Sunday News Shows

There are two things that seem to be worthy of comment on the Sunday News Shows that I saw. The main one that I want to talk about is how the Democrats will fare in the midterm elections. I have already written about that. In the piece that wrote for the Washington Post's pundit contest, which of course, should have won, I wrote that I thought the Dems will do better than the average pundits expect. While I think the Dems seem to be working against that, I am going to stick with that.

Harry Reidl has his own problems. And while his problems may be shared by a lot of white people, it doesn't make it easier at all for Dems. Just the opposite. It isn't that he actually said those things, which unfortunately are probably true, it is that he is majority leader of the senate and should have known better. 

Nevertheless, many of the pundits seem too eager to turn the elections late next year over to the republicans. I can't buy it yet. 

One last comment. The conservative pundits consistently criticized Obama for taking the Christmas Day failed airline bomber and prosecuting him in the US judicial branch. Some of the pundits, such as Monica Crowley on McLaughlin, said he should have been tortured and that would have produced more intelligence. Of course, Crowley provides no evidence to prove her ravings. 

I do agree with the general observation that the unemployment figure in the months before the election will have the most to do with how the Dems do. But I'm not ready to write them off against a party that is running on doing nothing.

Sunday News Shows

My last “Sunday News Show” review was written on 12/13/09. It is now 2010. Happy New Year. 

It isn’t that I didn’t watch the shows. I did. I just didn’t write about them. But I was thinking about it. 

Right now the news media is fixated on the failed bomb attempt by the Nigerian young man as an international flight was coming into Detroit airport. They are typically overplaying this, giving Al Quaeda the publicity that it is craving. Of course, Krauthamer says that we shouldn’t have arrested the guy with the civilian judicial system, but should have charged him as a military “enemy combatant,” which to me is code for jailing them with no charges and torturing them. That’s just what Al Quaeda wants.

Of course, Janet Napoletano was roasted, and her legacy branded, by her statement that the system worked just fine in the attempted bombing. Of course, we all know now that this was just dumb, because, as one pundit said, it was “inconceivable” that the guy was allowed to get on the plane. It does seem that is right. Just how much taxpayer money goes into making sure this kind of thing doesn’t happen? It is inconceivable.

There are a couple things that stand out to me. One is Cheney’s comments about Obama being in denial that we are “at war” with Al Quaeda. But I do have to give Krauthamer credit for being the one panelist to point out that it was Bush who actually let the Yemeni’s out of Guantanamo which ended up being freed in Yemen and going back to leadership positions in Al Quaeda. But if you listen to many of the other conservatives, who are trying to tie this failure to Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo, you would swear that Obama is to blame for all of these problems. 

When you consider everything, it seems to me that Cheney is being unpatriotic and helping our enemies with his statements, which are simply false to try and harm the commander in chief in his military matters.

I also think that Pat Buchanan’s both repudiation of the causes of global warming, and his incessant touting of Sarah Palin are way beneath what a panelist in that show should be saying. The hacked private emails of a few global warming scientists, while to me shows how science can be manipulated, and I’ve seen plenty of that which I didn’t like, is next to nothing compared to the rest of the body of science about how the planet’s climate is changing. 

And Palin? Give me a break. No, give me two breaks. 

Health care has been pushed to the back burner. I think the Democrats like that. It means they can work out their differences in the dark and get the bill thru, for better or worse. But reports in the NY Times that the House Dems are going to cave on key provisions doesn’t give me too much hope. The U.S. Senate, an obsolete chamber dating back to the Brits “House of Lords,” or people who get (or got, it’s pretty much gone, like the Senate should be) their political influence by their social status, has too much power. But there will never be a change, because the Senate would have to approve any constitutional changes, and I doubt if they will vote for any reduction in power, let alone their own demise.

And finally, speaking of the Senate, some of the conservative commentators are writing the political obituary for Harry Reid. All I can say is that if Reid goes, my senator Durbin is likely to become majority leader. He will push a more progressive agenda, although I have seen him get a bit more conservative the older he gets and the longer he has been in the Senate.

Obama cannot undercut "Change" and survive politically

So much is happening right now politically, it’s really hard to keep up with it. But several of the big fronts include the health care battle on capitol hill (I spelled “hell” by mistake when I first typed it, and thought, ‘yeah, that would be better’), Afghanistan, Global warming and the milktoast Copenhagen meeting, Iran and their steps toward becoming a nuclear power, the economy and the debt, Iraq. Whew, I get tired just thinking about it. And what about the important issues that aren’t even included in that list?

Obama is a young, energetic leader who is overall well liked, although the U.S. media is trying to beat him down a bit. He has decided to tackle all of these issues at once, and has, according to the media, staked his career on getting at least some of it done. But, as I wrote for my Washington Post pundit contest column, Obama isn’t above failing, and I am amazed at the efforts to defeat him instead of work with him. 

