GOP bid for earmark backfires, Shelby embarasses Congressional Republicans

It was amazing to many to learn recently that it was one Senator, Alabama's Richard Shelby, on a quest for a massive earmark for his home state, that was able to suspend all progress in filling key leadership roles in many government agencies.

No wonder some in the GOP lament government effectiveness as unattainable: their own party is preventing many key agencies from having leaders. Americans were stunned to learn that the objections weren't based on qualifications, or even philosophical differences, but were simply a partisan ploy that amounted to demanding a kick-back for Alabama.

There's nothing inherently wrong about earmarks.  They allow for quick resolutions to funding decisions that don't require much, if any, debate. They can be used to replace a fallen bridge, or abused to fund a pork-barrel project that benefits a key constituent or city... but Shelby's audacity has backfired, and he's walking back from his stand after embarrassing his party -- later claiming it was just to get attention.

Well done, Senator; you've drawn attention. The President threatened to take a page out of the former administration's strategy book. Your bluff has been called, and people around the country are starting to call your petulant, obstructionist Grand Old Party the Republi-can'ts.

President Obama's statement following action by the Senate to confirm twenty-seven nominees reveals he's getting tougher dealing with Republicans playing political games at the expense of the citizens of the USA:

"Today, the United States Senate confirmed 27 of my high-level nominees, many of whom had been awaiting a vote for months.At the beginning of the week, a staggering 63 nominees had been stalled in the Senate because one or more senators placed a hold on their nomination. In most cases, these holds have had nothing to do with the nominee’s qualifications or even political views, and these nominees have already received broad, bipartisan support in the committee process.

Instead, many holds were motivated by a desire to leverage projects for a Senator’s state or simply to frustrate progress. It is precisely these kinds of tactics that enrage the American people.

And so on Tuesday, I told Senator McConnell that if Republican senators did not release these holds, I would exercise my authority to fill critically-needed positions in the federal government temporarily through the use of recess appointments. This is a rare but not unprecedented step that many other presidents have taken. Since that meeting, I am gratified that Republican senators have responded by releasing many of these holds and allowing 29 nominees to receive a vote in the Senate.

While this is a good first step, there are still dozens of nominees on hold who deserve a similar vote, and I will be looking for action from the Senate when it returns from recess. If they do not act, I reserve the right to use my recess appointment authority in the future."

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Why do gun-rights advocates trust the GOP?

That was one of the big deals during the campaign, and it continues to echo through the Teabaggers sites, and on the signs at Tea Party rallies. You'd think the Democrats had "abolish the 2nd amendment" as a platform to hear the NRA and their lobbyists talk.

It's true, the President has some concerns he's been up-front with relating to assault weapons - the sort of rifle that has no place in the sport of hunting.

But when was the last time the government actually took away people's weapons in any sort of mass sweep of the citizenry, such as Obama's opponents seem to fear he'll do?

Oh, right, it was back in 2005. September of 2005, according to ABC news; it was under a Republican administration, of course, so it didn't provoke the outcry it might have.

"Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job!"
After all, former President George Bush is nominally a Texan, and if a Texan says you should give up your guns, that's different - right?

I mean, after all, Bush's Vice President was even a hunter - right?

It makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Tom Hayes: What would the Founding Fathers make of politics on Facebook?

It's clear that collectively the political activists supporting Barack Obama's campaign got used to knowing - or thinking they knew - what was going on with the campaign. Reading David Plouffe's book might open a few eyes to the reality, which was anything but glamorous in his account.

Obama laid his cards on the table, as many documented during the campaign, and managed to make the election a referendum on his agenda despite the best efforts of his opponents to make it a vote on his "not like me-ness." Of course, the reasons for voting for him were diverse -- hence it was a coalition that put him into office based on a wide variety of individual beliefs and convictions about what it was possible to improve in D.C.

Some supporters (and many detractors,) for instance, failed to listen closely to his intentions for Afghanistan, choosing to assume his statements about being against "dumb wars" in general and Iraq in particular meant he'd back out of any situation overseas where bullets and bombs are flying.

