Saturday, September 3, 2011
Thursday, September 1, 2011
"What is it about this president that has stripped away the veneer of respect that normally accompanies the Office of the President?" (VIDEO)
First Richard Wolffe asks "the" question (video below):
The complete minute by minute tick-tock can be found here at TPM:
Roger Simon, Politico, putting said the tick-tock to prose:
Steve Benen:
Ezra Klein:
The interesting question is: What is it about this president that has stripped away the veneer of respect that normally accompanies the Office of the President? Why do Republicans think this president is unpresidential and should dare to request this kind of thing? It strikes me that it could be the economic times, it could be that he won so big in 2008 or it could be, let’s face it, the color of his skin. This is an extraordinary reaction to a normal sequence of events.
The complete minute by minute tick-tock can be found here at TPM:
Roger Simon, Politico, putting said the tick-tock to prose:
The White House was well aware the president’s speech would conflict with a planned Republican debate sponsored by POLITICO and NBC to be held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. The debate would be broadcast live by MSNBC, CNBC, Telemundo and live-streamed by POLITICO.
Yet the White House did not see this as an obstacle. “With all due respect, the POLITICO-MSNBC debate was one that was going on a cable station,” the White House source said. “It was not sacrosanct. We knew they would push it back and then there would be a GOP debate totally trashing the president. So it wasn’t all an upside for us.”
And, at first, things seemed to fall into place.
At about 10 or 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, White House chief of staff Bill Daley called House Speaker John Boehner and asked that a joint session of Congress be assembled the following Wednesday night. The White House viewed Boehner as a political opponent, but not an enemy and the call was cordial, even pro forma considering such a request had never before been refused.
And, according to the White House source, Boehner said “okay” to Daley’s request for the Wednesday evening date. (Asked for comment, Boehner’s press secretary, Brendan Buck, said he had nothing to add to his statement of Wednesday that read in part: “No one in the speaker’s office - not the speaker, not any staff - signed off on the date the White House announced today.”)
Then things quickly unraveled. It turned out not everyone was as sanguine as Boehner with the notion that a Democratic president was going to step on a Republican debate.
At 11:55 a.m. Wednesday, the White House tweeted the news about the joint session. “And then Rush Limbaugh beat Boehner up,” the source said.
The conservative talk show personality was in his familiar state of high dudgeon. “This is a pure campaign speech and to give it the imprimatur of a speech before a joint session of Congress, there’s no way, he doesn’t deserve that,” Limbaugh said. “Boehner’s got to say no. Now, whether he will, I have no clue.”
A number of Republicans in the House and a few in the Senate did have a clue and they told Boehner that while they would allow the joint session – it was hard not to for both historic and political reasons – the timing had to be on their terms, which meant it could not conflict with the Republican debate.
At which point Boehner’s office announced that Boehner had never agreed to the Wednesday date, that Congress did not get back into session until 6:30 p.m. on that day, that various votes had to be taken, that security had to be arranged and Obama should push his speech back a day to Thursday.
Which just happened to be the evening the Green Bay Packers were meeting the New Orleans Saints in the NFL season opener. Which meant Obama would have to move his speech up an hour or so before the kick-off at 8:30 p.m.
The White House was not pleased. In reality, it believed, Congress really had never gone out of session, a parliamentary move that blocked Obama from making recess appointments. “And they had to arrange security?” the White House source scoffed. “As if they couldn’t do that! This was a political thing, a tea party thing, a Rush Limbaugh thing. They were all giving Boehner gas.”
The White House did not want to give in and look weak, but what was the alternative?
An Oval office speech instead?
“You can’t speak for 40 minutes from the Oval Office,” the source said.
How about the East Room?
“He’s going to speak to an empty East Room with just the Teleprompters and staff there? No,” said the source
So it had to be in the House of Representatives, which the Republicans control. “But we couldn’t go if they didn’t let us come,” the source said. “You can’t hold the speech in the lobby or in the parking lot. And you’re not going to get network coverage if you hold it at George Mason University.
“After a month of world chaos, the setting had to match the topic. And you don’t get any better setting than a joint session of Congress.”
In the end, the White House felt it had no choice but to give in on the date, and Obama sent an email to his supporters with the subject line: “Frustrated.”
“It’s been a long time since Congress was focused on what the American people need them to be focused on,” Obama said in the email. “I know that you’re frustrated by that. I am, too.”
