THE GIO SPOT: WHERE POLITICS FEELS GOOD

Why President Obama Must Be Re-Elected

2011-10-01T19:06:00.000-07:00

While Presidents who take office with the nation facing a prolonged economic downturn--and, in the case of 2008, a global economic downturn not seen since the 1930s--face an uphill climb toward a second term, there are two primary reasons why the U.S.--and, indeed, the world--need President Obama to serve through January 2016:

The President's even temperament and steady, rational approach to problem-solving are precisely what these unpredictable, volatile times call for.

While we may never be able to measure fully how the President's American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (2009) prevented an already poor economic situation from becoming worse, i.e. a second Great Depression with 25% unemployment, for instance, it is also true that no President in recent history has been more willing to set aside political differences and work together with opponents from across the aisle to seek practical remedies for nation's ills than Mr. Obama.

The fact that the Republican Party, as early as 2008, decided NOT to work with the President to improve the economy but allow it to languish in order to hang it around his neck as a political albatross in 2012 says more about the Republican party than it does about the President. Mr. Obama may not dish out red meat to his base the way the GOP does (anti-gay, anti-Islam, anti-black, anti-tax, anti-immigrant, anti-choice, anti-government, anti-union rhetoric by the barrels full...barrels that also contain crude oil, by the way), and he may not be much of a street brawler, either.

But in a crisis situation, with the future of the nation at stake and economies around the world clinging to life--and people to hope--sometimes the most important punch is the one not thrown. And does anyone really believe that secessionist Rick Perry, country club cardboard cut-out Mitt Romney, or reality TV host Sarah Palin will offer the nation sounder judgment than Mr. Obama? Apparently not even GOP faithful believe this...or they wouldn't be so eager to find yet another candidate to join their field. These are, admittedly, crazy, difficult times. And I for one think we need a calm, smart, rational hand at the wheel.

The current Republican Party--a shambles of its former self--is a dangerous entity inspired not by the principles upon which the United States was founded, but by hatred, anger and extreme right-wing ideology.

Let's consider what the GOP take-over of the House of Representatives back in November 2010 has done to the nation: partisan gridlock; no meaningful legislation to address the jobs crisis; near default on our debts, which our key allies agree would have resulted in a complete financial meltdown world-wide; a refusal to use the government to effectively jump-start the economy for the well-being of those who are not millionaires; and a cynicism among American citizens that, if left unchecked, will drive down further the number of Americans who vote...in essence creating a two-class system that would make Jefferson, Adams, Washington and other founding brothers turn over in their graves: the affluent and powerful leadership class...and everyone else.

What is the GOP plan, to the extent that any plan can be deciphered from their candidates' ramblings? Eliminate corporate taxes completely; cut funding for all social programs that seek to create a level playing field, providing every American with the opportunity to achieve his or her dreams; expand government (no matter what the cost, mind you) to secure every inch of our border with Mexico; prevent every American woman from exercising her reproductive rights with the threat of incarceration; expand defense spending without limitation; reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell; eliminate health care coverage for millions set to come online in two years despite record-breaking insurance company profits; teach religion as science in our schools; and, while doing all of this, somehow, magically shrink the size of government and pay off our $14,000,000,000 debt. Okay, then.

Is the President perfect? No. Might we all feel a bit better if he ranted and raved and screamed a bit, showing us that he understands our anxieties, our fears, our sense that this economic crisis and our growing deficit is undermining our personal security and that of the nation? Probably.

But 2012 will give us precisely that choice: the party of rant and rave, or an experienced leader who has weathered hard times and kept his composure...kept our composure, in spite of the times.

Perhaps President Lincoln, Illinois' first President, said it best when facing a tough re-election bid in 1864 during the darkest days of the Civil War:

"I am reminded‥of a story of an old Dutch farmer, who remarked to a companion once that it was best not to swap horses when crossing streams."

We've got a ways to go to cross this stream.

And changing horses now--especially considering what we've got back in the stable--isn't going to get us anywhere.

TEA TIME

2011-08-13T17:30:00.000-07:00

PERIODIC THOUGHTS ON THE CLOTTED-CREAM BRAINS OF AMERICA'S 21ST CENTURY KNOW-NOTHINGS

Welcome to Tea Time, where one can pause for a moment during a hectic day to enjoy a civilized spot of Tea Party silliness. Our 21st Century teas are blended especially for you, featuring rich, satisfying flavors like self-righteousness, hypocrisy, ignorance and, when available, the rare but always invigorating outright stupidity. Our portions are delightfully small, since few can handle the extreme intensity of these unusual blends. But you're always welcome in our sitting room and garden.

14 August, 2011
So the GOP says America needs a President with better judgment than Mr. Obama. And the two presumed front-runners for the nomination are Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, the same Rick Perry who goes jogging with a loaded gun and who believes Texas has a right to secede from the Union...and the same Mitt Romney who once loaded the family in the car and drove off for his summer home in Ontario--with the family's Irish setter strapped to the roof of the car in its carrier...because the car was too full. NOTE: Pawlenty drops out (out of $): Pawlenty never came off as authentic in this race because he wasn't thinking or acting or speaking like himself. Tried to out-crazy Bachman. Lesson learned.

13 August, 2011
Howard Fineman reports via The Chris Matthews Show: "The Bush people in Texas fear that Rick Perry is too shallow [to be President]." Not possible to make this stuff up.

12 August, 2011
Today's featured music in the tea room? BTO: Bachman Turns (into) Overdrive! In last night's Iowa debate, Queen of the Tea Party Michele Bachman (MN) said she regretted that the US avoided default and raised the debt ceiling because the American people want government to spend less--ignoring the obvious-to-all-but-her fact that a default would have sent interest rates skyrocketing, increasing our debt significantly and killing off an already struggling economy...maybe for a decade. Later in the evening, she added this gem on what the GOP calls the "defense" of marriage: "I have an absolutely unblemished record when it comes to man-woman marriage." And when the candidates were debating which contender for the nomination is the most pro-life, her eyes almost seemed to illuminate. Was also helpful to know that it was she (along with 24 others) who introduced the landmark light-bulb freedom of choice bill. By the end of this debate, even ordinarily looney Rick Santorum was looking at Bachman like she was from another planet. All great television. But sad commentary on our political discourse.

11 August, 2011
With tonight's GOP Presidential debate from Ames, IA slated to start in about 10 minutes, a quick cuppa tea before the madness begins. While each of the candidates will undoubtedly praise Iowa State University and thank the school for hosting, how many will attack its founding and call for its immediate closure and sale? The reasons I ask are two-fold. The federal government granted the land on which the university rests to the state of Iowa in the 19th Century, provided the state establish a school of higher learning...Big Government once again getting involved in our lives, telling us what to do with our land!. And second, do they realize that Iowa State has a real, legitimate science department, with federally funded research grants? One that views evolution as science...and creationism as something else, altogether?

10 August, 2011
The central inconsistency (among many) in the Tea Party's world view is this: its adherents claim to be opposed to so-called Big Government, but when it comes to issues like prayer in schools, a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, stem cell research and, of course, immigration, the federal government cannot be big enough, active enough, to please them. They actually want Big Government...when it suits their ideological beliefs.

09 August, 2011
John Harwood of CNBC: "We've never seen politicians like this before [House Tea Partiers]. They don't care about default, they don't care about Wall Street, they don't care about their own leadership. Eric Cantor has warned them that pressure to compromise will be coming from everywhere, but to resist." There you have it: a caucus dedicated to destruction...of the President, the government, the economy, and the middle class.

08 August, 2011
Personifying governing irresponsibly (with ideological blinders screwed into both sides of his head), Eric Cantor (R-VA) re-assured his GOP colleagues in the House today that the party will continue to stand for debt reduction while opposing any attempt to increase revenue through closing corporate loopholes or increasing tax rates on the wealthiest Americans. The inherent intellectual inconsistency of this 'position'--pay down debt by reducing income--clearly escapes Mr. Cantor. Either that or he and his mates secretly plan to squeeze trillions from working, middle class Americans over the next decade while actually increasing the income of the highest earners. Either way, it's shocking...and dangerous for the future of the nation.

07 August, 2011
When VP Joe Biden agreed recently with Mike Doyle (D-PA) that Tea Party congressmen are like terrorists in that "they have no compunction about blowing up the economy to get what they want," he revealed an uncomfortable truth: ideological purity, rigid thinking, paranoid mistrust of liberals, religious fundamentalism, and threats to destroy the government if they don't get what they want...yikes.

06 August, 2011
If Tea Partiers hate the United States government so passionately, how can they claim to revere those who established it, honor those who have fought and died to preserve it, and support those who so desperately wish to join it?

05 August, 2011
Unprecedented downgrade of US credit rating. Thanks, Tea Party Morons. Brilliant. How can you preach deficit reduction publicly, but then behave in such an irrational manner behind closed doors that--with the increased interest rates likely to follow from our S&P downgrade--you most certainly have increased our debt by billions?

04 August, 2011
Harold Ford: Freshmen in Congress used to study American history at JFK school of government as part of orientation program. In 1994, Newt Gingrich and the GOP killed the program as "too liberal." We're paying for it now.

03 August, 2011
The most sure sign of trouble, whatever the issue, is when someone assures us that he/she knows precisely what God wants. Hey, Rick Perry, next time you and God chat, would you drop a little hint about the Cubs...and a World Series?

29 July, 2011
Former Michele Bachman chief of staff Ron Carey, who served in that post for four years, describes Bachman's office as "wildly out of control" in the Des Moines Register, urging Iowans to focus on Tim Pawlenty for Pres. Guess I'm not the only one frightened by that crazed look in Bachman's eyes.

25 July 2011
Still the Tea Party analysis of the summer: "He who warned uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed." -Sarah Palin demonstrating her 'understanding' of Paul Revere's role in the American Revolution during a June visit to the Old North Church in Boston, MA

America in Peril: Bad Thinking

2011-08-05T15:01:00.000-07:00

The future of our great nation is not threatened ultimately by economic recession, political gridlock or public debt; it is not threatened by corporate greed, or an inane, controversy-obsessed media, or rising health care costs; it is not threatened ultimately by Europe's financial instability, China's rise as a global power, fundamentalist terrorism, domestic or foreign, or socialism or communism; it is not threatened by immigration (which has always triumphed and enriched our nation), or diversity, or atheism...or even the silly-crazy right wing demagogues who have reared their ugly heads (as they always have) in desperate times, but will most certainly return to the shadows, the fringes of what the vast majority of Americans consider palatable, relevant and worthy of attention...eventually.

Instead, our future is threatened--and seriously so--by the misunderstanding or ignorance or willful manipulation of the essential truths of American history, and the Enlightenment principles of the validity of science, the value of honest intellectual discourse, the commitment to maintaining an open mind, and the determined refusal to adopt a rigid ideology (social, religious, political, economic, or otherwise) that only serves to retard progress and sew discord.

In short, America's future is in jeopardy because we no longer value critical thinking, open-mindedness and the rich western tradition of accepting the validity and outcomes of an argument made honestly and convincingly, rooted in fact, in reason.

Today, when we discover that history, empirical evidence and rationality refute an opinion, we tighten our ideological grip...and make things up.

I Miss Bob Dole

2011-07-15T19:48:00.000-07:00

Seriously. Bob Dole. The Republican from Kansas who served in the US Senate from 1969 to 1996, the year he was chosen as the GOP's Presidential nominee only to be thrashed by then upstart Bill Clinton of Arkansas in the general by more than 8 points (popular vote) and 379 to 159 in the Electoral College.

