks ago they were going to be trying to break them up. That's what they should have done in the beginning, instead of just saying they were too big to fail and pouring money into them.

Here is the story from Yahoo News and Reuters that talks about them giving money to Goldman and other banks.

A large portion of the taxpayer money spent to rescue insurer AIG was passed on to Goldman Sachs and several European banks, who were among the major beneficiaries of more than $90 billion in payments in the first three-and-a-half months of the government bailout, AIG disclosed on Sunday.

The revelation was another public relations nightmare, coming on the same weekend that the Obama administration expressed outrage over American International Group Inc's plan to pay massive bonuses to the people in the very division that destroyed the company by issuing billions of dollars in derivatives insuring risky assets.

AIG, an embattled insurance giant that has received federal bailouts totaling $173 billion and is now paying $165 million in employee bonuses, is at the heart of a global financial crisis that President Barack Obama is trying to address with plans for trillions of dollars in spending.

As part of those efforts, Obama will announce steps on Monday to make it easier for small business owners to borrow money, officials said.

But the revelations that billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars were funneled through AIG to Goldman Sachs -- one of Wall Street's most politically connected firms -- and to European banks including Deutsche Bank, France's Societe Generale and the UK's Barclays was likely to stoke further outrage at the entire U.S. bank bailout.

While the payments were not illegal, the fact that billions of dollars given to prop up giant insurer AIG were then transferred to European banks and Wall Street investment houses could raise new doubts about whether the rescue was really economically necessary.

Goldman Sachs, formerly led by Henry Paulson who was treasury secretary at the time of the original AIG bailout, could not immediately be reached for comment. Deutsche Bank and Barclays declined to comment.

The story goes on to describe the plan that Pres. Obama will lay out tomorrow for the small businesses which will help them with the loans they need to proceed. Most of this is from the Recovery Plan that was passed three weeks ago.

AIG also stated today they were going through with the bonuses they planned to pay some of their employees. Treasury Secretary Geithner, Fed Chairman Bernanke and others in the Administration, along with several members of Congress who were on the Sunday shows all expressed outrage with their plan to continue to pay these.

However Edward Liddy, AIG's chairman said failure to pay these bonuses would void the contracts that predated the bailout. After Sec. Geithner called Liddy Wed. and told him it would not be wise to pay the bonuses, Liddy sent a letter back to Pres. Obama and the others to tell them he had no choice.

Summers -- speaking before the payments to banks were made public -- called the AIG bonuses "outrageous" but said contracts must be honored, even though Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had "negotiated very forcefully" with AIG and done all that was "legally permissible" to limit the payments.

"We're not a country where contacts just get abrogated willy nilly," Summers, a former treasury secretary, said on CBS's "Face the Nation" program. "What the lesson is, is this: We don't really have a satisfactory regulatory regime in place."

News of the AIG bonuses sparked outrage beyond political circles and was equally apparent on news Web sites and among ordinary Americans.

Now that the story of the payments to the other banks have broken I am sure when Liddy gets to Capitol Hill on Wednesday he will hear about it.

The payments to AIG counterparties include the provision of collateral to back up credit default swaps, a form of financial insurance that AIG's London office was writing, the purchase of the collateralized default obligations, a type of complex debt security that underlay that insurance, and payments to counterparties of a securities lending program.

Through three separate types of transactions, Goldman received an aggregate $12.9 billion. Among European banks, SocGen was the biggest recipient at $11.9 billion, Deutsche got $11.8 billion and Barclays was paid $8.5 billion.

The list of counterparties was made public by AIG amid growing pressure on the insurer to come clean about the true beneficiaries of the bailout ahead of a congressional hearing on Wednesday at which AIG chief executive Edward Liddy is slated to testify.

Mostly the Republican talking heads just rattled this morning, but they did say they would have to see what could be done about the contracts and the deals that had been made.

AIG's Liddy said in a letter to Geithner the giant insurer was legally obligated to make 2008 employee retention payments but had agreed to revamp its system for future bonuses after the Obama administration objected.

"There are a lot of terrible things that have happened in the last 18 months, but what's happened at AIG is the most outrageous," Summers said.

Representative Barney Frank, the Democratic chairman of the powerful House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, said the government must see if the bonuses can be recovered, adding that the timing of AIG's commitment was important.

"We can't just violate law, legal obligations," Frank told Fox. "I understand that. But I do want to find out at what point these illegal obligations were incurred."

Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader in the Senate, called the AIG situation an "outrage" and said the nature of the contracts needed to be checked.

"Did they enter into these contracts knowing full well that, as a practical matter, the taxpayers of the United States were going to be reimbursing their employees? Particularly employees who got them into this mess in the first place?" McConnell said on ABC's "This Week."

Let's hope they do something. These idiots just don't understand what is going on in the real world. I think it is time to cut them loose. Either they do without the money from the Government or they do without the bonuses. That would be a very easy decision for me and a lot of others to make.

Where is Sick Rantelli now.. Here, if you ask me is his LOSER!!!!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Bailed-out AIG doles out $165 million in bonuses. (thinkprogress.org)
• Basket Case Insurer Gets $170 Billion from Taxpayers, Still Pays Huge Bonuses (boingboing.net)
• AIG is doing it again (americablog.com)
• AIG Paying Millions in Bonuses Despite Receiving Federal Aid (shoppingblog.com)
• AIG - an apology (capital-chronicle.com)
• AIG Claims It Must Pay Out $165 Million in Bonuses (gothamist.com)
• Letter From AIG Chairman Ed Liddy to Timothy Geithner: We Have To Pay $100 Million Bonuses (firedoglake.com)
• Revealed: 15 AIG bailout counterparties (money.cnn.com)
• AIG still paying bonuses. Oh wells. (dailykos.com)

New GOPer Talking Points for This Week??

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I am wondering if I just heard the new GOP Talking Points for this week. I usually watch Fox News Sunday in the afternoon instead of in the morning. So I am watching it now.

Brit Hume just said, "Recession's are cyclical, and IF we have been in a recession since 2007 as we have been told, then it's time we started coming out. Therefore things are bound to start looking a little better."

In other words, we better start hedging our bets, because if this thing the president and the democrats have done works, we are in deep shit and we need to cover our asses....lol

I really think that's what he was doing. Setting the stage for their talking points and trying to set everyone up so if things are starting to turn around they can say it wasn't the Recovery Plan, it was just one of those things, just the way recessions work.

I can't wait to see what the Joke has to say in the morning, to see if he continues the theme and if I am right. But I wanted to put it down here. Just so I can keep track of it and you all can too.

There's No One As Irish As?????

I was out blogging this morning and found this at Fran's and had to share it. I know it is a little early yet but still thought I would post it so if anyone else wants it they can put it out. I may post it again Tuesday.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. There is another one at the web site Corrigan brothers dance and you can even put in your picture and make your own, or make someone else do a river dance.

Of course, be prepared, it will sing the song "There's No One As Irish As Barack Obama" with whoever picture you put in there. So be careful who you send it to. I am sure my daughter won't speak to me for a week or two again...lol I just sent it to her with my granddaughters picture in it...lol



Have fun and remember our President is multi cultural. How wonderful that he is, like most of us.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obsessed With Barack Obama? Good News: He Now Has a Real Fan Site (profy.com)
• Overturning DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell Part of 'Radical Social Agenda' (queerty.com)

D.K has a Great Post About The First 50 Days

Image via Wikipedia

D.K. has up a great post to show what President Obama has accomplished in the first 50 days in office. It really is a wonder what he has done.

Head over to RedHeaded Wisdom and check out her post called Lovely Luna. She always has some great things to say and has a very insightful way of putting things in perspective.

I love reading D.K.'s posts, she always has a way with words.

A couple of days ago she posted about Rikki Tikki Tavi.. from the Jungle Book.. but it was about paying taxes and using that as an analogy...lol So like I said it is worth a visit.

Check it out...

Tim Geithner Sits Down With Charlie Rose

Image via Wikipedia

Tim Geithner sat down with Charlie Rose last night. Here is his their discussion. I have said before I think Tim is getting a bum rap. He is articulate, bright and was the pick of Wall Street when he was selected. Chuck Todd said just as much this morning.

I think because he hasn't done what Wall Street has wanted him to do, which is kiss their butts and give them money hand over fist, they just are not giving him the love any longer. So, now he is not a good pick, he is sending mixed messages. On and on. Typical negativity.