Obama said he was going to put forward “a set of bipartisan proposals to help grow the economy and create jobs” and he was “asking lawmakers to look past short-term politics and take action on that plan.”
It was, perhaps, not the friendliest message, but the White House was not in a friendly mood. Some Democrats were attacking Obama for once again “caving in” to Republicans, though others thought that it was an inconsequential matter.
The White House is viewing it as very consequential, however. “It is a big deal,” the source said. “It shows the House Republicans will do no outreach, nothing.”
And who does the White House believe was really behind treating the president so shabbily?
“At first, I didn’t think it was Boehner, but his caucus,” the source said. “But maybe not. Maybe it is him.”
Steve Benen:
By agreeing to Boehner’s preferred day, the White House at least prevents a prolonged argument about process. Because Washington rules dictate that there must be a “winner” in every dispute, the Speaker gets to gloat this morning, but the fact remains Boehner still looks small and petty, picking an unnecessary fight. That he claimed to be speaking “on behalf of the bipartisan leadership and membership of both the House and the Senate,” when he clearly was not, only makes him look slightly worse. If President Obama values being seen as “the adult in the room,” this little mess reinforced the perception.
But that doesn’t make yesterday’s developments any less ridiculous. If Americans wanted a responsible Congress, ready and willing to act in the nation’s interest, and able to work constructively in response to critical challenges, they made a tragic mistake in November 2010. Yesterday’s largely inconsequential fiasco will fade away soon enough, but it’s symbolic of a larger problem: voters elected far-right children to run the legislative branch of government.
Ezra Klein:
Obama’s speech will achieve nothing. It will go nowhere because it has nowhere to go. A speech can rally the base, and maybe even temporarily change the topic in the news. But it can’t change the fundamental fact of politics right now, which is that the two parties disagree on the most profound question in Washington. It’s not: How do we fix the economy? It is: Who should win the next election?
So long as Republicans and Democrats disagree on that, there will be no significant cooperation on substantive issues. Boehner simply will not cut off his party’s candidates at the knees, especially its presidential contenders, by handing Obama a major economic accomplishment. Because he controls the House of Representatives, that means Obama -- and, by extension, the U.S. -- is not going to get a major economic accomplishment.
Almost everyone in Washington understands this. The interest in the president’s speech is just a function of the fact that people who discuss politics and policy for a living need to seem like we’re doing something through the long summer months. The administration needs to look like it’s acting to create jobs, the media need to appear to be reporting news, the pundits need to generate opinions about it all.
This is the part of the column where, as a pundit, I lay out my three-point, politically implausible plan to turn the situation around. This is where I tell the president to fight harder, or take his message directly to the people, or fire up the lethargic Obama for America organization. This is where I remind the Republicans that they supported tax cuts as stimulus all through the last decade and even into 2009; where I beg them to put country before party; where I warn them that everything they are doing unto the Democrats today will be done unto them tomorrow. This is where I summon history to show how FDR or Reagan or Truman broke a similar logjam.
But such exhortations -- and I am guilty of writing variations on these many times over -- are pointless today. The facts are what they are. And what they are is depressing and unlikely to change.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Gee, maybe Mitt Romney hasn't changed that much. Maybe he's always been a brain dead-- (VIDEO)
Great catch by Steve Benen:
Since Steve didn't post it in his blog, and since Jon Stewart's still on Vacation, I figured I'd put up the whole video.
And for the record, Jon's response is just (ahem) two words, and it's still deserved.
In February 2008, Romney delivered a speech announcing his withdrawal from the presidential race. He explained his rationale for quitting this way:
“If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and frankly I’d be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”
For those who may have forgotten it, Jon Stewart had a compelling reaction to the remarks at the time.
But more than three years later, I’m curious: does Romney think he was right? Barack Obama became president, and has proven far more successful in combating terrorism than his Republican predecessor. Does Romney stand by his belief that electing Obama president was part of “a surrender to terror”?
Or does Romney regret making the charge in 2008, and realize now he was wrong?
Since Steve didn't post it in his blog, and since Jon Stewart's still on Vacation, I figured I'd put up the whole video.
And for the record, Jon's response is just (ahem) two words, and it's still deserved.
