• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

20 Jan 09: What the world wants from the new American president.

The threats of unconventional attacks will need to be addressed on an ongoing basis (the political hype in the article notwithstanding). More continuation of the Bush legacy:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/22207/?nlid=1554

Unconventional-Weapons Warnings from Obama Advisors

Members of Obama's transition team warn that the United States has not taken seriously the threat of bioterrorism, and that some chemical plants are potential targets.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
By Katherine Bourzac

Two reports in the news this week offer a glimpse of how unconventional-weapons oversight and government regulation of chemical plants might change under the next U.S. administration.

According to the New York Times, a report on the use of unconventional weapons calls congressional oversight of the issue "dysfunctional" and faults the Bush administration for not devoting enough resources to the threat of bioterrorism. The report, the result of six months of deliberation by the bipartisan, congressionally created Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Terrorism, will be released this week.

The report's authors hope that its recommendations will guide the next administration, which is likely, since some of its authors, including Wendy Sherman, have already been advising Obama during his transition.

From the Times story:

    Prepared before last week's deadly terrorist attacks in Mumbai--which American officials say were most likely carried out by Pakistani militant groups based in Kashmir--the report also singled out Pakistan as a top security priority for the coming Obama administration . . .

    The panel's 13 recommendations focus on fighting the threat of bioterrorism, including improved bioforensic capabilities, and strengthening international organizations, like the International Atomic Energy Agency, to address the nuclear threat. It also calls for a comprehensive approach for dealing with Pakistan . . .

    "Unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013," the report states in the opening sentence of the executive summary.

And in related news, Chemistry World reports that the U.S. chemical industry is concerned about the release of a report by the Center for American Progress (CAP), a liberal think tank founded by John Podesta, the former Clinton chief of staff who heads Obama's transition team. The report, "Chemical Security 101," lists the country's most dangerous chemical-manufacturing and water-treatment plants. Based on an assessment of chemical facilities' risk-management plans, the report warns that hundreds of plants in 41 states put 110 million lives at risk. According to the report, these plants could become less vulnerable to terrorism--and would lower the risk to their neighbors--if they switched to alternative chemicals and processes. Bleach plants, for example, could generate chlorine on-site instead of having it shipped in by rail. And the report says that the Department of Homeland Security's plan for dealing with chemical safety (CFATS), which expires next year, is inadequate.

From Chemistry World:

    Paul Orum, a safety consultant who drafted the report for CAP, says the expiration of CFATS in October 2009, 'could provide an impetus for creating a comprehensive chemical safety programme. Just reauthorising the current programme will not provide effective chemical security.'

    Orum and others believe that Obama could significantly strengthen the government's chemical safety rules after taking office on 20 January, 2009. Obama and incoming vice president Joe Biden have both in the past introduced legislation that pushes chemical facilities to use safer alternatives where practicable.

    A Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Act, which requires high-risk chemical facilities to use safer methods and eliminates the exemption of water facilities, was introduced in March 2008, but has not yet been reviewed by the House, nor introduced in the Senate.

In our March/April 2006 cover story, Mark Williams reported on the threat of bioterror. And this year, TR has reported on how Obama used technology in his election campaign and on the science and technology policy challenges that he will face as president.
 
Just more rhetoric? Or something to balance out the critics' doom and gloom predictions about the oncoming administration?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/29/AR2008112901912.html?hpid=topnews

