Who is Alinsky and Why is He Inside a Bubble?

 

On his HBO show, Real Time, which was broadcast on January 27, 2012, Bill Mahr questioned the most bizarre lines of attack by Newt Gingrich and the GOP/Tea Party talking heads, against liberals and President Obama. Gingrich's recent rally cry that is being leveled against Obama is accusing him of being a "Saul Alinsky radical."

So, Bill Maher wants to know, "Who the F#@K is Saul Alinsky?" A Wikipedia search determined that Alinsky was a beloved and influential community organizer with zero communist ties. Alinsky is best known for being a civil rights advocate in the 1950s.


The Republicans are running against a fictional Obama, a radical and socialist political figure who has no basis in actual policy or even personal association, as the Alinsky charges demonstrate: Alinsky died when Obama was ten.


Based on fictional misrepresentations, the GOP/Tea Party can create a fictional candidate to run against.


This is how politics has changed. You used to run against an actual president. But now you just recreate him inside the bubble and run against your new fictional candidate.

WATCH:

GOP Lies and the Untold Truth

Robert Reich says that if the GOP keeps telling the same lies over and over, eventually they will become the truth. In Reich's article, The Republican's Big Lies About Jobs (And Why Obama Must Repudiate Them), he says that without the Democrats or President Obama coming out to tell the truth, the lies will become fact.

And if all others accepted the lie which the party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became the truth.

– George Orwell, 1984 (published in 1949)

But truth doesn’t seem to matter. Republicans figure if their big lies are repeated often enough, people will start to believe them.

Unless, that is, those big lies are repudiated – and big truths are told in their place.

What worries me almost as much as the Republican’s repeated big lies about jobs is the silence of President Obama and Democratic leaders in the face of them. Obama has the bully pulpit. Republicans don’t. But if he doesn’t use it the Republican’s big lies gain credibility.

Here are some other whoppers being repeated daily:

“Cutting the federal deficit will create jobs.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was in town yesterday (specifically, at Stanford’s Hoover Institute where he could surround himself with sympathetic Republicans) to tell this whopper: “Cutting the federal deficit will create jobs.”

It’s not true. Cutting the deficit will create fewer jobs. Less government spending reduces overall demand. This is particularly worrisome when, as now, consumers and businesses are still holding back. Fewer government workers have paychecks to buy stuff from other Americans, some of whom in turn will lose their jobs without enough customers.

“Cutting taxes on the rich creates jobs.”

Nope. Trickle-down economics has been tried for thirty years and hasn’t worked. After George W. Bush cut taxes on the rich, far fewer jobs were created than after Bill Clinton raised them in the 1990s.

To his credit, President Obama argued against Republican demands for extending the Bush tax cut for those making more than a quarter million. But as soon as Republicans pushed back he caved. And the President hasn’t even mentioned that the $61 billion Republicans are demanding in budget cuts this fiscal year is what richer Americans would have paid in taxes had he not caved.

“Cutting corporate income taxes creates jobs.”

Baloney. American corporations don’t need tax cuts. They’re sitting on over $1.5 trillion of cash right now. They won’t invest it in additional capacity or jobs because they don’t see enough customers out there with enough money in their pockets to buy what the additional capacity would produce.

The President needs to point this out – not just in Washington but across the nation where Republican governors are slashing corporate taxes and simultaneously cutting school budgets. President Obama says he wants to invest in American skills, but many states are doing the opposite. Florida Governor Rick Scott, for example, says his proposed corporate tax cuts “will give Florida a competitive edge in attracting jobs.” They’ll also require education spending be reduced by $3 billion. Florida already ranks near the bottom in per-pupil spending and has one of nation’s lowest graduation rates. If Scott’s tax cuts create jobs, most will pay peanuts.

“Cuts in wages and benefits create jobs.”

Congressional Republicans and their state counterparts repeat this lie incessantly. It also lies behind corporate America’s incessant demand for wage and benefit concessions – and corporate and state battles against unions. But it’s dead wrong. Meager wages and benefits are reducing the spending power of tens of millions of American workers, which is prolonging the jobs recession.

President Obama and Democratic leaders should be standing up for the wages and benefits of ordinary Americans, standing up for unions, and decrying the lie that wage and benefit concessions are necessary to create jobs. The President should be traveling to the Midwest – taking aim at Republican governors in the heartland who are hell bent on destroying the purchasing power of American workers. But he’s doing nothing of the sort.

“Regulations kill jobs.”

Congressional Republicans are using this whopper to justify their attempts to defund regulatory agencies. Regulations whose costs to business exceed their benefits to the public are unwarranted, of course, but reasonable regulation is necessary to avoid everything from nuclear meltdowns to oil spills to mine disasters to food contamination – all of which we’ve sadly witnessed. Here again, we’re hearing little from the President or Democratic leaders.

Look, the President can’t be everywhere, doing everything. There’s tumult in the Middle East, we’re suddenly at war in Libya, Japan is struggling with the aftermath of disaster, and surely Latin America is an important trading partner.

But nothing is more central to average Americans than jobs and wages. Unless the President forcefully rebuts Republican’s big lies, they’ll soon become conventional wisdom.

Tell the President and your Congressional leaders that this country was not built on lies. Revising history, creating chaos and undermining truth is the path to ignorance.

Gingrich Flip-Flop

Conservative Media Nuttiness

Media Matters for America has put together a road guide to the insane comments that conservative media has proffered in creating fear and loathing against the president of the U.S.A., Barack Obama. In the article, "Summer of rage": Obama Derangement Syndrome grips conservative media once again, the following categories are delineated and attributed to Obama: anti-government speech, civil war, undermining and destroying U.S., mental state, collusion with Russians, prolonging crisis in Gulf, controlling everything, one world government and running a "thugocracy."