Friday, August 26, 2011
The Fireside Chat for August 26th, 2011 (VIDEO)
President Obama pays tribute to the first responders, those who have served, and those who lost their lives ten years ago in the September 11th attacks. Visit Serve.gov for ways to commemorate the solemn anniversary in your community.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Leading from behind, or the World Police turning into the World Police Chief?
An interesting thought from Zack Beauchamp (writing for the vacationing Andrew Sullivan):
Police forces aren't made up of one member. There's a chief, sure, but there are also detectives and uniformed officers who work with the chief. The chief guides their efforts, but each of them works on their own towards the general goal of enforcing the law.
It's better to think of the U.S. as the global police chief rather than sole policeman. We may be the strongest of our allies, but by no means do we take lead role in solving every problem. American allies work like detectives: they conduct crucial operations in support of the general task of keeping the global peace and creating a better world.
Libya demonstrates how the police chief system works. After the initial phase designed to halt Qaddafi's move into Benghazi, American forces played only a supporting role, letting NATO allies take the lead. Though our contributions (especially in terms of high-tech capabilities) were invaluable, no one would say American forces were doing most of the legwork.
That's the essence of "leading from behind:" convincing other states to shoulder some of the burden of creating a just international order. The U.S. provides limited help in areas where it has a significant advantage, but it outsources lead responsibilities to allies whenever possible. U.S. influence is exercised indirectly through bilateral contacts between states, mulitlateral organizations like NATO and the U.N., transnational networks, and "soft power" ideological and cultural means of influence. The idea is to limit U.S. involvement in order to husband the resources that America needs to lead in the first place.
Ultimately, that's why neoconservative critics of Obama's "weakness" and realist critics of American "empire" both get it wrong. "Leading from behind" isn't about abandoning American leadership - it's about exercising in a manner that's not completely self-defeating. Being a global policeman doesn't mean "wars all the time everywhere!" - it means enlisting allies to help us with global governance. Yes, that occasionally means military intervention by the U.S. and/or allies when the intervention in question passes basic just war theory tests, but doesn't mean the hallmark of the international order is perpetual use of military force. And our allies aren't limited to Old Europe - the U.S. can, with skillful diplomacy, work with rising states like India, which has demonstrated its commitment to global governance through its significant contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations.
International police work is important. Not only is it morally required for rich, powerful states, but it's good for them in the long run by limiting dangerous instability. Luckily, Americans don't have to conduct every patrol on their own.
Turns out that the President in charge while Qaddafi fell had nothing to do with Qaddafi falling...if you ask the GOP
Mea Culpa, I was wrong when I wrote this back in March:
Nope! Congressional Republicans (rather Republicans in general) aren't lining up to take credit. They're lining up to airbrush the President out of the decision.
Adam Serwer:
Fred Kaplan:
Thomas Lane (TPM):
And finally, Steve Benen, really nailing it:
One of the things that annoys me about all the Congressional demands in this matter, is that it's not about process, it's about C.Y.A., covering (your...or in this case their) ass. They're only questioning it now because the outcome is uncertain, but you can bet your ass that if the Libyan mission comes off successfully (definition of success, TBD), Congress-critters and Senators will be lining up to take credit.
Nope! Congressional Republicans (rather Republicans in general) aren't lining up to take credit. They're lining up to airbrush the President out of the decision.
Adam Serwer:
Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, among the earliest voices calling for intervention in Libya, wasted little time in congratulating the rebels and slamming Obama for not intervening earlier:
The end of the Qadaffi regime in Libya is a victory for the Libyan people and for the broader cause of freedom in the Middle East and throughout the world. This achievement was made possible first and foremost by the struggle and sacrifice of countless Libyans, whose courage and perseverance we applaud. We also commend our British, French, and other allies, as well as our Arab partners, especially Qatar and the UAE, for their leadership in this conflict. Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower.
McCain and Graham, both of whom had warm personal interactions with Gaddafi in the past, have now gotten exactly what they wanted from the administration’s decision to intervene. But GOP partisanship demands that they not acknowledge the president’s role in assembling the global coalition that aided the rebels. Indeed, with the Republican Party wedded to a contradictory image of the president as foreign policy weakling and iron-fisted domestic dictator, we’re going to see a lot of bizarre rationalizing of what happened in an attempt to preserve this narrative of the Obama presidency.
Fred Kaplan:
Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., issued a truly obnoxious statement today, congratulating "our British, French, and other allies, as well as our Arab partners, especially Qatar and the UAE, for their leadership in this conflict," adding, almost as an afterthought, "Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower."