Joint Chiefs Chairman 'Very Positive' After Meeting With Obama

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went unarmed into his first meeting with the new commander in chief -- no aides, no PowerPoint presentation, no briefing books. Summoned nine days ago to President-elect Barack Obama's Chicago transition office, Mullen showed up with just a pad, a pen and a desire to take the measure of his incoming boss.
There was little talk of exiting Iraq or beefing up the U.S. force in Afghanistan; the one-on-one, 45-minute conversation ranged from the personal to the philosophical. Mullen came away with what he wanted: a view of the next president as a non-ideological pragmatist who was willing to both listen and lead. After the meeting, the chairman "felt very good, very positive," according to Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby.
As Obama prepares to announce his national security team tomorrow, he faces a military that has long mistrusted Democrats and is particularly wary of a young, intellectual leader with no experience in uniform, who once called Iraq a "dumb" war. Military leaders have all heard his pledge to withdraw most combat forces from Iraq within 16 months -- sooner than commanders on the ground have recommended -- and his implied criticism of the Afghanistan war effort during the Bush administration.
But so far, Obama appears to be going out of his way to reassure them that he will do nothing rash and will seek their advice, even while making clear that he may not always take it. He has demonstrated an ability to speak the lingo, talk about "mission plans" and "tasking," and to differentiate between strategy and tactics, a distinction Republican nominee John McCain accused him of misunderstanding during the campaign.
Obama has been careful to separate his criticism of Bush policy from his praise of the military's valor and performance, while Michelle Obama's public expressions of concern for military families have gone over well. But most important, according to several senior officers and civilian Pentagon officials who would speak about their incoming leader only on the condition of anonymity, is the expectation of renewed respect for the chain of command and greater realism about U.S. military goals and capabilities, which many found lacking during the Bush years.
"Open and serious debate versus ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few in their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"The joke was that when you leave a meeting, everybody is supposed to drink the Kool-Aid," Nash said. "In the Bush administration, you had to drink the Kool-Aid before you got to go to the meeting."
Obama's expected retention of Robert M. Gates as defense secretary and expected appointment of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser have been greeted with relief at the Pentagon.
Clinton is respected at the Pentagon and is considered a defense moderate, at times bordering on hawkish. Through her membership on the Senate Armed Services Committee -- sought early in her congressional career to add gravitas to her presidential aspirations -- she has developed close ties with senior military figures.
Some in the military are suspicious of "flagpole" officers such as Jones, whose assignments included Supreme Allied Commander at NATO, Marine commandant and other headquarters service, and who grew up in France and is a graduate of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. But Jones also saw combat in Vietnam and served in Bosnia.

"His reputation is pretty good," one Pentagon official said. "He's savvy about Washington, worked the Hill," and at a lean 6-foot-4, the former Georgetown basketball player "looks great in a suit."
Although Jones occasionally and privately briefed candidate Obama on foreign policy matters -- on Afghanistan, in particular, as did current deputy NATO commander Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry -- he is not considered an intimate of the president-elect.
But as Obama's closest national security adviser, or at least the one who will spend the most time with him, Jones is expected to follow the pattern of two military predecessors in the job, Brent Scowcroft and Colin L. Powell, who injected order and discipline to a National Security Council full of strong personalities with independent power bases.
Although exit polls did not break out active-duty voters, it is virtually certain that McCain won the military vote.
In an October survey by the Military Times, nearly 70 percent of more than 4,000 officers and enlisted respondents said they favored McCain, while about 23 percent preferred Obama. Only African American service members gave Obama a majority.

In exit polls, those who said they had "ever served in the U.S. military" made up 15 percent of voters and broke 54 percent for McCain to 44 percent for Obama. "As a culture, we are more conservative and Republican," a senior officer said.
Obama has said he will meet with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs as well as the service chiefs during his first week in office. At the top of his agenda for that meeting will be what he has called the military's "new mission" of planning the 16-month withdrawal timeline for Iraq. Senior officers have publicly grumbled about the risk involved.
"Moving forward in a measured way, tied to conditions as they continue to evolve, over time, is important," Mullen said at a media briefing four days before his Nov. 21 meeting with Obama. "I'm certainly aware of what has been said" prior to the election, he said.
The last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, clashed with the chiefs during his first sit-down with them when they opposed his campaign pledge to end the ban on gays in the military. The chiefs, some of whom held the commander in chief in thinly veiled contempt as a supposed Vietnam draft dodger, won the battle, and Clinton spent much of his two terms seen as an adversary.
But Mullen came away from the Chicago talk reassured that Obama will engage in a discussion with them, balancing risks and "asking tough questions . . . but not in a combative, finger-pointing way," one official said.
The president-elect's invitation to Mullen, whom Obama previously had met only in passing on Capitol Hill and whose first two-year term as chairman does not expire until the end of September, was seen as an attempt to establish a relationship and avoid early conflict. While some Pentagon officials believe an Iraq withdrawal order could become Obama's equivalent of the Clinton controversy over gays, several senior Defense Department sources said that Gates, Mullen and Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of the military's Central Command, are untroubled by the 16-month plan and feel it can be accomplished with a month or two of wiggle room.
These sources noted that Obama himself has said he would not be "careless" about withdrawal and would retain a "residual" force of unspecified size to fight terrorists and protect U.S. diplomats and civilians. The officer most concerned about untimely withdrawal, sources said, is the Iraq commander, Gen. Ray Odierno.Even as the Iraq war continues, defense officials are far more worried about Afghanistan, where they see policy drift and an unfocused mission. With strategy reviews now being completed at the White House and by the chairman's office, an internal Pentagon debate is well underway over whether goals should be lowered.
Although Gen. David McKiernan, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has requested four more U.S. combat brigades, some Pentagon strategists believe a smaller presence of Special Forces and trainers for Afghan forces -- and more attention to Pakistan -- is advisable.
Bush's ideological objective of a modern Afghan democracy, several officials said, is unattainable with current U.S. resources, and there is optimism that Obama will have a more realistic view.
A number of senior officers also look with favor on Obama's call for talks with Iran over Iraq and Afghanistan, separating those issues from U.S. demands over Tehran's nuclear program.
One of the biggest long-term military issues on Obama's plate will be the defense budget, currently topping 4.3 percent of gross domestic product once war expenditures are included.
Obama has said he will increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps, finding savings in the Iraq drawdown and in new scrutiny of spending, including on contractors, weapons programs and missile defense.
"They know the money is coming down," a Pentagon official said of the uniformed services, and many welcome increased discipline.
But it's neither the military's nature nor its role to volunteer the cuts, the official said. "It's for Congress and the administration to say 'Stop it.' "
 
