NEW KID ON THE BLOCK

Unsurprisingly, President Obama's first address to a joint session of Congress was a good one... even if I still couldn't shake the reminders of the campaign days. Although, he was conciliatory and refreshingly positive in his outlook, there was nothing new that would warrant me writing much more...

What I found to be relatively impressive - and noteworthy - was the Republican response delivered by the 37-year old Governor of Louisiana. Aside from most of his rhetoric on 'national security' the speech was solid. He started out by highlighting the significance of Obama's presidency and he immediately drew a personal comparison as the son of Indian immigrants. Bobby Jindal then went on to make a number of points that are difficult to argue against. He pointed out the resiliency of the American people (as opposed to the US government) and he lamented the passage of a stimulus bill that many argue comes at far too high a price. He also spoke the truth about healthcare reform - specifically that bureaucrats should not be in a position to tell medical professionals what and what not to do. Sounds pretty reasonable to me...

2012? Probably not.

There is nothing good I can say about our two-party system. But there are some good things to be said about the Republican party. One of the reasons so many progressive people have such a negative view of the Grand Old Party is the racist stigma attached to it. Even if Jindal had what it took to be the next presidential candidate (I don't know enough about the guy yet), there is no way the majority of Republican voters would rally behind him.

For the record - I am not a Republican (not that it would be any worse than being a Democrat). But the fact is that there is good in both parties, which is precisely why we need more than two to choose from. 

WEEK IN REVIEW: FEB 17-20

Another relatively uneventful week... which culminated with Mr. O's 30th day on the job. As numerous observers have remarked, it almost seems as though he is back on the campaign trail trying to muster support. It's worth mentioning that after a month, he still does not have a Secretary of Commerce or a Secretary of Health and Human Services - that is inexcusable. For those who needed it, we were reminded how far we still have to go before overcoming racism. Things haven't been going to well for him lately... no wonder Junius has been so silent!

As in any week, there were a few notable occurrences. Here are some of them:

• With great fanfare, President Obama And Vice President Biden travelled to Denver and signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the 'stimulus' plan). Many people are calling it all a big waste of money which incidentally we don't have. With so much money already going to the people who need it least, Obama sought to reiterate his commitment to those really suffering from the mortgage crisis. For the fourth consecutive week, his video address was dedicated to the economic situation (and the politics behind it). Let's see what happens next...
  
• Obama took his first trip abroad... traveling all the way to Canada. Even in his 'foreign policy' Barack is going to great lengths to prove his commitment to the domestic agenda - Canada and the US are the word's largest trading partners.
  
• Hillary Clinton took her first official trip as Secretary of State. The main purpose of her trip was essentially to beg for help. Too bad we couldn't send someone more likable...
  
• Unsurprisingly, Obama approved a request by the Secretary of Defense for an additional 17,000 troops in Afghanistan. There will be more of them... and more suicide bombings. Of course, US jets continue to make life miserable for Afghanis. 
  
• The White House reminded us all that things haven't really changed that much when it comes to (the lack of) transparency of questionable policies on national security.
  

BAD TASTE

I hesitated to post it, but people need to see the truth (if they haven't already). I can only see two possible explanations for this cartoon: either those behind it are straight up racists, or it was some sort of a pathetic attempt to comment on the idiotic notion of 'post-racialism.' Maybe the fools at the New York Post who allowed this cartoon to be published were conducting some sort of experiment. But probably not.

Protesters took to the street after a worthless apology. Some people are either unwilling or incapable of admitting their flaws. Here is what the editor in chief had to say about it:

The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington’s efforts to revive the economy.

Sounds like a load of crap to me... Whatever their true motives, they must have known it would be offensive to most people. Clearly they did not care. Many of the newspaper's employees are understandably upset.

While the cartoon immediately touched a nerve for me, that would not have been true if W was still president. He was always depicted as some sort of apish buffoon... and that was cool.

I don't see the value in this "politically correct" culture of ours. It only leads to increased naivety and a false sense of reality. Most political cartoonists are feeling the need to be overly cautious. There is a good reason for that - this country is still not over its issues with race. Excessive caution is unfortunate but also understandable. Even I am willing to tolerate it sometimes.