But Obama was put in to change things, and if he accepts too little change as change, he won’t necessarily be able to convince enough people that he really does represent change. So he’s really in a tough place. But it would be the same for anyone that tried to do something in that office. 

Take the health care issue for example. If it gets watered down too much and still becomes law out of supposed political necessity but doesn’t help people enough, I’m not sure that Obama can ride that kind of “success” forward too far. He may have to suck in his agenda, go the American people and say that things aren’t going as fast as he thought they could, which most people will understand, but stand firm in his resolve to not give up, if he wants to really impress people. Let’s see if he can do it. 

He already showed with his Afghanistan decision that he is susceptible to political pressure, and can be boxed in by events. That isn’t any negative comment on him, but just the reality that anyone would be facing. It does show that Obama is only human.

Scared Turtles

by Berry Craig

It is the great unmentionable in the health care debate.

It is an attitude apparently shared by many voters. The Democrats keep
quiet about it because they don't want to make voters mad.

The same attitude is helping the Republicans thwart reform. But they won't
acknowledge it publicly for fear of looking bad.

B. Smith isn't scared to talk about it on his Internet blogsite, Radical
Love. It is greed and selfishness, which he says are "hateful" aspects "of
humanity that this debate has brought out" in much of the body politic.

Smith identifies himself as a Methodist pastor from Pulaski, Tenn. He
doesn't pull punches.

Smith says, flat out, that some folks oppose reform because they think it
will diminish the quality of their health care in favor of "undeserving"
poor people and immigrants. "It is in times of economic downturn when people
recede into their shells like a scared turtle and refuse to help anyone but
themselves and their immediate families," the parson added.

This union-card carrying Hubert Humphrey Democrat and Bluegrass State
Presbyterian will add an "amen" to Rev. Smith's cyber-sermonette.

Tennessee and my native Kentucky are two of the church-goingest states in
the church-goingest nation in Christendom. But when it comes to backing
government help for people who need help -- people without health insurance,
for instance - a lot of Tennesseans, Kentuckians and other Americans have
never been all that big on the biblical brother's keeper thing.

Per capita, the U.S. trails all of its NATO allies in social welfare
spending, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. We're the only NATO country without some form of comprehensive national
health insurance. Whatever health reform Congress approves - if anything --
will be small potatoes compared to government health care programs in other
countries.

True, Americans are bigger on charitable giving than anybody else. But most
of the money they donate goes to their churches and to educational
institutions, including their alma maters, not to charities that directly
aid the poor.

Anyway, many Americans probably would agree with a Georgia woman who told
the Associated Press why she's not a fan of government health care. "Well,
for one, I know nobody wants to pay taxes for anybody else to go to the
doctor -- I don't," she was quoted in an AP wire story about an AP health
care poll. "I don't want to pay for somebody to use my money that I could be
using for myself."

The story said the woman is 20. I wonder if she has grandparents on
Medicare.

No matter, Republicans love people like the Georgian. Though they might not
be so candid with a reporter, more than a few Americans agree with her. 

Democrats are hesitant to call them out for their I've-got-mine-and-to-heck-with-you outlook.
Republicans welcome them as allies in their holy war against health care form. 

The Republicans are battling reform with their stock "government isn't the
solution, it's the problem" con job. It's Social Darwinism, straight from
the Gilded Age: If you're poor (and don't have health insurance), it's your
fault and not my responsibility.

Governments in other Western democracies believe good health care is a
fundamental human right, not a privilege for those who can afford it. Some
of us stateside do, too. (Go ahead and call us "socialists.")

I'm blessed. I have a steady job and good health insurance. But growing up
Presbyterian, I learned we were supposed to be our brothers' - and sisters'
- keepers. The same principle guides our union movement.

So count me in with my union brothers and sisters who support a single-payer
health care system that covers all Americans. And I'm somebody who wouldn't
mind Uncle Sam raising my taxes to help pay for it.

Sunday News Shows

Today’s Sunday News shows focused on Obama’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech given this week. Secondary topics included the economy, health care, and the global warming conference in Copenhagen. 

Obama’s acceptance speech for his Nobel Peace Prize was a bit of a finger in the eye of the Nobel committee. Obama, instead of a humble plea for world peace, sort of threw down the gauntlet and said that if the U.S. thought that military force needed to be used, that this ok in the scheme of things. I don’t think it was what the Nobel committee wanted to hear.

And the praise from arch conservatives such as Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan, Sarah Palin, and Charles Krauthamer, for the speech, certainly tells me that Obama has gotten off course. It truly is amazing to me that the guy who owes his presidency to being the most anti-war is now out touting the benefits of war. What a world in which we live.