Second, if a pair of prominent Democrats had issued such a statement after, say, President George W. Bush helped to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan, they would have been condemned as bitter partisans or worse.
Thomas Lane (TPM):
Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. "Ridding the world of the likes of Gadhafi is a good thing," he wrote. "But this indecisive President had little to do with this triumph."
...
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who condemned the Libya action from the start, issued a statement acknowledging this disagreement:
"I opposed U.S. military involvement in Libya and I am hopeful that our intervention there is about to end. I also hope the progress of events in Libya will ultimately lead to a government that honors the rule of law, respects the people of Libya and their yearning for freedom, and one that will be a good partner to the United States and the international community."
Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman had also opposed getting involved in the conflict. His press release failed to mention either that or the President:
"The impending fall of Colonel Gaddafi is one chapter in the developing story of a nation in turmoil. Gaddafi has been a longtime opponent of freedom, and I am hopeful -- as the whole world should be -- that his defeat is a step toward openness, democracy and human rights for a people who greatly deserve it."
Texas Gov. Rick Perry strove for a far-sighted, statesmanlike tone:
"The crumbling of Muammar Ghadafi's reign, a violent, repressive dictatorship with a history of terrorism, is cause for cautious celebration. The lasting impact of events in Libya will depend on ensuring rebel factions form a unified, civil government that guarantees personal freedoms, and builds a new relationship with the West where we are allies instead of adversaries."
The most substantive response was perhaps that of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, as befits the man who is still the GOP's frontrunner. He turned attention back to the still-oozing wound of the Lockerbie bomber, and demanded the new government extradite him (presumably to America since the Scottish government has already -- controversially -- freed him).
Still, that too contained no mention of President Obama. Just as the partisan approach to the death of bin Laden seems to be to claim the root cause (and thus praise) goes back to President George W. Bush, one wonders whether a similar thing is happening here... and just how long it will be before we're told Qaddafi's fall is all the result of the prior President's ingenious long-term thinking.
And finally, Steve Benen, really nailing it:
Remember hearing about the “blame America first” crowd? Well, say hello to the “thank America last” crowd.
McCain and Graham “commend” everyone except the United States military, and then, even while applauding the developments, take yet another shot at the Obama administration.
These two just can’t bring themselves put aside petty partisan sniping, even when they’re thrilled by the fall of a dictator.
There’s obviously a legitimate question as to whether the international offensive in Libya was a wise decision. But as the Gaddafi regime crumbles, do the conflict’s two biggest congressional cheerleaders really feel the need to complain, “Yeah, but we’re not happy with the speed with which Obama got the job done”?
Here are three things I’d encourage McCain and Graham to keep in mind. First, complaining about getting the outcome they wanted is just cheap. When the fear of Obama getting some credit for success is stronger than the satisfaction that comes with a tyrant’s fall, there’s a problem.
Second, the fact of the matter is, the efforts of U.S. forces in Libya are being cited as “a major factor in helping to tilt the balance after months of steady erosion of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s military.”
And third, if McCain and Graham really want to complain about why “this success was so long in coming,” maybe they can talk more about their trip to Tripoli two years ago, when both McCain and Graham cozied up to Gaddafi, even visiting with him at the dictator’s home, discussing delivery of American military equipment to the Libyan regime. Both senators shook Gaddafi’s hand; McCain even bowed a little.
I’m curious if McCain and Graham have simply forgotten about this, or if they’re just hoping everyone else has.
MSNBC: The President's address on the Libyan Situation (VIDEO)
For some reason, we've been waiting for hours now for the White House to release this video, and only now are we able to get it from MSNBC:
Friday, August 19, 2011
The Fireside Chat for August 20th, 2011 (VIDEO)
From a farm in the Midwest, President Obama talks about the determination and integrity of the American people and calls on Congress to put aside their differences to grow the economy.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
ProPublica: Separating Economic Fact from Economic Fiction (particularly about the Stimulus!)
ProPublica has a list of five myths about the Economy, but these two were of particular interest to me:
2. The stimulus failed./The stimulus rescued the economy.
Neither. It clearly hasn't hauled the country back to full employment, but widely-cited economic models show it probably prevented a deeper downturn.
