I’m just not feeling the serious blogging today. So following on Will’s post noting the stoopid spat between Obama and various Nevada politicians I give you further variations on what I term, “I am duly offended, Mr. President…”

Obama: When times are tough, you tighten your belts… You don’t head on down to Boca Raton to shuffle board your worries away when you’re worried about your 401K.

McCain: I heard that…

Crist: I am not gay… unless that sort of thing would help me in a Democratic primary…

Grayson: Republicans want you to die!

—

Obama: When times are tough, you tighten your belts… You don’t suck back a bunch of cotton candy at Disneyland before riding the Matterhorn without proper health care coverage or travel insurance.

Feinstein: I think we do go slower on the Matterhorn. People do not understand it. It is so big it is beyond their comprehension. And if you don’t understand it when somebody tells you it does this or it does that and it’s not true, you tend to believe it, even though it isn’t true. It’s hard to debunk all of the myths that are out there. In my view when people are earning, when their home is secure, when their children are going to school, and they are relatively satisfied with their life and there’s a problem like the Matterhorn – they want it solved. It doesn’t threaten them. The size of this ride threatens them. And that’s one of the problems that’s got to be straightened out.

Hunter: Yeah, that’s going to be part of this whole thing. It’s not just gays and lesbians. Its a whole gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual community. If you’re going to let anybody no matter what preference – what sexual preference they have that means the Matterhorn is going to probably let everybody in. Its going to be like civilian life and the I think that that would be detrimental for the Matterhorn.

Schwarzenegger: It’s not a tumor!

—

Obama: When times are tough, you tighten your belts… You don’t go moose hunting in Juneau without your bible close at hand.

Begich: Alaska is also not just a moose freezer.

Stevens: A moose is not something you just dump something on. It’s not a truck. It’s, it’s a series of tubes.

Palin: Death panels! Death panels!

Sullivan: Is Trig really the offspring of a magical moose mercilessly hunted by humankind who, ironically, handed him to Sarah Palin to give him a “normal” life? We’ll never know because Palin won’t release the medical records!

Feel free to add your own variations in the comments.

Big news from the ICC today,

Appeals judges at the International Criminal Court have ordered the chamber to reconsider its decision to omit genocide from an arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s president.

The ruling in The Hague on Wednesday follows an appeal by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC), to charge al-Bashir with genocide.

Moreno-Ocampo, who has implicated al-Bashir in the deaths of 35,000 people, said a genocide charge would ensure “the world knows what happened” to victims of the conflict in Sudan’s Darfur region.

“I believe it is important for the victims. That is why I am pursuing these charges,” he told the AFP news agency.

Erkki Kourula, an ICC judge, said the pre-trial chamber’s decision to not include genocide was based on an “erroneous standard of proof”.

I know that the very idea of the ICC is a somewhat controversial one in the non-signatory US. There are questions about what jurisdiction such an entity has and how much its actions infringe on the soverignty of independent nation-states. There is also the complaint that the ICC, like the UN, is too much a conceptual organization, that in a practical sense it doesn’t work and, in fact, couldn’t ever work.
Those concerns/complaints are fair and it is precisely because of them that I see the ICC’s pursuing of al-Bashir to be incredibly important. The blood curdling situation in Sudan is precisely why I can never bring myself to a place of true and unyielding isolationism or full-throated pacifism.

There are events and actions in the world that demand our attention and demand action — some times forceful action — to avert needless and discriminatory suffering and bloodshed. But there has to be a system in place, some kind of means of determining a burden of proof, a dispassionate and disinterested path of due process, and an increasingly established set of laws that ensure fairness as well as justice.

[Read more →]

I’ve read more than a few concerned posts about Ryan Avent’s report on projected unemployment rates in the US via the Office of Management and Budget press conference yesterday at Free Exchange. Wrote Avent,

OMB head Peter Orszag is giving a press conference just now with Christina Romer, head of the Council of Economic Advisors, on the president’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget. Ms Romer explained the economic assumptions underlining the budget forecasts. She noted that expected fourth quarter-over-fourth quarter real GDP growth would be 3% in 2010, 4.3% in 2011 and 2012, and would average 3.8% in the five years thereafter. These figures are in line with Fed projections.
She then gave the unemployment forecast. At the end of 2010, the unemployment rate, according to the administration’s forecast, will be 9.8%. At the end of 2011, the rate will be at 8.9%. And at the end of 2012, after the next presidential election, the unemployment rate will be 7.9%.