Obama is taking a huge chance by escalating in Afghanistan. One would think that he would have learned the lessons of history. But then again, and one can never know the pressures that a president is under unless you were actually there, did he really have a choice?

Obama was pushed by his political opponents, the press, and top military brass, into a corner. That corner was that he either gave the generals what they wanted or he would be stuck with the blame if things went bad. If Obama was branded as “losing” the Afghan war as the Taliban took over, and even, heaven forbid, it was followed by another large terrorist attack in the U.S., which was also blamed on Obama, he could kiss goodbye a second term. I think Obama wants a second term. 

He just cannot risk being blamed for any failure that might occur in Afghanistan. So he chose the path of least resistance - to share the blame with his generals. I am very skeptical that this additional militarism is going to work. We’ll see.

I have to comment on the McLaughlin Group. I continue to be amazed that McLaughlin himself seems to be pushing Sarah Palin. It is unbecoming for someone who has been around as long as McLaughlin. But Pat Buchanan and Monica Crowley were unbelievable in the comments they made about “global warming.” They showed themselves to be total ideologues - party hacks - when it comes to this issue. I can’t wait for them to publish the transcript. Then those that didn’t see or hear can tell for themselves just how radical these folks can be. 

I found an interview with Marie Bartiromo and a wealthy investor named, I believe, Jim Rogers, to be one of the more interesting interviews of the day. He said that the economy is still in bad shape, that more bad is yet to come, and the place to put your money is in commodities. Greenspan, a guest on Meet the Press, said that interest rates were going to be coming up sometime in the future. All in all, not great news on the economy. Actually, I think higher interest rates would be better for the economy, but when you are printing money, that isn’t what you want. And if you are setting interest rates and printing money both, the incentives to raise interest rates, even if it might benefit a lot of people, isn’t very great. 

One has to admit that Obama has un uncanny sense of reaching mainstreet America. It’s sort of like the least common denominator, but really, that is unbecoming for someone as intelligent as Obama. He should be leading. But, he is very very cautious in his political standing. Maybe he feels that once it slips away, it is gone forever. But reaching down isn’t what leaders do. We’ll see as time progresses if this strategy serves him well.

Afghanistan

I guess I should state my opinion on Obama's address on Afghanistan, which I watched and listened to last night. On style, Obama, as always was impeccable. He gets 9.9 on style. On substance, I think he doesn't score as well. 

There's no doubt that he is left with not much of a hand to play. But it's hard to believe that what is going to come out of increased militarism on our side is going to be, in the long run, more peace. Remember, for example, that we had our guy in Iran, the Shah, for how long? Look how that turned out. 

I will write more on this later.

Slavery and race were absolutely critical elements in the coming of the war

by Berry Craig

I just saw another Rebel-flag emblazoned "Heritage not Hate" bumper sticker. I suspect I'll see more during the sesquicentennial observances of the Civil War. 

The "Heritage not Hate" folks claim slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War. Neo-Confederates - and there are more than a few in my native Kentucky - claim that 11 slave states - the Bluegrass State not among them -- seceded over "states' rights."

I teach history. Slavery had everything to do with the Civil War. "To put it quite simply, slavery and race were absolutely critical elements in the coming of the war," wrote Charles B. Dew in Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War.

For my money, Dew's little book is one of the best Civil War reads to come along in years. Published in 2001, it is especially timely as we get ready to mark the 150th anniversary of America's bloodiest conflict.

Dew is a Southern-born historian with a family tree full of Rebel ancestors. No doubt, his book has made him an apostate to the neo-Confederates. Die-hard Rebels would have scorned him as a "scalawag," meaning a fellow white Southerner who "betrayed" his race and region during the post-war Reconstruction period.

Dew uses the words of real Confederates to rebut the neo-Confederates.

He quotes a raft of Rebels from Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Vice President Alexander Stephens to representatives of Confederate states who went to other slave states - including Kentucky - to try to talk their political leaders into secession.

"I believe deeply that the story these documents tell is one that all of us, northerners and southerners, black and white, need to confront as we try to understand our past and move toward a future in which a fuller commitment to decency and racial justice will be part of our shared experience."

Dew explained that after the Rebels lost the Civil War, Davis, Stephens and other Confederate civil and military leaders wrote their memoirs, claiming "that slavery had absolutely nothing to do with the South's drive for independence." He added that their claim has been "picked up and advocated by neo-Confederate writers and partisans of the present day."

Some of them plaster it on the bumpers of their cars and trucks.

In his book, Dew cited a multitude of primary sources: newspapers, letters, official publications and other documents. He carefully footnoted his research.

Davis praised human bondage as a worthy institution by which "a superior race" had transformed "brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers."

Stephens was thankful the Confederacy was based "upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition." He added, "the Confederate States of America was "the first Government ever instituted upon principles in strict conformity to nature and the ordination of Providence..."