Many economists and nonpartisan forecasting firms have credited the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act with increasing employment by at least two million jobs (see Table 8). Although the unemployment rate remains stuck at 9 percent, several economists estimate that unemployment would have been higher -- as much as 12 percent -- and remained high longer without it.
One of the most prominent studies on the stimulus was put out by the economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi in July 2010. The pair concluded that while the bank bailout and actions by the Federal Reserve had a greater impact in ending the recession, the stimulus was a critical part of the remedy. "We do not believe it a coincidence that the turnaround from recession to recovery occurred last summer, just as the ARRA was providing its maximum economic benefit," they wrote.
Other analyses have shown less of an impact -- that aid for state budgets and education "funded staffing that would have occurred anyway" and that the stimulus saved government jobs while doing little to boost private-sector employment.
Critics say it failed because it fell short of what administration officials claimed it would do. They point to a chart produced shortly before Obama's inauguration by his economic advisers Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, which showed that if the stimulus plan were passed, unemployment wouldn't top 8 percent. But the recession turned out to be much more severe than they and blue-chip economists realized.
The goal of the stimulus "was to end the Great Recession and jumpstart our recovery," said Zandi, who has advised John McCain but has said he's a registered Democrat. "It did that. It was never intended nor should it be expected to be the source of long-term growth. The plan was always to hand the baton to the private sector. And that was going smoothly until we got creamed" by the European debt crisis and rising gas prices.
3. The stimulus should have been bigger.
This is a red herring. Politically, the initial stimulus package almost certainly couldn't have been bigger because the moderate senators who provided the key votes wouldn't stomach a package over $800 billion. Indeed, late in the game, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and others were looking to trim the bill to $650 billion.
Regardless of the politics, many economists, including New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, insist the stimulus was too weak to deal with the crisis. Other economists, including John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor at Stanford University and the Hoover Institution, argue that the amount of stimulus spending wouldn't have mattered because it mainly reduced borrowing by state and local governments rather than increasing spending. So, they contend, the predicted benefits were washed out.
In any case, the total stimulus is bigger than you might have thought. Since the Recovery Act, Congress has approved hundreds of billions of dollars in additional stimulus, including the renewal of unemployment benefits, this year's payroll tax cut and the extensions of the education jobs fund and the homebuyer tax credit. The total is now well over a trillion dollars.
But even that isn't sufficient knowing what we do now, according to Romer. As she recently told The Washington Post's Ezra Klein, the economy "probably needed about $2 trillion given what we were actually up against."
As much as Iove and respect @ThePlumLineGS, he gets Tom Coburn's statement wrong. Not that Coburn knows what he's talking about.
Whew. Going race heavy today. Thanks, Senator Coburn and Gov. Perry!
Okay, following up on Coburn's racist statement (yup, I'm stickin' with that) Greg Sargent posts first an expanded quote from Senator Coburn (always helpful), and then some analysis:
Errrr...no, Greg.
Sen. Coburn still linked this erroneous idea about "dependency programs" to the President's race, suggesting that it is only blacks who benefit from them. That's even with the benefit of an expanded quote. So, Senator Coburn is not being charitable. He's still being quite racist, or at the very least, showing himself as willing to indulge in the racist thoughts and behavior of his constituents, which doesn't exactly warm my heart either.
It goes to show me, as an African-American, what these white folks are saying when none of us are around...and goes back to an argument about our fundamental status as not-quite-American.
Let me give you a quick background. I am an African-American male and did not directly benefit from any quote-unquote dependency programs. My father, having grown up poor in small-town Texas, did.
But in his case the "dependency" programs worked as were intented to work, and the American People benefited from their investment. The people of the United States shelled out Tax dollars to help give my Father a leg up. He then took that leg up, went to College, went to Graduate School, got himself a PhD in Mathematics. A rise from near-poverty to Upper-Middle Class Status...complete with the higher taxes that befits a man with his salary. This, of course, allows him to shell out his own dollars to help someone else get their leg up.
See how this works?
My Father's story, which in time became my own, is why I support the programs I receive no direct benefit from.
And just for the record, Welfare is not a blacks-only, or even blacks-majority program. Most of the people getting Welfare are white. That's just a matter of numbers.