Older than dirt Bob Dole.

And my longing for Senator Dole isn't just because he proved to be a stiff, ineffective Republican candidate for national office--although I am certainly partial to the type.

Instead, hindsight reveals Senator Dole and his contemporaries in the Republican Party--although too conservative socially for my taste and just dead wrong on the economy--to be reasonable, intelligent and practical men, understanding that even though politics is a rough-and-tumble competition for decision-making power and influence, there are times when true patriots of all political persuasions must come together to compromise for the good of the nation. These guys endured the Great Depression, liberated Europe from the Nazis, defeated the brutal Japanese military dictatorship, rebuilt western Europe, held off the Soviet Union and the expansion of communism during the long and costly Cold War, and in their spare time, landed a man on the moon.

After the Good War, they came home, and under the GI Bill went to college (many the first in their families to do so) and built modern America. They knew history well (having both studied and made it), valued learning, and were not given to hyperbole. They had lived poor and hungry, fought for their lives (and for the life of their nation), and saw good men and women die fighting next to them.

They weren't perfect, to be sure. But Dole and his contemporaries, in comparison with the shell of a serious political party that remains today, were superior leaders. Having personally sacrificed so much to defeat fascism and racism and communism, they knew the difference between a center-left Democratic President and a socialist. Between a recession and a depression. Between seeking smaller government and destroying the government. They knew that slavery wasn't eradicated by the Founders, where, why and when Paul Revere rode, and that the office of President of the United States is always deserving of respect--even when your opponent, not your friend, resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

They knew that effective political leadership between elections is not about ideological purity but about finding common ground to do the people's business. And as bitterly contested as their elections were, they insisted on at least a modicum of civility, and on protecting their party from incompetent demagogues who, for money, ego, fame or power, could lie and manipulate, tapping into our nation's basest instincts and weaken us all...to build themselves up.

But in the nineties, I thought Bob Dole was the enemy.

Looking back now from the vantage point of 2011--with reckless zealots like Bachman, Cantor and Palin dominating the once-Grand Old Party--truth is, I just didn't know how good we had it.

Labor Unions Under Siege? The Ignorance is Mind-Boggling

2011-06-18T05:56:00.001-07:00

As the economy has languished, labor unions have replaced Wall Street as the scape-goat du jour. But unions in America ended child labor, established the 8-hour work day, paid overtime, the weekend, sick leave, vacations & holidays off; won a minimum wage, pension programs, unemployment insurance, health care benefits, job safety regulations & compensation for work-related injuries; and fought vigorously for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Occupational Safety & Health Act (1970) & the Family Medical Leave Act (1993).

I do not believe we can continue to vilify unions without placing these hard-won reforms for which men and women gave their lives, and which have helped establish America as a truly exceptional nation, in real jeopardy.

I've never belonged to a union, but I sure appreciate what they've done for my family...and my nation. Unions are not the problem. Greed, a poorly regulated financial sector, incompetent political leadership and corruption, the thoughtless waste of valuable energy resources, and game-changing structural shifts in a global economy for which no one was prepared...well, those are the problems. Too big, too complex, too hard to address, too complicated to sell...and so we take it out on the cops, teachers, fire fighters, trash collectors, road repair crews, and civil service. And the very idea, the NOTION, of government.

Can anyone really believe that these people, today's scape-goats, are the problem, the cause of the worst economic downturn to befall the planet since the Great Depression? In essence, we're supposed to believe this entire mess is the garbage man's fault, or the cop walking a beat, or the teacher showing a child how to do long division for a living?

Insanity.

An Honest Shot at Being an American, First

2011-04-02T07:39:00.000-07:00

We live in one of the most divisive, partisan times in American history, a period--as has always been the case in the wake of prolonged economic recession--in which political ideology trumps all that unites us, as we desperately seek stability and comfort and a means to improve our lot. But it's worse now than ever, because the combination of technology, economics and media have created a 24-hour firestorm of partisan debate that we just can't escape...even for a moment's peace.

But all sides of the ideological debate have lost sight of our essential patriotic duty to make diversity in culture and opinion our strength, rather than our Achilles heal. And while I'm partisan as they come, here's a shot at being American, first:

1. Dems need to accept that we're spending too much money right now, and that we can't sustain current social programs. Difficult cuts should be made, while doing all possible to ensure that those with the least among us do not suffer further. The middle class will have to kick in, and pension reform must be an area of focus. And drop the incendiary rhetoric about your opponents being rich, greedy fascists. They believe that what they're doing is right for the nation, just like you.

2. Repubs need to accept that cuts alone won't right this ship, and that the wealthiest among us need to contribute more in taxes, and that what's good for big business isn't necessarily good for the people and the nation. And drop the crap about birth certificates and socialism and Big Brother, already. The American government has accomplished amazing things in the last 236 years, and you know it.

3. Both parties must LEAD in rejecting the necessity of bitter partisan debate. Insist on civility, defund your extreme left and right wings, punish pandering in your ranks, and for God's sake, spend some time together away from the cameras, really get to know and understand one another on a personal level.

4. Conclude every single month with a mandatory silent, camera-less Congressional walk through Arlington National Cemetery, rain or shine, led by the widows and orphans of our Armed Services. Maybe then petty partisan fighting over power and fame and money won't seem as important to you.

Craziness? Maybe. But if we could defeat the English Empire in the 18th Century, survive the Civil War while freeing 4 million slaves in the 19th Century, liberate the world from fascism and communism--PLUS land a man on the freakin' moon while creating the Internet and the personal computer--in the 20th, DON'T TELL ME it's not possible.

Here's Hoping in 2011

2011-01-01T05:50:00.000-08:00

As is customary in December, there has been a great deal of looking back of late:

to 9/11 and the initiation of the deadly, costly Middle Eastern wars that followed
to Hurricane Katrina and the failure of governments to respond quickly and adequately to those in desperate need of assistance
to the inspirational, hopeful election of the republic's first African-American President, only the second chief executive to hail from Illinois, elected in the spirit of Mr. Lincoln himself
to the BP oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico that destroyed lives, threatened a vital ecosystem, and exposed an insidious corporate greed and shocking disregard for the public--as well as the government's cowardly acquiescence to Big Business--not seen since the Gilded Age
to an historic global economic crisis that forced millions of hard-working Americans onto the unemployment rolls, widening an already disconcerting gap between the exorbitantly wealthy and everyone else, and undermining political stability at home and abroad

But New Year's Day 2011 also offers a wonderful opportunity to look forward, to consider some basic aspirations for our nation in the decade ahead.

With that in mind, here's hoping that:

we remember one of the basic principles upon which our nation was founded in the Enlightenment: children should not be punished for the sins of their fathers. Empowering the children of immigrants to attend college whether their parents are here legally or not--provided they work hard and gain entry on their merits--benefits our nation, is in perfect harmony with our history, our roots...and is the right thing to do.
the American people demand intelligence and honesty and transparency from the political leaders we elect, and when a candidate for office tells us, The truth is, both sides are right: in order to right the ship taxes must go up on those who can carry the burden, government services must be cut thoughtfully and carefully, AND every American must look hard at the way he/she lives, help out on this deficit, and reduce energy consumption...we will applaud...and then vote for that candidate
we find a way to more clearly distinguish journalism from propaganda and entertainment, especially on the Internet and cable television, where the three have morphed into a single circus act, making a mockery of professional journalism and turning America's political discourse--vital to the future of a republic--into a D.C. episode of Jersey Shore
by the end of the decade to come, all Americans view access to affordable, high quality health care as a right, not a privilege, the same way we came, over time, to view education, social security, unemployment compensation, and medicare/medicaid as expenses all would share for the greater good of the country and its people
our brave men and women in uniform, serving in countless stations across the globe, are soon able to leave combat posts behind to fulfill the humanitarian and deterrent roles they serve better than any other soldiers on this earth. God bless them all for their service.

Here's hoping in 2011.

Happy new year!

The Audacity of Nope: Republicans Make Idealistic President Pay High Price for Principles

2010-12-10T15:35:00.001-08:00

I suppose we should have seen this coming. Or at least someone with the President's trust and ear should have seen this coming. Barack Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign rested on a rock-solid foundation of three principles that nearly always poll well with the American people: when times are tough, change is good; hope is better than despair, optimism better than pessimism; and those in power should set aside their petty differences and work together for the good of the country.

And now, as we approach 2011, the change message works against the incumbent President and his party, while hope for a brighter future has degenerated into the argument that things could be much worse. And all attempts at bi-partisanship, at cooperation with Congressional Republicans, have met with a pre-meditated, thoughtless, shameful, and un-patriotic rebuke. The strategy implemented immediately after President Obama’s election—the Audacity of Nope, seeking to block every attempt to improve our nation for its people so that the failure to address our challenges can then be blamed on the incumbent President and his party—has, sadly, been an effective one, politically. But it has also meant that ailing first-responders on 9/11, the millions of unemployed Americans unable to find work, brave, dedicated gays and lesbians serving in our military, working middle class families in need, and the children of immigrants who have excelled in school and can a make a positive difference for the nation but can’t gain access to help with college because their parents brought them here illegally, have been abandoned, harmed, used as pawns by small-minded, greedy cynics like Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and John Boehner (R-OH).

Looking back at the 2008 campaign and the first eager, optimistic steps of the Obama administration, it is clear now that while hope and change were winning themes in the wake of the disastrous Bush years, a new (perhaps compatible, but new) strategy was needed upon assuming the reigns of the government. When one emerges victorious in an inside-outside election—and thus moves from an outsider to an insider to the electorate—one must move rapidly to revise that theme, since no American can view the President of the United States as a Washington outsider for very long. In addition, the political downside to building tremendous hope is in raising expectations (in this case, for improvement in the economy) to an unrealistic, unachievable level, setting one’s self up to disappoint even true believers—a reality that Republicans grasped early on, and that has married well with their strategy of always saying no to this President, no matter what the cost to the nation. Finally, this simple truth about politics was not grasped by the Obama team: bi-partisanship, changing the way Washington does business, only works if both parties are willing to compromise, actually want to work together for the good of the nation.

The thing that surprises me is not that the Republicans have implemented this destructive strategy so well, nor that a bad economy—inherited, you may recall, by President Obama—continues to linger, causing serious political challenges for the President and Congressional Democrats. I’ve been around long enough to expect these things, for better or worse. What I don’t understand, however, is how long it is taking the President to come to the realization that he cannot single-handedly change the way Washington does business and cannot work cooperatively for the good of the nation with a group of men and women who have absolutely zero interest in working with him, on anything, ever.

I believe the President to be smart, insightful, honest, hard-working, and compassionate, and I viewed his election as the very embodiment of Jefferson’s vision of a republican meritocracy and Lincoln’s plea for America to devote itself to what he called “the better angels of our nature.”

But this has to be said: President Obama has allowed himself to be used and abused by his political opponents, defined as an extremist (when he’s clearly not), and negotiating away key aspects of his agenda in exchange for further abuse. He’s a mediator, when what we need is a fighter. And while I admit time remains to salvage this Presidency and its thoughtful, noble agenda, I, like many Dems, have to wonder: does he have it in him?

Mid-Terms Threaten GOP-Tea Party with Scary Prospect: Governing

2010-10-18T14:16:00.000-07:00

With just two weeks to go before the November 2nd mid-term elections, the political die appears to be cast. Recent polling suggests that the Democrats will lose the House and hold, by a thread, the Senate. So while the Democrats will continue to wield power in the executive branch and in the Senate, they face a potential bloodbath in the House of Representatives, where they may lose anywhere from 40 to 60 seats--with the GOP needing just 39 seats to win a majority.