Dew also quotes from secession ordinances Southern states adopted as they exited the Union. When Texans pulled out, they denounced "the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race and color -- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law."

Mississippi disunionists announced that "Our position is thoroughly
identified with the institution of slavery....We must either submit to
degradation and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union."

Dew 'fesses up that he teaches history at a Yankee school - Williams College in Massachusetts. But he was born in Dixie. He said he went to a boarding high school in Virginia and had a Rebel flag in his dorm room.

Dew's pedigree easily qualifies him for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, though they might not let him in. "My ancestors on both sides fought for the Confederacy, and my father was named Jack, not John, because of his father's reverence for Stonewall Jackson," the author wrote.

Dew said as a boy, he had a ready answer for anybody who asked him why the South seceded: states' rights. "Anyone who thought differently was either deranged or a Yankee, and neither class deserved to be taken seriously on this subject," he explained.

But studying history in college mugged Charles B. Dew. In honestly examining his region's past, he discovered that by using the term "states' rights," white Southerners of the 1860s meant the right of a state to have slaves (just as white Southerners of the 1960s defended segregation in the name of "states' rights"). Apostles of Disunion ultimately resulted.

Dew focused his book on a group of state-appointed commissioners who traveled throughout the slave states in 1860 and early 1861. The commissioners preached the same racist line: the only way to keep the Yankees from destroying slavery and white supremacy was to start a new Southern nation.

"Our fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro, as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race, incapable of self-government, and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political, or social equality," a Mississippi commissioner said.

Declared another Magnolia State emissary: "Slavery was ordained by God and sanctioned by humanity."

Likewise, a Kentucky-born Alabama commissioner to Kentucky pleaded that secession was the only way the South could maintain "the heaven-ordained superiority of the white over the black race." Another Alabama representative said ideas that slavery was immoral and that God created all people the same were rooted in "an infidel theory [that] has corrupted the
Northern heart."

Dew concluded, "By illuminating so clearly the racial content of the
secession persuasion, the commissioners would seem to have laid to rest, once and for all, any notion that slavery had nothing to do with the coming of the Civil War."

This history teacher hopes Dew is right.

Berry Craig is the author of True Tales of Old-Time Kentucky Politics:
Bombast, Bourbon and Burgoo.

Sunday News Shows, Nov. 22, (anniversary of Kennedy assassination) 2009

Today is the anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy. Yet not one news show this reported mentioned it. Very interesting. Do we, the public, know anywhere near the truth of what was behind the Kennedy assassination? No. And the government has no interest in us knowing the truth. 

All these great Americans on the Sunday News Shows and not one mentioned it. Isn't that strange? 

But here's my comments about the shows based on their face value:

The Sunday News shows today focused on several things - health care, of course, afghanistan, Obama’s foreign trip, the breast cancer guidelines confusion, Sarah Palin, and the economy, as well a few other issues of interest, including one that I am going to put into the top tier discussions.

That issue was discussed by the women on “To the Contrary,” as to whether or not sexism or racism was worse. I think it was a very interesting discussion. They all seemed to agree that sexism was worse than racism, including minority women on the panel. That involved a discussion of the media coverage of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin’s national campaigns, the confirmation of Sotomayer as a Supreme Court justice, and even the makeup of panels for the Sunday News shows.

Ironically, immediately after “To the Contrary” on KET, was Inside Washington. And guess what? Three white males in suits and Nina Totenberg, the token “liberal” and “female.” It sort of made the case. 

I just have to comment on how far to the right McLaughlin has come in the last months. And it is disappointing to see McLaughlin pushing Sarah Palin. I thought McLaughlin was smarter than that. 

There is one thing that I want to comment on which is becoming a right wing mantra - that is, that “Obama’s heart is not in the Afghanistan war” which is why he is taking his time on making a long term decision on what to do there. 

Pat Buchanan quoted former McLaughlin panelist Tony Blankley, a real right winger, as writing that he thinks we should withdraw from Afghanistan because “Obama’s heart isn’t into it” and that putting soldiers into harm’s way when the “commander in chief” doesn’t have his heart into the action isn’t right. 

This is a slick right wing trick to try and pin anything other than us conquering Afghanistan and forcing the population to bow down to us as Obama’s fault. But it’s the lowest of low in terms of strategy, because they have no idea what is in Obama’s heart, and to a large extent the policy in Afghanistan is inherited from Bush. To try to cleverly push the blame of Bush’s bad policy onto Obama is going to fail, because people know better. 

It wasn't just the JFK assassination that hurt our country, but the assassination of RFK and MLK. It cut the progressive movement 's head off in the US, and we've suffered greatly for it. The fact that the conservative main stream media doesn't want to bring it up, and their failure in covering it properly shouldn't be surprising. But it says a lot anyway.