In recent weeks, conservative media have been consumed by "Obama Derangement Syndrome," accusing President Obama of being insane, of colluding with Russian spies, of trying to create a civil war and implement one world government, among other things, while also claiming that his administration is trying to control everything under the sun, including the Internet and, inexplicably, your toilet.

Conservative media ratchet up anti-government speech

On the June 10 edition of his Fox News show, Glenn Beck turned to his blackboard, on which he had outlined his theory that "the politicians [had] joined with the revolutionaries so they could gain power," and said that now is the "time to break apart" that conspiracy. He then warned his viewers that the "summer of rage is about to begin." Other conservative media figures, including Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Jay Severin, and Pam Geller, have similarly elevated their anti-government rhetoric to new heights, not only spewing baseless facts and utter falsehoods, but alluding to violent revolution and civil war, all to attack and undermine the Obama administration and progressives.

Media Matters previously documented the violent, doomsday, and anti-intellectual rhetoric that had arisen in the conservative media just a few months after Obama was sworn in as president, in which conservative media figures appealed overtly, just as today, to feelings of anger and paranoia in their audience. At the time, David Horowitz dubbed this particular "hysteria" the "Obama Derangement Syndrome."

Conservative media: Obama is "trying to create a civil war"

Conservative media figures have been warning of the coming "rivers of blood" and that Obama is pushing America toward civil war.

Geller: Obama "is itching for a civil war. And at the rate he is going, he is going to get one"

Beck still beating war drums: "I think we're headed for a civil war"

Beck suggests Obama is "trying to destroy the country" and is pushing America toward civil war

Limbaugh on LA's Arizona boycott: "This is the kind of stuff that starts civil wars folks; this is not coincidental"

Savage: "I almost feel as though Obama's trying to create a civil war in America for his own reasons"

"You need to riot": Right-wing uses violent rhetoric

Conservative media: Obama is undermining U.S., wants to cut it "down to size" and destroy it

Conservative media figures have accused Obama of trying to destabilize and destroy the United States, as well as its economy and social systems.

Limbaugh distorts Obama's remarks to accuse him of wanting to cut U.S. "down to size"

Limbaugh: Obama "thinks the problem with this country has been too much liberty"

Pushing falsehoods about oil spill, Quinn declares: "Barack Obama was sent here to destroy America"

Quinn: "Yes," Obama is "trying to destroy the country"

Limbaugh: Freedom evaporating "right in front of our eyes," Obama "loves punishing this country"

Savage sub Kuhner: Obama "is a dictator," wants to "destroy corporate America and create a green socialist utopia"

Conservative media discuss Obama's mental state

Much like conservative media figures did months ago when they discussed Obama's mental state, alleging that "something is not right" and that Obama has "deep psychological problems" and "deep-seated inferiority feelings," they have once again turned to psychoanalyzing Obama.

War Room fill-in Glen Meakem cites Krauthammer to say Obama is "a clinically diagnosable narcissist"

Savage compares Obama to allegedly insane King Ludwig II of Bavaria

Conservative media: Obama may be a Russian spy, in collusion with Russians

Since the FBI arrested 11 people it suspects of being Russian undercover spies, conservative media have speculated that Obama is "one of them" and have asked why the Russians "have to spy on us" considering "Obama will tell them anything they want to know." Limbaugh has also said Obama "wants to expand" the rights of Russian spies.

Severin: "If it comes out that Barack Obama is" a Russian spy, "I will have been right"

Limbaugh: "Why do they [Russians] have to spy on us? Obama will tell them anything they want to know"

Limbaugh: Obama "wants to create an illegal alien bill of rights," "always wants to expand" rights of terrorists, spies

Conservative media: Obama wants the disaster in the Gulf to push through agenda

Conservative media figures have pushed falsehoods and wild allegations in claiming that Obama is intentionally prolonging the crisis in the Gulf, in order to, among other things, push his cap and trade agenda and "shut down" offshore drilling.

Savage on his "wild allegations": "Haven't you watched enough movies to understand how this works?"

Levin repeats Jones Act & foreign aid myths, says Obama would better respond to disaster in blue states

Beck conspiracy theory: Obama waited 71 days to accept intl. help with oil spill in order to pass cap and trade

Beck: "It's almost like we're intentionally making things much, much worse" in the Gulf of Mexico

Savage's "logical" analysis calls for investigating Obama to determine whether he "purposely did not help Louisiana"

Bolling wonders if Obama "let" oil rig leak so he "could renege on his promise" to "allow some offshore drilling"

Michael Brown on Fox News: Obama wanted oil spill so he could "shut down" offshore drilling

"Sabotage!" Right-wing media respond to oil spill by dreaming up conspiracy theories

Conservative media: Obama administration vying to control everything including Internet, "your toilet"

Conservative media have been saying that the federal government is in the process of taking over everything -- from companies, to the Internet, to "your toilet," and that it is trying to control not only the people but the information in an endless "power grab."

Levin's bizzare rant: The "iron fist" of government "is in your toilet, it's in your light socket"

Beck suggests "internet kill switch" is communist because Chinese government has similar authority

Levin says government "would take us off the air in a second" -- "They're picking us off one industry at a time"

Beck falsely claims financial reform bill would let government shut down Fox News

Fox's Payne calls financial reform bill a "giant power grab"

Severin repeats falsehood that financial reform bill lets government "take over any business" that might hurt economy

Fox's Napolitano on conspiracy show: Government wants the same "power over the internet that the Chinese" have

Beck fears gov't "will need to control the people" because they'll be "hungry," "frightened, and there will be civil unrest"

Beck falsely claims government will take control of Internet, tells listeners to "buy a short-wave radio"

Limbaugh claims Obama, Kagan, and Sunstein want "forced neutrality" to make sure you're reading their "garbage"

Sunstein Internet control falsehood migrates to Fox

Beck: "Stuff is being scrubbed" from the Internet "overnight"

Beck says the FCC is "marching forward" with net neutrality plans, suggests it's putting a "boot on your throat"

Beck on net neutrality: "This will control every aspect of the Internet ... We are losing our country"

Beck scares about net neutrality, says "please share that with your friends" "while you have access to the Internet"

Beck renews witch hunt: Sunstein has "more power than the Fed," "will control your every move"

Conservative media: Obama is working toward one world government

Conservative media figures have been fomenting fear that Obama is pushing the United States toward a "new world order" and trying to institute a "global government" and a "single [world] currency."