Let's see how he reacts on his first major decision, domestic or foreign. Clinton caved into  everything. How will Obama react with Hillary in his cabinet?
 
Remember, this is the political environment where President elect Obama learned the craft.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rod-blagojevich-1209,0,7997804.story

Illinois Gov. Blagojevich, chief of staff, arrested
Read about the latest developments

By Jeff Coen, David Kidwell and Monique Garcia | Tribune staff reporters
    9:14 AM CST, December 9, 2008

Blagojevich responds

Gov. Rod Blagojevich arrives at the Tribune Tower for an interview with CNN in Chicago. He had earlier appeared outside Republic Windows and Doors plant to offer support for the workers. Outside the plant he spoke to the media for the first time since the Chicago Tribune revealed federal investigators had recorded him and others as part of their corruption probe. Blagojevich said his discussions were "always lawful." (Tribune photo by Nancy Stone / December 8, 2008)

Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, were arrested by FBI agents on federal corruption charges Tuesday morning.

Blagojevich and Harris were arrested simultaneously at their homes at about 6:15 a.m., according to Frank Bochte of the FBI. Both were awakened in their residences and transported to FBI headquarters in Chicago.

In one charge related to the appointment of a senator to replace Barack Obama, prosecutors allege that Blagojevich sought appointment for himseld as Secretary of Health and Human Services in the new Obama administration, or a lucrative job with a union, in exchange for appointing a union-preferred candidate.

Another charge alleges Blagojevich and Harris conspired to demand the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members responsible for editorials critical of him in exchange for state help with the sale of Wrigley Field, the Chicago Cubs baseball stadium owned by Tribune Co.

Blagojevich and Harris, along with others, obtained and sought to gain financial benefits for the governor, members of his family and his campaign fund in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions, state jobs and state contracts, according to the charges.

"The breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering," U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said in a statement.

"They allege that Blagojevich put a 'for sale' sign on the naming of a United States senator; involved himself personally in pay-to-play schemes with the urgency of a salesman meeting his annual sales target; and corruptly used his office in an effort to trample editorial voices of criticism."


Blagojevich is scheduled to appear before U.S. Magistrate Judge Nan Nolan later today, according to Randall Samborn of the U.S. attorney's office.

A three-year federal corruption investigation of pay-to-play politics in Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration has expanded to include his impending selection of a new U.S. senator to succeed President-elect Barack Obama, the Tribune has learned.

Federal authorities got approval from a judge before the November general election to secretly record the governor, sources told the Tribune, and among their concerns was whether the selection process might be tainted. That possibility has become a focus in an intensifying investigation that has included recordings of the governor and the cooperation of one of his closest friends.

The governor has not been accused of any wrongdoing. The specific contents of the recent recordings have not been disclosed. Blagojevich has said the appointment of a Senate successor, which is his choice alone, could come in a matter of weeks.

Speaking to reporters Monday for the first time since the Tribune revealed federal investigators had recorded him and others as part of their corruption probe, Blagojevich said his discussions were "always lawful." He also defended close confidant John Wyma, whose cooperation with federal agents helped lead to the recordings, as "an honest person who's conducted himself in an honest way."

"I should say if anybody wants to tape my conversations, go right ahead, feel free to do it," he said. "I appreciate anybody who wants to tape me openly and notoriously, and those who feel like they want to sneakily, and wear taping devices, I would remind them that it kind of smells like Nixon and Watergate."

