Perhaps the most important lesson I learned in my years in the Clinton White House was that when problems arise, it is up to the White House to solve them. When you are the top dog, you have more levers and tools of power than anyone else, and more glory and reward when things go well. But when there is a problem, no matter whose fault it is, no matter how bad luck it is, the White House either solves the problem or the failure to do so is theirs. The buck stops there, if you can't stand the heat, etc, etc.
It has always been this way, and always will be. James Buchanan didn't cause the problems that led the nation to disintegrate on his watch, but by not solving them he goes down as one of the nation's most failed Presidents. Herbert Hoover didn't cause the Great Depression, but failing to make progress on it similarly casts him as one of history's biggest failures. LBJ's failure to end the Vietnam War destroyed him, in spite of his own amazing record of legislative achievement earlier in his presidency. Conversely, the Presidents like Lincoln and FDR that dealt successfully with major crises are considered our greatest Presidents, even though they made their share of mistakes along the way.
The combination of problems inherited from George W Bush is the biggest protracted crisis this country has faced since those days of FDR. This economy is damaged beyond what many of the conventional economists or commentators are aware, with a sustained situation that looks bleak for at least several years in the future. The war that Bush started and then ignored in Afghanistan is a quagmire that shows no sign of getting better anytime soon. The other long term problems the Bush administration (and other politicians for decades before, for that matter) ignored - our rapidly deteriorating infrastructure, the health care system's dysfunction, college affordability, our long term trade and budget deficits - certainly don't help the country's sense of well being, or our ability to compete in the world economy of the 21st century.
Even problems less monumental are also tests of Presidential leadership. Jimmy Carter's inability to solve the hostage crisis contributed greatly to his failure as President, and Harry Truman's failure to win or end the Korean War made it impossible for him to run for re-election in spite of all his other accomplishments. LBJ, Ford, Carter, and George HW Bush all failed to get along with their party's respective base, and that alone would have doomed their Presidency. (No President with a strong primary challenge from their base has ever won re-election.)
Again, it doesn't matter whether these problems are some one else's fault, or just bad luck: it is up to the President to deal successfully with whatever they are faced with. Period, end of story. [More in the extended entry]
Talk of immigration-related lawsuits filled the news this week, and it all started with a television interview that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave overseas in Ecuador.
The rather obscure interview footage most likely would have never made it into American news, except for a brief, but politically explosive, remark Clinton made on tape when the discussion turned to Senate Bill 1070. Set to take effect July 28, the bill passed in Arizona will allow police officers to question and detain anyone whom they have “reasonable suspicion” to believe is an undocumented immigrant.
Hillary Clinton shows that the US is now kissing-up to Israel, but not just Israel: Israeli right wing extremists like Netanyahu and the Likud project to continue colonizing all of original Palestine.
A new national poll released Friday shows that Americans are feeling more optimistic about the economy than they were in January 2010. While this is good news, there is still work to be done.
Given the nearly-catastrophic downturn in the economy, most Americans would agree that regulation of the financial markets needs to change. Unfortunately, a quick scan of the weekend’s “talking heads” shows reveals that the same tired partisan bickering and gamesmanship may derail the proposed financial reform legislation that may be debated in the Senate this week. Neither party is blameless. Conservatives are criticizing the proposed $50 billion fund to “close out” failing banks, while liberals are being accused of pushing ahead with the bill without sufficient negotiation with the opposition.
International Solidarity Movement (ISM) volunteer Bianca Zammit shot up by the Israeli military during a nonviolent protest in Gaza. In addition, 22-year old Hind Al Akra was shot in the stomach and 18-year old Nidal Al Naji was shot in the leg. All three are now in stable condition.
The first insult was Joe Biden's in Jerusalem last week; the second insult was directed at Obama himself, while Netanyahu was visiting the White House yesterday. And the timing was perfect.
As Netanyahu was talking to Obama in the White House, an announcement was made in Israel informing that another East Jerusalem housing project had been approved. Can there be any excuse that Netanyahu was taken unawares, especially after the timing apology for the Biden faux pas? Don't think so.
The Haaretz report of this new incident (New east Jerusalem homes approved hours before Netanyahu-Obama meet) makes that clear: "The local planning council initially approved the plan in July, a move which angered Britain and the United States and prompted them to call on Israel to cancel the plans." The plan was approved last Thursday and announced the day of Netanyahu's White House visit.
"The U.S.'s dysfunctional patron-client relationship with Israel yields a predictable result: Once again, Israel disses Washington and does what it wants." wrote Daniel Larison at The Week. AIPAC of course immediately skewered the president in defense of Israel and all is slowly returning back to the normal status quo, America loves Israel, Iran sanctions, no need to look further.
This is a quick hit posing as a diary, but the article it draws attention to is just not a news event, but an analysis of why Obama seems to be screwing up on the Israeli-Palestinian peace front. Well, apart from the fact that he has most of Israel against him, then George Mitchell's threat to cut loan guarantees to Israel (which in any case support Israel's colonialism), and the blowback from Israel's finance minister who said, "who needs you," the article asks whether Obama know what the hell he is doing?
Have we developed into a country that has one set of rules for the people at the top of the ladder and another for the rest of us? Or perhaps a special set of rules for Republicans and their cronies - IOKIYAR - and a completely different set of rules for Democrats?
I think the original model for "special set of rules" was Richard Nixon. When Nixon was pardoned the whole country learned that you can get away with things if you have enough power. You had to be there. It wasn't just about "Watergate," it was about corrupting the entire system, breaking every rule, taking every bribe, starting illegal wars, spying on and using the power of government against your political opponents -- you name it the country by then knew that the Nixon administration had done it.