Limbaugh: Obama is "all for a single [world] currency"

Drudge links Greek debt story with "New World Order"

Without offering any evidence, Beck claims Clinton Global Initiative is about "global government"

Encouraging viewers to use their "imagination," Beck links health care, "overspending," and "global government"

Beck: "A new world order" and "global government" is "being cobbled together today"

Black helicopter alert! Conservative media suggest Obama supporting one-world government

Conservative media: Obama is a thug running a "thugocracy"

Conservative media figures have falsely claimed Obama's proposal for a BP escrow account amounts to "seizing private assets" and letting the administration "run the money" and have accused Obama of being a "thug" running a "thugocracy."

Conservative media defend BP against "shakedowns," "show trials," and environmentalists at least 62 times

Limbaugh: The way Obama is dealing with BP is "far more than thugocracy," it's "straight out of Communist Manifesto"

Stossel Repeats 'Shakedown' Claim Against Obama, Calls Him 'Thuggish'

Limbaugh: Hugo Chavez "is a thug, but unlike Mr. Obama, he's a patriotic thug"

Savage: If the country survives Obama, historians will say his was "the most terroristic regime in the history" of the U.S.

Fox lobs falsehoods to attack BP escrow account as "Chavez-like"

Limbaugh: Obama administration is "going after Toyota" through "thug politics"

Stossel says escrow fund is a "thuggish Chicago shakedown," refers to "Vladimir Obama"

Limbaugh: "If I didn't know better, I would say that Hugo Chavez is actually running this country"

It is a shame that mainstream journalism doesn't call out these wild allegations as nothing more than fear mongering and lies.

A Thinking President

Via Think Progress: A Novel Idea

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, one of 47 world leaders gathering for the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, D.C., appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America to relay his country’s concerns ahead of the summit. During one point in the interview, host George Stephanopoulos asked Medvedev what he thought of President Obama. The Russian leader coyly replied that he believed Obama distinguishes himself from “many other people” — presumably former President Bush — by being “a thinker”:

Watch it:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve now met President Obama many times, at least fifteen meetings and phone calls –

MEDVEDEV: Sixteen times.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Sixteen, OK, I knew it was fifteen, I wasn’t sure about sixteen. What do you make of Barack Obama the man?

MEDVEDEV: [Obama] is a very comfortable partner. It’s very interesting to be with him. The most important thing that distinguishes him from many other people, I won’t name anyone by name, he’s a thinker. He thinks when he speaks.

STEPHANOPOULOS: (laughing) You have somebody in your mind, I think!

MEDVEDEV: Obviously I do have someone on my mind, I don’t want to offend anyone.

A worldwide poll taken last month found that the Obama administration’s global approving rating is 51 percent, a 17 percent jump from the Bush administration’s approval rating during its last year. (HT: Raw Story)

“What You See is What You Want to See.”

Frank Rich has an interesting Op-Ed, "It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's Obama."

NOT since Clark Kent changed in a phone booth has there been an instant image makeover to match Barack Obama’s in the aftermath of his health care victory. “He went from Jimmy Carter to F.D.R. in just a fortnight,” said one of the “Game Change” authors, Mark Halperin, on MSNBC. “Look at the steam in the man’s stride!” exclaimed Chris Matthews. “Is it just me, or does Barack Obama seem different since health care passed?” wrote Peter Beinart in The Daily Beast, which, like The Financial Times, ran an illustration portraying the gangly president as a newly bulked-up Superman. [...]

But has the man really changed — or is it just us? [...]

Depending on where you stand — or the given day — he is either an overintellectual, professorial wuss or a ruthless Chicago machine pol rivaling the original Boss Daley. He is either a socialist redistributing wealth to the undeserving poor or a tool of Wall Street’s Goldman Sachs elite. He is a terrorist-coddling, A.C.L.U.-tilting lawyer or a closet Cheneyite upholding the worst excesses of the Bush administration’s end run on the Constitution. He is a lightweight celebrity who’s clueless without a teleprompter or a Machiavellian mastermind who has ingeniously forged his Hawaiian birth certificate, covered up his ties to Islamic radicals and bamboozled the entire mainstream press. He is the reincarnation of J.F.K., L.B.J., F.D.R., Reagan, Hitler, Stalin, Adlai Stevenson or Nelson Mandela. (Funny how few people compared George W. Bush to anyone but Hitler and his parents.) [...]

As far back as 2004 — when Obama was still in the Illinois Senate — a writer at The Chicago Tribune, Don Terry, framed what remains the prevailing Obama takeaway to this day. “He’s a Rorschach test,” Terry wrote. “What you see is what you want to see.” [...]

What’s clear is that Obama largely remains a fixed point even while the rest of us keep wildly revising our judgments, whether looking at him through the prism of partisan politics, race, media melodrama or any other we choose. It’s our recession-tossed country, not his presidency, that is rocked by violent mood swings.

Read the complete article HERE.

Where Does the Blame Lie?

Les Leopold has an interesting perspective of who to blame for the the loss in Massachusetts. He says that the initial blame might fall on Obama but that progressives need some introspection in order to see that they didn't do enough.

