5 hours and 53 minutes ago
GOP governors ended their meeting in Texas on Thursday by cautioning the party’s 2010 candidates to go easy on President Obama. “We need to be careful. We need to treat the president respectfully,” said Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who chairs the Republican Governors Association, noting that the nation’s first African-American president enjoys a “residuary of good will.” Somehow it’s hard to imagine that warning will be heeded by conservative media or by conservative candidates in red states such as Kansas, where Obama’s approval rating was just 41 percent late last month (in a SurveyUSA poll co-sponsored by KWCH, Channel 12).
13 hours and 33 minutes ago
There may be good science behind a federal task force recommendation that women in their 40s don’t need annual mammograms, but it was bad timing for the Obama administration. Coming in the midst of the heated debate about health care reform, the recommendation became instant fodder for those claiming that the government is going to ration health care and get between patients and their doctors. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius responded Wednesday that the task force does “not set federal policy and they don’t determine what services are covered by the federal government.” But that’s unlikely to quell concerns.
The public is evenly divided on the proposed health care reforms, with 49 percent opposed and 48 percent supportive, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. The public also doubts that the reform will help control costs, with 56 percent saying that overall health care costs will go up. But 66 percent support requiring all large employers to provide health insurance coverage or face fines, and 53 percent support a public insurance option (72 percent support one limited to those who lack access to coverage).
The public still favors President Obama over Republicans in handling the economy (52 to 37 percent) and health care (50 to 37 percent), though the gaps have narrowed some during the year. And 61 percent of those surveyed think that GOP leaders mainly criticize Obama’s proposals without offering alternatives.
In 2003, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., made a principled argument against filibustering judicial nominations. “We are really changing the constitutional design of what it takes to basically nominate and approve any judge,” he said. In 2005, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., also correctly argued that “all of the president’s nominees — both now and in the future — deserve a fair up or down vote.” So shouldn’t that mean that they both were among the 10 GOP lawmakers who voted Tuesday to end the filibuster of President Obama’s nomination of U.S. District Judge David Hamilton (in photo)? It should, but they weren’t.
Native Kansan and Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., hopes that lawmakers from both parties will finally declare a truce in their partisan fights over judicial nominations, thus ending such hypocrisy. “The Hamilton nomination would be a good time to do that,” he said. But apparently not for Roberts and Brownback.
It’s not “treasonous,” as the blogosphere has suggested, but President Obama needs to stop bowing to foreign dignitaries. Not only does it look bad for the leader of the free world to bow to anyone, but his bow to Emperor Akihito of Japan over the weekend wasn’t even culturally correct, reported ABC News. One academic with knowledge of the Japanese Empire said the “handshake/forward lurch was so jarring and inappropriate” that it recalled President Bush’s back rub of the German chancellor. Then again, said the unnamed scholarly critic, “if Obama can get the dollar to stop bowing to the yen, I take it all back.” Obama similarly dipped at the waist in April upon meeting King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
In a New York Post commentary, former Kansas GOP chairman Kris Kobach described Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try five Guantanamo Bay detainees in civilian court as “blatantly political,” arguing that it “jeopardizes the interests of the nation.” Kobach, a former Bush Justice Department official who is running for Kansas secretary of state next year, criticized Holder for “blurring the line between ordinary crimes and acts of war,” for making New York City “an enticing target for terrorists around the world” (wasn’t it already?) and for delaying justice. “Once these terrorists are placed into the civilian justice system, an avalanche of motions from their lawyers will ensue,” he wrote. “Military commissions can avoid these delays.”
All 10 months of the Obama era have been a letdown in the view of Boston Phoenix columnist Steven Stark. He argues that the president has made rookie mistakes, shown a disinterest in governing and been surprisingly divisive. And “in his quest to surpass what he’s done before and reprise his role as the nation’s Moses,” Stark wrote, “Obama appears to be on the verge of an ‘historic’ remake of one-sixth of the American economy, namely health care — despite the fact that a solid majority of Americans oppose the change. Whatever the merits, pushing for major societal change without bringing society along is a guarantee of prolonged strife, and is as unprecedented in its own way as his election was. It is — dare we say it? — very George W. Bush-like in its disregard of the popular will; meaning that, in the ultimate irony, history may pair these two as mirror reflections of one another.”