And then a few years later, Nixon explained, ""When the President does it, that means it is not illegal."
Sounds like an overall model for the Bush administration.
OK, that was a funny line, but think about it. If Nixon had not been pardoned, would the corruption of the Reagan administration have occurred?
"By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."
- Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years, by Haynes Johnson
As I said above, you had to be there. These were not political prosecutions - Democrats just don't do that - these were the ones who were so bad that it just could not be ignored. (One example: the Secretary of something was prosecuted for mob activities, and found not guilty after witnesses were murdered before they could testify. Not that they were connected or anything.)
After Reagan was caught going around Congress' express instructions and sending arms to Iran the investigation was blocked and the perpetrators let loose. The crimes were investigated by Iran/Contra prosecutor Lawrence Walsh who was blocked at every turn:
"Walsh recognized that many of the appeals judges held a "continuing political allegiance" to the conservative Federalist Society, an organization dedicated to purging liberalism from the federal courts.
"It reminded me of the communist front groups of the 1940s and 1950s, whose members were committed to the communist cause and subject to communist direction but were not card-carrying members of the Communist Party," Walsh wrote."
Walsh's investigation ended when Bush I pardoned all the potential witnesses against him.
So just as the corruption of Nixon set the stage for the corruption of Reagan/Bush, Reagan/Bush getting away with the most serious - and public - abuses of the Constitution and democracy set the stage for the political witch hunts against Clinton. And it all set the stage for the Bush administration.
So far the Bush administration is clean off the hook for pretty much everything they did. What does that tell us about what the next Republican administration will be like?
During a press conference yesterday, President Obama voiced support for government-administered health insurance for all who need it (aka the "public option"), as a key component of healthcare reform. Though Obama stopped short of threatening to veto a bill that didn't contain such an option, he said that a public option is needed to enforce market discipline. If the system is going to reform, the health insurance companies can't just keep selling the same bad coverage with bigger public subsidies for their monopolies. Essentially, Obama isn't about to force taxpayers to buy overpriced insurance from private companies.
"The public plan, I think, is an important tool to discipline insurance companies," Obama said during yesterday's White House news conference. "I think there is going to be some healthy debate about the shape that this takes." He outlined three options: Get insurance through your employer, buy insurance on your own, or buy insurance from a marketplace where public and private insurance providers compete for business.
As President Barack Obama was assuming office in January, 93% of Americans said that restoring public trust in government should be a top priority (63%) or an important but lower priority (30%) for the new President. Take it as an absolute value, this is a stunningly high percentage; put it in comparison with the other seventeen (widely discussed) issues tested in an AP-Gfk survey, and you will find out that only improving the economy, creating more jobs, making the government more efficient and increasing the country’s independence scored higher.
It’s good to be reminded that people crave trust in government — despite well coordinated efforts that tell a different story. I won’t debate here the relationship of the individual to the “state” (an Aristotelian term in loan) but, in my bi-weekly visits to The Opportunity Agenda blog, I will translate the latest findings on public attitudes on public policy issues, voting patterns and trends, elections and elected officials.
Without an ideological lens, I will help understand Americans’ opinions on issues of public interest such as health care, immigration, the economy, and human rights; and explore how these opinions relate to people’s experience of a deeply held American value: the promise of opportunity. People’s outlook to the President's economic stimulus package can tell a true story about their perception of security,equality, mobility, voice, redemption, or community which make up opportunity, as explained in our newly released report The State of Opportunity in America.
I think it's the week's most interesting story and yet it's received NO attention on Open Left that I can see. I was alerted to it by a blurb on Talking Points Memo, but they have gone silent on it as well.
While most of us seem to be endlessly obsessing about the Franken recount, or trying to read the tea leaves about reports of Obama's cabinet appointments and measuring the proper proportion of Clintonism in the Cabinet, or the ultimate meaning of keeping Joe Lieberman around, shouldn't we have some concern about, you know, what are those things called, issues? The blogosphere barely noticed and neither did the MSNBC liberal hosts.
Now it's time to explore our candidates for the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Anyone interested in health care should understand the importance of this position. If we do get to some form of Universal Health Care, the HHS secretary will likely the the key player implementing such a plan.
As I continue my research, let me again give credit to Sven from My Silver State, who did an excellent similar series back in May. I apologize to the devotees of anyone I've left out - I can't manage an unlimited list. The poll includes an option for "Someone Else," plus a request to specify in the comments.
Once again, poll and brief description of each candidate on the flip. I evaluate each option as best I can. (I had to research the credentials of a few.) I trust others will add more data, including why others would be great or awful. I may have missed a few excellent candidates, so please feel free to add your own.
(And I haven't gotten a lot of feedback. If anyone has some substantive of stylistic suggestions, I'd welcome them.)
It's time for a look at the Cabinet in the upcoming Obama administration. First up - Secretary of State, the point person - in repairing our alliances, in building on the goodwill that is already flowing in from around the world.
There are a number of excellent options - some who served in the Clinton Administration - some outsiders - and even a couple of Obamicans. For convenience, I've taken the list from a betting site (yes, it is in the order of the oddsmakers' favorite):
Richard Holbrooke
Anthony Lake
Richard Lugar
Bill Richardson
Chuck Hagel
John Kerry
Daniel Shapiro
Daniel Kurtzer
George Mitchell
Eric Lynn
Dennis Ross
Susan Rice
James Steinberg
Mara Rudman
Bill Clinton
Colin Powell
Hillary Clinton
I evaluate each option as best I can on the flip. (I had to research the credentials of a few.) I trust others will add more data. (And if nobody notices diaries here, I'll probably also post on the great Orange blog too.)
STATE BLOGS