It's disconcerting to others to realize that increasing the transparency of the government, which Obama also advocated, isn't exactly tantamount to inviting activists and reporters into the negotiating sessions necessitated by the arcane rules and strictures of the Congress. 

Most (not all) political activists on both sides of the major issues know that progress is fundamentally based on compromise(s) to achieve what is possible, no matter if it's making decisions in the local school PTA or the U.S. Senate.  Compromises acceptable to the majority by definition almost always fall short of the ideals of those with the strongest convictions.

Unlike the PTA, which is pretty much open to all comers, the U.S. Congress reaches compromise by a not-terribly-pretty process involving just over 500 powerful, influential, sometimes self-serving people expected to do right by the entire country while being inundated with conflicting suggestions. Expecting to see inside that process is a bit - well - idealistic for those sitting at home or working for the media, even if that is what they thought they had bargained for in electing the new President.

That's not how a Democratic Republic works. We don't hold referendums on every issue; we elect folks who seem to hold similar ideals to us and hope they manage to accomplish exactly what we want them to. That's why it's so easy to predict that polls almost always reflect the popularity of a President as in decline - at any given point in time politicians are working on decisions bound to challenge our "collective" opinion precisely because we charge them with handling the hardest and most important decisions.

Now, to balance out the curiously persistent tea baggers who apparently favor a system based on government as minimal and ineffectual as the one in Somalia, some of the hundreds of millions on Facebook are banding together on a "fan page" supporting President Obama, and not second-guessing him. The Founding Fathers must surely be smiling.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Did Obama's West Point speech make the case?

Guessing at the response of the audience on hand -- some of which will likely end up fighting in Afghanistan or Pakistan -- based on a few selected shots of cadets that have been prepping for finals and were there near the end of their day after an evening meal is fairly difficult. I think it’s safe to assume the range of reactions at West Point was broad, but there certainly were many cadets who seemed very eager indeed to shake the President’s hand and have their picture taken with him afterward.

I’d say the President laid out supporting evidence for the decisions he’s made, and articulated the goals and mission scope rather succinctly given it’s a distillation down from months of meetings and briefings with countless military and civilian advisors and other world leaders or their emissaries.

Nonetheless, those with an ax to grind were quick to fill the airwaves and the internet with every negative angle they could remotely connect, from comparisons to Viet Nam (which Obama had already effectively rebutted during the speech) to the dollar cost relative to enacting health care (a valid point, which utterly fails to address the reality that neither NATO nor the U.S. is prepared for the chaos that would ensue if we simply recalled every allied soldier as quickly as is logistically feasible.)

There’s no, “deadline that guarantees the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters will hide their weapons until the coast is clear,” as some have suggested There’s a target for turning over control to a sovereign government that nonetheless includes the potential that they can’t be entirely ready that promptly. A Jihad-oriented, radical branch of Islam calling itself Al Qaeda and/or the Taliban is as bent on controlling the world as Hitler was, and the choices are clear: deal with them there, now, or they will export terror around the world at the time of their choosing.

The bottom line is that after nearly a year of consultation President Obama made a very difficult decision to commit more American lives to help ensure a NATO success, thereby limiting the probability of Al Qaeda mounting an effective strike against countries not enamored of this radicalized, extremist interpretation of Islamic law. Naturally audience reaction is mixed, and the emotionally charged nature of this decision means that even among those who watched him speak many weren't listening to what the speech said, but for what they expected to hear.

That effect will only be magnified as the echoes of supposedly informed opinion rebound on the talk shows and websites which depend on ratings to generate ad revenues. The President was organized and thorough, the rest is up to the listeners. If you didn't get it, "raw and unfiltered," and/or you don't track down transcript you're likely to be hearing what you expect, too.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Is Bachmann covertly part of anti-Stupak Pushback?

Bart Stupak's (D-MI) amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America [AHCA] Act introduces restrictions on access to abortion more severe than were passed previously, including during the Bush presidency. With broad agreement from voices as diverse as Michelle Bachmann, Joseph Stiglitz, and President Obama that something needs to be done to rein in health care overhead so that our money is spent effectively and more regular families don't face bankruptcy due to medical costs, (what Bachmann calls providing a "safety net" for the uninsured,) there may be a severe backlash to this amendment that made a late entry into the process.