The monkey cartoon is distasteful and it is racist (by US standards), but in an ideal world it would not be a problem. We don't yet live in an ideal world... even if there is a Black man in the White House.

I'd be curious to hear what he has to say about this whole thing.

NO LOVE FOR DAVID RODEARMEL?

A few weeks ago I posted about a State Department employee who filed a lawsuit alleging Hillary Clinton is constitutionally illegible to serve as Secretary of State. Mr Rodearmel seems like an uptight nerd but the guy intrigues me... I wish him well in his current endeavor but I'm not fooling myself. 

While the reasoning behind David's case may be technically sound (it seems to me that it is), as a recent Wall Street Journal article explains, he lacks "standing" so the case is unlikely to make it to court. Here is a brief excerpt:

The idea of standing flows from the Constitution, which grants federal courts jurisdiction over "cases" or "controversies." The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that courts can't give advisory opinions or make policy pronouncements, and only should decide disputes where the plaintiff alleges "concrete" and "particularized" harm, rather than what Justice Antonin Scalia has called "purely psychological displeasure."

I'm no lawyer, but  think I can understand the argument. Still, what mechanisms are in place to rectify constitutional violations, something Hillary Clinton's current position very well may be?

WEEK IN REVIEW: FEB 9-13

In his third full week as president, it seemed as though all Barack Obama's attention was focused on the worsening economic crisis. 37 million viewers tuned into his first primetime press conference where he hoped to drive his message home. It was more exciting than most of his previous appearances as president, but the bar was set pretty low.

There were several other television appearances throughout the week. He smiled for cameras from Indiana to Florida as he sought to reiterate his resolve to the American people. (He also traveled to Illinois to address the workers who help maintain the brutal occupation of Palestinians in the West Bank.)

Fortunately for Obama, his people run Congress - it mattered not that every Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the bill. Things in the Senate were a little more interesting... the vote was held open for over five hours as a handful of staffers waited for Senator Brown to return from his mother's wake to seal the deal.

Understandably, a big deal was made of Lincoln's bicentennial. Obama took to the cameras again and delivered another one of his speeches.

The biggest hit he took came from Republican Senator Judd Gregg who withdrew from consideration for Secretary of Commerce, citing "irresolvable conflicts" with Obama and his polices. Although Bill Richardson stepped away because of a scandal, Gregg left for political reasons further damaging the president's efforts at bi-partisanship. Even if he is planning to exit on a high note, the significance of Gregg's withdrawal should not be underestimated - it served as a rallying point for Republicans and fiscal conservatives of all stripes.

Not much happened on the foreign policy front... The White House must have watched the outcome of the Israeli elections with apprehension... Richard Holbrooke traveled around Afghanistan where he was greeted by a series of suicide bombings... Pakistan also remained in the adminstration's crosshairs... Later in the week, rumors emerged of potential Russian cooperation on the much disputed missile defense shield...

On the national security front, the adminstration began a sweeping cybersecurity review. True to form, the Democrats are getting their hands dirty in all facets of government... I'm not hopeful about this stimulus, especially considering the money needed to pay for it is not available. Either Obama and the nation will emerge victorious when it's all said and done, or his party will screw things up so badly that voters will turn to their other alternative which is equally bad.

We need real change we can believe in...

QUITE A MOUTHFUL

President Obama gave a major press conference on Monday night (prime-time on the east coast). He was discussing the dire straights of the national economy and the steps he feels need to be taken in order to make things better. As the Senate prepares to vote on its version of the stimulus package, Barack took to the airwaves to defend his, and he did so with more passion that usual. Although it was slightly overdue, it was another solid oratory performance. Here are some of the more notable excerpts:

It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs.  And breaking that cycle is exactly what the plan that’s moving through Congress is designed to do... 
 
Tax cuts alone cannot solve all our economic problems – especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few Americans.  We have tried that strategy time and time again, and it has only helped lead us to the crisis we face right now...
 
More than 90% of the jobs created by this plan will be in the private sector... 
 