Why? That's complicated, but in short, I offer the following reasons:

The party of an incumbent President nearly always loses seats in mid-term elections. According to the Washington Times, in the 36 mid-term elections between 1862 and 2006 (held during the first or second terms of a Presidential administration), the opposition party gained seats 92% of the time in the House of Representatives
Americans like divided government, having internalized centuries ago Mr. Madison's maxim that a divided government is less likely to be an abusive government
The historic worldwide recession, while technically over according to economists, continues unabated for everyday Americans, with record-breaking unemployment rates that no one, whatever his political party (or ideology), can address simply and quickly
The President and Democratic leaders in Congress have communicated their agenda poorly, engaged in debate softly, and succumbed to political in-fighting, all the while allowing opponents to portray them as extreme and out-of-touch. Simply put, the President spent too much time trying to negotiate with Republicans, and not enough time fighting for the validity of his own agenda
The election of the first African-American President in the history of the republic has, sadly, galvanized a small but angry, hate-filled and vocal segment of the American populace, adding a wild, vitriolic fervor and an irrationality to the political debate, attaching itself like bacteria to the economic populist movement that forms naturally during hard times, undermining not just the President's policies, but his very legitimacy as the duly elected chief executive of the nation

For those who care about the expansion of quality health care as a right (the way a free public education is a right, and federal assistance in one's old age is a right) or who are concerned about climate change, civil rights, stem cell research, America's role as a thoughtful, respected leader in world affairs (and as a member of the global community, a key player on the team, but a member of a team), and about regulation of corporate influence in our society, economic justice, the separation of church and state, a woman's right to choose, immigrant rights, and a multitude of other issues facing America and the world in the 21st Century, November 2nd will be, I fear, a long and difficult day.

However, sometimes in politics what looks like a beating in November can be a lucky break a few months hence. On November 3rd, the new Republican members of the House and Senate, like today's incumbents, will be responsible for offering solutions and for casting public votes--for leading. No longer will they be able to stand on the curb and demand cuts in federal spending without citing what programs should be cut. Factually speaking, national defense, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid are by far the most costly programs. Will one new member of either house seriously propose cutting or eliminating funding for these programs? Will even the Tea Party simpletons stand up in the Congress and vote to cut-off grandma's monthly check and eliminate her health care? Or to cut the nation's anti-terrorism efforts significantly to arrest and incarcerate a Mexican mother of two (two American citizens, mind you) who's here illegally?

Here's the rub. Sharing power means sharing responsibility, and being responsible for addressing the worst global economic downturn in eighty years while managing two wars and an impatient, bitterly divided electorate is one's reward for political victory today. And when it's your turn to actually lead, to offer a plan, to vote on imperfect legislation that might help move the country forward, even if it's politically unpopular...well, the Party of No could quickly become the Party of Oh, No: We Won?

In Defense of BIG GOVERNMENT

2010-09-23T15:30:00.000-07:00

Building on an online conversation I had recently with an old friend, I wish to offer a full-throated but brief defense of BIG GOVERNMENT--not corruption or greed or parochialism or bitter partisanship or bureaucracy--but a well-funded and responsive federal government that actively seeks to improve the quality of life for all Americans and seeks to sustain America as a thoughtful, responsible leader on the world stage. A government that seeks to fulfill the promise of equality of opportunity established as the national ideal by Thomas Jefferson in "The Declaration of Independence," rather than sweeps the hard questions (and our flaws) under the carpet because of political risk. A government that honors the tremendous courage and sacrifice of the men and women in arms from the Revolution through the Civil War, the great wars of the 20th Century, and the 21st Century battle against religious extremism in all its forms, rather than pays lip service to their heroism while undermining the very principals, the ideals, for which they fought, suffered, and in some instances, died.

Before we allow ambition, fear-mongering, racism and other forms of hate to distort the role so-called Big Government has played in our history, let's keep in mind the following.

Big Government:

doubled the size of the nation through the Louisiana Purchase, adding the land from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains to America

preserved the Union, putting down, finally, a long and bloody rebellion, and in so doing preserving what Mr. Lincoln called "the last best hope of earth"

liberated 4 million African-Americans from bondage, and forever eliminated the scourge of human slavery from our nation

funded and directed scientific research that has eliminated countless diseases, doubling the life of expectancy of the American people from 1900 to 2000 (from 40 years to nearly 80 years)

created the concept of universal and free public education, including our nation's most prestigious public universities

made America a world power in the 20th Century, ultimately securing a standard of living that is among the highest in the world for its citizens

organized and directed the liberation of Europe from the Fascists, freeing the survivors of the Holocaust

funded, organized, and secured the defense of the great democracies of Western Europe in the aftermath of World War II and in the midst of Soviet oppression, with the Marshall Plan

created Social Security and medicare to improve the quality of life of all Americans as they age

extended basic Civil Rights and equality under the law to all Americans, even when doing so meant the death of beloved American leaders and violence in the streets

landed a man on the moon...because it was next

won the Cold War, upholding the democratic republic as the most successful political system of the 20th Century, a victory for human liberty that continues to echo around the world today

and most recently, invented the Internet (a defense-related project), generating an entirely new global economy, bridging the valleys that divide us, placing centuries of learning at our fingertips, and unleashing an historic (nearly unprecedented) wave of human creativity

Times are tough and there is abuse and corruption and waste in our government, no question. But Big Government is not the enemy. Ignorance, fear, manipulation, hate, cynicism and indifference, they cost us so much more than Cash for Clunkers, the Wall Street Bailout, and Health Care Reform will ever cost us. And, perhaps, in the most unsettling development of all, here, in the new millennium, what do we call ignorance, fear, manipulation, hate, cynicism and indifference?

Political discourse--and entertainment.

Time for President Obama to Give Up the Ghost

2010-08-21T12:59:00.000-07:00

The President is a good man. The President is an honest man. The President is a patient, intellectually gifted, diligent and thoughtful man who has compassion for others, who strives to make a positive difference every day, and who can see the complexity, the multiple facets of, every issue.

But President Obama, governing in the wake of the exciting and historic wave of change that carried him into office in November of 2008, dove headfirst into a sinkhole dug by his own campaign, from which he must extricate himself now, if his Presidency--and his administration's work on the key challenges facing the nation-- are to be saved.

President Obama was elected, seemingly, as a post-President: post-Bush, post-racial, and post-partisan. But it was the last of these posts that has been the undoing of his effectiveness and public support over the last seventeen months. The Rasmussen daily tracking poll of Saturday, 8/21/10 reveals that just 25% of Americans "strongly approve" of his performance as President, while 44% "strongly disapprove." Genuinely believing his own campaign's declarations that he would change forever the culture of petty partisanship in Washington and govern in partnership with not just the full spectrum of Democrats in Congress, but also with the cooperation and support of the GOP when it came to restoring a broken economy, reforming a runaway banking system, and broadening access to quality health care for the American people...this was the great sinkhole into which President Obama dove, an admirable but naive faith in his own ability to unite political partisans to act for the common good of their country.

And so, having let his guard down in order to show good faith and invite unprecedented bi-partisan cooperation, President Obama has allowed Republicans, right-wing pundits, and tea party zealots to portray him as (simultaneously, mind you) a socialist, a fascist, a foreigner, an out-of-touch academic, a Chicago political hack, a rich Harvard elite, an angry black man, a calculating, emotionless executive, unpatriotic, indecisive, and (gulp)...a Muslim.

The reality is that in just seventeen months this President has...

...saved the banking and auto industries, preventing the complete collapse of our economy and a much deeper, longer recession;

...achieved an unprecedented level of reform of the nation's health care system that Presidents of both parties--from F.D.R, Truman and LBJ through Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton--sought but could not achieve, extending access ultimately to millions more men, women and children;

...restored international confidence in America as a nation committed to human rights;

...accomplished the much-needed reform of our nation's financial regulatory system;

...restored the integrity of the office of the President, with no one, not even staunch political opponents, questioning, whenever the President speaks, whether he is speaking the truth as he himself has learned it;

...and, true to his campaign promise, removed the last combat troops from Iraq, leaving the Iraqis, with American troops serving in a training and advisory capacity, to accept responsibility for the security of their own nation.

And yet his overall job approval rating stands now at about 40% (with 50 percent negatives), his party is facing the prospect of losing one or both houses of Congress in this November's midterms, and while conservatives of all stripes are mobilized and invigorated, smelling blood in the steamy late-summer waters of the Potomac, the base of the Democratic party appears disillusioned, sullen, resigned...or back at school with the enthusiasm of the 2008 campaign a distant, nostalgic, memory.

It's not too late. And lately, President Obama has been showing signs of hitting back, albeit reluctantly, sometimes with backtracking the next day. This kind of fight just does not come naturally to him. There is no question that, with any incumbent President and party (Reagan and Clinton are good examples) a high unemployment rate--today at 9.5%--is going to hurt come the mid-terms, but the reality is that right now there's not much any President could do about that...or has ever done.

What President Obama can do, however, is be clear in his positions, expose the obstructionist strategy of Mitch McConnell and the Republicans, defend with passion the principles and ideals he holds so dear, mobilize an army of advisers and allies to take the offensive against the right-wing crazies whose racism, bigotry, fear, and anti-intellectualism threaten to tear the nation apart, and use the bully pulpit of the presidency to show the American people what he and his allies in the Congress have accomplished.

It's time to damn the polls, to give up the ghost of bi-partisanship, and to go straight to the American people. Bi-partisanship is what you get from the other side when the American people overwhelmingly support you and your agenda. And it doesn't work the other way around.

Anti-Intellectual Pols, Tea Party, Fail History Lesson

2010-07-29T10:59:00.000-07:00

I look to the diffusion of light and education as the resource to be relied on for ameliorating the condition, promoting the virtue, and advancing the happiness of man. Thomas Jefferson, 1822

Scoring cheap political points with an angry, irrational and now mobilized segment of the American voting public (like the Tea Party) by attacking the more thoughtful, studious and intellectually curious pols on both sides of the aisle as out-of-touch, indecisive, weak-willed academics has become all the rage, as this ongoing economic malaise has helped create an anti-incumbent, anti-expert climate that is, perhaps, unparalleled in our history.

And yet America was born to the Enlightenment, an historical period marked by a fervent intellectual curiosity and a deep faith in the potential of careful, thoughtful study to remake our world for the benefit of all of its inhabitants. While it is true that the courageous young men and women of Colonial America who fought and suffered terribly over eight long tears for the sake of the Revolution were, for the most part, not intellectuals who had studied Locke and Rousseau, it is also true that they possessed an almost blind faith in the two most basic philosophical underpinnings of the war, as represented by intellectual giants of the age like Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, and their peers: individuals and groups of individuals possess the ability, through study and the application of reason, to improve themselves and their societies; and the role of government is to protect the rights of citizens to employ this ability freely.

Thus, the great contradiction in the anti-intellectual rhetoric of today's politics is that one cannot claim legitimately to represent so-called real Americans, in harmony with the Founders of this great land, and at the same time mock the value of education, the potential for good that lies within human reason, and those elected officials or candidates who read voraciously, study with purpose, and strive to grasp fully even the most complex of issues.