We know Congress has realized there's enormous pressure to make real changes, as the chart shows (click to enlarge.) Clearly the White House has been doing extensive work behind the scenes despite both branches of Congress drafting their own bills.

"There's going to be a firestorm here. Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds."

U.S. Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO)

Representative DeGette has helped author an open letter signed by 40 Democratic congresswomen demanding that these restrictions be taken out of the final bill. The AHCA Act contains numerous excellent provisions, helping protect Medicare subscribers and addressing the need for more primary care providers, for instance, but the last minute inclusion of gubernatorial hopeful Stupak's language has stirred outrage among those who think there's too much government interference already.  What's next - restricting funds for elective procedures such as cosmetic surgery following injuries?

For her part MN Rep. Michelle Bachmann, who stated in her town hall meeting in August in Lake Elmo, MN, that while there would have to be a “safety net” for those without insurance she would oppose anything that smacked of government interfering in and controlling medical decisions, voted against the bill - possibly because that's precisely what the Stupak amendment does. Surely the 2010 elections are too distant for Bachmann to be moderating her anti-Obama stance over worries about losing her seat to Maureen Reed or current MN State Senator Tarryl Clark before she gets vested in the House retirement plan (although both are considerably more middle-of-the-road, and Clark has recently pulled a near-miraculous bi-partisan victory on behalf of the residents of the most populous city in Bachmann's 6th District.)

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Tom Hayes: Not this time!

"For the first time ever, all five committees in Congress responsible for health reform have passed a version of legislation," President Obama said in his weekly radio address on October 17, 2009.

He went on to note that despite hurdles, "we are closer to reforming the health care system than we have ever been in history."

In response to massive lobbying and advertising efforts, the President said,

"They're filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads. They're flooding Capitol Hill with lobbyists and campaign contributions. And they're funding studies designed to mislead the American people..."

There are 6 health care industry lobbyists in D.C. for every single member of Congress. Combined, the special interests are spending over $1,000,000 every day to defeat reform, to keep things as they've been while close to 14,000 Americans a day lose their coverage, and over half of all personal bankruptcies are triggered by uncovered medical expenses.

In what may be the best turn of phrase yet in this battle for votes, Obama also noted,

"Every time we get close to passing reform, the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, 'Take one of these, and call us in a decade.' Well, not this time."

Read the transcript, or watch the video (below) and learn about the deceptive schemes and techniques being used by those who want you to tune out and stop listening so their profits and bonuses will remain undisturbed.

Got four minutes? Watch a quick video that sums up the President’s plan to provide security and stability to those who have insurance and coverage for those who don’t.

Thomas Hayes is a political analyst, journalist, and entrepreneur who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics including economics, politics, culture, and community.

Sand sculpture celebrating Obama's 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Tom Hayes - Obama's Denmark trip is much bigger than Chicago

We've embarked on a "War on Terrorism" that doesn't have fronts on a map, or massed armies. Fighting to win means engaging in ways that win the hearts and minds of people half-way 'round the world from us, people who listen to neither Jon Stewart nor the Fox network to inform their opinions of the USA.

Foreign policy:
more than insuring oil supplies and limiting nuclear proliferation.

All our military strength and intelligence gathering wasn't enough to stop the terrorist attacks in 2001.

"It's easy to assume the Obamas connections to Chicago are driving their interest, but the reality is they're using that obvious familiarity to the advantage of our entire country in this case.

Plain and simply, this is a great chance to put our American principles on display, and it's just a fortunate coincidence that the President and First Lady have personal ties to the only U.S. city in the running for the 2016 games."

The reason Tokyo, Rio, and Madrid are still in the hunt for the summer Olympic bid for that year is that world opinion matters, and hosting the Olympic games boosts any country's image.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Read more...

Eyes on the Prize :: A call to action

An open letter to activists:

I will stipulate that racism is something to deal with, to confront, when and as you encounter it. It's far more insidious than the misinformation campaigns being waged against specific legislative proposals.