The Obama administration bears much of the responsibility for the debacle in Massachusetts. It didn't go hard enough against Wall Street, and it didn't recognize the depth and breadth of the jobs crisis -- and the connection between the two.

But don't stop there. Much of the failure also rests with the progressive community which is clueless about how to respond to our new billionaire bailout society.

Over the past thirty years we've gone from a quasi-social democratic/capitalist economy to a full-fledged billionaire bailout society whose primary purpose is to maintain the wealth and prominence of a tiny handful of elites, even if it means raiding the national treasury to protect, restore and enhance its riches. [...]

When it all came crashing down, we still didn't realize, until too late, that that we had entered a new billionaire bailout society. The crash should have produced immediate investigations and drastic reforms. The big bankers were on their knees groveling for funds. That was the time to address "too big to fail" by breaking them up so they never again could crash the entire system.

It didn't happen. It's still not happening.

Instead, we bailed them out without asking for anything significant in return. [...]

To drive home the reality of what a billionaire bailout society really means, the biggest banks, (which are still major beneficiaries of billions of dollars of public largess even after they payback TARP) are declaring near record profits and bonuses again while nearly 30 million people are without jobs or forced into part-time work. And to rub it in, the banks are using their new found wealth to lobby against any and all reforms that might stand in their way. (Isn't it nice to see the stock market rally as Obama's reform agenda is further wounded?)

What did progressives do? What are they doing now?

Not nearly enough. We put our faith in Obama and now are moaning about how he failed to take on Wall Street and the insurance giants. We concentrated on shaping the health care bill, but did little to shape the outrage against Wall Street and the anxiety about job loss.

The moment was missed. The American public truly became outraged at the Wall Street rip offs, but progressives failed to mobilize on Main Street. Instead the terrain was abdicated to the Tea Party, a loose collection of right wing populists who stirred up a potent brew of anti-Obama, anti-government resentments and anti-Wall Street anger.

In a matter of months the Tea Party has gained more popular appeal than either of the two parties. Unbelievably, it is becoming the party of Main Street. [...]

Where is all that new progressive Internet organizing that was supposed reshape American politics? Where is that virtual mass movement that supposedly got Obama elected? Did we expect to tweet our way into reforming Wall Street? [...]

Unfortunately, the crisis also is revealing how tied progressive are to the Democratic establishment, and how meek our protests seem, just when our nation most needs our loudest voices and most spirited reforms.

Another example of a lost moment. Progressives waited for Obama. The wait is over. It is time to mobilize and set a new course.

Matt Taibbi on Obama’s Economy

Obama’s Big Sellout




Via Rolling Stone

In “Obama’s Big Sellout”, Matt Taibbi argues that President Obama has packed his economic team with Wall Street insiders intent on turning the bailout into an all-out giveaway. Rather than keeping his progressive campaign advisers on board, Taibbi says Obama gave key economic positions in the White House to the very people who caused the economic crisis in the first place. Taibbi also points to the ties Obama’s appointees have to one main in particular: Bob Rubin, the former Goldman Sachs co-chairman who served as Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton.

The full story is now available online here. — Rolling Stone

The Hope of Change has Fizzled....

Birthers, Jewthers, Whatever

Andy Borowitz says, Look who's Jewish now!

Obama Gives Hanukkah Wishes in Hebrew; Birthers now Claim He Was Born in Israel

Birth Certificate Reads 'Baruch Shmobama'

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) - President Barack Obama's decision to wish Jews around the world a happy Hanukkah in Hebrew has added more fuel to the movement of the so-called Birthers, who now claim that Mr. Obama was born in Israel.

Orly Taitz, a leading Birther spokesperson, told CNN today that she had in her possession a birth certificate for Mr. Obama that was issued in Tel Aviv.

"If you look at the birth certificate, you will see the name he was born with, Baruch Shmobama," she said.

Promises, Pressures and Busted Banks



Originally published on Friday, November 13, 2009

Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank."

We still have troops in Iraq while we are increasing our troops in Afghanistan. So much for campaign promises. Barack, I am disappointed!

Obama is not the problem. We are!

Chris Hedges is fed up with liberals. He thinks Liberals are Useless.

Liberals are a useless lot. They talk about peace and do nothing to challenge our permanent war economy. They claim to support the working class, and vote for candidates that glibly defend the North American Free Trade Agreement. They insist they believe in welfare, the right to organize, universal health care and a host of other socially progressive causes, and will not risk stepping out of the mainstream to fight for them. The only talent they seem to possess is the ability to write abject, cloying letters to Barack Obama—as if he reads them—asking the president to come back to his “true” self. This sterile moral posturing, which is not only useless but humiliating, has made America’s liberal class an object of public derision.

I am not disappointed in Obama. I don’t feel betrayed. I don’t wonder when he is going to be Obama. [...] He has been skillfully packaged as the new face of the corporate state. I don’t dislike Obama—I would much rather listen to him than his smug and venal predecessor—though I expected nothing but a continuation of the corporate rape of the country. And that is what he has delivered. [...]

The gravest danger we face as a nation is not from the far right, although it may well inherit power, but from a bankrupt liberal class that has lost the will to fight and the moral courage to stand up for what it espouses.

Anyone who says he or she cares about the working class in this country should have walked out on the Democratic Party in 1994 with the passage of NAFTA. And it has only been downhill since. If welfare reform, the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, which gutted the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act—designed to prevent the kind of banking crisis we are now undergoing—and the craven decision by the Democratic Congress to continue to fund and expand our imperial wars were not enough to make you revolt, how about the refusal to restore habeas corpus, end torture in our offshore penal colonies, abolish George W. Bush’s secrecy laws or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of American citizens?