Unlike the recordings that the federal government has of Blagojevich, the tapes that led to President Richard Nixon's 1974 resignation over the burglary of Democratic offices at the Watergate complex and the ensuing coverup were made by Nixon himself.

Regardless of "whether you tape me privately or publicly, I can tell you that whatever I say is always lawful and the things I'm interested in are always lawful," Blagojevich said. "And if there are any things out there like that, what you'll hear is a governor who tirelessly and endlessly figures out ways to help average, ordinary working people."

Blagojevich's comments came amid increasing concern by Democrats that the governor's pending appointment of a Senate successor may become politically tainted as a result of the investigations surrounding his administration. Federal investigators have been looking into allegations of corruption regarding state jobs, appointments and contracts in connection with Blagojevich's prolific fundraising.

Blagojevich has not been charged with any wrongdoing and contended that if federal investigators areƒs "going to those lengths and extents [of obtaining recordings], if in fact that's true, that would suggest all the past has been pretty good."

"I don't believe there's any cloud that hangs over me. I think there's nothing but sunshine hanging over me," the governor said.

Blagojevich made the remarks at a Monday morning visit to laid-off workers staging a sit-in at the Republic Windows & Doors plant on Goose Island.

Later Monday, he met for 90 minutes with Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., the South Side and southwest suburban congressman who has been the most visibly active campaigner for the appointment to replace Obama. Jackson, who was among the last high-profile Senate successor candidates to speak with Blagojevich, has had disagreements with the governor and is not close to him.

Blagojevich issued a strong defense of Wyma and accused the Tribune of publishing misinformation and possibly defamatory material.

"To begin with, they didn't get it right," he said. "John Wyma's lawyer put out a statement. The Tribune was wrong and very well may have defamed him."

But the statement from Wyma's lawyer did not directly address the Tribune story and instead appeared directed at media outlets and others who reported Wyma wore a wire.

The Tribune noted that Wyma's cooperation with federal investigators helped lead to recordings of Blagojevich but did not report that he wore a wire.

Wyma's lawyer also did not respond to the Tribune's report that Wyma was cooperating with investigators. "John Wyma is a friend of mine, he was my chief of staff, and I'm sure whatever he does, he does ethically and follows the rules," the governor said.

Blagojevich said he would not remove Wyma from his inner circle of advisers. He also told the Tribune that Wyma was not involved in the deliberations over an Obama successor. "No, I consider him a friend. and I don't consider him as anything but a friend. And to someone who, as I've known him, always has been an honest person who's conducted himself in an honest way," Blagojevich said of Wyma. "That's the John Wyma I know and it's the John Wyma that [Obama's incoming chief of staff, Rep.] Rahm Emanuel knows and a lot of other people know."

Blagojevich said he had last spoken to Wyma the day before Thanksgiving, when he offered holiday wishes and "talked a little bit about the plight of the Detroit Lions. He's from Michigan."

And the governor indicated he was not concerned about Wyma cooperating with federal investigators. "Look, I believe everybody should just tell the truth and pursue the truth and be truthful and then you do that and everything's fine," he said.

Tribune reporter John Chase contributed to this report.

 
It seems that Google's unofficial motto "do no evil" is situational. Perhaps it is time to migrate en mass to another search engine that does not attempt to censor the Internet:

http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpress/now-cached-pages-are-going-away/oddities

Now Cached Pages Are Going Away
December 11th, 2008 Posted in Oddities

It seems like web articles critical of Obama are disappearing faster than you can say Change.

The current crop of disappearing web stories are keeping bloggers busy, but now even cached versions are disappearing.

It’s starting to look like Obama’s machine has really kicked in.

Can you say cover-up?

Here’s Googles policy:

The “Cached” link will be missing for sites that have not been indexed, as well as for sites whose owners have requested we not cache their content.

I think that Google may be kept busy with requests over the next few days.

Control of information is how dictatorships and authoritarians survive. The question we should be asking about Google is who is directing this activity, and what are the owners and managers of Google receiving in return?

The real action we should take is to start changing our search pages away from Google and informing advertisers we will start boycotting anyone who appears on Google.
 
Chicago style politics in action: The new President will have to do a massive amount of housecleaning before getting started

http://mesopotamiawest.blogspot.com/2008/12/rahm-emanuel-on-tape.html

Rahm Emanuel on Tape

I have no idea why this is in a British paper first, but here it is: Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama’s chief of staff, has been caught on tape discussing the names of candidates for Obama’s Senate seat. This is like watching the fall of President Nixon (let's play that tape again), only it's before the Innauguration.