As with all things, of course, balance is the key. The truly great American leaders possessed a genuine intellectual curiosity, the willingness to devote time and energy to mastering the complexity of the challenges before them, and the courage and decisiveness to act after making a call. Washington had it, and so did Jefferson, Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR, and JFK. President Obama clearly has the intellectual ability and the belief in its potential to help solve the nation's problems, but, to me, the jury remains out on the issue of clear and decisive leadership, on his political ability to make a decision, act...and bring the nation along with him. Sadly, an additional hurdle he faces in bringing the nation together is the stark reality that even in the 21st Century, the American holding the highest office in the land, because of the color of his skin, ignites a more intense, irrational and hate-filled opposition than any American President in history.

While anti-intellectualism is not new to American politics--most recently, Presidents George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Lyndon Baines Johnson manipulated this theme with great success in their campaigns for office--it has always held the most appeal during periods of economic crisis or civil unrest, when a small but irate segment of the electorate is outraged and looking for someone to blame. This is not a rational phenomenon, it must be said. The notion has always escaped me: things are going badly just now, and therefore we need to find and elect people to address the problems who claim (usually with tremendous pride), that they do not read, do not study, do not trust research, shun so-called experts, and would govern day-to-day life in this nation shooting from the hip, using nothing but their guts and plain common sense to guide them. It's like reasoning, "We have smart people in charge, and the country is screwed up, so what we need now are idiots."

And Mr. Jefferson, the quintessential American intellectual of the Enlightenment, is most often distorted today to support such shoddy reasoning. Yes, he believed passionately in the concept of limited government and individual liberty, but this does not translate easily into the notion that he would oppose reasonable limits on gun ownership given what's taking place on our city streets today, or that he would oppose universal health care given the disparity in health among our citizens. After all, this is the same proponent of limited government who doubled the size of the nation--and incurred a sizable debt to do so--with the Louisiana Purchase, despite the violent objections of many Americans, and who founded the University of Virginia and believed deeply in universal education as a necessity for the citizens of a democracy--whatever the cost. I suspect had today's Tea Party been around in 1804, President Jefferson, not President Obama, would be the target of their rage. Jefferson feared an abusive federal government, yes...but he was, above all else, an intellectual, a thinker, a well-read, well-traveled and educated writer, architect, philosopher, planter, inventor, diplomat and politician. Quite simply, one cannot be both anti-intellectual and pro-Jefferson.

I would like to think that the eight disastrous years under George W. Bush would have dispelled all Americans, Democrats and Republicans, once and for all, of the myths of anti-intellectualism. But I'm not so sure. This, however, I am certain about: mocking smart, serious people like the President who exhaust themselves trying to improve life for all citizens in our country is wrong.

And there's nothing even remotely American about it.

Better than Bush Not Good Enough for President Obama

2010-06-13T11:16:00.000-07:00

This much is true: President Obama is smarter, more thoughtful, more engaged, harder working, more independent, and more inspirational than his predecessor, George W. Bush. President Obama also possesses a more progressive, reform- minded and ambitious agenda for guiding America, with strength and honor, into the heart of the 21st Century--and for restoring global faith in American leadership and ideals.

But being better than Bush is not good enough. That standard is just too low.

The President and his key advisors have demonstrated naïveté in their dealings with their Republican counterparts, allowing the extreme Right (which always asserts itself in the anxiety and anger that accompanies prolonged economic recession) to define the central issues of the day, exposing the Administration, its reform agenda, and like-minded Democrats nationwide to significant (fatal?) political damage. They have been less available to the press than even their Republican predecessors. The President has failed to connect on an emotional, visceral level with the American people. They have unwittingly worked to create a perception of their own failure by promoting unrealistic expectations for immediate political change in Washington, to the point where necessary and ordinary political actions and words now appear heavy-handed, clumsy, part of the problem, not the solution.

They’re under attack from the Left and the Right, simultaneously, and now find themselves having to govern and campaign as consummate Insiders during a time when being on the Outside is a plus for the electorate. And now the slow, inadequate response to the cataclysm in the Gulf of Mexico serves as the latest example of how well-intentioned, smart people can see so much complexity in an issue (remember the health care debates? the work on new financial regulations? don’t ask, don’t tell?) that esoteric details and endless debate undercut any attempt to provide the American people with a clear sense of the President’s vision, strength, ability to get things done, and leadership. Instead of presenting a recognizable and positive overall plan (read, New Deal or Great Society) the Administration appears to run from one crisis to the next, reacting to, but not shaping events.

On one hand, any President faced with a dire economic situation, two wars, and a restless, frustrated, and scared electorate--turning on itself, on immigrants, on other nations, and on incumbent leaders--is bound to struggle like this. And it is truly amazing that the President continues to sustain personal popularity ratings well over 50 percent, even as employment growth comes oh-so-slowly and he and his party assume responsibility for the nation’s many challenges.

But Presidents, for better or for worse, are defined largely by their times. Washington, Lincoln, T.R., Wilson, F.D.R….they each faced seemingly insurmountable challenges, of varying degrees and types. And each rose to the occasion, making a positive difference for the country because, first, they won the hearts and minds of the people--and the respect or fear of their political opponents. Like it or not, our time calls for leadership on this level, rare, powerful, and history-making. As we look ahead to the mid-term 2010 elections, the Obama administration gets an A for effort, but a D for execution. While the term is by no means over, the American people have never been much-inclined to grade on a curve. Being better than George Bush is just not good enough for these times. And at this point, it will take one hell-of-a-performance over the next two years to rebound, politically, from this start. But it has been done before.

For the sake of the nation, I sure hope this President can do it, again.

Losing Our Minds: America in the First Decade of the 21st Century

2010-04-30T12:19:00.001-07:00

I have a simple theory that every now and again America loses its mind.

Not coincidentally, we tend to lose our minds during tough economic times, or historical periods when there appears to be an intentional, direct threat to our safety and security. As a public service, then, I offer the following symptoms of which all Americans should be aware.

You know you've lost your mind when...

...you limit your understanding of the concept "American" to human beings who are white, native-born, conservative and Christian

...you show more compassion for those who have not been born than for the poor, the sick, and the oppressed living all around us

...you look at America's crime-ridden city streets--and kids shooting kids almost every day--and draw the conclusion that we just don't have enough guns

...you live in a country that has more millionaires than any other nation on earth--and is known throughout the world for its abundance and excesses--and yet believe that the poorest ten percent of our citizens don't pay enough of their income as taxes

...you think your country can reap the benefits of and sustain its position as a world leader, while isolating itself, and acting alone, in disregard of the rights and views of other nations

...you prefer ignorance to intelligence, narrow-mindedness to open-mindedness, fear to hope, and pandering to honesty when it comes to our elected officials

Seems to me, as we near the end of the first decade of the 21st Century, we've got a full-blown case of insanity going.

The Divided States of America: Can Anything Bring Us Together?

2010-02-14T12:06:00.000-08:00

The question has to be asked: is there now anything, anyone, capable of uniting this nation? Of bringing Americans from all ideologies, all socio-economic backgrounds, all races and creeds, north, south, east and west, together for an agreed-upon common purpose, for the benefit of all?

It seems about as likely to me as the Cubs winning the World Series. Or maybe even winning two World Series. About as likely as me learning to carry a tune. Or the CTA offering efficient and pleasant public transport...and breaking even. There seem to be metaphysical forces at work that make such things unrealistic, unachievable, impossible. And now I'm beginning to feel the same way about the prospect of people working together to address our nation's challenges.

The divisions are many, and a fair number of them run deep in American history. Red vs. Blue. Main Street vs. Wall Street. North vs. South. East vs. West. Rich vs. Poor. Liberal vs. Conservative. Fundamentalist vs. Contextualist. Black vs. White. Nativist vs. Immigrant. Urban vs. Rural. White Collar vs. Blue Collar. These divisions did not develop overnight, of course, and in some ways, all that is inspiring in the history of America can be found in those rare moments when people banded together--in spite of our diversity--to achieve hard things, like waging a successful revolution against the most powerful nation on earth in the 18th Century, securing our independence; or helping to liberate Europe from the murderous fascists of the 1940s; or making the promise of the Declaration of Independence more of a reality for all Americans through the Civil Rights Act of 1964; or journeying through the heavens to land the first human beings on the moon...the moon. There were certainly Americans, in each of those instances, opposed to the goal--and to what it would take to achieve the goal--but we seemed able to rally the critical mass necessary to push forward, to achieve something of meaning and value that history would judge as noble, worthy of the sacrifices made.

But now, early in the 21st Century, that critical mass seems impossible to rally. Not for quality, affordable health care for every man, woman and child in America. Not for the best--most effective, but also most compatible with our ideals--means of defending ourselves against the fanatical forces of religious extremism, at home and abroad. Not for preserving our natural environment and combatting climate change. Not for finding a way to ensure that Wall Street excesses do not, once again, leave Main Street reeling. And not for working together to keep our children from gunning one another down in the streets for the right to sell drugs to other children, because they see no other way out, no other place to belong, and no long, happy life awaiting them, anyway.

Both extremes in American political life, left and right, are quick to claim the Founders as their own, asserting that if Washington, or Jefferson, or Madison, or Adams were alive today, they'd agree with them, and support their policies. And that just breaks my heart. On one level, yes, as Joseph Ellis asserts in Founding Brothers, the men who created this nation were political men, consumed, at times, by their own rivalries, prejudices, and passions. But it's equally important to remember that, above all, these were men of the Enlightenment, with, sadly, minds more open, more able to be swayed by reason, empirical evidence, and sound argument than our own. They were farmers and architects and lawyers and inventors and philosophers and authors and scienists and merchants. And what united them, aside from the central goal of political independence from Mother England, was a commitment to (and a staunch belief in) getting it right, in the value and transformational power of learning, of making themselves and their new nation better everyday, of addressing problems with their intellect and their life experiences. They believed, ultimately, in their own ability to make a difference, to make things better.

And I can't help but wonder today: if an irritable, frugal, religious, tightly-wound, and fervent New England lawyer like John Adams could form such a deep, affectionate friendship with an esoteric, hypocritical, unpredictable and brilliant slave-holding planter and writer from the deep south like Tom Jefferson, how is it that we can't get along today, when the world is allegedly so much smaller?

Come to think of it, I can think of something that unites us: I think the Founders would be ashamed...of us all.

Things Are Tough All Over, Scott Brown: For Dems, Repubs...and the American People, Too

2010-01-21T12:38:00.000-08:00

Let's not get crazy here. As shocking and historic as Scott Brown's win was in this week's special election in Massachusetts to fill the US Senate seat left vacant upon the passing of Liberal Lion Ted Kennedy, only those sporting the most partisan of blinders could possibly interpret the upset as a sign of a resurgent Republican party. For starters, Brown went out of his way never to even identify himself as a Republican, recognizing that he was up against a less-than-formidable Democratic candidate during a long, nagging economic recession--and with the Dems in charge on the state and federal levels--and therefore he had nothing to gain by linking himself publicly to the damaged, bi-polar Republican brand. Combine, if you will, that prescient strategy with Hollywood good looks, a ton of cash, an angry mob of independents, a pink carnation and a pickup truck, and the Democrats, well, they were out of luck on the day the music (a little song entitled Health Care Reform) died.

But Dems should take strange comfort in this simple reality: things are tough all over. For them, they've invested a year of valuable, irreplaceable political capital on a noble effort to transform quality health care from a privilege for the few to a right for all, seemingly, at this point, for naught. And the bleeding is almost certain to continue into the 2010 midterm Congressional elections. It appears that only a major economic recovery that reaches Main Street--jobs, jobs, jobs--can provide any hope of recovering all that's been lost, the political capital, and the agenda for which it was created.