The imperial projects and the corporate state have not altered under Obama. The state kills as ruthlessly and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury as rapaciously to enrich the corporate elite. It, too, bows before the conservative Israel lobby, refuses to enact serious environmental or health care reform, regulate Wall Street, end our relationship with private mercenary contractors or stop handing obscene sums of money, some $1 trillion a year, to the military and arms industry. At what point do we stop being a doormat? At what point do we fight back? We may lose if we step outside the mainstream, but at least we will salvage our self-esteem and integrity. [...]

If liberals had even a bit of their fortitude we could have avoided this mess. But they don’t. So here we are again, begging Obama to be Obama. He is Obama. Obama is not the problem. We are.

Whether you agree with Hedges or not, it is fair to say that being a Democrat does not equate with being a liberal or a progressive. The Blue Dog or 'conserative' Democrats exemplify that point. Not only are they useless when it comes to liberal/progressive values but they are antithetical to the concept.

Add to the equation, the supposedly 'liberal' Democrats who don't stand up for what they say they believe in. They don't fight for the values they say they represent. They don't support the issues that are important to their constituents. Democracy is about representation. When our representatives fail us, then the system fails us.

The Cool Media Views Obama

Have you been wondering why the media has been cool about Obama's China trip. Actually, The Mahablog has pondered, How the Liberal Media Behaves With Abject Obsequiousness to Barack Obama.

By James Fallows, who lived and worked in China and Japan for many years: “Barack Obama’s recent swing through Asia was a relative success, and certainly nothing like the disaster that most U.S. coverage implied.” And in a more recent post, Fallows says the press corps is guilty of distorting reality by “compressing every complex issue into the narrative of the DC-based ‘horse race.’”

Fallows quoted Alexandra Fenwick in the Columbia Journalism Review:

In almost every analysis of the trip, Chinese officials were portrayed as optimistic and newly emboldened to stand up to American interests and Obama was cast in the role of the meek debtor, standing with hat in hand. The line is that little was achieved and Obama was stifled, literally by state television and figuratively by the Chinese upper hand in the power dynamic.

… that negative narrative failed to take several things into account: the strict Chinese image control that doesn’t allow the sort of media celebrity that Obama enjoys elsewhere in the world; progress made in backroom diplomatic discussions; Obama’s stated objectives; and his quiet diplomatic style that doesn’t produce the kind of sound bytes that a scorekeeping-focused press Washington press corps feeds on.

Fenwick interviewed former New York Times Shanghai bureau chief Howard French, who basically said the reporting on the Asian trip sucked out loud. “Everything is shot through this prism of short-term political calculation as opposed to thinking seriously about stuff,” he said.

See also Trish Durkin at The Week. In brief, she says the idea that Obama somehow failed to obtain anything was based on the erroneous idea that there was anything that could have been obtained on one trip.

Last but not least, there is the bupkuss factor: the consenus that Obama, poor jerk, has come away with nothing. No breakthroughs. No deals. Not even an Oprah “a-ha” moment. It’s as if everybody thinks that some concrete public concession on at least one of the biggies — carbon emissions or political reform or North Korea — is something a U.S. president just can’t leave China without, like a silk robe or a ceramic tea set.

But in reality, it’s not like that. Every key element of the Sino-American relationship is too big and too convoluted for the thumbs-up/thumbs-down approach to apply.

So, relax, everybody. Obama came, he charmed, he left. And for now, that’s perfectly fine.

It is truly interesting how journalism has become a showcase for mediocre. If any of these "news folks" did a little bit of homework and looked at the reality of the politics then maybe another viewpoint would rise above the underlying right-wing hype of putting down Obama.

Czar In, Czar Out

The GOP has been very vocal about the danger of Obama's Czars. Numerous Republican Senators and Representatives have commented that the use of Czars by Obama is extremely detrimental to the democracy of this country.

Rep Eric Cantor (R-VA): “Vesting such broad authority in the hands of people not subjected to Senate confirmation and congressional oversight poses a grave threat to our system of checks and balances…the current administration has more czars than Imperial Russia.” [Washington Post, 7/30/09 ]

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT): “The president's decision to expand the executive branch and bypass cabinet officers with a group of presidential assistants given the title of ‘czars' undermines the Constitution.” [Sen. Bennett Press Release, 9/15/09 ]

Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kit Bond (R-MO), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Bob Bennett (R-UT): Six GOP Senators Wrote A Letter To White House Requesting The Authority, Qualifications And Transparency Of 18 Czars Appointment By The Obama Administration. “The creation of ‘czars,' particularly within the Executive Office of the President, circumvents the constitutionally established process of ‘advise and consent,' [and] greatly diminishes the ability of Congress to conduct oversight and hold officials accountable.” [Politico, 9/16/09]

The GOP apparently has short term amnesia. President George W. Bush had appointed a total of 47 "czars" during his administration. Click HERE for a list.

What exactly is a 'czar'. It is a policy adviser to the President. Since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt (1933–1945) all U.S.Presidents, with the exception of John Kennedy, have appointed czars.

For a historical perspective, NPR's Andrea Seabrook and Michele Norris explored the history of the term "czar" in American politics. The show aired in May, 2007 after the appointment of Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute as President Bush's so-called "war czar" for Iraq and Afghanistan. Apparently, the term first surfaced in reference to Second Bank of the United States president Nicholas Biddle in 1832.

SEABROOK: And as Mr. Cordesman stated more recently, John Love became the first energy czar under President Nixon in 1973, followed in 1989 by President Reagan's drug czar, William Bennett. There's been lots of U.S. czars since then right up to food safety czar, David Atchison, who took office this month.

NORRIS: Well, it turns out that the government czars don't particularly appreciate the term.

SEABROOK: Hurricane Katrina recovery czar Edward Blakely, former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

NORRIS: And as we mentioned, President Bush avoids using the term czar. He's called General Lute the full-time manager for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Obama White House has recently issued a "Reality Check" on this issue:

Just to be clear, the job title "czar" doesn’t exist in the Obama Administration. Many of the officials cited by conservative commentators have been confirmed by the Senate. Many hold policy jobs that have existed in previous Administrations. And some hold jobs that involved coordinating the work of agencies on President Obama’s key policy priorities: health insurance reform, energy and green jobs, and building a new foundation for long-lasting economic growth.