Watch this and see what you think. Sounds to me like he knows of what he speaks and like he has a plan. Maybe that's the problem, the plan he has is not what they want...lol

Bill Maher New Rules for March 6, 2009

This is going to be a regular segment for him every week. It is very funny and very good. He has some wonderful ideas and is spot on. Last weeks I laughed and had to admit were wonderful..except the snugly thing...lol

This week.. they are great. In fact the entire show was wonderful. He had T.Boone Pickens on.. who we all know and remember was part of the Swift Boaters, and Maher made him admit it. He then asked him about voting for McCain...lol, and asked him about Pres. Obama. Cory Booker was also on this week, he is the mayor of Newark, NJ.

He also had Erin Burnett on and asked her how CNBC could have missed the housing melt down so much. Since they are such financial giants. It was really a good show. But, I won't put the entire thing up here. You can find it on YouTube if you want to see it and don't have HBO.

But here are the New Rules for this week:



I will try to post these every week if I can.

Great Interview With Pres. Obama by NY Times Friday

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

On Air Force One Friday as they traveled back from Ohio, President Obama gave an interview to the NY Times reporters who were with him. They asked many questions, however the one that struck me as the most ignorant was, "Are you a socialist as some people have suggested?". I thought this was the NY Times, not Fox News. Click the title also to see the entire interview. Or there are other places in here to click to see it.

However, our President took it in stride, and answered graciously as always. "You know, let’s take a look at the budget – the answer would be no."

There is more to this discussion that I haven't put here, he just basically tells them to stick it...lol Then tells them what he thinks in no uncertain terms. The reporter then wants to play games and says well are you a liberal, progressive, one word, whatever.. and the president just tells him to forget it.. he isn't playing those games. Like I said earlier.. silly season... like Fox News. And they call them Liberal Media... geeze louise...lol

After landing and thinking about it for a bit Pres. Obama decided to flesh out his answer just a bit and called them back. Here is what he told them then.

At 2:30 p.m., President Obama called The New York Times, saying he wanted to clarify a point from the interview. Here is a transcript of that brief call:

President Obama: Just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter. It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question. I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn’t under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn’t on my watch. And it wasn’t on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement – the prescription drug plan without a source of funding. And so I think it’s important just to note when you start hearing folks through these words around that we’ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word socialist around can’t say the same.

Q. So who’s watch are we talking about here?

A. Well, I just think it’s clear by the time we got here, there already had been an enormous infusion of taxpayer money into the financial system. And the thing I constantly try to emphasize to people if that coming in, the market was doing fine, nobody would be happier than me to stay out of it. I have more than enough to do without having to worry the financial system. The fact that we’ve had to take these extraordinary measures and intervene is not an indication of my ideological preference, but an indication of the degree to which lax regulation and extravagant risk taking has precipitated a crisis.

I think that covers it.

Now there is a lot more that comes between these two points in the interview, but I am not going to copy and paste it all here. I will just give you the link and you can go read it. It is a very good interview. Never let it be said that he is not being open and honest, transparent and clear in his answers.

Related articles by Zemanta

• NYT Finally Gets Interview (politicalwire.com)

Bob Herbert Has Good Things to Say About Pres. Obama

The NY Times Opinion Pages this week has an Op-Ed writer that is worth taking a look.

The always worth reading Bob Herbert is very good Friday with an article titled "Miracles Take Time". In this piece Mr. Herbert points out that Pres. Obama is getting blamed for this economic disaster unfairly by the right wingers and others for not fixing the Stock Market, even though he has only been president for 6 weeks.

Barack Obama has only been president for six weeks, but there is a surprising amount of ire, anger, even outrage that he hasn’t yet solved the problems of the U.S. economy, that he hasn’t saved us from the increasingly tragic devastation wrought by the clownish ideas of right-wing conservatives and the many long years of radical Republican misrule.

He goes on to point out 4.4 million jobs have been lost since this recession started in December, 2007 and instead of people offering help to fix that, they take to the floor of the senate this week to deride him over of all things earmarks.

Freaking out over earmarks is like watching a neighborhood that is being consumed by flames and complaining that there is crabgrass on some of the lawns.

However maybe the most important paragraph to me is this one, which to me points out one of the best arguments for President Obama's bold agenda.

In the midst of the craziness, conservatives are busy trying to blame this epic economic catastrophe — a conflagration of their own making — on the new president. Forget Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush and George Herbert Hoover Bush and the Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth and Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich and all the rest. The right-wingers would have you believe this is Obama’s downturn.