The plan that ultimately emerges from Congress must be big enough and bold enough to meet the size of the economic challenge we face right now.  It is a plan that is already supported by businesses representing almost every industry in America; by both the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO... It also contains an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability, so that every American will be able to go online and see where and how we’re spending every dime... 
 
My administration inherited a deficit of over $1 trillion, but because we also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression, doing too little or nothing at all will result in an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes; and confidence.  That is a deficit that could turn a crisis into a catastrophe.  And I refuse to let that happen.

A good speech, but not without its flaws. First of all, I don't understand how the government can be the only one that can "break the vicious cycle" we're in. There are many who believe the government was directly to blame for the predicament we find ourselves in today. And although Obama later implied that Republicans and the previous administration were responsible for the mess he inherited, most experts agree that many of the problems began the last time we had a Democrat in office.

Obama justified the size of the bill by saying that it had been approved by businesses of all sectors, and union bodies. Like most 'liberals' the president is major supporter of unions who simply do not represent the American working class as we are intended to believe. Unfortunately, reporters often fail to point that out when given a chance.

As in any press conference, the fun part came when the questions began. Our new president is not as entertaining as his predecessor, but watching him interact with the press is starting to become more amusing.

The first question came from the Associated Press, and it was related to the economy. Obama talked about politicians who are philosophically opposed to any form of government intervention in financial matters. He went on to defend the massive tag on the stimulus package, adding that "it wasn't some random number I just plucked out of a hat." He said that TARP funding should be conditioned on financial restraint, but he provided no clear guidelines as to how that could be achieved. 

A couple other comments on the economy stuck out, such as his claim that "consumer spending did not get us into this mess" but banks taking on major risks. I would't argue with that, but I wouldn't dismiss consumer spending as irrelevant either - there are millions of people who simply bought more than they could afford. Nevertheless, it is ultimately the system that poses the biggest problem, and we aren't hearing of any major efforts to change the fundamental weaknesses in that system. Maybe Tim Geithner will impress, but that seems doubtful. This administration has so much on its plate that it is bound to screw up in some way.

Luckily some of the correspondents took advantage of the opportunity to ask foreign policy questions, most of which were total softballs. Even though it was coated in sugar, we heard the same stuff about Iran that W used to say. We also heard the president reiterate the importance he sees in Afghanistan, calling it a "big challenge" and admitting that he does not know how long he will have troops in there tearing it up. But the highlight of it all came when he called on veteran reporter Helen Thomas. Once again she gave him his toughest challenge and he failed miserably...

Oh well, the focus was on the economy. 

Still, I'm not feeling this president at all right about now.

DISAPPOINTING...?

[UPDATE BELOW]
Today, a DOJ lawyer appearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of President Obama did something which is already upsetting many, many people. For years, liberals fumed over the Bush administration's invocation of the "state secrets privilege" to prevent courts from hearing cases related to its "extraordinary rendition" program, by which the US has turned over detainees for harsh interrogation in other countries. Many tied this program directly to former President Bush, given his shameful policy on the harsh treatment of detainees in American custody, and expected extraordinary new transparency regarding this program once President Obama took office. However, today the DOJ lawyer mentioned above made clear that the government was still invoking the state secrets privilege in seeking the dismissal of a claim related to extraordinary rendition.

This is a real punch to the gut for left-leaners and libertarians who championed Obama. To their minds, his election meant a 180 degree turn from the Bush administration's detention policy, including extraordinary rendition. And justifiably so - Obama was unequivocal in his denunciation of torture and his promise that it would not occur under his administration. This is why his first executive orders closing Guantanamo, ensuring compliance with the Geneva Convention and starting a review of detention policy were so promising. Many will ask why Obama would stop short with extraordinary rendition, a seemingly inhuman practice that should be cast into the waste bin of history along with other Bush-era practices.