For the Republicans, though, things may be even worse. The best thing they have going for them at this point is that they're not in power in meaningful ways in any branch of the federal government. The party has no clear national leader, no unifying ideological principle--fiscally conservative social moderates having been purged during and in the wake of the Bush years--and such an enormous hill to climb to regain control of the House or Senate (or the White House, for that matter)...the party first has to really decide who it is, what it stands for, and what it aspires to accomplish before the American people will trust the reigns of government to this crowd, again. While Brown's victory certainly expressed a real anger at the current state of affairs, domestically, if the choice on Tuesday had been a national one, and one between President Obama and his administration or President Bush and his--or President Palin, for that matter, and whatever team she assembled--I don't think the Republicans would be hungover today from two nights of celebrating--they'd be crying in their beer. For now, it's all well and good for Republicans to run for office screaming, "Throw the bums out!" but when the economy does improve, that rings hollow. And when they once again unveil their tax cuts for the rich, their apathy toward millions of Americans without quality health care, their utter disregard for civil rights, and their social agenda that makes Big Brother look a little like Peter Brady...they're screwed, too. Even earning the opportunity to get screwed, though, would require the extreme right of the party, the Dick Cheney-Rush Limbaugh-Sara Palin-Glenn Beck-Pat Robertson Right, to accept differing points of view on the right to choose, on religious tolerance, on social and economic justice, and on the shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality that cost our nation so many lives and so much treasure over the past decade. And I can't see that happening anytime soon.

But while the Democrats and Republicans may have it rough right now, there's one group who has it even worse: us. High unemployment, rampant underemployment, and record home foreclosures; greedy, abusive and seemingly soulless financial institutions and corporations that function more like hostile nations than American companies; hard-working immigrants much like our grandparents treated like dogs; demagogues preying on every fear for their own political and financial benefit; two wars with no clear exit-strategy in either; the constant threat of terror attacks by religious fanatics of all stripes; our own kids with guns shooting one another (and anyone in their way) over the right to sell brain-numbing drugs to other kids who just want to disappear; failing public schools and bankrupt states and cities; a trillion dollar national budget deficit; and a planet in peril.

Hmmm. And the Democrats and Republicans think they've got problems?

Sarah Palin Will Be the Nominee and Barack Obama will be Re-Elected in 2012

2009-11-18T14:14:00.001-08:00

Yes, nearly 6 of 10 Americans continue to believe that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be President. And far from reinventing herself since the failed McCain campaign in which she played a starring role, she has become even more Palinized, mocking intellectualism, promoting intolerance, blaming the media...and the entertainment industry...and the Democrats...and her fellow Republicans...for tearing her down, and selling an extremist social agenda that, if enacted, really enacted in legislation, would create the Christian equivalent of the society Al Qaeda would like to establish.

Meet your 2012 Republican nominee for President of the United States.

Why? Not because her new book, Going Rogue: An American Life (Harper Collins, 2009) is going to make her millions. And not because she can draw a bigger crowd and raise more money than any other Republican contender--although those things sure don't hurt.

She's the nominee because the Republican Party can't help itself now.

Having lost the last election, the party cannot afford to ignore its ultra-conservative, passionate, angry base, no matter how small it really is. And this group of true believers wouldn't go quietly, anyway. They would surely burn the place down on the way out. So now that they've driven just about every viable moderate off the farm, the Republicans have no choice but to try and get the job done with the fire-eaters. In the end, it may be the only way to purge the party of its worst tendencies, and start again, with a bigger tent and broader minds. To do so, they will have to sacrifice the 2012 election.

The President, of course, has his own problems. If unemployment and consumer confidence and the financial condition of our states and municipalities don't improve soon--or if health care reform collapses or if the Afghani War spirals further out of control--despite his historic election last fall, he'll end up much like Jimmy Carter: an intelligent, hardworking and personally likable President with the best of intentions...who was shown the door after just one term.

But I don't think that's going to happen, even if the President does falter on one or more of the challenges noted above. Whereas Jimmy Carter got Ronald Reagan--and whatever your thoughts on President Reagan's policies, he demonstrated broad appeal to the electorate, and actually won office by pulling disaffected Dems over to his side of the aisle--President Obama, I believe, will draw Sarah Palin.

There is a better chance of the Cubs winning the next ten World Series than of Sarah Palin drawing disaffected Democrats and moderate-thinking independents to her name on the ballot--on any ballot for any office, in fact, let alone the highest office in the land.

The 2012 Presidential election may be 1,083 days away, at the time of this post. But I'm going out on a limb here: the outcome is predictable.

Gio Spot Review of Michael Moore's New Film, "Capitalism: A Love Story"

2009-10-03T13:10:00.001-07:00

Saw Michael Moore's new film, Capitalism: A Love Story (Overture Films, 2009), this morning, and left the theatre having been both entertained and challenged intellectually.

What more can one ask from a documentarian?

Have four quick thoughts to share:

Capitalism is Moore's most bi-partisan film to date. He takes on pols and corporate leaders from both sides of the aisle with equal vigor, from W to Chris Dodd, Hank Paulsen to Larry Summers, and President Clinton to Tim Geithner. Sure, the movie has a leftist point-of-view (this is Michael Moore, after all)--but the systematic greed and corruption exposed and satirized is disdained by men and women of honor regardless of their political ideology.

Moore's exploration of the inherent incompatibility between Christianity and capitalism (unregulated capitalism, sans careful government oversight, in particular) is fascinating and thought-provoking. The Roman Catholic Church, for a change, comes out looking courageous and committed to social justice in the face of money and power and influence, standing up for those who lack all three. I think the conflict between Judeo-Christian values and the brand of capitalism endorsed and promoted (and unleashed on the country) during the past few decades is worthy of greater exploration in and out of our government.

F.D.R.'s Economic Bill of Rights, proposed in his State of Union Address on 11 January, 1944, just over a year before his death, may have passed quietly into history with the post-war economic boom, but its basic tenent--that every American possesses a RIGHT to a job providing a living wage and recreation/family time, a RIGHT to adequate food, housing, and health care, a RIGHT to a proper education, and a RIGHT to financial security in old age--seems more relevant now than ever. "People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made," F.D.R. told the American people in January of '44. "America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens." And Moore, in this film, raises F.D.R.'s Economic Bill of Rights from the dead, brings it back before the American people at a key moment in our history. Who else is doing this kind of work?

As for entertainment value...well, there are no laugh-out-loud moments, but the shear absurdity of Moore attempting to wrap entire Wall Street buildings in police crime scene tape--and, at one point, demanding that AIG fill his Brinks truck with the cash the firm (and other firms) stole from the American people--makes for great viewing, and certainly brings a smile to one's face.

This film is poignant, funny, sad, sarcastic, serious, and silly. But most of all, whatever your ideology, it raises valid questions about who we have become, and who we want to be, as a nation. And boy, can we use another F.D.R. about now. I recommend checking this film out...even if you think Moore is a communist nutjob.

You might be surprised at what you find.

Afghanistan: We Have No Choice--Bring Our Troops Home

2009-09-27T17:54:00.000-07:00

We have no choice. Yes, Afghanistan was where the El Qaeda operatives who attacked America on September 11, 2001 were trained. And yes, the Taliban, given its ruthless, brutal oppression of the Afghani people--especially women and girls--and its clear support of anti-western terrorists, are about as evil a group of men as one can imagine. And yes, had anyone but George W. Bush and his neo-con cronies been in the White House following 9/11, America would have passed on a long, bloody, and expensive war in Iraq and focused all of its energy and resources (and political capital) on hunting down the maniacal madmen of El Quaeda in Afghanistan and their protectors, avenging the senseless murder of 2,974 Americans on 9/11.

But that's now an opportunity missed.

Although it's clearly not President Obama's fault, the reality on the ground seems clear: the opportunity to overwhelm the Taliban, to capture Bin Laden and others responsible for planning and funding the attacks on American in 2001, and to win the hearts and minds of the Afghani people, has long passed. As the President himself has said, "We took our eye off the ball."

And with that, the final out was recorded in this war.

It's not that our brave men and women in uniform aren't willing to continue, ready to give what President Lincoln called "that last full measure of devotion" so that others may be free. They are. And for this willingness to continue to sacrifice all they deserve our support, our respect, our admiration, and our deepest appreciation.

But like the Mughal rulers of South Asia, the communist Soviet Union, and the imperialist Brits before us, we're now being sucked into an Afghani black hole, with an ineffective, corrupt and unpopular regime as our only ally, an enemy winning the battle for the hearts and minds of the people, American casualties rising, and no political will to send in the tens of thousands of additional troops military leaders say it would take to assert control over the situation. America can no more transform this troubled land into a nation in its own image than the superpowers who have come before us.

After six months to a year of doing all possible to train the corrupt regime to defend itself and seek to gain control of its own nation, we need to bring our troops home. And after that period, no nation building, no peace-keeping mission, and no security responsibilities. When we have intelligence about terrorist training operations, we can and should authorize more surgical military strikes against those targets, primarily via air forces, the way we would against any rogue nation.

We should have done more. We could have done more...for the victims of 9/11, for the Afghani people, and for the world. But sometimes, it's just not possible to turn back time. Given that hard reality, to continue to ask our fighting men and women to die for this mission--as broad and vague and interminable as it has become--is criminal, despite their courage and valor, their willingness to do so.

We have no choice: it's time to prepare to bring our troops home.

Jackie Robinson, Barack Obama, and America's Demons

2009-09-05T06:15:00.000-07:00

In 1947, when Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color barrier, he endured months of violent threats, jeers, taunts, name-calling, baseless questions about the legitimacy of his birth, and obviously misguided, ridiculous accusations of incompetence.

Sound familiar?

Time has exposed those who sought to prevent Robinson from pursuing his Hall of Fame career as petty, small-minded, rascist biogots, completely disconnected from reality and CLEARLY on the wrong side of history.

Not everyone who opposes this President can be viewed as a racist. But those who oppose him by engaging in the hateful tactics noted above--the same anti-American behaviors employed 62 years ago by the worst elements in our society to deny Robinson the right to play ball, in spite of his obvious talent and passion for the game--will be read about by school children years hence as direct descendents of Confederate Fire-Eaters, Know-Nothings, the Klan, those who beat non-violent protestors with baseball bats on city streets during the Civil Rights Movement, and modern-day Skinheads...if not of the demons who senselessly took the lives of Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, JFK and RFK.

Words matter. Ideas inspire actions. America has always possessed this fringe element in its politics, and I suppose it's just human nature that there will be those who seek to mobilize this dangerous minority for their own selfish purposes. But at what point will history, in this sense, stop repeating itself? When will the narrative finally take a new turn?

Looks to me like we're just not there, yet.

Dem's 50 State Strategy: Genius or Fatally Flawed? Blue Dogs Make Me Wonder

2009-09-02T20:08:00.000-07:00

Chicago's 43rd Ward held a "Meet Your Elected Officials" gathering this evening at the St. Vincent de Paul Center on Halsted in Lincoln Park, with Congressmen Danny Davis-7th and Mike Quigley-5th, and Illinois State Representatives Sara Feigenholtz-12th and John Fritchey-11th. 43rd Ward Democratic Committeeman Michele Smith--committed to a progressive agenda, as well as to voter education and registration--hosted the event, and she, her staff, and the volunteers involved did a fine job bringing these officials before their constituents to provide updates from Washington and Springfield.