In fact, the entire effort to cast Obama as someone who is not getting anything done when he hasn’t been in office even a year yet, is pretty desperate. But, that doesn’t mean that Obama can afford not to get anything done. He has to. But to sit back and do nothing but throw stones at a nice guy who is trying to do something to help is a weird strategy if you ask me.

If Republicans underestimate Obama, it could be to his advantage

This is going to be a short entry. If the republicans underestimate Obama, and believe they have him finished off, they may be in for a surprise. It is a big advantage to be underestimated. And Obama seems very focused on taking baby steps forward. And he is. For the republicans to take the public opinion of the moment and think that they can coast on that and win a year from now is foolhardy. And in the end, I don't believe the majority of American voters will reward what appears to be a purposeful avoidance of helping Obama get some things done. Besides, it's way too soon to tell what will happen in 2010, and historical patterns aren't as reliable for predicting as they used to be.

Afghanistan story changes during the day

There was some interesting punditizing today that caught my attention. Early this morning, well, like “Early Today,” which comes on at 4:30 am on WPSD, and then the Today Show, and even the local Today show that comes between them, reported that Obama was about “to make a decision” on Afghanistan, and that decision was going to be to send an additional “tens of thousands” of troops there, even if it wasn’t going to be the full 40K that was being requested. 

However, just a few minutes ago, I heard on the NPR news at the top of the hour, that Obama was not going to be rushed into a decision, and that a decision on Afghanistan may be made within the next few weeks. 

Those are two totally different stories, and the media has no explanation at all for the gap between the stories. That is interesting.

Also interesting would be the fact that Obama, in large part can attribute his presidency to being the “anti-war” candidate, and now would be seen as an escalator of war. Can Obama afford politically to alienate his anti-war base? We’ll see. But if I was him, I would get cold feet at the notion. Perhaps that is why the messages changed so drastically during the course of the day.

Sunday News Shows

Of course, the Sunday news shows were abuzz with the Ft. Hood shootings. I was happy to hear many of the pundits suggest that the military was overstressed and that it was an individual act of craziness and not part of some kind of organized infiltration of our military by Muslim extremist groups. And then there is Monica Crowley, on McLaughlin. She seemed to be war mongering by suggesting that it was connected to other acts of violence by “Muslims” within the military. 

In addition, Kristi asked me to include this, which I also think is very important. Many pundits put some of the Muslim fundamentalists down because of their treatment of women. But, according to discussion “To the Contrary,” the one all women’s news show that tries to stick to women’s issues, 1/3 of women in OUR military have been sexually harassed, and there is still a glass ceiling. In fact, one of the women in the panel spoke of having to dress very male like - with hair pulled back and non-feminine dress in order to keep from being sexually harassed. Perhaps we need a look in the mirror before we go criticizing others.

But I have to admit that the statement of the day goes to Colby King, on Inside Washington, who said, in reference to Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s many contradictory statements on the health care legislation, that Reid was the “worst” majority leader in the Senate. He said that Reid’s flip flopping and lack of resolve was being ruled by Reid’s reelection politics. (he is up for reelection this year, and the polls aren’t that good for him in Nevada.) I don’t know the history of that many majority leaders, but I think Reid is weak and wavering, and isn’t serving the Democrats and Obama that well. I think the Dems would be better swerved by getting Durbin in there. He’s much more to the left of the Reid, a close friend of Obama’s from the same state, and more aggressive in his resolve to push the Democratic agenda.

There was a number of discussions about the elections last week, but they were stale discussions, as all of that had been mulled over the day after. I thought all in all the news shows were mundane today - they did not rise to the occasion. Sure there was some interesting discussion, but it’s so orchestrated and narrow that there were few if any new ideas.

Public wants Dem legislature, will tolerate republican executive

I've listened to a bunch of pundits throughout the day talking about the implications of the elections last night. They've said all kinds of things. But the one thing they haven't discussed is the difference in branches of government between the NJ and Virginia, which were governors, or executive branch races, with the Congressional race in upstate NY, which was of course a legislative branch election.

Based on my own personal experience, people tend to be more exploratory in governor's races than in congressional races. And the polls bear that out. But the pundits haven't explored one time, as far as I know, that the races that went Republican were executive branch, and state wide at that, and the seat that had been republican for 100 years but just went democrat was a legislative branch seat.

I think it strongly suggests that people want democrats drafting legislation, and that they are open to republicans administering it. I think fundamentally, it may be that people want a more compassionate legislation, but want it administered strictly, in order to keep budgets honest. 

But the pundits were looking at only the most superficial aspects of the election. If they think they can draw implications that might be played out in a year, they are wrong. We'll see what happens then. But I have to comment in closing that I have to stick my tongue out at those pundits that keep talking about "Obama's first year" because his first year in office won't end until January 20th. That's a few months away.