As Kevin Drum says: good god.

For comparison’s sake, Canadian rates of unemployment, which begn a sharp fall towards the end of 2008 and continued falling, with some minor flucuations, throughout 2009 have already started to improve. And while stagnant through December (no real surprise there), are already at levels that the US isn’t forecasted to reach until the end of 2011.

[Read more →]

In the comments last week, new League contributor Rufus (yay!) asked me whether the “Facebookization of political discourse” comment in my post reacting the President’s State of the Union speech was related to the turn out that the Canadian anti-prorogation rallies on January 23 as compared to the membership counts on various Facebook groups related to the topic. The short answer is yes… and no.

I’ve struggled to write about the whole anti-prorogation (nascent) movement in Canada beyond just presenting and evaluating the what I see as the facts partially because things are still unfolding, but also because I’m so close to it. It’s hard to take a step back and evaluate something you’ve given up whole days to and lost sleep for in anything approaching a cool and comprehensive manner. My view of the whole thing is, by definition, wholly subjective and I am, admittedly, pretty attached to the whole thing having organized the Calgary rally and now becoming involved in national discussions about moving forward.

But let me say that as far as turn out goes, I was pretty happy. The rallies only really had about three to four weeks to get started, organized, and announced. So to pull tens of thousands of people out in what was generally pretty cold weather over what was essentially a Parliamentary procedural issue in approximately sixty different communities across the country ain’t bad results, all told.

[Read more →]

Update: Commenter zic points me to this Brad DeLong post containing the C-SPAN coverage of Obama engaging Q&A with the House Republican Conference in Baltimore. Indeed, this event has been getting rave reviews for Obama and rightly so. This might just be what Obama ready to rumble but in his own way looks like.

As Marc Ambinder reports over at the Atlantic Politics Chanel,

The moment President Obama began his address to Republicans in Baltimore today, I began to receive e-mails from Democrats: Here’s an except from one of them: “I don’t know whether to laugh or cry that it took a f$$@&$* year for Obama to step into the ring and start throwing some verbal blows… I’m definitely praying at mass on Sunday morning that this Obama doesn’t take another 12 month vacation.”

This e-mail comes from a very influential Democrat.

Let me just add that as much as I like seeing this showing from Obama, what I would really like to see is him do the same thing with his own Blue Dog/Reagan Democrat Caucus.

It was watching the healthcare reform debate and Obama’s lack of presence in it that really started me worrying about the administration. And while I will whole-heartedly agree that Republican obstrucionism didn’t help having a healthy debate and legislative process, it was really a pocket full of Democrats who, to my mind, tarnished the procees and weighed it down to the sinking point.

Republicans need to have some of the assumptions challenged in a vigorous way, for sure (and vice versa as the President noted). But Democrats also need to have an out in the open and up front debate about the philosophical differences and challenges facing the Party. And perhaps Obama could be the right person to initiate that process — someone has to.

It seems that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has had second thoughts on the idea of holding the KSM trial in Lower Manhattan with the help of some heavy-weight lobbying and has successfully petitioned the White House to look at moving the trial,

“It would be an inconvenience at the least, and probably that’s too mild a word for people that live in the neighborhood and businesses in the neighborhood,” Bloomberg told reporters.
“There are places that would be less expensive for the taxpayers and less disruptive for New York City.”

Obviously you can’t go ahead with an extraordinarily high profile trial in a location where the once supportive Mayor is now arguing in opposition along side a sizeable chunk of the business community, so this move makes a lot of sense. I had previously expressed my own skepticism about the likely outcome of symbolically holding the trial in New York. I think that skepticism is only more applicable now. If the SOTU and responses to it showed us anything, it is, I think, that people are generally disenchanted with the notion of doing things in a symbolic fashion and are looking for concrete and specific action to get things done.

Nose to the grind stone is the order of the day for the foreseeable future.

Noting Bruce Bartlett’s recent Forbes article on Obama v. Reagan, Kevin Drum talks about what he sees as Obama’s big blind spot,

I’m a fan of Obama’s, but this has always been his big blind spot. He came to office convinced — sincerely, it seems — that he could change the tone of Washington DC. That was always a fantasy. The way to get things done is to make a case for them, build public support for them, blast your enemies for opposing them, and just generally fight like hell for them. It can be done with a smile, but it has to be done. Obama seems to have a hard time getting that.