Unlike the former vice president, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., wouldn’t describe President Obama’s decision-making on Afghanistan troop levels as “dithering,” but Roberts told Topeka TV station WIBW that Obama has “got to get off the dime. He’s got to make a decision.” While Obama goes through one comprehensive review after another, Roberts said, “you’re endangering the support of our allies, who wonder if we’re really going to be there. You’re certainly endangering our relationship with (Afghan President Hamid) Karzai, regardless of what you think of him, and I think you’re endangering a lot of young men and women who are under a great deal of pressure over there and their lives are at stake.”
Officially, the Great Recession is over, at least for the United States. The economy recorded 3.5 percent annual growth for the third quarter of 2009. Fortunately, the administration of then-President Bush recognized the severity of the crisis and provided emergency financing for U.S. banks teetering on the brink of insolvency. Those efforts were followed up by the stimulus measures passed by his successor, President Obama. A $787 billion package is still percolating through the U.S. economy, providing a much-needed boost for spending as demand evaporated. Additional measures found some success, such as the Cash for Clunkers program, which encouraged consumers to trade in old cars for newer, more fuel-efficient models, and a federal tax credit for first-time homebuyers that helped revive a housing market whose implosion had set off the global crisis. Orders for durable goods rose 22.3 percent in the third quarter. That number was eclipsed by the 23.4 percent rise in housing sales, spurred by an $8,000 tax credit. The result was 3.5 percent growth, a return to the average rate recorded over the past 80 years. — Japan Times editorial, iStockAnalyst.com
The recession is over, we are told. The Commerce Department announced that the economy grew in the third quarter of 2009 by 3.5 percent. Great, huh? Maybe not. About half that growth came from the Cash for Clunkers program, which transferred into the third quarter auto sales that would have occurred later. The tax credit of $8,000 for first-time homebuyers stimulated some house sales. Most of the effect of the $787 billion stimulus package has already been felt. “There were few signs in the new data,” wrote the Washington Post’s Neil Irwin, “that the private sector will be able to sustain that growth once the government pulls back.” No one has much confidence that unemployment will decline significantly any time soon — or that the policies of the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leaders will stimulate the creation of new jobs. Higher tax rates on high earners, which will take effect next year, will certainly not create jobs. — Michael Barone, the Washington Examiner
Critics have complained that President Obama is “dithering” on deciding whether to send more troops to Afghanistan. But two classified cables sent to Washington, D.C., by the U.S. ambassador in Kabul illustrate how the decision isn’t as simple as some portray it. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, a retired three-star general who commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2006-07, warned against sending more troops until Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government becomes less corrupt and more competent, the Washington Post reported. The success of a surge in troops depends on a partnership with the Afghan government, and U.S. diplomats say they have seen little sign that Karzai plans to deal with corruption and other management problems.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reported that the United States has limited options in dealing with Karzai.
Some are predicting that President Obama’s remarks at the Fort Hood memorial service will rank among his best. The text is worth reading. Among the standout phrases were these about the 13 who died in the shooting spree: “Their life’s work is our security, and the freedom that we all too often take for granted. Every evening that the sun sets on a tranquil town; every dawn that a flag is unfurled; every moment that an American enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — that is their legacy.”
Does President Obama’s White House need more governing professionals and fewer political hacks? Forbes columnist Dan Gerstein thinks so, suggesting Obama invite an “independent-thinking Democratic wise man like Bob Kerrey” aboard. Survey the president’s advisers, Gerstein wrote, and “what’s missing from this group, besides diversity of experience and interests, is a senior adviser or two with an independent point of view who could carry Obama’s post-partisan portfolio. Someone who would wake up every day thinking about how to form broad-based coalitions, to deepen the confidence and trust of independents and non-rabid Republicans in government, and push Obama to honor his promise to change politics-as-usual in Washington. Or at minimum, someone not ingrained or trained to think that the Republicans are the enemy.”
If President Obama were President Johnson, he would have used his signature on the spending bill that included $32 million for the proposed National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in Manhattan as leverage over Kansas Sens. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts. Kansas City Star columnist Steve Kraske noted that “Johnson, the master pol, would have demanded something: a tough vote, more cooperation or fewer criticisms in exchange for his help on something as major as NBAF.” Instead, Obama recently signed the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.