Granted. Having not heard the other side of the argument (since the government refuses to give it on national security grounds), this is a deeply troubling decision - one would think that a victim of rendition should get his day in court. A few things should be remembered, though. First: extraordinary rendition was not a policy begun by George W. Bush - it has been used since the early 1990s. As such, rendition is much more of a staple of American foreign policy than liberals may want to admit. Second, a lower federal district court has already reviewed the classified information forming the basis for the DOJ's privilege claim, and found that the claim was well-founded. The lawyer today reminded the Ninth Circuit of this fact:

What the A.C.L.U. is asking, he said, is that the case be allowed to go forward, giving the courts a chance to decide, based on classified information revealed solely to the judge, what should be allowed to be discussed.

But Mr. Letter said that the lower court judge, James Ware, did receive classified information and came to the correct conclusion in dismissing the case last year. He urged the judges to pore over the same material, and predicted “you will understand precisely, as Judge Ware did, why this case can’t be litigated.”

I doubt this is the last we'll hear of this decision. The Ninth Circuit still has to rule on the ACLU's appeal of dismissal, and should they affirm (as I expect they will), there is little doubt that the ACLU will file an appeal with the Supreme Court.

For my part, ambivalence is the word of the day. I'm hesitant to really call Obama out on this. Yes, it certainly does not fit with his campaign rhetoric, and that's unfortunate. But on the other hand, campaigning and governing are two different things, and I'm inclined to trust the Obama administration when they say that the state secrets privilege is genuinely necessary in this case. Plus, this decision doesn't mean that rendition is actually ongoing (though whether it is is anyone's guess) - it simply means that a case involving rendition will not be heard by the courts. I hope the administration has an extremely good reason for this, and further, I hope that it decides to terminate an egregious and hypocritical practice which, along with even worse abuses by the Bush administration, has tarnished America's reputation in the world.

UPDATE: Marc Ambinder over at the Atlantic had an excellent article today about why the Obama administration made this call. The explanation is exactly what one would expect out of an administration that, so far, has shown itself to be prudent, patient and practical. A quick summary:

Officials decided that it would be imprudent to reverse course so abruptly because they realized they didn't yet have a full picture of the intelligence methods and secrets that underlay the privilege's assertions, because the privilege might correctly protect a state secret, and because the domino effect of retracting it could harm legitimate cases, both civil and criminal, that are already in progress.

"If you decide today precipitously to waive this privilege, you can't get it back," an administration official said. "If you decide to assert it, you can always retract it in the future."

WEEK IN REVIEW: FEB 2-6

Without a doubt, the honeymoon is over...
President Obama's third week in office seemed to have been his worst yet. He had been hoping to push his monstrous stimulus package through Congress. There was some 'progress' early on, but after a very long Friday, the Senate adjourned after having accomplished nothing of any real significance. It seems there is no shortage of problems with the proposed legislation; it is a weak attempt at a quick fix with potentially devastating long-term consequences. Barack stepped up the rhetoric in an effort to get the bill approved. Something is likely to pass next week... then we can start looking into the issues affecting its implementation.

But concerns over the ECONOMY were not limited to the stimulus bill:

• Obama is going to need all the help he can get, and on Friday he named an economic advisory panel to do just that. Another speech...
• In a move that received mixed reviews, the president announced that executives whose companies are receiving federal aid will have their salaries capped at $500,000. Personally, I think that figure is a little bit high... and undeserved (to say the least).
• Perhaps the most disappointing act pertaining to the economy was the executive order backing the use of union labor for all large-scale federal construction projects. It's worth noting that over 80% of construction workers are not unionized... but I guess that doesn't matter to a Democratic politician who received over a billion dollars in campaign contributions from labor unions. It's also worth pointing out that this was a resurrection of an order from the Clinton administration that W had scrapped.

There were several other important developments that are not directly related to the economy and the current financial crisis:

• Bad HUMAN RESOURCES continued to plague Obama's growing administration. The latest casualties were the nominees for Secretary of Health and Human Services as well as Chief Performance Officer. It wasn't Tom Daschle's bad taste in glasses that cost him the job but his failure to properly pay his taxes; the same was true for Nancy Killefer. The president did the very least he could do by admitting he made a mistake. It seems as though we have yet to see the end of this drama - Obama's pick for Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis is now under scrutiny as well. On the more promising side of things, the new nominee for Secretary of Commerce is a Republican; he replaces another one of Obama's picks who was forced to keep it moving...
• There was marginal progress on the HEALTHCARE front despite the Daschle setback. After the House approved the legislation, President Obama signed a new bill that extends health insurance coverage to millions of children from low-income families. This was an initiative W shot down at least twice during his eight years in office. In some other good news, the president tried to hold the miserable FDA accountable for failing to do its job.
  