As you can imagine, the need to overhaul the nation's health care system--universal quality health care for all as a right, not a privilege--was a central topic of conversation. All four elected officials who spoke on the subject support universal health care, and Mr. Quigley, Mr. Davis, Ms. Feigenholtz, and Mr. Fritchey, were all, in their own ways, thoughtful, articulate, and even passionate about their work and its importance to the people of our state and the country. This is not to say that I know enough about each official, from this single evening to speak intelligently about their performance as legislators (I don't), but they certainly appeared to be authentic and knowledgeable, and they seemed to care...and those are good things (that much I do know).

Since this event was, to a large extent, preaching to the choir--most of the Dems in attendance seemed to favor universal health care, too, judging by the applause engendered by references to such a policy--the focus was on what's possible politically to achieve in this fight, given the staunch and often dishonest opposition by Republicans, the insurance industry, and Blue Dog Democrats. Congressmen Davis, in particular, was eloquent in describing how these Democratic officials representing conservative districts can be even more conservative in their thinking than some moderate Republicans. And they've formed a large enough and influential enough caucus that, even ignoring Republican opposition (which was rather predictable all along), the Democrats are simply not united behind the policy in large enough numbers to accomplish The Full Monty, a single-payer universal plan that covers everyone, with the tab picked up by a combination of savings from system abuse, fraud, and waste, insurance company profits, and tax increases on the wealthiest Americans.

This got me to thinking: will history really look back at the Dem's 50-State Strategy for 2008, engineered by then National Party Chairman Governor Dean, as a stroke of genius? As a mandate for Democrats, seizing both houses of Congress AND the White House following the W Disaster? I'm not so sure. Initially, I thought this looked pretty good, too. But one has to ask, What's the point in actually electing all of those Blue Dogs--and spending so much treasure in party time, money, and political capital--if the very people you've managed to elect in largely conservative districts ultimately prevent the party from pursuing its agenda with rigor and fulfilling its promises to the American people?

Clearly, the strategy was an important factor in President Obama being elected. However, at the Congressional level, in a real sense, these Blue Dogs are holding the party agenda hostage, perhaps some out of principle, but many out of fear of losing the very jobs the party helped them to gain. But to gain for what purpose? To beat the opposition? But to what end?

I suppose time will tell, but less than a year after a wonderful evening of celebration, Election Night, November 2008, I'm already beginning to wonder.

Bi-Partisanship: Highly Over-Rated, Anyway

2009-08-19T17:01:00.001-07:00

When then candidate Barack Obama waxed poetic about his fervent desire to work cooperatively with Republicans if elected President, unlike many White House hopefuls on both sides of the aisle over the years, Mr. Obama actually meant what he said. Senator Obama assumed first, that bi-partisanship would lead to an honest, constructive exchange of ideas, followed by sound policy for the nation, and second, that his colleagues in the G.O.P. would develop a spirit of unity and cooperation like the one he hoped his election would inspire in the wake of the failed Bush Administration.

There were those in the Democratic Primary with Senator Obama--including Hilary Rodham Clinton, Joe Biden, and John Edwards--who, in one way or another, described Mr. Obama's plan for bi-partisanship as naive and unrealistic, rooted in his inexperience, and perhaps even misguided. For all of his obvious shortcomings, Edwards may have said it best: the only way to reform our health care system so that every American has, as a right, full access to quality health care, is to fight--not negotiate, fight--the insurance industry, certain segments of the medical field, and right-wing Republicans hellbent on taking care of their corporate friends and maintaining their privileged status on the backs of working Americans. Only when you rally the American people behind you to fight these defenders of the status quo--a well-funded, organized, and skilled opposition, at least when it comes to fear-mongering and pandering--will meaningful reform take place. These groups will concede nothing, and thus your progress will be measured in what you can take from them, not in how well you work with them.

While these observations now appear prescient, there is one more point to be made as the nation wrestles with health care reform (and the shameless but not blameless misinformation campaign being conducted by Republicans and the insurance industry): bi-partisanship probably isn't good for the country, anyway.

Elections mean something. They empower the party that wins to pursue its agenda for the nation, on behalf of those who elected them to office and on behalf of all Americans. This was true of the Republicans under President Bush and the Neo-Cons (all too true, I'm afraid), and should be true now, with the Dems holding majorities in both the House and Senate, and currently occupying the White House. America elected President Obama and this Congress to act, to reform...to change the nation for the better. Certainly governing is a complicated business, and there are limits to any President's ability to manage the Congress (even those within the same party represent very different states and districts, politically), but the fact that it's hard, and that it takes political courage to pursue reform without even the luke-warm support of the opposition party (there's no political cover at all when a party goes it alone), is not an excuse for timidity, not a justification for abandoning one's core beliefs and agenda for the nation.

In the end, if both parties could come to terms on an emotional, wide-reaching and complicated issue like health care reform and produce a bill that offended no one, that jeopardized no one's political future, and that did not divide the American people along economic, ideological, or even geographical lines...then there could not have been a full, open, and honest debate on the subject. Despite the inefficiency, confusion, frustration, and impassioned anger that can be engendered in such a debate, the nation is better for it, provided the party with the power to act, acts, ultimately, in accordance with the vision it shared when it sought power.

The winning party in a national election has an ethical obligation to pursue the agenda it put before the American people during the campaign, to seek to translate the poetry of the campaign into the prose of effective government. Political capital is a fleeting thing, and already President Obama's administration has squandered a good deal of it wooing Republican support for its reform agenda, when bi-partisan support for that agenda is about as likely as a Cubs' World Series title this fall.

It's time to give up the ghost. The President will win some, and lose some. But it's time for this White House to stand up and fight. The American people respect those who are willing to fight for what they believe in. Say what you will about the Republicans, but they understand that much. I just hope our President does, too.

Republicans Playing Russian Roulette with America

2009-08-12T08:55:00.000-07:00

Every time Sara Palin, Rush Limbaugh or any number of their lesser known Republican stand-ins incite the most irrational, enraged, and unbalanced elements of American society to assert themselves, they release the safety and pull the trigger on a dangerous weapon that, sooner or later, is bound to go off.

As if to shield their faces in hidden shame--or out of fear of actually having to come into actual contact with the very people whom they bait into destructive action--Palin, Limbaugh and their followers in what used to be the Grand Old Party send the siren call out over the radio waves or via Facebook and Twitter today, and in doing so, seek to maintain a safe distance from the shameful, hate-filled and ugly rhetoric they spew.

Let's be clear here: there are certainly some reasonable, thoughtful Americans who have genuine concerns about the ballooning budget deficit, a move to universal health care (especially the public option), and the government-funded financial bailout of Wall Street and the auto industry. They favor small government with limited authority, a largely free-market economy, lower taxes, and fiscal restraint. They point to pork-barrel spending, wide-spread corruption on both sides of the aisle, and the reality that our President is relatively inexperienced and yet is taking on a complex, back-breaking agenda at breakneck speed. While I disagree completely with their basic philosophy of government--to me, we are pledged to government of, by and for the people...if government cannot seek to enhance the quality of life of its citizens, but is there for defense, alone, we could get by with a few generals and an admiral, and save a whole lot of time, money and trouble--I am able to recognize that some of these concerns possess validity, and that those who voice them contribute to the healthy national debate about key issues and policies.

But these are not the people being mobilized by the de-facto leaders of the Republican party. In fact, while encouraging these people to speak out would be patriotic and could result in stronger policies and a more secure future for our children, it could also lead to a recognition of President Obama's considerable intellect, his genuine desire to improve life for all Americans, and the success of the incumbent party in the White House, House of Representatives, and Senate--the Democrats. So it comes down to the lengths neo-conservative idealogues will go to regain power, wealth and influence, nationally...anything.

Those shouting down civil debate and verbally assaulting members of Congress, carrying loaded guns to Presidential appearances, questioning the President's very citizenship, race-baiting the small-minded, threatening the elderly with government death panels, inciting the Christian Right by making every issue about affirmative action, a woman's right to choose, or gay marriage, and even invoking old-fashioned but somehow still effective buzzwords that bring out the lunatic fringe, like Socialist, Liberal, Canada, and France...these people, few in number as they may be, in today's age of 24-hour multimedia, are dividing the nation again, reducing our national discourse to the latest Jerry Springer Show spectacle, and, in partnership with a powerful and well-funded insurance industry opposed to health care reform, are tearing the country apart.

And those Republicans who don't participate in this debacle, who see it for what it is, whatever their opinions on universal health care and other issues, find themselves outsiders, strangers in their own party, with nowhere to turn for political cover, and uncertain futures.

One thing is certain, however. This is a dangerous game, and in the end, it's the country that's going to get hurt.

Health Care Reform: This Time, Just 10 Minutes of Your Day Might Make the Difference

2009-07-26T07:58:00.000-07:00

47 million Americans do not have health insurance, and 80% of this group are from WORKING families. As recently as 2007, 50% of US bankrupcies were caused by health expenses--and 2/3 of those filing actually HAD health insurance. Premiums have risen more than 90% in five years while benefits have been slashed. And while we spend nearly double what other industrialized nations spend on health care, the data reveals that the US ranks near the bottom in healthy life expectancy and infant mortality rates. Today, more than 25% of all US health care workers work in administration, not in patient care. This thing can't slip away, again.

The Congress is fearful of acting, recognizing that a majority of Americans have decent health care, and that a good number of the working families who do not are not politically active, and don't fund their campaigns. Having the whole nation ante up to make certain that access to quality health care is a right for ALL, not a privilege for SOME, will take political courage.

You can help by sending your Representatives and Senators a simple message via email:

"Anything less than providing access to quality health care for every single person in this country is unacceptable. We're counting on you to demonstrate the courage needed to work with the President to reform health care today and for future generations. Working families are being overwhelmed by health care costs and the anxiety and frustration experienced when someone gets sick. The system is out of control, and needs a complete overhaul. Please don't let us down."

The opposition to health care for every American is well-funded, but cannot rely on facts, on data, since the data does not support a case for the status quo. Instead, the opposition spreads fear, i.e. fear of debt, fear of becoming Canada or France (what did either of these fine, proud nations ever do to us?), fear of socialism, fear of a decline in the quality of care, even fear of the President.

The truth is that it is possible to achieve lasting health care reform that provides ALL with high-quality care, reduces costs for ALL, and is paid for through contributons BY ALL. It's the political will and the political cover that are lacking. And so the ten minutes it takes to find the email addresses you need and send along a note can make a difference this time. We're that close.

Note, 10 August: The President has just launched a new website to provide Americans with the facts, the realites of health care reform: Click Here for a Reality Check on Health Care Reform.

----------------------------

"If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send so many lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?"

--Thomas Jefferson (who was, among many other things, a lawyer!)

If I Was a Republican...

2009-06-09T14:53:00.000-07:00

At yesterday's big Republican fundraiser in Washington, D.C., Newt came clean. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich of Georgia declared before G.O.P. pols and activists, "I am NOT a citizen of the world."

And giddy applause followed.

The truly shocking thing is not that Mr. Gingrich, an educated but not especially insightful party re-tread, fails to recognize his own humanity or understand that each human being shares a common bond with others that transcends national borders. What is truly shocking is that he is so out of touch, politically, that he still believes, in 2009, that such narrow-minded, isolationist rhetoric--rhetoric that trivializes true patriotism into shameless fear-mongering and braggadocio--will actually help resuscitate his failing party, which is already on life support--and losing oxygen fast.