The Obama White House’s inexplicable war on Fox News has magnified Fox’s stature among viewers. Far from marginalizing Fox and delegitimizing it as a news source, as intended, the feud has made more people than ever choose Fox News as their favored source of television infotainment. Fox’s ratings bumped up almost 10 percent in the two weeks after the White House decided to engage Fox News directly. And among advertisers’ favorite demographic — 25- to 54-year-olds — Fox’s ratings went up a whopping 14 percent. This is probably not the kind of change Obama voters thought they were voting for. Congratulations, Obama. You have transformed Fox into the most successful “news” channel ever. — D.K. Jamaal, Examiner.com
The breathless claim that Fox News’ ratings recently spiked thanks to the White House’s public critique is bogus hype. A detailed analysis of Nielsen ratings numbers clearly indicates that in the two weeks after the White House in mid-October sparked a media controversy by claiming Rupert Murdoch’s channel was not a legitimate news organization, Fox News’ ratings did not soar. They experienced no significant increase at all. Instead, in the two weeks after the initial verbal jousts with the White House, Fox News’ total day ratings virtually flatlined. Think about it. The unfolding controversy — which gobbled up untold hours and pages of news coverage as the Beltway press treated the dispute like a major news event — and the hubbub barely moved the ratings needle one inch in Fox News’ favor. — Eric Boehlert, Media Matters
The Web site Edmunds.com contends that the Cash for Clunkers program was a costly incentive because many people would have bought cars anyway. It claims that only 18 percent of car sales wouldn’t have happened without the program — so the per-car incentive cost of those 125,000 cars was $24,000. But the White House countered that Edmunds’ claims are at odds with a number of other reviews of the program, including by Moody’s, and by third-quarter economic growth.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got blunt in Pakistan, speaking to newspaper editors: “Al-Qaida has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002. I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to. Maybe that’s the case; maybe they’re not gettable. I don’t know.”
Meanwhile, a new book by former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe confirms that Clinton came close to being vice president. “I think Bill may be too big a complication,” Plouffe writes, quoting Barack Obama. “If I picked her, my concern is that there would be more than two of us in the relationship.”
It takes a strong spine (or a hard heart) to criticize President Obama’s idea of sending a $250 check to every Social Security recipient — something he wants to do because the cost of living doesn’t entitle seniors to a cost-of-living increase for next year. New York Times economics columnist David Leonhardt noted that because overall prices have dropped 2.1 percent this year but Social Security benefits won’t drop accordingly, “recipients are already set to receive an effective raise.” And seniors may be sympathetic, but they’re better off than some demographics. “The real median income of over-65 households rose 3 percent from 2000 to 2008,” he wrote. “For households headed by somebody age 25 to 44, it fell about 7 percent.”
The whole episode does not bode well for the prospects that Obama and Congress will do something substantive about the unsustainability of Social Security and Medicare. “If the long-term issue is entitlement reform,” said Joel Slemrod, a University of Michigan economist, “the fact that the political system cannot say no to $250 checks to elderly people is a bad sign.”
Two New York Times columnists have offered thoughtful cases against giving Gen. Stanley McChrystal the extra troops he wants in Afghanistan.
Arguing that digging deeper in Afghanistan will weaken the United States, Thomas Friedman wrote: “We simply do not have the Afghan partners, the NATO allies, the domestic support, the financial resources or the national interests to justify an enlarged and prolonged nation-building effort in Afghanistan.”
Suggesting there are better uses for U.S. dollars right now than “inflaming Pashtun nationalism,” Nicholas Kristof doubts more troops will do the trick. He wrote: “We have been fighting in Afghanistan for twice as long as we fought in World War II, with a current price tag estimated to be more than $60 billion a year. Standard counterinsurgency ratios of troops to civilians suggest we would need 650,000 troops (including Afghans) to pacify the country. So will adding 40,000 more to the 68,000 already there make a difference to justify the additional annual cost of $10 billion to $40 billion, especially since they may aggravate the perception of Americans as occupiers?”
If President Obama is disappointed in his point-woman in the House, he wasn’t showing it Monday at a Democratic fundraiser in Miami Beach. “I don’t think people quite understand. Nancy Pelosi is not simply the first woman speaker of the House,” he told the crowd. “I think she’s going to go down as one of the greatest speakers of all time. And she’s very nice and she’s very friendly, but, boy, she is tough. And that’s what you need when you’re putting up with all the criticism and the carping and the griping — and that’s from the Democrats. I mean, you should see what she has to put up with — from the Republicans. So I could not have a better partner in trying to move the country than Nancy Pelosi.”