However, progressive activists would do well to remember that the President has three things atop his agenda: improving Education, moving closer to Energy independence (which overlaps many policy areas, from the environment to national security,) and Health Care/Insurance reform. These are issues we can more readily rectify legislatively than the relatively intractable nature of individual bigotry.

So, consider that on a national level, injecting racism into the dialog may distract your attention and diffuse the effectiveness of activists and progressive politicians by redirecting time and energy away from legislative goals. The new administration took office, as they all do, atop a mandate from the voters.  The opposition writes its own mandate, and adopts tactics meant to impede the will of the majority.

In conversation, partly precipitated by former President Carter, President Obama has made it abundantly clear he's not going to allow racism to alter his focus and priorities.

To rail against those they fear is a tactic of the opposition; witness the actions in DC on Saturday. Distraction is surely another component of that "opposition strategy." I'm not by any means condoning racism; I've written at some length about it, how the once anti-slavery Republican Party of Lincoln became the home of the most closed-minded white racists in the U.S. and how that undermines our lives and our communities, in the U.S. and elsewhere around the world. I know that I'm not going to change the hearts and minds of very many (if any) white racists rapidly, and that conversation isn't the key - proof is.

Do you seek change? Advancing constructive alternatives to create or encourage the change you desire is the important use of our time. Politics, as has been observed by wiser men than I, is the art of the possible; the work of enlightened, committed activists enhances the possibilities for those they support.

The necessary response to individual racism "in the room," in our day-to-day lives, isn't the same as a conversation at a national level.

President Obama's skin color doesn't matter at all; it's no more relevant to how he governs than your hair color is to how you pay your bills. There will always be those who distrust somebody who is "not like me" or "not like us."  They are emotionally attached to that belief - and few on either side of such issues bother listening to anything that's not consistent with their mindset.

Demonstrating that a man who's father is from Kenya is working for the greater good of us all without considering ethnic backgrounds, that a politician isn't just working for the rich or those "like him," but for all Americans, is the way to win the hearts and minds of those open to change. There will always be others disagreeing - and adopting whatever tactics they believe will advance their beliefs (or their ratings.)

Are you going to let those who intend to undermine any progress, those whose goal is not merely to voice their opposition but to dictate the topics and tone of our national debates, take your eyes off the prize?

Work to achieve what you prioritize.  I submit that racism is something to deal with, to confront, when and as you encounter it, but like any other hot-button issue that we react to viscerally, it can be used to distract, to dominate the media, and to chase our work out of people's minds. If you think I'm right, let's get the health care insurance reforms passed so we can turn to the other important issues of the day in a timely way.

Tom Hayes: Fiscal conservatives looking for new dance partners

During the latter part of the 1900s and the Bush years the GOP often seemed one solid, united front of like-minded folks. It's actually nearly as diverse a coalition as the Democratic party, built around a core of old-money, anti-regulation businessmen that, at times, has held its collective fiscally conservative nose to take advantage of voters that just don't feel comfortable with the Democrats (and liked the sound of lower taxes.)

To their great delight at the time, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered any states that were bastions of white racism in the mid-1960s to the GOP for electoral purposes - largely what we call the "old south." The GOP wielded that sudden influx carefully, and with discipline over the following decades became deft at appealing to this constituency while carefully avoiding any overtly racist public statements.

As Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Professor of Politics and African-American Studies at Princeton University, noted regarding President Carter's recent observations about racism:

"There is something particularly compelling when Southern white men identify, name, and condemn racism. America can never forget what it sounded like..." to hear LBJ say something similar while he was President:

"What happened in Selma is part of a far larger movement which reaches into every section and state of America. It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life. Their cause must be our cause too. Because it's not just Negroes, but really it's all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice.

And we shall overcome."