The DNC National Press Secretary Hari Sevugan issued a statement in response to the Republican critics.

"Most telling of the credibility of these attacks is that they come from the same Republican party that didn't utter a peep about the 47 documented czars in the Bush administration even when the so called 'abstinence czar' was caught soliciting. They come from the same Republican party that, not satisfied with the number of czars in the Bush Administration, asked for the creation of additional czars on multiple occasions. They come from the same Republican party that themselves served as czars in the Bush administration. In leveling these ludicrous attacks, Republicans have crowned themselves the czars of hypocrisy."

The DNC also put together a fun video on You Tube showing how Glenn Beck has exploited this issue. Everytime Beck counts an Obama "Czar" a picture of that czar from the Bush Administration is shown.

Watch Dancing with the Czars:

Acting Like Jerks

It isn't just one Congressman. It is the majority of the GOP party who are acting like sore losers, ill mannered school children and just plain disrespectful.

What kind of example are they displaying for their children, for their constituents and for their country?

President Obama succinctly noted that when "we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves."

Dana Milbank from the Washington Post has put together numerous examples of this onerous GOP behavior as President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night.

Of course the "most flagrant" was the comment shouted out at 8:40 pm, just after the president vowed to lawmakers that his health-care reform proposals would not provide benefits to illegal immigrants was from home, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) who shouted at the president from his fifth-row seat: "You lie!"

There was booing from House Republicans when the president caricatured a conservative argument by saying they would "leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own." They hissed when he protested their "scare tactics." They grumbled as they do in Britain's House of Commons when Obama spoke of the "blizzard of charges and countercharges."

When he asserted that "nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have," there was scoffing and outright laughter on the GOP side. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Tex.) shook his head in disbelief. Several Republicans shouted "What plan?" and Rep. Louis Gohmert (Tex.) waved at Obama a handwritten poster he made on a letter-size piece of paper: "WHAT PLAN?" Gohmert then took that down and replaced it with another handmade poster that said "WHAT BILL?"

There was derisive laughter on Republican side of the chamber when Obama noted that "there remain some significant details to be ironed out." They applauded as he spoke of "all the misinformation that's been spread over the past few months." They laughed again when he said that "many Americans have grown nervous about reform."

When Obama addressed the charge that he plans "panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens," someone on the GOP side shouted out "shame!" The president went on: "Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical." "Read the bill!" someone shouted back. Obama mentioned those who accuse him of a government takeover of health care. "It's true," someone shouted back.

Even as Obama delivered a tribute to the late senator Ted Kennedy, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga), a leader of House conservatives, perused his BlackBerry. Shortly before the speech ended, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) walked out to beat the rush.

And Milbank correctly indicates that "there was something appalling about the display on the House floor for what was supposed to be a sacred ritual of American democracy: the nation watching while Cabinet members, lawmakers from both chambers and the diplomatic corps assembled."

Barney Frank Responds to Nonsense

Barney Frank Confronts Woman At Townhall Comparing Obama To Hitler

At a Barney Frank town hall meeting in Dartmouth, MA, a constituent asks, "Why are you supporting this Nazi policy?"

Frank responds: "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" He then calls her approach "vile, contemptible nonsense." He closes by saying: "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table."

Obama and Israel

The following post was forwarded to me from a friend. This letter is a response to all of the negative, fear mongering, truth bending emails which have been directed against Barack Obama regarding his position on Israel. The letter speaks for itself.

Friends,

I’ve always said I’d criticize Obama if he departed from America’s pro-Israel positions, and now he’s done it—today he announced that he’s forcing Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula. Oh, wait. That was President Eisenhower in 1956.

But consider this: Today Obama announced that he is suspending the delivery of F-16 fighters to Israel and is supporting a UN resolution condemning Israel. Oh, wait. That was President Reagan in 1981 after Israel bombed the Iraqi reactor at Osirak.

Here’s the ticket: Today Obama announced that he’s opposing loan guarantees as long as Israel continues settlement in the West Bank and Gaza and that he opposes new “settlements” in the West Bank or East Jerusalem. Oh, wait. That was President George H.W. Bush in 1991 (Bush complained that he was “one lonely little guy” up against thousands of lobbyists on the Hill).

Now we’ve got him: Today Obama announced that he’s denied Israel’s request for specialized bunker-busting bombs needed to attack Iran’s main nuclear complex and that he’s denied an Israeli request to fly over Iraqi airspace to reach Iran’s main nuclear complex at Natanz. Oh, wait. That was George W. Bush—the same Bush who pressured Israel to allow Hamas to participate in Gaza elections against the advice of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, thus conferring on Hamas a legitimacy it never could have otherwise obtained.

But I know Obama’s done something bad. I just know it. My Republican friends are sending so many emails. Ah, here it is. Not actions, but words. Check out this quote:

Israeli settlement activity has severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope. It preempts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations and, in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and security. The United States has long opposed settlement activity. Consistent with the report of the committee headed by Senator George Mitchell, settlement activity must stop.

Oh, wait. That was Bush’s Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in 2001. But here’s the smoking gun against Obama. The non-partisan Jewish Forward reports:

a growing apprehension over the widening gap between Jerusalem and Washington on the matter of settlements…the administration, from the president on down, continues to insist on a “total freeze” on settlements, in accordance with the road map, and rejects Israel’s insistence on continued expansion of the settlements within the limits of their “natural growth.”

Oops. My mistake. That Forward article was from 2003, reporting on an upcoming meeting between Prime Minister Sharon and George Bush. Darn Google.