However, most of the Politicians benefiting from selling racial resentment to white folks are themselves white (I doubt this is a coincidence). This includes Rick Perry, and includes Tom Coburn. That's just a matter of racism
As Jonathan Chait points out:
Okay, following up on Coburn's racist statement (yup, I'm stickin' with that) Greg Sargent posts first an expanded quote from Senator Coburn (always helpful), and then some analysis:
“No, I don’t... He’s a very bright man. But think about his life. And think about what he was exposed to and what he saw in America. He’s only relating what his experience in life was...
“His intent isn’t to destroy. It’s to create dependency because it worked so well for him. I don’t say that critically. Look at people for what they are. Don’t assume ulterior motives. I don’t think he doesn’t love our country. I think he does.
“As an African American male, coming through the progress of everything he experienced, he got tremendous benefit through a lot of these programs. So he believes in them. I just don’t believe they work overall and in the long run they don’t help our country. But he doesn’t know that because his life experience is something different. So it’s very important not to get mad at the man. And I understand, his philosophy — there’s nothing wrong with his philosophy other than it’s goofy and wrong [laughter] — but that doesn’t make him a bad person.”
I think what Coburn means here is that African Americans are more likely to need such programs than whites are, and by his own lights, Coburn actually thinks he’s being charitable to Obama here. He’s essentially saying that Obama’s life experience quite naturally dictated that he would view the safety net as a good thing, because it helped poor African Americans.
As Adam Serwer notes, the problem with Coburn’s remarks as they were originally reported is that he seemed to be saying that blacks get unfair advantages, thanks to the welare state — an implication that’s central to the conservative case against it.
I think the full transcript shows that this isn’t quite what Coburn was saying, but his use of the phrase “create dependence” is still highly questionable. Because as Serwer also notes, Coburn is also implicitly conceding that these programs succeed in their objective of helping people who lack the means to protect themselves.
What’s funny to me about this whole episode is that it reveals how challenging it is for the saner variety of Republicans to reason with some of their constituents about the President. Coburn is struggling to talk a constituent out of his anxiety that Obama actively wants to destroy the country. He needs to find a way of defending Obama’s motives that a constituent inclined to believe the worst about Obama might be able to listen to and even tolerate. So Coburn hit on this way of defending Obama while still keeping his argument confined within a world view that this constituent might find acceptable. It’s not easy being a Republican official these days.
Errrr...no, Greg.
Sen. Coburn still linked this erroneous idea about "dependency programs" to the President's race, suggesting that it is only blacks who benefit from them. That's even with the benefit of an expanded quote. So, Senator Coburn is not being charitable. He's still being quite racist, or at the very least, showing himself as willing to indulge in the racist thoughts and behavior of his constituents, which doesn't exactly warm my heart either.
It goes to show me, as an African-American, what these white folks are saying when none of us are around...and goes back to an argument about our fundamental status as not-quite-American.
Let me give you a quick background. I am an African-American male and did not directly benefit from any quote-unquote dependency programs. My father, having grown up poor in small-town Texas, did.
But in his case the "dependency" programs worked as were intented to work, and the American People benefited from their investment. The people of the United States shelled out Tax dollars to help give my Father a leg up. He then took that leg up, went to College, went to Graduate School, got himself a PhD in Mathematics. A rise from near-poverty to Upper-Middle Class Status...complete with the higher taxes that befits a man with his salary. This, of course, allows him to shell out his own dollars to help someone else get their leg up.
See how this works?
My Father's story, which in time became my own, is why I support the programs I receive no direct benefit from.
And just for the record, Welfare is not a blacks-only, or even blacks-majority program. Most of the people getting Welfare are white. That's just a matter of numbers.
However, most of the Politicians benefiting from selling racial resentment to white folks are themselves white (I doubt this is a coincidence). This includes Rick Perry, and includes Tom Coburn. That's just a matter of racism
As Jonathan Chait points out:
Keep in mind that the only area where Obama has attempted to create a new entitlement is health care, which is the same goal pursued by Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, Harry Truman, and other non-black politicians.
Senator Tom Coburn...racist.
From TPM:
Responding to a man in Langley who asked if Obama "wants to destroy America," Coburn said the president is "very bright" and loves his country but has a political philosophy that is "goofy and wrong."
Obama's "intent is not to destroy, his intent is to create dependency because it worked so well for him," he said.
"As an African-American male," Coburn said, Obama received "tremendous advantage from a lot of these programs."
Racism still exists, America. It's just gotten very subtle.
One of the things White folks need to get through their heads is that African-Americans do listen, do pay attention, and do know all the code words and behaviors.
