Barack Obama

Nate Silver did a post yesterday taking down the meme that FDR would have been able to push through healthcare. Of course FDR had a much bigger majority as Nate points out:

It’s amazing to see the size of FDR’s majority, but I believe there is another reason why Obama isn’t FDR.

Tomorrow Obama will lay out his compressive healthcare plan. That’s only a year into the debate and when healthcare is on life support. Obama decided a long time ago to play it safe in the world of politics, rather than taking a firm stand. That is something FDR would never have done.

No – we really need a new FDR and not someone who puts politics ahead of national interests. Sadly though Presidents like FDR are an extinct species. Both parties champion candidates who prefer politics over principal, and that is what’s helping destroy America today. We need to get back to a time when national interests took a precedent over the game of politics, and that won’t happen until there is a real populace movement based upon these feelings and not upon racism or hatred like the tea party.

It took the President himself going after Mitch McConnell, but finally he has some of his nominees confirmed:

The Senate confirmed a huge group of administration nominees on Thursday, following a tense exchange between President Barack Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

At a White House meeting with bipartisan congressional leaders on Tuesday, Obama warned that he would make recess appointments if the logjam over nominees wasn’t broken before the Senate left for the Presidents’ Day break.

“Mitch, this is unprecedented,” the president said, gesturing forcefully on the Cabinet Room table, according to aides. “If you don’t move any, I’m going to do some [recess] appointments.”

The Senate GOP’s obstructionist games they have played over the past year have been unprecedented. You wouldn’t know that listening to the mainstream media though. They try to portray it as “politics as usual”. That’s a big difference from a few years ago when Democrats were blocking one Bush nominee and the Republicans got all the face time in the world to blast the Democrats as obstructionists.

Drudge is pushing this headline today:

Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million employees...

It goes to a Washington Times story talking about the increasing workforce of the U.S. government – not a bad thing with unemployment where it’s at. But let’s take a look at where these numbers are coming from:

Mr. Obama says the civilian work force will drop by 80,000 next year, mostly because of a reduction in U.S. census workers added in 2010 but then dropped in 2011 after the national population count is finished. That still leaves 1.35 million civilian federal employees on the payroll in 2011.

From 1981 through 2008, the civilian work force remained at about 1.1 million to 1.2 million, with a low of 1.07 million in 1986 and a high of more than 1.2 million in 1993 and in 2008. In 2009, the number jumped to 1.28 million.

Including both the civilian and defense sectors, the federal government will employ 2.15 million people in 2010 and 2.11 million in 2011, excluding Postal Service workers.

So there really hasn’t been that big of a jump in the size of government, well except for defense, which is about 79% of the increase. Will the right start demanding that we make cuts there? Haha yeah right. Let’s take a closer look at these defense numbers:

After years of decline at the end of the Cold War, the Defense Department is restaffing. Mr. Obama estimated that the Pentagon will have 720,000 employees this year and 757,000 employees next year - up from a low of 649,000 in 2003.

The data also show that the Department of Homeland Security will grow by 7,000 a year in 2010 and 2011, and the Veterans Affairs Department will grow by 12,000 in 2010 and an additional 4,000 in 2011.

One thing that blows my mind there is that we have to keep hiring more and more people to oversee these contractors. It really seems like it would be cheaper to do away with contractors and hire the people directly.

The Washington Times also speaks truth here, but I believe their intent is a little out of context:

Mr. Obama is in a situation similar to that of Mr. Clinton, who took office when the budget deficit was at a record high and government bureaucracy was expanding, even though the Pentagon was shedding workers with the end of the Cold War

So Obama and Clinton share the same experience entering office. What else do they share? Could it be the fact that they inherited those deficits and huge jumps in government bureaucracy from Republican administrations. Nah that wouldn’t be the case. We are talking about the party of “fiscal responsibility” and “small government” after all. I also just saw a pink unicorn running past my window.

Markos has just released a new poll with some very interesting numbers. These are from self-identified Republicans:

Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?

Yes 39
No 32
Not Sure 29

I would love to know what high crimes and misdemeanors they believe he has committed.

Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?

Yes 63
No 21
Not Sure 16

Again – a total myth. President Obama is to the right of Hillary Clinton and they still think he is some socialist. Why? Because of the bank bailouts? Those were enacted under Bush and heavily supported by John McCain – the Republican nominee at the time.

Markos has much more on this madness.

Yesterday on Meet the Press John Boehner continued the same old line that President Obama was the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate.

He also seems to be throwing out the idea of ever working together:

MR. GREGORY:  Does he have a point?

REP. BOEHNER:  No.  If, if you think about what I said, I was referring to the--all the president's policies.  Wasn't demonizing him, wasn't demonizing the White House.  And I'm usually very careful about dealing with the subject at hand.  Listen, there aren't that many places where we can come together. The president is--well, he was the most liberal member of the United States Senate.  You don't get there by accident.  And if you look at the policies that we've seen over the course of this year from the administration and his Democratic colleagues in Congress, they're all these leftist proposals.  And the people of Massachusetts, the people of Virginia, the people of New Jersey are sending a pretty loud signal, just like the other 47 states, to the--to Washington, saying, "Stop!  This is, this is way more than we ever wanted Washington to do."

Again – this is a flat out lie and John Boehner knows it. Let’s see how “liberal” Senator Obama really was. Here is a graph that automatically rates members of Congress based upon their voting records, which is generated by GovTrack.us:

(Click for the full Congress view)

Yes Obama is not a “centrist” Democrat, but he is far from being the most liberal person we had in the Senate. Hell, even Hillary is more to the left of Obama, but these are facts John Boehner seems to totally ignore.

There’s no way we will ever see bi-partisanship when we have people like John Boehner, who never worries about governing and instead chooses to live on the campaign trail. Perhaps the Democrats should start saying that John Boehner is the biggest neo-con in the House. He wants to get rid of government, tell you how you should have sex, not give you any help if you hit on hard times, believes that insurance companies should make huge profits off your hard times and make Americans subservient to big business and destroy America by creating our own caste system.

There has been this new meme developing since the SOTU address that President Obama somehow breeched protocol or tradition by criticizing the Supreme Court’s decision on allowing unlimited money to flow from corporations to campaigns. This seems to be mostly fueled by the right, including some who are also critical of the decision.

I wonder when the Supreme Court became exempt from any criticism? Tom Delay had no problem doing it. I don’t remember him coming under fire for it. So why can’t the President?

The Constitution specifically sets up three equal branches of government. The very basis of what the Supreme Court does is criticizing the other two branches. As matter of fact this very case is an example of that. They criticized law enacted by the other two branches by overturning it. That’s the very basis of how our system works. So acting like Obama violated some sort of rule or protocol is showing that you don’t understand the very bedrock of our form of government. Now if we can get Democratic operatives to call them out on this, then we will be doing great.

This tweet from Luke Russert seems to indicate so:

GOP aides telling me it was a mistake to allow cameras into Obama's QA with GOP members. Allowed BO to refute GOP for 1.5 hours on TV

It might have been a mistake politically for the GOP, but it was a big win for America. It’s time to stop hiding behind factually wrong talking points and start hearing some truth come out. The GOP got owned today and they know it.

Adding…Maybe the GOP thought Obama would fail without a teleprompter. They believe their own bullshit so much that I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s exactly what happened.

Chris Matthews just said that he “forgot he (Obama) was a black man for an hour tonight”. WTF does that mean?

Again – MSNBC must fire this idiot. He is way past his time.

Here is the live feed from MSNBC

We face big and difficult challenges.  And what the American people hope – what they deserve – is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics.  For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds and different stories and different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same.  The aspirations they hold are shared.  A job that pays the bill.  A chance to get ahead.  Most of all, the ability to give their children a better life. 

You know what else they share?  They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity.  After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids; starting businesses and going back to school.  They are coaching little league and helping their neighbors.  As one woman wrote to me, “We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged.” 