I’m going to try one more time. If this doesn’t convince you that what’s going on now is unprecedented in the history of U.S.-Israel relations, nothing will. The Jerusalem Post reports that the Secretary of State herself said that:

"the United States doesn't make a distinction" between settlement activity in east Jerusalem and the West Bank and that Israel's road map obligations, which include a building freeze, relate to "settlement activity generally."

I almost got that one right. The quote was indeed from the Secretary of State, but it was Bush’s Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, on January 8, 2009.

You get the point. Some of you reply to my emails, using all caps and exclamation points to show how much you mean it, that Bush is not the issue. But Bush is the issue, along with other administrations, for two reasons.

First, without historic perspective, it’s impossible to assign significance to Obama’s recent statements on settlements. Judging from the hysteria of some of our Republican friends, you’d think not only that the sky was falling, but that the stars themselves were landing in our backyards. The truth is that U.S.-Israel relations have been far rockier under other Presidents, and that Obama is simply restating long-standing U.S. policy on settlements.

What’s different about Obama is not his position or public statements on settlements, but that unlike so many other administrations, he’s not taking action against Israel. This is a disagreement between two allies, nothing more. You want pressure—what Eisenhower, Reagan, and the Bushs did was pressure. They coupled words with actions wholly inappropriate for the strategic and moral alliance that defines the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Second, characterizing the American position on settlements as “Obama’s position” undermines a cardinal principle of pro-Israel advocacy: Support for Israel should be bi-partisan. If Obama does something wrong, we should call him on it, but to argue that Obama is not pro-Israel because he articulates, sometimes almost word for word, the same policy as his predecessor is counter-productive. I’ve even had some people tell me that Obama’s statements “prove” that he was influenced by Rev. Wright. Could be. And maybe George Bush attended Wright’s church too—after all, Bush’s policies on settlements were the same as Obama’s. Come to think of it, maybe Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush Sr were there too—turns out that Wright was a regular Billy Graham.

If you want to disagree with American policy on settlements and Jerusalem, that’s fine. I disagree too. But put the partisanship aside and focus on the policy, not the person or party, unless the person or party is uniquely responsible for the policy. Partisanship absolutely has its place. On many issues, the parties and personalities have significant differences, and we should not hesitate to point those out. But Israel is one of the few issues where bi-partisan consensus remains. Let’s keep it that way.

I don’t want to clutter your in-box with unwanted emails, so if you no longer want to receive these, please hit reply and tell me to remove you from this list.

Take care,
Steve Sheffey

P.S. President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress are advancing a solid pro-Israel agenda. This list keeps getting longer and longer, but that’s the point:

~ No Administration in history has come into office with a Vice President, Secretary of State, and Chief of Staff with stronger pro-Israel credentials than this one.

~ Steve Rosen, AIPAC’s director of executive branch relations for 23 years, has written that Obama's appointments are no cause for concern from a pro-Israel perspective. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304754440&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

~ Rosen was very concerned about Chas Freeman, but that appointment by Dennis Blair was never final and was rescinded--exactly what we'd expect from a pro-Israel administration that listens to the pro-Israel community. http://jewish-politics-ny.com/2009/03/10/freeman-out-as-intel-panel-chair-controversy-unlikely-to-end/

~ Obama fulfilled his campaign promise to boycott Durban II unless ALL of our conditions were met. http://jewish-politics-ny.com/2009/04/19/obama-durban-ii-decision-disappoints-jewish-right-international-left/

~ On May 1, Obama renewed sanctions against Syria because it posed a continuing threat to US interests. Obama, in a letter to Congress notifying it of his decision, accused Damascus of "supporting terrorism, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, and undermining US and international efforts with respect to the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq." http://ow.ly/5RHv

~ Obama was the first President to host a seder in the White House. To my right wing friends who try to read “signals” the way the ancients read animal entrails: What signal do you think Obama was sending to the world?

~ President Obama issued a proclamation deeming May Jewish American Heritage Month, the fourth year the president has issued such a proclamation since the House and Senate, spearheaded by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), passed resolutions urging that May be marked in such a manner. http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/05/12/1005117/president-proclaims-jewish-american-heritage-month

~ Obama will fully fund the development and production of the Arrow 3 ballistic missile defense system. United States officials told Israel of its decision on May 20 during a strategic dialogue between the two countries. The Arrow 3 will be a longer-range version of the Arrow system that the IDF currently operates, capable of intercepting missiles at a farther distance and a higher altitude from the Jewish state. http://jta.org/news/article/2009/05/21/1005306/report-arrow-missile-system-to-be-fully-funded#When:10:14:00Z

~ The Obama administration reiterated that it will maintain the US policy of ambiguity on regarding Israel’s nuclear weapons (5/21/09). http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE54K2XM20090521

~ On June 4 in Cairo, President Obama told the Arab and Muslim world that America’s bond with Israel is “unbreakable.” He told the Arab and Muslim world, a world rife with Holocaust denial, that to deny the Holocaust is “baseless, ignorant, and hateful.” He told them that threatening Israel with destruction is “deeply wrong.” He said that “Palestinians must abandon violence” and that “it is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus.” And he said that “Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/

~ Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), a staunch supporter of the Jewish state, said in an interview that it was no small thing for a U.S. president to offer an extended defense of Israel before a Muslim audience. “If you’re delivering a speech in Cairo directed to the Arab world and you mention in the speech that Israel has a right to exist and right to exist in security, that it grew from the ashes of the Holocaust and that America has an unbreakable bond, that demonstrates extraordinary courage,” said Engel.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23380.html#ixzz0Hkhkm2Jz&D

~ Dennis Ross, a key pro-Israel advisor to Obama during the campaign, will be playing a major role in Middle East matters in the Obama administration, the Washington Post reported on June 24: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/23/dennis_ross_expands_his_portfo.html?hpid=news-col-blog