Nobody noticed more, or denied it more vehemently, than racists themselves. LBJ knowingly drove white racists to abandon the Democratic party en masse, and most turned to the GOP, where many have remained. While there are other factors that lead people to criticize President Obama and/or his initiatives, assuming racism is not a factor for some of Obama's detractors is either naive or self-delusional. For racists to think they've managed to conceal their beliefs from most of the rest of us, that we just plain don't realize what's going on, is hubris so blatant it beggars my descriptive powers.

Where will the GOP go now?

To the consternation of the fiscal conservatives in GOP, the Bush~Cheney administration's actions spending to fund their fruitless hunt for Osama bin Laden and the disingenuous hunt for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq have driven many moderates out of the party while crippling the financial might of the country, and they are left with the "not ready for TV" tea-baggers and some barely disguised racists as key parts of their voting base in many areas. The various ratings-driven, faux-histrionic "conservative" pundits are not solidifying the GOP power in the coming election cycle any more than the hypocritical shenanigans of Mike "Spanky" Duvall, Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, or Mark "Don't cry for me, Argentina" Sanford, which have yet to fade from the public's memory.

Ironically, fiscal conservatives have to hope for a kindred spirit in President Obama, who is considerably more socially and economically moderate than he is painted by the media. For Obama has no choice but to spend given the state of the U.S. economy as he starts his first term: the impact of the unfunded military spending and the credit and financial crisis will reverberate for years, possibly decades. While Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner takes point in the media limelight, with the President intent on bringing fairness to the Health Insurance industry, the dances taking place off-camera in D.C. must be truly epic.

"Never is a man so tall..." A young man wondered if his haircut felt like the President's

[cross-posted by the author]

I believe most political decisions are made on the basis of an emotional affiliation to one or the other major political party, even if we're all very good at rationalizing about this or that issue to justify it "logically." I believe, too, that there are all too many elected to serve in Washington who lose their way and become more interested in lining their pockets than in working on behalf of the voters.

I believe I have seldom seen a more decent gesture by any sitting President than the one pictured above. I wonder what Steven Colbert, the man who promised to feel the truthiness of the news at his viewers, will feel when he considers this image from May 8th, making its rounds now on the internet.

There's nothing here about federal intervention in state's rights; there's no judicial activism on display; there's nothing about unfair executive compensation, overpriced health insurance, CIA briefings, weapons of mass destruction, or environmental protection in the picture. There's just a young man, curious if his haircut feels like the President's, perhaps the most powerful man on the planet - and the President of the United States bending down to indulge the curiousity of somebody else's son.

In my gut, this is evidence of the confidence and priorities of a great leader who respects everybody he meets. Today, the world is dealing with a very different sort of President in the United States than they have ever had before. This is a man who not only values children, and families, but who has the willingness and courage to show the world his unscripted compassion.

see original | digg story

73% of voters want a choice of a private or public health insurance plan.

Have you told your U.S. Representative and/or Senator? It's not about which party somebody identifies with, folks; this idea has incredibly broad support among ALL voters, and it's totally congruent with what the President is trying to achieve.

Broken down by party affiliation, it's:

77% of Democrats
79% of Independents
63% of Republicans

Write 3 letters before the Senate committee meeting on Tuesday to make sure your voice is heard in D.C. before it's all over but the earmarks. Write one to the Representative of your congressional district, and one to each of your Senators (except in Minnesota, of course, where there's only one Senator.) Make sure your elected represenatives realize that this has overwhelming support among voters - all voters.

Special interests are being heard - are you?

"While recent polling has shown consistent broad support for comprehensive health care reform, this poll specifically addressed whether people want a choice of a public health insurance plan. 73% of voters want a choice of a private or public health insurance plan, including Democrats (77%), Independents (79%), and Republicans (63%)"

The firm also tested the insurance industry's message about public health care and paired it with a message supporting it, and found the public to be far more receptive to the pro-public health care message:

"62% of voters believe a public health insurance plan will spend less on
profits and administration and force private insurers to compete while only 28% of voters believe the attack that a public health insurance plan would be a "big, government bureaucracy." 60% believe that if private insurers are really more efficient than government, then they won't have any trouble competing with a public health insurance plan. Only 23% believe a public health insurance plan would have an unfair advantage over private plans."

This polling was conducted for the pro-reform group Health Care for America Now.