Meanwhile, let's run that Obama quote one more time; the one where he says he knows his office is clean:

    "But what I'm absolutely certain about is that our office had no involvement in any deal-making around my Senate seat. That I'm absolutely certain of," Obama added.

So the question is; did the man closest to the President-elect mention to the President-elect that he had a conversation with the Governor of Illinois over a replacement for the President-elect in the Senate?

Or to put that the old-fashioned way; when did he know about the negotiations and when did he cover this knowledge up?
 
Gupta has told administration officials that he wants the job, and the final vetting process is under way.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2009/01/06/obama_wants_journalist_for_sur.html?hpid=topnews

CNN's Medical Correspondent- Dr. Sanjay Gupta-for US Surgeon General?
 
Hopefully he'll deliver on this once he assumes office:

Obama To Revamp Counterterrorism Efforts - NYTimes

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama will revamp the way the U.S. government coordinates counterterrorism efforts, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

The newspaper, citing people close to the presidential transition, said on its website that Obama would abolish the White House homeland security adviser's office and transfer its responsibilities to the National Security Council.

A deputy national security adviser would oversee plans to guard against terrorism and also respond to natural disasters, the Times said.

CIA veteran John Brennan will be named to that post, Democrats close to the transition told the newspaper. Brennan was mentioned as a possible candidate for the post of CIA director, but the Times said criticism of his views on interrogation and detention scuttled that.

The paper said final decisions about domestic security positions would not be made until Obama's advisers conducted a formal review. But people involved with the discussions told the Times the only real questions appeared to be how to fold domestic security responsibilities into the National Security Council and how to make sure domestic security did not appear to be a lower priority.

Under the restructuring, Brennan would report to Gen. James Jones, the retired Marine commandant expected to serve as national security adviser, the Times reported. Dozens of staffers working for the homeland security adviser would likely be transferred to the National Security Council staff, the paper said. The Department of Homeland Security would be unaffected by the changes, according to the Times.

National security adviser Stephen Hadley and other aides to President George W. Bush urged Obama's advisers not to get rid of the special homeland security office because it could load too many responsibilities on the National Security Council, the Times said.

Copyright © 2008 Reuters
 
I agree with energy efficiency. I can't find any proof that global warming or CO2 is any threat to anything, anywhere, or has any scientific credence.

A "lasting peace" in the middle East will come when it quits being the goal of the relatively gigantic land areas of the Arab countries to take the 7850 square miles that is Israel's. This will not happen any time soon. Israel is roughly the size of New Jersey.

A plus for America, definitely, would be if it could actually keep its soldiers, government agencies, and others with power in check.

If the EPA actually allowed any manufacturing to be done in the USA it would be helpful, also. This comes back to the financially-motivated "carbon tax" idiocy that hs no basis in real science by basically penalizing energy usage, and any country that does more than raise livestock and gather herbs for sustenance of their economy.

In effect, the USA is bleeding, morally, financially, educationally, and in the manufacturing of stuff that actually has real value. Meanwhile, China et al are rocketing forward, drastically increasing their infrastructure (infrastructure incurs on the habitat of the lesser fart-faced nocturnal shrieking slime gecko [or whatever the victim-du-jour "discovered" by the EPA may be], and is thus is taboo in the USA, it seems)

When your people are being bombarded by media extolling the virtues of being a ho and/or gangsta, when your schools are breeding grounds for ignorance, prejudice, and sloth, when your financial institutions are run by self-aggrandizing large-scale thieves, and when your industry is being branded as the reason for the demise of the whole species of man because it produces CO2, which plants, on which we depend for oxygen, thrive, then in which direction will you head?

Downhill.

Exalting wanton excess gained by activities that are morally despicable instead of honoring constructive values such as honesty, hard work, self-sacrifice, and loyalty will lead to destruction.

There is something badly wrong when men place no value on women NOT acting in a way that would have shamed a prostitute 50 years ago, and when women place no value on men being faithful, morally upright (mongamous), and honest, but instead sell themselves to any scum that has enough money to finance the acquisition and display of trinkets, large and small, knowing that when the marriage ends, she can soak him for 50+% of anything he ever makes, ad infinitum.