• One of the issues that needs serious attention is EDUCATION. Obama must have had that in mind when he and his wife visited a DC charter school where they read to a second grade class. The president had a lot of good things to say about charter schools during the campaign so his choice of venue was not surprising, nor were his remarks when it was all said and done. Maybe next time the Obamas can go to a rundown DC public school where learning (and teaching) is a real challenge. Unfortunately, it seems that education is not a real priority for the US government.
• RELIGION continued to play a central role in the life and times of our new president. Thursday February 5th started with a National Prayer Service where the despicable Tony Blair delivered the keynote address. President Obama also spoke and explained what he hoped to achieve in establishing the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (a remixed version of W's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives). Later on in the day he announced that the department would be headed by Joshua DuBois, a 26 year old pastor who found his calling after the murder of Amadou Diallo. As a 17-year old freshman in college, he stood in front of the MLK monument in Boston for 41 hours - one hour for each bullet. He seems like a good guy...
• Attention shifted to the SUPREME COURT early in the week when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disclosed her treatment for pancreatic cancer. Her openness was exemplary, but she plans to return to the bench in a couple weeks. Even if she does end up stepping down, the court's makeup would not change much - she is one of the most liberal of the justices and it is highly unlikely that Obama would appoint another Clarence Thomas.
• FOREIGN POLICY & NATIONAL SECURITY remained high on the new administration's list of priorities. After the Department of Defense finally dropped charges against the alleged mastermind of the USS Cole bombing - bringing the department in compliance with Obama's executive order calling on all proceedings at GITMO to be suspended - he met with family members of the attack and 9/11 to assure them that his administration had only pushed pause on prosecuting the bad guys. In an effort to maximize maneuverability, officials also announced that two different withdrawal plans were being considered for Iraq. Of course, the new quagmire is likely to be in Afghanistan (and Pakistan).
• Finally, in a bit of good news for the ENVIRONMENT (and US consumers), the president ordered the Department of Energy to set new effiency standards for most household appliances.
  

WHO IS DAVID RODEARMEL?

On Thursday, a self styled "non-partisan educational foundation" filed a lawsuit on behalf of a right-wing State Department employee claiming that Hillary Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State. David Rodearmel says serving under her would go against the oath he took as a foreign service officer to uphold the Constitution of the United States. In a statement he said:

"This is not a partisan, political or personal issue... I have faithfully served under six prior Secretaries of State of both parties… As a commissioned State Department Foreign Service Officer, a retired Army Reserve Judge Advocate Officer, and as a lawyer, I consider it my Constitutional duty to bring this case to the court."

While I have to give this guy his props for trying to take down Hill-dog (his efforts will probably be futile) something about him rubs me the wrong way. Still, I'll be watching for him in the unlikely event he does anything more than dig himself into a hole of irrelevance. I wonder what he hopes to accomplish other than gain favor with the Republican community.

The group who is helping Rodearmel out (it's probably the other way around) is none other than Judicial Watch - the same organization that came to fame when it filed over a dozen unsuccessful lawsuits against the Clintons during the last Democrat administration. More recently, they attempted to stifle the confirmation of Eric Holder, and they tried ludicrously to challenge Obama's rights to be president. This is the same group who sued a Virginia city to stop a day laborer program on the grounds that it provides employment for illegal immigrants. The group has also filed lawsuits against people like Dick Cheney. Its list of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" is an interesting list of asses and elephants.

The case against Clinton will be fun if it ever gets to court (read more about it here, and scroll down to read some of the nutty comments). Judge Reggie Walton will preside.  In an ideal world he will prevent Hillary from doing any more damage to the face of the nation than her predecessor and her boss. Too bad we don't live in an ideal world...

Hopefully, we'll get to see Mr Rodearmel in action at the very least. I have a feeling we'll be disappointed.