Why? It's a matter of survival for us. We have lived in a world, a world that existed as recently as 50 years ago, within my Father's lifetime, where an African-American saying the wrong thing, or merely looking at someone the wrong way could get them killed.
Don't believe me? Ask Emmett Till. To esoteric a reference for you, then why don't you try Amadou Diallo or Abner Louima?
Of course, they represent the most extreme form of racism. Today, it's form is far more supple, downright invisible until it strikes.
The election of an African-American President is a historical step forward for us as a society and a nation, it does not mean America has moved past its at times very racist self.
No, we don't have crosses burned on our lawns. We're not called every name but a child of god. That's the past. Now, we just have our authenticity questioned. If you're like me, you have extra eyes following you around the store when you shop, or you see the bag get clutched a little tighter when you're on the elevator. (Or you're told over and over again that the movie that offends you shouldn't offend you).
If you're the President, you're hounded (repeatedly) for your birth certificate. If you're his wife, you're right to complain is cut off.
Consider what Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry says in this piece, and what it says about the view that fundamentally, there's a certain part in the lizard-brain of American that simply will never view me as a "real" American.
What should scare you (Lord knows it scares me) is that I've found these lizard-brain reactions not just in Conservatives, but Liberals as well.
Why? It's a matter of survival for us. We have lived in a world, a world that existed as recently as 50 years ago, within my Father's lifetime, where an African-American saying the wrong thing, or merely looking at someone the wrong way could get them killed.
Don't believe me? Ask Emmett Till. To esoteric a reference for you, then why don't you try Amadou Diallo or Abner Louima?
Of course, they represent the most extreme form of racism. Today, it's form is far more supple, downright invisible until it strikes.
The election of an African-American President is a historical step forward for us as a society and a nation, it does not mean America has moved past its at times very racist self.
No, we don't have crosses burned on our lawns. We're not called every name but a child of god. That's the past. Now, we just have our authenticity questioned. If you're like me, you have extra eyes following you around the store when you shop, or you see the bag get clutched a little tighter when you're on the elevator. (Or you're told over and over again that the movie that offends you shouldn't offend you).
If you're the President, you're hounded (repeatedly) for your birth certificate. If you're his wife, you're right to complain is cut off.
Consider what Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry says in this piece, and what it says about the view that fundamentally, there's a certain part in the lizard-brain of American that simply will never view me as a "real" American.
What should scare you (Lord knows it scares me) is that I've found these lizard-brain reactions not just in Conservatives, but Liberals as well.
Oh, so NOW Kasich wants to negotiate... (VIDEO)
From Steve Benen:
Kasich said the offer to revisit the law he recently signed has nothing to do with “a fear we are going to lose.”
The laughter was audible throughout Ohio. I mean, really. Why else would the governor suddenly discover a willingness to change a law he championed?
It’s almost amusing — Kasich wants to negotiate with state employees after gutting their collective bargaining rights, because he knows his constituents are likely to side with workers over him.
A progressive coalition, We Are Ohio, dismissed talk of a deal, but said Republicans can avoid the November referendum by repealing the anti-worker measure.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Wolf Blitzer's Interview with President Obama (VIDEO)
Apologies, CNN's embeddable video can take a bit of time to load. Be patient. It'll work.
And unfortunately, to watch the complete set, you'll have to watch a LOT of AT&T ads.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Obama on risk of one-term Presidency:
Obama: I'll cut Perry some slack:
Where are the jobs?:
Obama: Debt debacle hurt businesses:
Obama: U.S. wants a responsible Congress:
Obama: Health care costs are coming down:
President Obama feels he has 'greatest job on earth':
Obama: 'We have to stay vigilant':
Obama: Tough economy can be polarizing:
President reveals 'gift' for daughters:
Obama: We'll be just fine:
And unfortunately, to watch the complete set, you'll have to watch a LOT of AT&T ads.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Obama on risk of one-term Presidency:
Obama: I'll cut Perry some slack:
Where are the jobs?:
Obama: Debt debacle hurt businesses:
Obama: U.S. wants a responsible Congress:
Obama: Health care costs are coming down:
President Obama feels he has 'greatest job on earth':
Obama: 'We have to stay vigilant':
Obama: Tough economy can be polarizing:
President reveals 'gift' for daughters:
Obama: We'll be just fine:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)