The skin discoloration we are starting to see on the surface of the USA is a result of a far deeper cancer, and is not merely adolescent acne. When people, on a personal level, abandon values that are absolutely critical for a society to have if it is to continue to grow stronger, then the society fragments into petty, warring factions, (possibly rightly) fearful of being shanked by the other factions, and ceases to expend maximum energy on constructive activity.
 
Thucydides said:
It seems that Google's unofficial motto "do no evil" is situational. Perhaps it is time to migrate en mass to another search engine that does not attempt to censor the Internet:

http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpress/now-cached-pages-are-going-away/oddities

Control of information is how dictatorships and authoritarians survive. The question we should be asking about Google is who is directing this activity, and what are the owners and managers of Google receiving in return?

The real action we should take is to start changing our search pages away from Google and informing advertisers we will start boycotting anyone who appears on Google.

Does ANYONE here remember how Toshiba sold a giant three-story-tall seven-axis milling machine to the Soviet Union in, I believe, 1986, thus enabling the Soviets to have submarine propellors as quiet as the Americans?

When I was living in the USA, not one time did I ever find anyone who had heard of it.

In Canada, it was all over the news. At that time, I made up my mind to never purchase anything from Toshiba, and never will, it was that dramatic a piece of bad news. In the USA... no one heard of it.
 
It would be less embarrassing/questionable if they could wear their affiliations with pride rather than scrubbing websites and trying to hide "who they are". It's not like thinking and informed people didn't know and understand what was being offered by a putative Obama administration:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/

Obama climate czar has socialist ties
Stephen Dinan (Contact)

Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.


Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.

The group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization's action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Obama, who has said action on climate change would be a priority in his administration, tapped Mrs. Browner last month to fill a new position as White House coordinator of climate and energy policies. The appointment does not need Senate confirmation.

Mr. Obama's transition team said Mrs. Browner's membership in the organization is not a problem and that it brings experience in U.S. policymaking to her new role.

"The Commission for a Sustainable World Society includes world leaders from a variety of political parties, including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who succeeded Tony Blair, in serving as vice president of the convening organization," Obama transition spokesman Nick Shapiro said.

"Carol Browner was chosen to help the president-elect coordinate energy and climate policy because she understands that our efforts to create jobs, achieve energy security and combat climate change demand integration among different agencies; cooperation between federal, state and local governments; and partnership with the private sector," Mr. Shapiro said in an e-mail.

Mrs. Browner ran the Environmental Protection Agency under President Clinton. Until she was tapped for the Obama administration, she was on the board of directors for the National Audubon Society, the League of Conservation Voters, the Center for American Progress and former Vice President Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection.

Her name has been removed from the Gore organization's Web site list of directors, and the Audubon Society issued a press release about her departure from that organization.

Republicans said Mrs. Browner's work with Socialist International raises questions.

"Does she agree with the group's positions on global governance - that the United States should abdicate its international leadership to international organizations? Does she support its position that the international community should be the ultimate arbiter of climate change policy?" said Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

"These are questions that merit answers - especially when you consider this group's deep skepticism about America's ability to be a force for positive change in the world," she said.

An aide on the Obama team said its information shows that Mrs. Browner resigned from the organization in June 2008. The aide, who asked not to be named because he was discussing internal matters, said the transition team was aware she had been a member of the group when she was vetted.

The Socialist International Web site didn't have a copy of her June 30 speech, but the agenda for the meeting had her scheduled to speak as part of a panel on "How do we strengthen the multilateral architecture for a sustainable future?"

Other panel participants were Sergey Mironov, speaker of the Russian legislature's upper chamber and a close ally of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin; Zhang Zhijun, vice minister of the International Department of the Chinese Communist Party's Central Committee; and Jesus Caldera, a former Minister of Employment and Social Affairs of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party.

A woman answering the phone at Socialist International's headquarters in London said all officers were traveling.

Nobody from the organization returned a message left Friday.

Socialist International bills itself as the world body of democratic socialist movements. It includes members ranging from Israel's Labor Party and France's Socialist Party to Angola's MPLA, which won the 1970s Angolan civil war with the aid of Soviet arms and Cuban troops.

The organization distinguishes itself from violent or revolutionary communist parties. However, some such groups, including the Chinese Communist Party, have been invited to its events as guest organizations.

The Democratic Socialists of America, not the Democratic Party, is listed as the group's U.S. representative. But Mrs. Browner was listed as an individual member of Socialist International, but not a member of the DSA.

While agreeing with Mr. Obama on the need for action to address climate change, the organization wants more draconian policies than the president-elect's preferred solution.