As I said it is a great opinion piece. Bob Herbert is one of my favorites at the Times, and he didn't disappoint yesterday. He goes on to point out how the right are trying to paint the president with the Socialist meme, as a communist, and every other radical thing they can find.

He even brings up the Alan Keyes birth certificate lawsuit and how crazy that is. The article is worth taking a minute to read. It is very well written and very good. He ends it with this thought.

What I know is that the renegade clowns who ruined this economy, the Republican right in alliance with big business and a fair number of feckless Democrats — all working in opposition to the interests of working families — have no credible basis for waging war against serious efforts to get us out of their mess.

Maybe the markets are down because demand has dried up, because many of the nation’s biggest firms have imploded and because Americans are losing their jobs and their homes by the millions. Maybe a dose of reality is in order, as opposed to the childish desire for yet another stock market bubble.

Maybe the nuns in grammar school were right when they counseled that patience is a virtue. The man has been president for six weeks.

RNC and Their Dishonest Take on President Obama's First Month

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

From the mind of the RNC.org web site... here is their review of the first month of President Obama. Of course they tell us all the time, they are not going to criticize him, nor are they going to say anything against him because he is so popular with the people. Yeah, right. I believe all that... don't you??

I don't even know where to start with this crap. First of all, I will start with the very first thing they have on their list. The "Slash Earmarks". I have been hearing this all week. President Obama, when he was running for President, promised and stated over and over, that he would REFORM earmarks. He never once said he would ELIMINATE THEM.

Eliminating them was always McCain's big thing.. he was going to use his Sharpie and make them famous or some stupid crap. But then Senator Obama, only said he wanted to eliminate the WASTEFUL spending, and REFORM the way the earmark process worked, to get it out of the dark back room type process and get it into the light of day. His pledge was to take it back to the level of 1994, around "Slash Earmarks: During the years when Republicans controlled Congress, earmarks grew from $7.8 billion in 1994 to $29 billion in 2006. In the past two years, the Democratic Congress has cut earmarks nearly in half, to $17.2 billion in 2008. Obama and Biden are committed to returning earmarks to less than $7.8 billion a year." That comes from the "Blueprint for Change" page 9. They say it is page 20, but it isn't. unless you count the pages differently than they were on my computer.


Obama's First Month Has Been Marked By Wasteful Spending, Failed Bipartisanship, And Questionable Ethics

President Obama Promised To Slash Earmarks And Stop Wasteful Spending:

President Obama Pledged To "Slash Earmarks." "Slash Earmarks: ... In the past two years, the Democratic Congress has cut earmarks nearly in half, to $17.2 billion in 2008. Obama and Biden are committed to returning earmarks to less than $7.8 billion a year." (Obama For America, Blueprint For Change, www.barackobama.com, p. 20, Accessed 2/19/09)

President Obama: The Stimulus Has No Earmarks. "'I am confident that by the time we have the final package on the floor that we are going to see substantial support, and people are going to see this is a serious effort. It has no earmarks. We are going to be trimming out things that are not relevant to putting people back to work right now,' Obama said." (Douglass K. Daniel, "GOP Leader Doubts Stimulus Bill Will Pass Senate," The Associated Press, 2/2/09)

But President Obama Just Signed An Economic Stimulus Package Full Of Wasteful Spending:

Despite Promises, The Stimulus Is Not Free Of Money For Special Interests. "The compromise stimulus bill adopted by House and Senate negotiators this week is not free of spending that benefits specific communities, industries or groups, despite vows by President Obama that the legislation would be kept clear of pet projects, according to lawmakers, legislative aides and anti-tax groups." (Dan Eggen and Ellen Nakashima, "Despite Pledges, Package Has Some Pork," The Washington Post, 2/13/09)

Nancy Pelosi's Mouse... FALSE... there is NOTHING in the plan for the damn mouse.. geeze how many times does that have to be proven a lie.