That is, in my estimation, exactly right. I have been mounting an increasing pile of “Obama, you suck” posts, or at least they could seem to read that way. That is not how they are intended. People I admire the most tend to come in for the sharpest criticism (see: Andrew Sullivan) precisely because of how much I admire them and how much I consaciously and explicitly raise expectations for them.

I’m disappointed in Obama of late, but I too remain a fan. I think that if the President isn’t prodded on shortcomings by his supporters — preferably those who were capable of voting for him — then it is unlikely that he is going to address and overcome those deficiencies. I’m not totally convinced that chanigng the tone of Washington was a fantasy, pace Kevin, but I do think that there needs to be a recknoning about what the practice of politics is and how one wants to go about doing it. Politics is a fight, on that front I’m with Kevin. But how one goes about fighting remains a decision facing the individual participants.

Obama wasn’t handed the Democratic nomination, he had to fight tooth and nail for it — and he did so in what seemed to be his own way, in a fashion that was different and that inspired people and seemed to set a different tone. It just doesn’t feel like Obama is willing to apply that lesson to an in-office context. Or maybe he’s still figuring out what that means, I don’t know.

At the end of the day, though, the practice of politics is what it is and it is Obama’s choice to find a way of engaging that practice in a fashion that strikes a pose of integrity and intelligence with which he is comfortable (“with a smile” as Kevin suggests). But the tone of Washington is going to be changed by the act of engaging in the practice that goes on there, not by virtue of simply showing up and recoiling in horror.

I remain fascinated by the idea of the political process pace Obama, but part of my doubts also revolve around the idea that, congentially speaking, I’m waiting for something that isn’t coming. If it isn’t in Obama to be the guy who gets down in the trenches, but finds a way of doing so that changes the way the trenches work, then it seems kind of silly to continue pointing out ways he might do so.

And on that note, the President deserves praise for the DADT announcement, even though there are some who would suggest it comes too late. I also think that the idea of taking monies repaid by the banks to create loand for small businesses and increase liquidity for Main Street was a great feature of the SOTU. I’m also heartened to see Obama seeming to get tough on the banks themselves in terms of modest repayment fees despite (because of?) the wailing from Wall Street. The market dropped after the announcement of the Volker-rule… shocking. It’ll rebound, trust me. Meanwhile, average indivisuals deserve some indication that they aren’t the only ones paying for past indiscretions.

And speaking of the SOTU, you should check our Dan Summers’ own parsing of Obama’s speech at Bleakonomy.

Kyle at Voegue Republic looks at Lawrence Lessig’s response to Glenn Greenwald on Citizens United and offers his own thorughts.

And Ken at Popehate talks about censorship and Anne Frank’s.. well, just go read it for yourself.

“But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day.” – Barack Obama, State of the Union Address, January 27, 2010

At present response rates, it looks like only two of the five Ordinary Gentlemen I polled about the State of the Union address last night actually watched or otherwise consumed what some have called the most important speech of this President’s short time in office. It’s the State of the Union, it’s supposed to be a big deal, right? And yet currently, less than fifty percent of us bothered to tune in (and I have my doubts about the other three who have yet to respond).

Why is that? I mean, you’re talking about wanna be pundits here. We’re guys who spend not insignificant amounts of time writing posts about politics and culture free of charge because… well, for a variety of reasons. But the point is, we spend a lot of time writing on this site, so why would we, as Will termed it, commit the blogger mortal sin and fail to watch the State of the Union address?

Reasons vary, but the general theme is we had better things to do. But this is the State of the Union!!! And we’re aspiring bloggers!!! There was nothing better to do than watch this and live blog it, right?! Except that I don’t think most of us placed much stock in what went down last night because this just in: Barack Obama gives good speech.

The President was bound to give a good speech last night. We’ve collectively been watching his every move for the past three-ish years and I defy anyone to point to a bad speech given by the President. Sure you can point to better and worse speeches, but they’re all good speeches. The President’s oratory skills have never been in question and anyone who tells you different is lying.

[Read more →]

“My approach here is we really must do something this year,” said Lieberman, who has been co-sponsoring cap-and-trade bills since 2001. “The two problems of American energy dependence and global warming will only get worse. We’ve just got to do the most we can. I’m not being rigid or ideological about it. So anybody who wants to try to make the problem better, it’s worth considering.”