Sunday News

The Sunday News shows today were a bit thin. They talked about the two governors and the upstate NY congressional district election, Obama and his Afghanistan policy, and health care. 

The conservative pundits contend that Obama is going to lose all three elections, which will be a bad omen for him going into the mid-terms. I’m not ready to go that far. I think that most people think that Obama is trying. But a lot of people think that either he may be trying to go to far or that he isn’t going to be able to get it done. That is his challenge. He has to show some results in the months to come or he will be trouble. But he has a lot of things stirred up, and he may end up actually getting things done. If he does, and people like it, then those trying to stop him are going to be in trouble.

On Afghanistan, the conservative commentators are trying to pigeon hole him. They are using the time he is taking to decide on the troop run-up to say that because he is taking his time he is against the war, therefore, he cannot do the war properly and we will lose which will be his fault.

That’s a way to try and erase the fact that Bush actually got us into the war, and Obama is trying to deal with a difficult situation in less than a year. But, Obama made the situation more complicated and difficult for himself when, during the campaign, he repeatedly used Afghanistan as a counter to Iraq as a “good” war. Now he’s stuck not only with the war, but his statements. 

But everyone does agree that Obama served the country and himself well when he went to Dover to meet the caskets from the 18 that died last week. It was definitely the right thing to do, and he needs to remember it when he makes his decision. I especially took offense at Krathamer’s quoting of David Brooks in saying that if the commander in chief’s “heart was not in” a particular, that they can’t properly administer it, and then, any “failure” is the fault of the commander in chief. That’s too easy of a way to deflect Bush’s decisions to get us into and manage the conflict. Of course, the republicans are pretty desperate. 

The health care situation hasn’t changed much since last week. I’ll comment more about it when it moves substantively.

Washington Post Pundit contest

Well, not surprisingly, I didn't make the final 10 in the Washington Post pundit contest. I read the 10 that made, and think they were good pieces. My congratulations to them. 

Here is the piece that I submitted, with an asterisk. Interestingly enough, each piece had a 400 word limit. I used the word counter on the Microsort Works work processor to trim my piece to 400 words. I didn't really worry about the words in the very first draft, and then I proceeded to whittle it down. I got it where the counter said exactly 400 words.

Imagine my surprise when I pasted the piece into the Washington Post's field for placing entry, and it said I was about 30 words over the limit and couldn't post it until I got it down to their 400 word count. 

I did. But I didn't copy and paste into a file those edits. All I have saved on my computer is the version as it was put into the field originally. But you can get the gist. I still feel good about my entry, and think it could very well have been picked. But, when you are having to read almost 5000 pieces in a week and judge them, you have your hands full. I think it is a great outreach effort by the Post, and I congratulate for doing it. But below is the piece that I submitted.
_________________________________________________
Obama needs to get some things done
by Mark Donham

The Health Care Reform bill snaking around Congress is dubbed a “Democratic” bill. There’s been scant Republican support for this health care reform and other Obama ideas (except for sending more troops to Afghanistan). This cold shoulder isn’t strictly issue-based, and is less than sincere. It is part of a long shot Republican attempt to regain their majorities in Congress and limit Obama to one term. They think inaction may further divide the Democrats and define Obama as an ineffective smooth talker. They want to help that along. 

By some criteria, it’s working. Saturday Night Live’s latest opening skit portrayed Obama, fairly or not, as a guy who isn’t getting anything done. That is a political benchmark of sorts hitting one of his bases - youth. Many pundits say that if Health Care Reform fails, the Obama presidency will fail. Even as Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, pundits mused about what Obama had actually done to receive the award. 

He best not ignore the charge. Ask John Kerry. When an idea like this grabs hold, it can grow, like mycelium, in the fertile D.C. media, and then mushroom. It can move like a wildfire that creates its own weather and char the political landscape. Obama is an historic figure, but he is not above being badly damaged by a well-run campaign to discredit him. He could end up getting nothing done, an unimpressive one-termer, his place in history squandered. 

The Democratic majorities are enough to get things done without the Republicans, but it takes all of them agreeing. The President plays a key role in uniting Congress. If Obama can’t unite his own party it will only reinforce the notion that he can’t get things done. But if Obama does manage to get changes made that positively affect the middle and working class, and the Republicans are seen as not helping at all, there could be a political backlash. It’s a gamble, but the minority’s options are limited. 

There is a lot of noise about the Republicans making significant gains in Congress in the mid-term elections next year. No doubt, the cycle tilts toward the Republicans, but they still need a good campaign. Short selling an intelligent and youthful president may or may not work. If I had to bet, my money would go on Obama and the Democrats to do better in the midterms than conventional wisdom would suggest.

Public Option

Well, Harry Reid sure caught everyone "off guard" didn't he, with his announcement that the Health Care bill would have a "public option." Ah, but there was one caveat. That was that the so called public option would contain an "opt out" clause for states. 