~ The Obama administration assured Israel it will continue defending Israel at the United Nations despite the allies' dispute over West Bank settlements, Israel's U.N. ambassador said on June 29.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE55S5KF20090629

~ On June 30, the United States reapproved loan guarantees with Israel. http://jta.org/news/article/2009/06/30/1006231/us-reapproves-loan-guarantees-with-israel

~ On July 5, Vice President Biden said that the United States would not stand in Israel’s way if Israel decided to attack Iran. http://jta.org/news/article/2009/07/05/1006321/biden-israel-has-right-to-attack-iran#When:16:41:00Z Also: http://ow.ly/gwXU. This is not a green light for Israel, but it’s an improvement over the Bush administration’s clear opposition to action by Israel: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/washington/11iran.html?_r=1

~ On July 13, President Obama met with 16 Jewish leaders from 14 key organizations and explained that forceful pressure is being applied to the Palestinians to move forward on the peace process and that he has been very specific with the Arab world on incitement, violence, commitments on accepting the reality of Israel and conveying that to their street. http://www.njdc.org/blog/post/obama_addresses_jewish_concerns_head_on

~ On July 15, Secretary of State Clinton told the Council on Foreign Relations that “we know that progress toward peace cannot be the responsibility of the United States – or Israel – alone. Ending the conflict requires action on all sides. The Palestinians have the responsibility to improve and extend the positive actions already taken on security; to act forcefully against incitement; and to refrain from any action that would make meaningful negotiations less likely. And Arab states have a responsibility to support the Palestinian Authority with words and deeds, to take steps to improve relations with Israel, and to prepare their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel’s place in the region. The Saudi peace proposal, supported by more than twenty nations, was a positive step. But we believe that more is needed. So we are asking those who embrace the proposal to take meaningful steps now. Anwar Sadat and King Hussein crossed important thresholds, and their boldness and vision mobilized peace constituencies in Israel and paved the way for lasting agreements. By providing support to the Palestinians and offering an opening, however modest, to the Israelis, the Arab states could have the same impact. So I say to all sides: Sending messages of peace is not enough. You must also act against the cultures of hate, intolerance and disrespect that perpetuate conflict.” http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/july/126071.htm

~ On July 15, Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA), the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called upon Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to “immediately to accept Prime Minister Netanyahu’s proposal for unconditional talks on peace.” Berman said that “As everyone familiar with Israeli politics knows, Netanyahu has taken a politically courageous and substantively important step in endorsing the idea of ‘two states for two peoples,’ and he has also taken significant steps to ease travel and access in the West Bank by dismantling numerous checkpoints and roadblocks.” http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca28_berman/NetanyahuPeaceTalkProposal.shtml

~ In its meeting with Jewish leaders on July 13 and in Hillary Clinton’s speech on July 15, the Obama administration left no doubt that it will do all that it can to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-harris/listening-for-the-truth-a_b_237462.html

~ On July 24, the Democratic-controlled Senate unanimously approved legislation calling on the president to implement stiffer sanctions on Iran if it does not stop its nuclear program by late this year. http://jta.org/news/article/2009/07/24/1006783/senate-urges-president-to-ready-iran-sanctions

~ On July 31, Obama extended sanctions against Syria. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3754953,00.html

~ On August 13, the Jerusalem Post reported that House Foreign Affairs Committee member Shelley Berkley (D-NV), a Democrat and supporter of Obama, stated that "I believe Israel has given up a great deal over the years for peace. It gave up the Sinai to have peace with Egypt. It withdrew from Lebanon and got Hizbullah. It unilaterally left Gaza. So to suggest that natural growth in the settlements is the cause for Palestinian inaction is, I think, absurd. There is nothing in history to demonstrate that if all the settlements went away tomorrow, the Arabs would then be any more willing to recognize Israel's right to exist."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418603210&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

~ House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said on August 13 that the unwillingness of Palestinian leadership to sit down and negotiate with Israel, not the settlements, is the biggest issue impeding the peace process. http://jta.org/news/article/2009/08/13/1007234/hoyer-palestinians-to-blame

P.S. And for the record…

Rahm Emanuel did NOT link progress on Iran to Israel’s willingness to create a Palestinian state:
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/0 z/what_rahm_emanuel_really_said.php

The Obama administration is NOT spending $20 million on resettling Palestinians with ties to Hamas in the United States.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/palestinians.asp
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-palestine-refugees.htm
http://jewish-politics-ny.com/2009/03/17/internet-rumors-republicans-and-refugees-from-gaza/

Obama has been clear that it is NOT his place to decide Israel’s security needs and that no options are off the table regarding Iran:
http://www.njdc.org/blog/post/ObamaIranWJWNewsweek052109

Obama does NOT believe that the Holocaust and Palestinian suffering are morally equivalent:
http://www.njdc.org/blog/post/TodayShowNoEquivalency060509

Obama’s position on settlements IS virtually identical to George W. Bush’s:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/20/afghanistan.israel
http://www.forward.com/articles/8808/
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517322280&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Bush rejected Israel’s request for arms needed to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/washington/11iran.html?_r=2

It is UNCLEAR whether or to what extent Bush reached a secret agreement with Israel regarding settlements:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/12/AR2009061203498.html
http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/06/16/1005937/kurtzer-on-settlements

Several members of the Bush Administration have said that there was no agreement:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/diplomacy/did-israel-and-bush-admin-have-understanding-on-settlements-bushies-say-no/

Some in Israel say that an agreement was never fully implemented:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/22/us-israel-at-odds-over-2003-settlements-accord/print/

Others suggest that the Bush Administration deliberately chose not to inform the Obama Administration about the extent to which there were understandings:
http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/07/06/1006339/are-bushies-behind-the-understandings-misun