I am not surprised that Mr. Gingrich and his small band of loyal neo-conservative disciples cling to the arrogant fantasy that America can be a responsible and effective world leader in the 21st Century by going it alone, as if our great nation is enthroned above all others and leadership is doing whatever we want and demanding that others follow.

I am, however, surprised at just how politically stupid Mr. Gingrich is proving himself to be.

In the span of just about a week, the former Speaker--who, you may recall, resigned as Speaker and from Congress in 1998 when a rebellion in his own party over his failed leadership was poised to challenge his authority--has further alienated the largest growing demographic in the nation (Hispanics) by calling Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor a "Latina woman racist," expressed glee, publicly, that former Vice-President Dick Cheney (one of the least popular national pols in modern history, and that's saying something) belongs to the Republican Party, and presided over a G.O.P. House-Senate fundraiser that generated just over half of the money the same event brought in back in 2006.

And while Gingrich spoke, Alaska Governor and 2008 Vice-Presidential Nominee Sara Palin blasted her own party on Fox News for not allowing her to change her mind at the last minute and address the party faithful, along with Gingrich, who appears to have Presidential aspirations, himself.

If I was a Republican strategist, I'd need a few stiff drinks. Every night. And morning. And with lunch. And probably for dessert, too.

But in a sober moment, faced with the Hindenbergian state of the party, if I was a Republican, here's what I would do:

Plan for a viable campaign for the White House in 2012, presenting the American people with a small government alternative to the Obama administration, but refusing the temptation to go-for-broke, or to run a campaign based on ideology. The campaign would be all about redefining the party. And keep the best cards in the deck...for 2016. You're probably not going to win this one, anyway.
Run a candidate in 2012--with or without the support of the ever-shrinking socially conservative base, the Christian Right--who sticks to this simple message: we had an economic crisis. Some unusual things needed to be done, and they were. And President Obama deserves some credit for his leadership. But now that's history. Government is too big, too costly, and too thinly stretched. And taxes are going to go up dramatically to pay for it. I'm not interested in ideology. I'm interested in a smart, efficient, and tightly run government. The American people deserve a government that is cautious with their money, that protects them from harm, and that does not infringe upon their individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm not an ideologue. I'm just a good reliable manager whom you can trust to restore balance. And that's exactly what we need right now: balance. Win or lose, this should be the party line, start to finish.
Since a G.O.P. victory in 2012 is so very unlikely, the most important goal of the campaign--while trying to win the race, of course--would be to broaden the party's appeal to the American people, to counter the small-mindedness and divisiveness, the senseless focus on controversial social issues that are better left to individuals and states...all of the things that have reduced the G.O.P. to a bitter, regional (mostly southern), political sideshow. If this party aspires to regain national standing, at some point, it must do a better job reigning in the crazy talk, the extremes. It needs to go counter-instinctual, dump Rush Limbaugh, and piss off its most loyal base--because this is the kind of base that sucks the air out of the room, making it impossible for others to co-exist with them. Where, ultimately, will this base go? Eventually, they'll come home. It's the only place they have to live, in the end.

The million dollar question, of course, is who should run in '12? I say lock Sara Palin in a room for two years, and school her on history, the economy, on foreign cultures and policy, on health care, and on why being educated and intelligent (not the same thing, as Newt demonstrates) are qualities to value in our political leaders--and in our citizens. Forbid her to spew worn and anachronistic propaganda about abortion, immigration, socialism, and the environment. She clearly has personal appeal within the party, name recognition, and the ability to get the entire nation's attention.

But she has to re-define herself. So she's a socially conservative redneck beauty queen from Alaska who's pro-oil (there's a shock) and believes in small government, come what may...and proud of who she is. If she wants to be taken seriously on a national level, she needs to shatter expectations, show a completely different side of herself: Sara Palin the serious student of domestic and international policy. She would not need to flip-flop on her social positions; instead, she should not allow those positions to define her. And a running mate with foreign policy and beltway experience--like Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana?--could lend credibility, too.

Is she capable of all of this? I haven't seen evidence of this level of ability or substance, I must admit. But who knows? And in 2012, the risk is minimal. A success could mesmerize the nation and transform the party. A failure, and the G.O.P. is no worse off than today. At the very least, the party would know, once and for all, what her capacity is and what role she will play, nationally. And in a party now recycling cast-offs from another era just to hold a modestly successful fundraising dinner, clarity, any clarity, would be a good start.

Why all of this thinking about the Republican Party from a life-long--and committed--Dem? Two reasons: one, I like a challenge; and two, this nation deserves at least two thoughtful, active, and viable national political parties to ensure that all points-of-view get a full vetting. And right now, we have just one.

The Time Has Come: Let's Get the Guns

2009-05-26T15:33:00.000-07:00

The time has come for Americans to put down their guns. Not certain types of guns, like semi-automatics or shotguns, or the guns of pre-defined categories of people like those with criminal records or histories of mental instability. I mean no waiting periods, no permits, no handguns, no hunting rifles, and no collector’s weapons owned by individuals unless under the care of a certified museum.

I mean every gun, and I mean now.

And here’s why: sooner or later, this nation has to grow up.

It’s time to stop pretending that gun ownership is related in any way to preserving our individual rights and freedoms, or for that matter, would be supported in the 21st Century by any of our Founders, could they spring back to life.

While we pretend that our guns secure our basic liberties—the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in the most general sense—our children are slaughtering one another on our city streets and in our schools.

Never have I heard a gun rights’ advocate—or a single elected representative of the people at any level of government—present a clear and measurable benefit to our society of individual gun ownership. Why? Because there isn’t one.

Rooted in a clear misinterpretation of the Second Amendment—which was intended to guarantee individual states (who were anxious about a strengthened federal government) the right to sustain their own state militias—there is not a single instance in American history in which an individual secured a right with a gun that the national government sought to take away.

If one really wants to suggest that guns in the home can be used to defend his rights against possible infringement by the federal government, perhaps he should consider that the United States government has developed a sizable conventional and nuclear arsenal, including but not limited to: numerous Tomahawk Cruise Missiles and F-14 Tomcat Fighter Jets; 500 Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles with nuclear warheads; 17 Ohio Class Trident Nuclear Submarines; 9 Nimitz Class Aircraft Carriers (the largest war ships on planet earth); and 650 B83 Gravity Bombs that yield one to two megatons of power and, equipped with a 120-second detonation delay, allow our planes to drop them at a low altitude and escape the devastation that follows. There are also the 50 Peacekeeper Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, the 66 B52H Stratofortess Bombers, and the approximately 1.4 million men and women currently serving in the US military. All this and so much more at a cost of more than $700 billion in 2008, alone.

I’m no expert in firearms, but it seems to me that a .38 caliber handgun, a hunting rifle, and some ammo from the local Wal-Mart isn’t going to get the job done.

Another deadly myth related to individual gun ownership is that in giving up our guns, Americans would trample on the hallowed graves of our Founding Fathers.

But this argument, too, fails to stand up to scrutiny.

The 18th Century generation that produced the world's greatest experiment in self-government and democratic rule--the generation of Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Washington, to name the most prominent among them--came of age in The Enlightenment, and they believed fervently that human reason, applied thoughtfully and carefully, motivated not by the hope of personal gain but by the genuine desire to improve life for all, could change the world for the better.

Can anyone really believe that these brilliant minds, these thinkers, writers, inventors, statesmen, architects, scientists, lawyers and farmers, that these great men who established this nation on the revolutionary principle of equality of opportunity for all could look at the violence plaguing our cities in the 21st Century and suggest, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people?"

To argue so is to reveal a depth of ignorance about the founding of our nation—and the original greatest generation—that is, frankly, shameful. The Constitution these men crafted was, quite intentionally, meant to be a living thing, something adaptable to times and circumstances the greatest minds of the Age of Reason knew they could not possibly predict or understand.

And yet, contrary to their spirit, to their insistence on living in their own time and place, and to applying their considerable intellects to making the present a better present for all Americans, we cling childishly to a rigid, literal interpretation of their words, and to an 18th Century world that no longer exists. We live in a Hollywood-created fantasy land (a land of ignorant, stubborn, and irrational denial), imagining an America filled with John Waynes and Charleton Hestons, a world in which the good guys stand watch over the ranch with their rifles, ensuring the safety of the women and children, tucked away in an upstairs bedroom, cowering with the door locked as scowling bandits plan their assault on the homestead. Or we envision the King's finest marching over the village green in their bright red uniforms to torch the humble homes of freedom-fighting farmers. And we think to ourselves: without this gun in my hand, I cannot be free as an American.

Our kingdom for a myth.

_______________________________________________

The most common stories following a tragic death by gun violence—of a child alone in a bedroom playing with a gun, an adolescent caught up in the zero-sum game of gang dominance, a young police officer gunned down responding to a call for help, or an eager tourist losing his life senselessly over a few dollars and a wrist watch—focus, understandably, on the human grief of those left behind, and on the lost aspirations of the victims. But the cold, hard statistics are equally as numbing, and clearly reveal the high cost to society of gun production and ownership.

According to the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence:

In 2006, there were 30, 896 gun deaths in the U.S. 55% were suicides, 41% homicides, 2% from unintentional shootings, and the balance from undetermined intentions and legal intervention
Also in 2006, gun violence killed 3,218 teens or children ages 19 and under. That’s an average of 9 children per day, every day, for entire year.
A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used to commit a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self-defense.
A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.
59% of students in grades six through twelve know where to get a gun if they want one, and two thirds of these students say they can acquire a firearm within 24 hours.
In 2004 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

:5 people in New Zealand

:37 people in Sweden
:56 people in Australia
:184 people in Canada
:19 people in Japan
:73 people in the UK
:11,344 people in the United States

Taxpayers in the U.S. pay more than 85% of the medical cost for treatment of firearm-related injuries.
From 1977 to 1996, the U.S. firearm industry produced 85,644,715 firearms, including 39,024,786 handguns, 26,651,062 rifles and 19,969,867 shotguns in the United States.

Although the tragic cost to American society of run-away gun production and individual gun ownership has been documented for decades, there is still no one able to provide factual information detailing the benefits to society.

And yet today it's not even accurate to refer to "the national debate over gun control." While Republicans devote more time and energy to protecting the right to life of those not yet born into this world than they do those young Americans killed on our streets every day, the Democrats aspire to have our government do great and hard things, but lack the organization and political courage to do them--to risk the real consequences of leading by anything other than the latest opinion poll, at least when it comes to gun control. On one side there’s ignorance and denial, and on the other, cowardice. And day after day, American men, women and children fall in the line of fire, right here at home, with no end in sight, and no political will, and no political courage, to stop it.

And the really sad thing, at least to me, is that no one, ultimately, can even say why.

An Endangered Species: The Mainstream Republican

2009-05-17T16:46:00.000-07:00

Arlen Specter is a Democratic Senator from the Keystone state. Jon Huntsman, Jr., the Republican Governor of Utah, is America's new Ambassador to the People's Republic of China, and thus a key figure in the Obama Administration. General Colin Powell (Ret.), who rose to political prominence with the patronage of George W. Bush, endorsed Barack Obama in his White House bid. Christopher Buckley, son of Conservative Godfather William F. Buckley, Jr., also endorsed Obama. And conventional wisdom now suggests that no Republican with a real political future is all that interested in risking that future in an improbable run against President Obama in 2012...with the exception of Governors Sarah Palin of Alaska and Bobby Jindal of Louisinana (both of whom represent such a narrow neo-conservative base that accumulating 270 electoral votes would be roughly the equivalent of reconstructing the Washington Monment, to size, in toothpicks).