Oh geez, isn't that sweet. Let's get a little federalism in there to suck in a few "moderate" republicans. But the press was focused on the fact that they themselves had pronounced the so called "public option" dead on arrival and now it was alive. How could the press have been so wrong? HA HA HA!

You can attribute the "public option" shift on public polls. These polls were consistently showing that a majority of the public wanted the "public option." Nevermind what the "public option" actually means. And Reid showed us that we can't be sure of that by offering a definition that the media hadn't even been discussing much - the "states can opt out" version.

I'm not sure if the "states can opt out version" is going to be able to sustain itself through the process. Reid is just bending over backwards to appease the republicans, who don't give a damn about Reid. But it's going to be interesting to see. The bottom line is that governmental action have to obviously benefit the middle and working class. If they do, then Obama and the Dems will likely stay in power. If not, then all bets are off.

Sunday News Shows

This was an above average day for the Sunday News Shows. There was a number of quality discussions. The main issues were (1) the salary cuts for the bailout bank execs, (2) Afghanistan and Cheney’s “dithering” comment, and (3) the health care reform bill.

I thought that Chuck Schumer, NY U.S. Senator, did a better than usual job on Meet the Press. I thought that Pat Buchanan was pretty close when he called the salary cuts for the bailout execs “populist appeasement.” I’d give that the coined phrase of the day, although I doubt if Buchanan coined it. Populism isn’t always bad.

Mort Zuckerman said today that management was the most important part of the U.S. economy. That’s absurd. Workers can produce a product without anyone serving outside the manufacturing cycle. But you can’t have all management and no one working on production. Nothing will get produced to manage. 

But all in all, I have to give the McLaughlin Show the show of the week for the shows I saw. And they had the most interesting segment by far to me, which was about whether or not Hillary Clinton would quit as Secretary of State and run against Obama in the Democratic primary. Apparently Monica Crowley had written a column in the Washington Times a couple weeks ago where she predicted that Clinton would do just that. Pat Buchanan commented that Clinton “was not brain dead.” 

Crowley’s theory is predicated on the assumption that unemployment would stay really high. McLaughlin had a very complimentary background video which shows how Clinton was working her you know what off, traveling all over the world and getting a lot done, and maintaining a higher approval rating than Obama. 

The reason that Clinton’s approval ratings are high and she is getting things done is that she is a good team player. Obama trusts her and gives her a lot of authority, probably just as he promised when he offered her the cabinet position. And she has delivered. But you can’t jump from that to assuming that if Clinton had been in Obama’s position that she wouldn’t be facing the same challenges.

I do agree with Zuckerman on one thing - that the unemployment rate will have a strong influence on the outcome of the midterm and the re-election campaign cycles. I think it will have to show progress toward the better. The nature of that progress will determine the plus or minus of it on the election. It’s a complex situation, and simple models don’t work.

Half of a Hundred Million is still Fifty Million (and on and on)

It is outrageous how the federal government gave all these hundreds of billions of dollars to big institutions that were deemed "too big to fail." These institutions already had a leg up on the average citizens in terms of purchasing power and insider connections, and their big shot management executives live high on the hog with huge salaries and bonuses - as much in one year that a regular working class family might make in many decades. 

One of the fundamentals of our country is that deserving individuals can accumulate personal wealth for their hard work. OK, fair enough. But how much is enough? Is is moral for someone making hundreds of millions of dollars to get even more when millions of people are trying to live on 30 thousand or less? 

There's a heck of a lot more people out there that make 30 thousand or less than there are that make hundreds of millions. It doesn't seem politically saavy to me for them to be so greedy. But, then again, people that think they deserve that much more than everyone else are not known for their long term thinking - probably one of the reasons why our country has gotten in the economic mess that it has.

So Obama felt he needed to do something. I think he truly felt the outrage that we feel. And while his actions to cut the 7 firms big shot's salaries in half, half of a hundred million is 50 million, half of 10 million is 5 million, and half of a million is 500 thousand. Those are still outrageous figures way out of proportion to what the average American gets paid, even if they do their job well. That is outrageous. I think society needs to continue to shame these people for their out and out greed and lack of concern for their fellow citizens.

Supreme Court needs expanding?

* This is the second reject of the three columns that I wrote to submit to the Washington Post be a pundit contest. I can't show the one that I submitted right now. I hope that I get into the top ten. But the essay below is of a subject that is near and dear to me - the judicial system. Does the Supreme Court need expanding? Duh! But this is an early draft and when I decided to submit the one that I did, I never did finish the others. But going back and reading it, I think it's worth posting.
______________________________________________________________________________

The average citizen just doesn‘t understand the law. A lot of lawyers don‘t understand the law. The everyday education system certainly doesn‘t teach it. We are just told to obey it. And most of us do, as best we can. But what are we obeying?