The Bill Even Includes $30 Million For Salt Marsh Harvest Mice In San Francisco. "Lawmakers and administration officials divulged Wednesday that the $789 billion economic stimulus bill being finalized behind closed doors in Congress includes $30 million for wetlands restoration that the Obama administration intends to spend in the San Francisco Bay Area to protect, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi represents the city of San Francisco and has previously championed preserving the mouse's habitat in the Bay Area." (S.A. Miller, "Pelosi's Mo use Slated For $30m Slice Of Cheese," The Washington Times, 2/12/09)

And President Obama Campaigned On The Promise Of Bipartisanship And Said He Wanted Republicans To Vote For His Stimulus Package:

"Obama Has Said He Plans To Work With Republicans To Cut Through Partisan Gridlock That Often Blocks Legislative Progress." (Sabrina Eaton, "Ohioan An Early Obama Critic," [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, 1/29/09)

President Obama Wanted Not Only "Quick Congressional Action" But Also "Significant Numbers Of Republicans" To Vote For The Stimulus. "In pursuit of his twin goals of reviving the economy and transforming the political climate in Washington, President-elect Barack Obama not only wants quick congressional action on his mammoth stimulus package but also wants significant numbers of Republicans to join in voting for it." (James Puzzanghera and Christi Parsons, "Obama Aims For Quick Economic Stimulus, Bipartisan Support," Chicago Tribune, 1/6/09)

This is a lie, Sen. Mark Begich of AK stated several times and you can go to my blog roll and go to Immoral Minority, there is a video of him and Sen. Lisa Murkowski talking and they both say it was a bipartisan bill. He is a Democrat, she is a Republican. There are tax cuts in this bill, there are other things in this bill which was put in by the republicans. Just an out and out lie. AGAIN.

But The Stimulus Package Was Not Bipartisan; House Republicans Were Not Even Allowed At The Table When The Bill Was Written:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): We Won The Election, We Wrote The Bill. "Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) parried GOP assaults on Democrats' $825 billion stimulus package Thursday and refused to slow the bill down to give more time for Republican input. 'Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes we won the election, but that doesn't mean we don't want sustainability or Republican support,' Pelosi said." (Steven T. Dennis, "Pelosi Defends Democrats' Vetting Of Stimulus Plan," Roll Call, 1/22/09)

Democrats Rolled Over House Republicans And "Yielded No More Than Necessary" In The Senate To Pass The Stimulus Package. "In the case of the stimulus bill, Democrats used their solid majority to roll over House Republicans and yielded no more than necessary to garner three critical GOP votes in the Senate." (Janet Hook, "Bipartisanship Faces Stiff Test," Chicago Tribune, 2/16/09)

For President Obama, "Urgency Trumps Bipartisanship." "But with the economy in crisis and the stimulus his top priority, [President Obama] also made clear that urgency trumps bipartisanship." (Todd J. Gillman, "Selling The Stimulus Bill President Discovering That Bipartisanship Has Its Limits," The Dallas Morning News, 2/10/09)

And President Obama Pledged Transparency And Openness Before Signing Legislation:

During The Campaign, President Obama Promised To Give The American Public 5 Days To Review Legislation Before Signing Any Bill. "Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." (Obama For America Website, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 2/19/09)

All these bills are online if you want to see them, all you have to do is look. I have seen all of them for days and have even posted them right here on my site. So to say they aren't available is just false. You just have to look and read.

But The Obama Administration Has Failed To Allow The Public 5 Days To Review Legislation It Has Signed:

According To The Nonpartisan PolitiFact, President Obama Did Not Provide 5 Days Before Signing His First Bill, The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. "But the first bill Obama signed into law as president -- the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- got no such vetting. In fact, the Congressional Record shows that the law was passed in the Senate on Jan. 22, 2009, passed in the House on Jan. 27, and signed by the president on Jan. 29. So only two days passed between the bill's final passage and the signing." (Angie Drobnic Holan, "Obama Signs First Law Without Web Comment," St. Petersburg Times' "PolitiFact," www.politifact.com, 1/29/09) ( yes, they say they are, but they are holding Pres. Obama to a standard they have never held another President. They even say they are. So, I think maybe they are just a little partisan. As in.. me thinks they protest too much.)