Some reactions on ABC’s “This Week” to Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to ease up on prosecutions of medicinal use of marijuana in the 14 states that allow it:
“We have legalized gambling in this country over two generations. It used to be considered a sin and a crime. With no national debate and no decision moment — we just did it — we have legalized prostitution, as anyone who opens a telephone book and looks under ‘escort’ can tell you. And we’re probably in the process now of legalizing marijuana.” — Washington Post columnist George Will
“We won’t see a full legalization of marijuana until somebody figures out that if you tax it, maybe you can pay for health care.” — John Podesta, former White House chief of staff under Bill Clinton
“I wish that I believed that this was going to lead to some broader federal look at the whole futile war on drugs.” — Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Cynthia Tucker
President Obama should set a timetable to get our troops out of Afghanistan as soon as is practically possible. Their presence cannot contribute to bringing peace and security to that country, nor does it contribute to the security of the United States. In fact, the occupation of Afghanistan is making things worse. The United States has helped put together a government dominated in key positions — especially military, police and intelligence — by Tajiks, the ethnic group whose paramilitary leaders were the first to strike a deal with the invading forces. Not surprisingly, this contributed to the nationalist fuel for the insurgency among the Pashtuns, the country’s largest ethnic group. This contribution to ethnic conflict is a common mistake, or sometimes a tactic, of occupying powers that helps drive lasting and violent civil wars. — Mark Weisbrot, Center for Economic and Policy Research
There are many reasons for hunkering down in Afghanistan and adopting a tougher military strategy so Americans and their NATO allies can finally leave behind a more stable — though barely democratic — Middle East. New York City, Philadelphia, Denver, Springfield, Ill., and the U.S. Marine Corps base at Quantico, Va., are high among those reasons. All five places were prime targets of suspected radical Islamic jihadists, as emerged from plots the FBI and local police nixed in September. Most of the would-be terrorists the FBI has identified and arrested had trained at various al-Qaida camps in or near Afghanistan. And all of them had gained cover in the United States by posing as normal members of moderate Muslim communities. — Bogdan Kipling, for McClatchy-Tribune News Service
“Slashing executive salaries, bonuses and perks at the seven bailed-out companies that gorged most gluttonously at the public trough is emotionally satisfying, but it shouldn’t be,” wrote columnist Eugene Robinson. “It’s like arresting jaywalkers while ignoring the bank robbery that’s happening in broad daylight down the block.” Though he supports the pay caps, Robinson argued that the Obama administration isn’t doing enough to “curb the irresponsible Wall Street practices that led to the financial meltdown — and, if unaddressed, will lead inexorably to the next crisis.”
Former Vice President Dick Cheney is back at it, calling the Obama administration’s abandonment of a missile-defense program in Eastern Europe “a strategic blunder,” criticizing diplomatic outreach efforts to Iran, and disparaging complaints about torture as “a libel against dedicated professionals.” During a speech Wednesday to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., Cheney also accused President Obama of “dithering” on Afghanistan “while America’s armed forces are in danger.” Cheney said that Obama “seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission.”
But retired Gen. Paul Eaton, who used to oversee training of the Iraqi military, responded that Cheney and other Bush administration officials were “incompetent war fighters” who left a mess that Obama must clean up. He said they “ignored Afghanistan for seven years with a crude approach to counterinsurgency warfare best illustrated by: 1. Deny it. 2. Ignore it. 3. Bomb it.”
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius raised eyebrows today during her Senate testimony about H1N1 readiness. A Washington Post blog explained that Kansas’ former governor had an outpatient procedure Tuesday to remove a basal cell carcinoma from her forehead.
“President Obama’s brief display of drive-by compassion Thursday in New Orleans was, for me, by far the worst outing of his presidency thus far — and the biggest disappointment,” columnist Eugene Robinson wrote. He said that “it was strange and disheartening that Obama would wait nine months to make his first visit to New Orleans as president. It was stunning that he would spend only a few hours on the ground and that he wouldn’t set foot in Mississippi or Alabama at all. But worst of all was the way he seemed to dismiss the idea that his administration could and should be doing much more.”