But it goes beyond polls. There are hugely authoritative, respected voices pointing out that the system as it's been allowed to evolve is inefficient. It doesn't serve us well even though it does pay CEOs hefty bonuses and keep lobbyists busy. Tell your Senators and Representative what the Chief Economist of the World Bank says:

"...private healthcare insurers do not know how to deliver an efficient way..."

World Bank Chief Economist, Joseph Stiglitz

People who work hard for their money deserve to have a voice in how it's spent. The insurance industry and their lobbyists have been writing rules that boost their profits not protect Americans, and tax-payers are tired of bailing them out while worrying if we'll even have jobs. We need our leaders to take control and look out for our interests, not special interests.

Put it in your words, and write those three emails in the next 24 hours, two or three paragraphs is all it takes, then get three more people to do the same.

Why are doctors for reform? Maybe it's because places such as Duke Medical center need more billing clerks than nurses.

Why are special interests fighting it, donating money to the campaigns of key U.S. Senators such as Baucus and Murray? Maybe it's because they know their extravagant bonuses will come to an end. They're in it for the money, after all.

You've got all the facts you need right here: Make sure D.C. knows that we know the facts, and we're tired of paying for them to ignore what's right for the rest of us.

Ready for those "first 100 days" report cards? - By Tom Hayes

Summary:
Some reports suggest that despite numerous successes and his warm reception at the Summit of the Americas, U.S. President Barack Obama is under pressure to do more about Cuba in particular. Yet Hugo Chavez wants to be our friend, now, and Raul Castro has just made a speech in which he said that Cuba is ready to talk to the U.S. about virtually every topic, explicitly including political prisoners (one of the major sticking points for decades.)
When the inevitable flood of "first 100 days" summaries come out, the marks are going to be better than any in recent memory. There's a lot of work remaining, particularly on the President's big three priorities (Education, financial and economic reform featuring green jobs, and Health Care reform) but the Obama administration is clearly working in high gear. Most of the doom and gloom will come from domestic detractors, and much less from elsewhere in the western hemisphere where we're clearly seeing the result of Obama extending his hand in friendship.

Former harsh critics and foes see it as politically expedient to unclench their fists; cooperation is increasing for the first time in nearly a decade. In a time of unprecdented uncertainty, hope is flourishing abroad and at home.
Read the rest of the article at Democracy for America.

Feminist Advisory Board [FAB] within Organizing for America

The founder, Madama Ambi, is now exploring turning FAB, which first gained notice during the 2008 Presidential campaign, into a platform for communicating with The White House Council on Women and Girls. She also hopes for the women's movement to "unify and strengthen its networks" but stresses you need not be a feminist or female to participate.

In the words of U.S. President Barack H. Obama,

"...it's up to us to carry that work forward, to ensure that our daughters and granddaughters have no limits on their dreams, no obstacles to their achievements -- and that they have opportunities their mothers and grandmothers and great grandmothers never dreamed of."

read more | digg story

Protect Military spending, cut everything else? GOP fail

Bush knew leaving the economy for Obama to fix would stain the GOP reputation for years, possibly decades. Yet today the GOP numbers, as detailed by the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan (R-WI) reveal they were only talking about improving education, reforming the health care system, and energy independence to win votes.

The GOP budget proposal is: protect the military spending (that evidently funds their campaign finances,) and preserve Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. With their backs to the wall they're writing off the moderate, middle of the road voters?

With the Obamas modeling family values, the President's popularity riding high, and the world markets in chaos despite bailing out the bankers on Wall Street all the Republican economics experts have got to offer is "Defense spending" and keep helping the rich?

They call that a plan?

read more | digg story

Stimulus plan: Invest in our country

It’s small businesses that will put people back to work; that’s how we’re going to get this country back on its feet. It’s entrepreneurs and small business owners who respond with enthusiasm that are key. Big, established, "trusted" companies dug this hole by defining success in terms of short-term profits on their bottom line that do little if anything to protect American jobs or the well-being of their employees.