Some guy named Tom Flanagan — I believe he’s Canadian — is really on a role lately. On CBC’s Power and Politics on Monday, January 25, in response to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s ten year commitment to rebuilding the destruction in Haiti, Flanagan said,

I get very nervous when I hear people talking about then years, it seems to me that five tears might be what is required to help rebuild some basic infrastructure in Haiti. I mean, look, there’s heart rending suffering there and we have an obligation to help and that would include helping them rebuild bridges, ports, streets, railways, etc.

But, when you start talking ten years, it looks to me like people want to restructure the Haitian society. We have no mandate for that and we have no special wisdom on how to do that, I think we should define the mission modestly and do what we can in a practical way and then withdraw. These kind of open ended commitments make me extremely nervous, not just financially, of course, but also from getting involved in something we can never really get out of.

Those are the same kind of heebie jeebies I got reading Bill Clinton’s comments around Haiti almost two weeks ago,

When I work places, everybody knows I don’t tolerate corruption, I’m going to do the best I can to help them,” says Clinton, the former president and special United Nations envoy to Haiti. “But, they want to do this — they want to build a modern society, for the first time…

“Anybody who has worked with Haiti over the last 20, 25 years, will tell you that this is the best situation we’ve ever had,” Clinton said in an interview with FOX News Channel’s Major Garrett. “They are trying to turn a corner here, and together, we may find it even easier to take a path of openness and transparency.”

I mean, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that Clinton has anything but the best of intentions for Haiti and Haitians and for all of the fist shaking I’ve given Harper over the past two months, I don’t ascribe any ill will to his actions either. In both cases, I think the men in question see an obligation for wealthy nations to assist a fellow nation of a more fragile foundation that has been torn apart by disaster.

That is a positive moral impulse to feel and I don’t want to discourage it, per se. But as Flanagan suggests, we need to be careful both around our intentions and how we go about carrying those intentions out. I’m not inclined to level allegations of colonialism here, as Chris did — though he was dealing with a fundamentally different interlocutor — but it strikes me how subtley pervasive this notion of nation building continues to be. It’s as though taking it out of a “democracy by the barrel of a gun” context all of a sudden mends the stiching of its theoretical and practical holes and makes it a conceptual framework of nobility, benevolence, and veracity.

I’m not at all convinced that it does and I think our fundamental unwillingness to auger with just how little we really understand about the generatin of a successful nation will continue to dog us in the best of our efforts to do right by nations like Haiti.
[Read more →]

The ol’ sphere is a-buzz with the information that the Obama administration has decided to go deficit hawk overnight by proposing a spending freeze in the President’s upcoming State of the Union address. Thew news seems to be not so good on all sides.

Tim Fernholz at The American Prospect says,

Given the low likelihood that all of these cuts get passed in Congress or that Republicans even sign on to this plan, and the fact that it really isn’t a “freeze,” the problem is less in policy and more in the incredibly pernicious political argument: Obama is accepting the conservative budget framing that progressives fought against during his campaign by focusing deficit reduction on the most underfunded chunk of the budget, exempting the Defense Department from responsibility, and leaving revenue off the table (it’s no coincidence, however, that 2011 is when some of the Bush tax cuts will roll back). It’s exactly what progressive budget experts said not to do.

Meanwhile, Matthew Yglesias won’t “give them the satisfaction”,

The official emphasized that there’s more to the administration’s plans that this freeze proposal, though what that might be will have to wait. Suffice it to say that I’m very skeptical of this approach. I’m attempting not to freak out because (a) I don’t have details and (b) I suspect this initiative was deliberately leaked to progressive bloggers in an effort to get denounced by the left and I don’t want to give them the satisfaction.

Allahpundit is tentatively prepared to give Obama points on baby steps, though he reminds us of Obama’s “scapel v. hatchet” comment in the first presidential debate of 2008 and leaves off with two pointed “exit questions”,

Exit question one: Granted, this is a cynical political move that he almost certainly wouldn’t have made if not for his collapsing support among independents, but even a cosmetic gesture deserves a golf clap, no? Exit question two: So, just as most of the costs of ObamaCare’s first decade wouldn’t start to be incurred until his second term, this freeze would be in effect smack dab during his reelection campaign in 2012, huh? Fancy that.

And, not surprisingly, Hugh Hewitt is just laughing,

It will require a revolution in voting and the make-up of Congress to put this country on a path to solvency.  Massive cuts in federal spending are required, or massive tax hikes.  Democrats will pursue the latter and cripple the economy in the process.  Republicans will demand the former.  The choice is clear.

[Read more →]