It is because of this spirit – this great decency and great strength – that I have never been more hopeful about America’s future than I am tonight.  Despite our hardships, our union is strong.  We do not give up.  We do not quit.  We don’t allow fear or division to break our spirit.  In this new decade, it’s time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength.   And tonight, I’d like to talk about how together, we can deliver on that promise.

…

By the time I’m finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance.  Millions will lose it this year.  Our deficit will grow.  Premiums will go up.  Co-pays will go up.  Patients will be denied the care they need.  Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether.  I will not walk away from these Americans.  And neither should the people in this chamber.

…

Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it’s time for something new.  Let’s try common sense.  Let’s invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let’s meet our responsibility to the people who sent us here.

To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust – deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.

That’s what I came to Washington to do. That’s why – for the first time in history – my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.

But we cannot stop there. It’s time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress.  And it’s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign companies – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities.  They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

I’m also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. You have trimmed some of this spending and embraced some meaningful change.  But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. Tonight, I’m calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there’s a vote so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.

Just now getting breaking news about excerpts of the SOTU address tonight. One of the things President Obama is going to seek is a repeal of the horrible DADT policy.

(Sorry for the lack of posting today. I pulled an all nighter last night moving C&L to their new home)

This really seems like a game of politics to me:

resident Barack Obama will call in his State of the Union address for a three-year freeze on spending for many domestic programs as part of his strategy to rein in the deficit, administration officials said.

The proposal, which wouldn’t affect spending on national security, would save an estimated $250 billion over a decade and reduce the deficit by $10 billion to $15 billion in 2011, according to the two officials, who briefed reporters on the plan. Last year’s budget shortfall was a record $1.4 trillion.

Obama will unveil the plan in his address to a joint session of Congress tomorrow night and include it in the fiscal year 2011 budget he’s set to deliver to lawmakers Feb. 1, the officials said.

Then you got the Republicans questioning the move:

A spokesman for House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio was critical of Obama’s plan. “Given Washington Democrats’ unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you’re going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest,” the spokesman, Michael Steel, said yesterday.

Well if that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black. It’s the same thing as when Republicans go on that health care will cost more than a trillion dollars over the next ten years, yet the Bush  tax cuts they love so much cost more than double that. Oh and those tax cuts were supposed to make our economy so much stronger – right? Yeah we see where that left us.

Adding… A look at history reveals something interesting. Clinton came into office with a recession, passed on to him after 12 years of Republican rule. Obama came into office with a recession, passed on to him after 8 years of Republican rule. Can we honestly trust the Republicans when it comes to fiscal responsibility?

One of the staunchest bill backers out there seems to be getting fed up with President Obama. After summing up President Obama’s statement today on the future of health care reform as, “Run away, run away!”, Krugman finishes with this:

Maybe House Democrats can pull this out, even with a gaping hole in White House leadership. Barney Frank seems to have thought better of his initial defeatism. But I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.

(h/t Aravosis)

Welcome to my side Paul. It has been obvious for months that President Obama wasn’t so much worried about real health care reform, as he was saying “hey I got a bill passed”. He has flat out lied about his campaign promises and given the cold shoulder to the millions who worked to bring him into office. In short, President Obama proved that he isn’t about change, but more so about business as usual. That is something we have sadly come to expect from our leaders.

Does this mean I won’t vote for Obama in 2012? No. What it does mean is that if we have a primary challenger who I like better I will support them over Obama, but if Obama gets the nominee (as he most likely would) then I will support him. Regardless of how much Obama lets us down now, one thing is for certain – he will be better than any Republican alternative. Now we just need to find a great progressive candidate to run in 2016.

We saw today what it was like when politics don’t matter as two former presidents appeared with President Obama:

Now if only the rest of our country could do the same.

President Obama just announced that tomorrow former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton will be at the White House to discuss the Haiti relief efforts the two former presidents will lead. It’s great to see our leaders put politics aside to focus on the humanitarian crisis underway in the battered nation of Haiti, especially in a time of such polarized politics in our nation.

UPDATE:

The official “Clinton Bush Haiti Fund” site is up and running here.