When we see bulldozers and excavators moving dirt for new construction, when we see trucks hauling instead of sitting idle at auction sites, then we'll know things are turning around.

While Bush was pushing privatized retirement plans, we were all being set up to fund Wall Street bonuses. We need lenders to play fair, not slap new fees and payments on consumers. More regulation of lending practices, not less, is critical to our economic health.

Bottom line: The new administration needs to reverse the trend of layoffs and plant closures; our government needs to work for the people by rebuilding economy and the American Dream - by putting Americans back to work.

read more | digg story

As president, What Would Obama Do?

Most voters distrust political advertising and avoid official campaign web sites. Most news reports describe controversies, poll results, and fund raising – they’re more interested in ratings and advertising revenues than in what they “report” on. Many of the most popular programs and sources display an obvious bias, including this one (no offense, Zennie, I think they know we're early voters for Obama.) Where is the information?

Most voters distrust political advertising and avoid official campaign web sites. Worse, most news reports describe controversies, poll results, and fund raising – they're more interested in ratings and advertising revenues than in what they "report" on. Many of the most popular programs and sources display an obvious bias (as does this site.)

In these difficult times any new president requires the support and trust of the electorate, including particularly those who voted for the other party. The changes we need on everything from the burden of taxes to education of health care reform will require making many people more aware of what he would do if and when elected.

I often point you to information on the candidate's web sites if what you find here isn't answering your questions, though obviously the level of detail and transparency is different comparing Obama and McCain's officially published information (presumably because that's controlled by their campaign advisors who are fanatical about persuasion.) Searches will turn up some of the less-official answers to questions about deregulation, etc., inspiring anecdotes of personal dedication, and it's fairly easy to find actual voting information online, but AskObamaNow.com has lots of the answers collected in one place about the most likely man to be our next President.

AskObamaNow.com answers the question, "What would Obama do if elected?" It’s a voter-friendly web site featuring short videos of Barack Obama simply giving direct answers to common questions. I'm still looking for an AskMcCainNow site to appear. Thus far I can only find his record; no luck on what he'd do.

read more | digg story

Are men allowed at "Women for Obama" meetings?

Absolutely, as the blog-post at this link documents. Pictures and video from a recent "Women for Obama" get-together near the Twin Cities (in Northfield, the home of late Senator Paul Wellstone) - the speaker of the Minnesota State House of Representatives, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, even called in.

More than just "Women for Obama."

I hope the name never keeps anybody from attending. Look at the pictures... there were children present. This was literally dozens of people, lots of energy, lots of ideas, lots of commitment, synergy, and even though it was mostly women, there were a few men, too.

Conversation ranged from Wall Street deregulation and more general tax and economy topics to health care issues, community service, how to help Emily, the Obama Field organizer, cope with her long list of tasks in the office and on the phones and how to persuade the mainstream, commercial media to reform their tendencies by covering issues and facts during this election cycle rather than echoing talking points, which reinforces the effect of divisive old-school attack politics. (" 'Cause when they own the information, they can bend it how they want.")

The supply of beverages and treats seemed never-ending...

read more | digg story

When they own the information they can bend it how they want

"Me and all my friends," says John Mayer, "We’re all misunderstood.They say we stand for nothing and there’s no way we ever could." That sort of cynicism needs debunking, as Mayer knows. There's nothing false about hope, and what the future brings us depends largely on what we dare to believe - and do - in the present.

Barack Obama inspires that hope.

Here's a new video tribute, set to Mayer's music.

read more | digg story

Extremism

We've heard a lot about extremism recently: A nastier, harsher atmosphere everywhere - more abuse and "bother-boy" behavior, less friendliness and tolerance and respect for opponents.

Obama's shown remarkable restraint, although he's attacked ads and statements misrepresenting his policies and beliefs.

McCain? Well, you already know he's gone full metal Rove... and the talking heads and producers of commercial media mostly seem content to echo whatever a campaign spokesperson or ad producer has said.

All kidding aside, though, whatever happened to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and similar rules? Is it too much to ask of GOP operatives and candidates to conduct themselves with dignity, and integrity? Isn't that what we expect people to do if they win?