During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama called for a cap-and-trade system to control carbon emissions. He argued that such a system is efficient and lets the free market determine where it's easiest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Socialist International says such "flexible mechanisms" do not clamp down hard enough on polluters.

The organization often takes a decidedly critical view of the U.S.

At this summer's meeting, the group issued a statement on economics that blasted the "neo-liberal market ideology and the unilateralist, U.S.-dominated approach in the global economic system," and attacked the U.S. for dominating international financial institutions.

At its meeting earlier in 2008 in Santiago, Chile, Socialist International endorsed "global governance" as the solution to the world's problems of peace and climate change.

At a July meeting in St. Petersburg, the commission said developed countries "should think of decreasing current consumption levels" - which would mean shrinking their economies - in order to help the environment.

Socialist International regularly blasts the construction of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. The fence was approved by both houses of Congress, including with Mr. Obama's vote in the Senate.

Socialist International was congratulatory when Mr. Obama won the election, issuing a statement noting that "the sky may seem a bit brighter today" but warning still that "there are enormous global challenges that must be addressed effectively and without delay."
 
This, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is going to really come as a pitcher of piss poured into the cornflakes of Canada’s left leaning Liberals and the NDP faithful:
-------------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090115.wcogee16/BNStory/Business/columnists

Notwithstanding Obamamania, the U.S. is fixated on terrorism

MARCUS GEE

From Friday's Globe and Mail
January 16, 2009 at 12:00 AM EST

"The gravest threat that America faces is the danger that weapons of mass destruction will fall into the hands of terrorists." Who said that? U.S. President George W. Bush before the Iraq war? Vice-President Dick Cheney? Perhaps Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice?

Sorry, none of the above. The answer is incoming secretary of state Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, at her Senate confirmation hearings this week.

The world is expecting big changes from Barack Obama and his new team when they take office next Tuesday. Before the Senate foreign relations committee, Ms. Clinton promised an era of "smart power" in which "diplomacy will be the vanguard of our foreign policy" and persuasion will come before coercion.

But before we get carried away with Obamamania, let's remember one thing: Let's remember what Americans remember. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, may be a fading memory in much of the world. American leaders, though, remain fixated on the double threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

This is not some paranoid obsession. The events of 9/11 made it clear to everyone that America faced a new enemy that had no compunction about massacring thousands of civilians. If this enemy could fly hijacked airliners into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, what would it do if it had nuclear, chemical or biological weapons?

There is a broad bipartisan consensus that the U.S. must use every means at its disposal - including military force if necessary - to prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda or some other terrorist group. Even a liberal Democrat such as Senator John Kerry says (as he put it at this week's hearing) this is "the age of catastrophic terrorism."

Mr. Obama swears he will do everything in his power to prevent Iran, a notorious backer of terrorists, from developing nuclear weapons. Ms. Clinton calls a nuclear-armed Iran "unacceptable" - the same formulation used by the Bush crew - and says the incoming administration will not rule out any option to solve the problem. On North Korea, similarly, Ms. Clinton says Washington will "embark upon a very aggressive effort" to take nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Kim Jong-il regime, which tested a bomb in 2006.

Naturally, Ms. Clinton says the new administration prefers to talk first, draw guns later. But who doesn't? The Bush White House spent years working through diplomatic channels to disarm North Korea, eventually securing its agreement to shut down a nuclear reactor in return for oil supplies. The administration even made the extraordinary concession of removing North Korea from its list of terrorist states, though it is still far from clear whether Pyongyang will follow through on its disarmament promises.

On Iran, too, Washington stood back for years while Europe tried to talk Tehran back from the nuclear brink. Mr. Obama says he will try diplomacy again and even talk directly to Iranian leaders if it offers hope of a settlement. But that doesn't make him any less determined to keep Iran from going nuclear.

Nor is he less hawkish on terrorism. He has made it clear he will use all of his country's intelligence assets and military prowess to track down terrorist chiefs wherever they hide.

Washington's continuing fixation with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction is bound to come between the U.S. and its allies. Much as they are looking forward to better relations, most of them don't see eye to eye with the Americans on this issue. In Europe, in particular, terrorism is seen in part as a struggle within, involving alienated Muslim immigrants and the extremists among them. The U.S. idea of a global "war on terror" strikes them as over the top, and even dangerous. That makes this era fundamentally different from the Cold War, when a common Soviet enemy bound Europe and the U.S. together.

With the departure of Tony Blair, Washington's staunchest ally, even the British are warning that a new approach is needed. In a speech in India yesterday, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said the idea of a war on terror was mistaken and misleading.