President Obama's Second Bill Signing Occurred Hours After Passed By Congress. "For his second bill, Obama signed an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides health coverage for low-income children. He signed it on Feb. 4, 2009, just hours after it was finalized in Congress." (Angie Drobnic Holan, "Still No 'Sunlight Before Signing,'" St. Petersburg Times' "PolitiFact," www.politifact.com, 2/4/09)
And During The Campaign, Obama Said Lobbyists Wouldn't Dominate His White House Or Work For Agencies They Used To Lobby:

During His Campaign, President Obama Promised To "Stop The Revolving Door That Lets Onetime Lobbyists Go To Work For The Federal Government." "[O]n the campaign trail, Obama vowed to stop the revolving door that lets onetime lobbyists go to work for the Federal Government and oversee contracts that could harm -- or help -- their former employer." (Mark Thompson, "Obama's Lobbyist Ban Meets A Loophole: William Lynn," Time, 1/27/09)

William Lynn, was requested to be waivered by Robert Gates. I have talked about this before. I think it is worth noting that no one really ever points this out. Yes, there were some, that President Obama might have slipped through, but this one was entirely Bob Gates at the Pentagon. He was the one who asked for and pushed for this waiver saying that he couldn't work without him, since Pres. Obama wanted Gates to stay, he bowed down to this. I am not giving the President a pass, just saying there is some blame to be put around the bend here.

President Obama Signed An Executive Order Banning Lobbyists From Working For Agencies They Used To Lobby. "And one of the first things the new President did in office was seemingly make good on that promise, signing an Executive Order barring former lobbyists from joining his Administration to work at agencies they recently lobbied." (Mark Thompson, "Obama's Lobbyist Ban Meets A Loophole: William Lynn," Time, 1/27/09)

But President Obama Has Appointed Numerous Former Lobbyists:

President Obama Has Appointed At Least 21 Former Federal Registered Lobbyists, Including Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "A USA TODAY review of Obama hires shows that 21 have registered as federal lobbyists, although most have not done so within the past two years. They include White House aide Cecilia Munoz, who lobbied last year for the National Council of La Raza, and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who lobbied in 2007 for a national teachers union." (Fredreka Schouten, "Geithner Names Ex-Lobbyist As Treasury Chief Of Staff," USA< /st1:country-region> Today, 1/27/09)

Little disingenuous don't you think.

President Obama Appointed Former Raytheon Lobbyist William Lynn As Deputy Secretary Of Defense. "This year President Barack Obama is putting Raytheon's recently departed top lobbyist in charge of the Pentagon's day-to-day management. ... Not surprisingly, Obama's good-government backers were less than pleased to see the President, only a few days after signing the blanket ban, issue a waiver permitting William Lynn to serve as Deputy Secretary of Defense." (Mark Thompson, "Obama's Lobbyist Ban Meets A Loophole: William Lynn," Time, 1/27/09)

In Addition To These Issues, President Obama Has Had Difficulties Appointing People To Fill Top Positions In His Administration:

"But Mr. Obama Lost Four Nominees To Tax And Other Issues And The Pace Of Appointments Slowed." (Peter Baker, "Obama Team Has Billions To Spend, But Few Ready To Do It," The New York Times, 2/17/09)

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner Failed To Pay Taxes While Working For The International Monetary Fund. "Timothy Geithner didn't pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for several years while he worked for the International Monetary Fund, and he employed an immigrant housekeeper who briefly lacked proper work papers." (Jonathan Weisman, "Geithner's Tax History Muddles Confirmation," The Wall Street Journal, 1/14/09)

Health And Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle Withdrew His Nomination After Reports That He Had Failed To Pay Taxes. "Former Sen. Tom Daschle has withdrawn his nomination to head the Department of Health and Human Services, according to a statement Tuesday from the White House. ... Daschle, the former Senate majority leader, apologized Monday for failing to pay his taxes in full. He said earlier he was 'deeply embarrassed' for a series of errors that included failing to report $15,000 in charitable donations, unreported car service and more than $80,000 in unreported income from consulting." (Ed Henry and Kristi Keck, "Daschle Withdraws As HHS Nominee," CNN, 2/3/09)

Nancy Killefer Withdrew Her Nomination For Tax Problems Dating Back To 1995. "They knew about Nancy Killefer's tax problem from 1995, yet they nominated her for a post in the office of management and budget anyway. This morning she withdrew." (Sam Donaldson, Op-Ed, "Sam On What Nominees' Withdrawal Says About Obama," ABC News, 2/3/09)

Commerce Secretary Nominee Bill Richardson Withdrew His Nomination After Reports That State Contracts In New Mexico Were Under Investigation. "First, they knew about Gov. Bill Richardson's potential problem in the New Mexico investigation into state contracts, but they nominated him to be commerce secretary anyway. Weeks later, of course, Richardson withdrew." (Sam Donaldson, Op-Ed, "Sam On What Nominees' Withdrawal Says About Obama," ABC News, 2/3/09)