When thinking about the law in the U.S., just remember, “5 is the magic number.” It only takes 5 people’s opinions to interpret the law for everyone. Five is a majority of the 9 Supreme Court justices - what it takes to issue an order in the Supreme Court. (except for granting “cert,” or deciding to actually hear a case, which takes only 4).

In my opinion, that’s not enough. Maybe it was enough way back when the country was young. But now we have 300 million people from around the world. The Supreme Court needs to have additional members - probably at least 6, to come close to representing the 21st century U.S., but that probably won’t happen. 

In reality, the U.S. needs a lot more judges at all levels of the judicial branch. It is ridiculous not only the lag time between filing and disposition of each level of court, but so are the costs and truncated rules of evidence, especially when you are suing a governmental agency. And isn’t it better to try and solve all of our disputes with a fair, non-violent system? That's civilization, isn't it?

Over the course of a year, thousands of cases that had filed for review by the top court get rejected simply by not getting 4 people to agree to hear the case. That means the ruling below stands. Most of the time it’s a U.S. Appellate Court. 

Appellate Courts have three judge panels that decide cases usually. But the entire courts themselves can have more than a dozen members. On occasion the entire court votes on a case. And there are a lot of combinations and permutations of judges on these courts. Which particular mix is assigned to your case makes a huge difference in the ruling. And if the Supreme Court won’t review it, it stands. 

Our system of justice isn’t that much different than other systems of justice around the world. It is based on sound and fair principles. But it is the degree to which those principles are practiced which determine whether or not the system translates into reality. There is a lot of humanity in that. People need to understand that the law is not black and white at all. It is much more ad hoc than it is black and white. And human nature is what makes that true.

Sunday News Shows

I already had written about the McLaughlin Group on Friday evening, when I first saw it. I watched it again today. I did note that the reporter from the Financial Times name was Krishna, and McLaughlin pandered to him a bit. I still think he came off as arrogant.

The number one thing that I remember from the shows that I watched was a hatchet interview done by Maria Bartiromo of Joey Scarborough. Scarborough took the role not of a journalist, but of the political hack that lies just beneath, if at all, beneath his surface personna as a journalist. 

Scarborough made outrageous comments such as something like, "no one in this administration has any experience in private business, and therefore the administration doesn't know anything about running a business." Bartiromo did no cross examination at all - basically said, "That's interesting, Joe, thanks." 

On Inside Washington, Krauthamer, usually a reliable arch conservative, keeps pushing for a federal law allowing insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines. Not that I think it's an outrageous idea, I basically think it is a good idea. But, it does go against the grain of the typical arch conservative, which chooses state's rights over federal laws whenever possible. In this case, asking for reverse federalism legislation is not befitting of the typical Krauthamer rhetoric. 

There was some talk about women's issues, in the wake of the Shiver report on the state of women in California. One of the findings of the report that I thought was a bit surprising was that children were having their upbringing degraded by families with both parents working. If we had a decent day care system, that wouldn't be a problem. 

There was also some talk about Afghanistan. There were two tidbits that I found interesting. One was from Nina Totenberg, who pointed out that Gen. McChrystal's original request to Obama was for 80,000 more troops into Afghanistan. Krauthamer pointed out that if Obama does not give McChrystal at least 40,000 troops, that he will be forced to resign, because how could he send troops into a situation that he has said isn't safe without additional men? That would create an interesting scenario, and how Obama views that will say a lot about whether he truly represents change.

McLaughlin Group tonight

I continually have to give begrudging credit to Pat Buchanan, presidential candidate, former Nixon aide, conservative columnist, and regular on the McLaughlin Group, for not being afraid to express an opinion outside of what would be considered his "range of historical variability."

Monica Crowley, on the other hand, is a demagogue, always going to take a political stance against the Democrat view. Sometimes even McLaughlin himself can't stomach her views, although he keeps her on, probably because she polls well in focus groups.

Buchanan has a healthy skepticism about the economic recovery. I share that with him. You can't create something out of nothing. Either it's an equilibrium or a bubble or some sort. We're in the bubble phase, still. There is still a lot of debt out there that isn't properly collateralized. There may be premature exhuberance out there which has driven up the market, but gravity has to be considered the predominant force.

As soon as the federal reserve says that interest rates might raise, the stock market is going to dive. But it is nice to a lot of people that it has recovered as well as it has. But as I heard Dick Gregory say, when I was 19, the stock market is "the middle class penny pitching." I do believe that is true. So keep that in mind.

McLaughlin had a new guy, at least one I hadn't seen. He had an Indian sounding name. He was very egotistical, at least Kristi and I both thought so. He's not nearly as good as Clarence Page. But I think McLaughlin is right to bring in new voices now and then. He needs me!