How did the party of Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike, and Ronald Reagan come to this? In short, a legitimate national party cannot expect to cover a significant percentage of America's 300 million citizens with a pup tent. As the Radical Christian Right seized control of the party--beginning with the Reagan Revolution, unifying in opposition to President Clinton, and actually taking control of the White House with the election of W--moderate, mainstream Republicans have all but vanished from the Grand Old Party. And with former Vice-President Dick Cheney, Palin, and Rush Limbaugh now serving as the voice of the party, there are only two questions remaining: when will the bleeding stop, and will there be an organized and coherent national party left when it does?

While the "Last Stand" neo-cons seem hellbent on opposing every national reform and on preventing their own party from redefining itself for the 21st Century--reduced to silly name-calling, like "socialist" and the time-tested but now played-out "liberal"--there are some very specific national and international issues that clearly divide the Republican Party from the great majority of Americans:

Most Americans believe the time has come to join the rest of the modernized world and provide quality health care as a basic human right for all, not just the privileged few.
Poll after poll reveals that most Americans, while opposing the cavalier use of abortion as birth control, believe that women should continue to possess the right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, or to terminate that pregnancy--and that our government does not possess the authority to reach into a citizen's body and impose its will on her.
Most Americans believe that embryonic stem-cell research should continue in earnest as a means of understanding and ultimately eradicating some of the most painful, deadly diseases to which Americans succumb every day.
The vast majority of Americans believe that taxing the wealthiest Americans less and the poorest Americans more is not a recipe for economic growth, but a recipe for increasing the already enormous divide between the rich and poor in our society.
Most Americans believe that when we detain suspected terrorists or criminals illegally, and torture them, we play right into the terrorists' hands, engendering more hatred of America, not less, producing false confessions and erroneous information, and violating the very principles for which our nation should be fighting.
Most Americans remember their immigrant ancestry, appreciate the plight of new immigrants to America, and recognize how hard new arrivals from Mexico and other nations work to improve their lives and the lives of their families.
The majority of Americans believe firmly that one important role of government is to seek to improve the quality of life of its people--all of its people--when possible.
Finally, most Americans prefer to have a President who listens and thinks, first, and talks second; who seeks out opposing views eagerly as a means of testing the validity of his own; who sees the complexity in issues and trusts the American people enough to speak with them about these complexities; who studies policy first-hand, and who reads voraciously; and who can empathize, from personal experience, with Americans living on the streets of our cities, punching clocks every day to support their families, facing racial or ethnic discrimination--and attending Ivy League schools, too.

Time will tell whether or not President Obama's bold agenda and action-packed Presidency will result in lasting, meaningful change for our nation. But as for the Republican Party's role as a national organization with substantial influence on the course of America's history...time is running out.

The Presidential Election of 2008 and the Better Angels of Our Nature

2009-05-10T21:15:00.000-07:00

With Senator Obama's election as President of the United States last fall, what President Lincoln called "the better Angels of our nature" have once again asserted themselves--our acceptance of people of all races and our willingness to judge people by their character and talents, not by the color of their skin or socioeconomic lineage. The election of an African-American, whatever one's politics, is evidence of America's continued commitment to the ideals upon which our nation was founded.

There are many examples of our failure to live up to the ideals Jefferson put forth as goals in the Declaration of Independence ("All men are created equal with certain inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."): our treatment of Native Americans; African slavery; the refusal to let women vote until 1920; the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II; Jim Crow; and anti-immigration bias and hatred. But we also have moments when it's clear we have not forgotten our founding principles: abolitionism & the sacrifices of the Civil War, with 600,000 dead, including Illinois' only other President of the United States; the Labor Movement; the defeat of Fascism; the Civil Rights Movement and those who gave their lives for its goals, including Dr. King and the Kennedys; and more recently, influential Americans like Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, Hilary Clinton, and Condoleeza Rice, rising to positions of influence and power on an international level, when their own parents could never have done so due to small mindedness, sexism and racial discrimination.

Even if Barack Obama was a conservative Republican, I'd believe the same thing: this election demonstrates that America continues to become more rather than less, what our Enlightenment founders envisioned, in spite of our imperfections. It renews our belief in the simple principle that all people are born with equal value. Over the last two centuries, Americans have sacrificed so much for this one simple principle, including many, many lives. From this point forward, any African-American child--for as long as this Republic lives--can say, "I could be President of the United States one day." And he or she COULD be. That's why this election was so historic, even apart from the crucial issues of the day, which clearly need to be addressed in a careful, thoughtful way (the temperament demonstrated repeatedly by Senator Obama over his short but meteoric political career). This vote mattered and this night, election night 2008, was a night for the history books, a night that will always be remembered.

All of our problems will not be solved by Senator Obama's election as President. The economy, the environment, two wars, a broken health care system, religious extremism across the globe, divisive social issues often dividing America into two bitter camps, the loss of trust in American leadership abroad, and a crippling national debt will take more than one or two terms to address in any meaningful way, and more than one man. But this CAN BE an important beginning, a place to start, a movement toward greater unity, and a time for the nation to heal some very old wounds. Whether or not Senator Obama is the leader to accomplish this beginning--and to inspire a divided nation to work together and sacrifice to affect real and lasting change, to make progress on these key issues--remains an open question. But whether or not his election reveals something exciting and positive and powerful about 21st Century America, full of hope and possibilities--and its relationship to 18th, 19th and 20th Century America--well, about that, there can be no question.

As Ronald Reagan once said, "It's morning in America."

I can't wait to see what we do with the day ahead.

John's Stump Speech for John Edwards Given at 10th Congressional District 2008 Convention

2009-05-10T19:19:00.000-07:00

I know, I know...John Edwards? Well, let me say this: I don't regret a minute working on this campaign (met some amazing people and it really felt great to get involved), and while Senator Edwards has disappointed many (including me, who come the general, was delighted to vote for President Obama), I still believe in the value of the issues Senator Edwards raised during his 2008 campaign. The staff in Chapel Hill asked me to attend the 10th Congressional District Inaugural Convention in Deerfield and to speak as a surrogate for the campaign...and it was an honor to speak just a few moments after Senator Durbin, who was stumping for Senator Obama at the convention. Here's the speech I wrote and delivered.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Good afternoon. It’s great to be in the 10th District to share in the excitement of your inaugural Democratic Convention. I’d like to express my gratitude to Lauren Beth Gash, your chair, for her outstanding leadership and the opportunity to be with you. It’s wonderful to hear from Dan Seals and Jay Footlik about their important run for the United States Congress, and to listen to today’s keynote address by one of our nation’s most-respected public servants and a favorite son of Illinois’, United States Senator Dick Durbin. Gatherings like this mean so much to the future of our country. If the last seven years have taught us anything, it’s that the stakes are too highfor us and our children to allow the Republicans, corporate interests, and Washington lobbyists to continue to set the agenda for the American people. I’d like to speak to you briefly about why I believe former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina should be your choice for President of the United States.

Senator Edwards is committed to stopping the growing divide between the wealthy few and all other Americans. As the Senator has explained, “Restoring our moral authority means leading by example, making clear that the hard challenges don’t frighten us. There is no better opportunity than the challenge of poverty.” 37 million Americans live in poverty, many of them children. The Edwards plan is based on the premise, opportunity for everyone, and responsibility from everyone. John Edwards would lead a bi-partisan initiative seeking to eliminate poverty in a decade. He would support policies that create and reward work, expand access to a college education, and break up areas of concentrated poverty. While John Edwards is living the American dream, having achieved economic independence at a young age through a career in law—a career in which he fought head-on against powerful corporations and insurance companies, defeating them against the odds and winning justice for working Americans—he grew up in modest circumstances in North Carolina, his father supporting the family as a mill worker. Edwards supports a ban on hiring permanent replacement workers for strikers, a minimum wage of $9.50 by 2012, and a revision of NAFTA to ensure smart trade that works for American workers. Since 2005, he has worked with 23 unions to organize thousands of workers.

When it comes to economic justice for the American people, John Edwards knows that REAL CHANGE, LASTING CHANGE, BOLD CHANGE requires much more than experience working a system or a willingness to negotiate with those opposed to change: it requires a leader who is willing to stand up and fight for the American people and who is determined in his very soul to affect meaningful change. John Edwards has this determination, and has showed it his entire life.

Senator Edwards is also committed to ensuring that every man, woman and child has quality health care. Today 47 million Americans do not have health insurance, an all-time high. 80% are from working families. Many middle class Americans cannot obtain insurance. Senator Edwards’ plan is based on an old-fashioned principle, shared responsibility. John Edwards would establish health markets, government-managed agencies to negotiate with insurance companies on our behalf. This would eliminate millions in their marketing expenses, driving down costs. It would also prevent companies from refusing to insure high-risk citizens. Financial aid would cover the costs for those still unable to afford insurance. It would be against the law not to have health insurance. Senator Edwards has leveled with the American people: anyone who continues to tell you that he or she will provide quality health care for everyone without raising taxes is not being straightforward with you. John Edwards will pay for his plan by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for households earning over $200,000 a year. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has written, “This is a smart, serious proposal, and every candidate should be pressed to come up with something comparable.” And they did.

Senator Edwards is calling upon Americans to speak out and to become engaged in the political process to get this President to finally abandon his misguided, disingenuous, and failed policies in Iraq. This war has now cost our nation the lives of nearly 4,000 of its brave soldiers; more than 27,000 more wounded; $450 billion dollars and counting; the creation of countless new jihadists; and the loss of America’s moral standing in the world. We have lost sight of our goal of bringing the terrorists to justice, while leading the world by example. Our military is now stretched too thin and the long-awaited political progress on the ground remains nowhere in sight, with Republicans talking about an American presence in Iraq for the next 100 years. As President, John Edwards would begin bringing our troops home now, honoring their sacrifice by redefining the mission in Iraq to pull them out of the centuries old civil and ethnic strife. We would concentrate on fighting terrorism (and the conditions that encourage its spread) and working closely with other nations to help stabilize the region. Because there is no military solution to the lack of political unity among the disparate factions within Iraq, it is unconscionable to continue to ask America’s sons and daughters to die for this cause.

John Edwards also believes we owe it to our children to leave them a healthy planet. Doing what needs to be done to keep your corporation from destroying the planet in the course of conducting its business must, now and forever, be built into the cost of doing business in America, and a President Edwards would be tough in enforcing environmental standards.

Leaders like John Edwards, seeking to affect bold change because their own personal life stories have prepared them to be difference-makers for the nation, face powerful opposition from corporations, insurance companies, Washington lobbyists, and political opponents with a stake in the status-quo. John Edwards, however, has faced great tragedy, and has come out stronger. "I have learned two great lessons,” Edwards has said. “That there will always be heartache and struggle, and that people of strong will can make a difference. One is a sad lesson; the other is inspiring. I choose to be inspired." John Edwards’ family, his remarkable and courageous wife, Elizabeth, and his children, are an important part of his inspiration and his passionate commitment to making America a better place for all. Illinois voters have some strong candidates to consider. However, I believe that John Edwards is the leader for this time in our history, the candidate for President of the United States who can bring about the bold changes our nation is crying out for in the wake of George Bush’s failed Presidency. And I ask you to vote for John Edwards on February 5th.

Thank you.