Mr. Obama no doubt shares some of those misgivings, especially over how the war on terror was used to justify the war in Iraq. It does not mean he discounts the threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Since 9/11, U.S. leaders have had a recurring nightmare of destruction that would make that September day pale by comparison. It is a threat that eclipses all others, and it will preoccupy them for years to come.

-------------------------

So, the big change will be that President Obama, in seeking an extension of the Afghanistan mission beyond 2011 or in seeking our support for an attack on Iran, will ask and cajole before he blusters at us.

 
I am just posting a copy of US PRESIDENT OBAMA's inauguration speech for everyone's benefit, including the usual naysayers.  ;)  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/obama_inauguration/7840646.stm

Full text: Obama inauguration speech
Barack Obama has been sworn in as the 44th US president. Here is his inauguration speech in full.

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and co-operation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we, the people, have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labour, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and travelled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and ploughed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - that a nation cannot prosper long when it favours only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defence, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the spectre of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defence, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honour them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have travelled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.
 
CougarDaddy said:
I am just posting a copy of US PRESIDENT OBAMA's inauguration speech for everyone's benefit, including the usual naysayers.  ;) 

Naaaay.
 
So what sort of man is the new President? Inquiring minds have wanted to know for a long time:

Chicago Boyz - http://chicagoboyz.net -

Quote of the Day III
Posted By Lexington Green On January 20, 2009 @ 12:24 pm In Book Notes, Management, Politics, USA | Comments Disabled

Michiko Kakutani of the New York Times is much impressed by the [1] books Obama has read, or says he has read. I am almost in despair when I read the same list. Obama will be the commander in chief — but he appears to have read almost nothing on military history or strategy. And he does not seem to see that as a defect in his preparation for the presidency. There no books on science, technology, or economics in the list.

[2] Jim Miller

(Of the many things I do not like about Obama, this ignorance of his role as Commander in Chief scares me the most. I share Miller’s despair, but without the qualification of “almost”. Like Miller, I fondly hope he surprises me. At least, for now, he has some good advisors on the subject.)

UPDATE: Obama’s reading list, [3] with links. Dude. Wow. It is thin. (Via [4] Instapundit)

UPDATE II: Henry Kissinger somewhere said that once you get into high office you consume intellectual capital. You cannot add to it. You don’t have time. You’d better have a good stock of intellectual firewood, because you are going to burn it all. Obama’s got a pretty much empty woodshed. God help us, he better have good advisors and a good gut, and the luck of the Irish (I’ll lend him mine) and a rabbit’s foot. I don’t think you can just be “smart” in general, you have to actually know things. The very people who berated Bush for being an intellectual lightweight have bought this Obama guy like he is a bright, shiny, new Red Wagon. But there is no reason to think that Bush was less knowledgeable than this guy, other than the smoothness of Obama’s delivery. And Bush was a bitter disappointment to many of his supporters (my hand is raised) and a figure of hatred and ridicule to lots of other people. Stay tuned. We just handed the car keys to some guy from out of town with a nice smile and a glossy shoe shine. Hope it all works out … .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from Chicago Boyz: http://chicagoboyz.net

URL to article: http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6662.html

URLs in this post:
[1] books Obama has read: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/books/19read.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Kakutani&st=cse
[2] Jim Miller: http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/January2009_3.html#jrm6978
[3] with links: http://www.omnivoracious.com/2009/01/obamas-reading-list-revised.html
[4] Instapundit: http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/66882/
 
My view of the inaugural address:

"We will not apologize for our way of life...
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/012557.html

...nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1872715-3,00.html

No moral relativism from President Obama. No root causes. A clear triumphalism. How, er, un-Canadian. Not that our pundits will notice.

Overall, the address was one from a stern, yet graceful, headmaster upbraiding the school assembled and reminding them of the school's great past, the values therein encapsulated--and its potential future.

He might also have been a military commander addressing troops who have shown signs of faltering. Now he is working to rebuild their faith in themselves, with tough language and his personal confidence--and without theatre. No Patton, but a very cool, crisp and determined leader.

Well done. On verra.

Mark
Ottawa
 

Via Quote of the Day III and the NYT

...Mr. Obama tends to take a magpie approach to reading — ruminating upon writers’ ideas and picking and choosing those that flesh out his vision of the world or open promising new avenues of inquiry.

His predecessor, George W. Bush, in contrast, tended to race through books in competitions with Karl Rove (who recently boasted that he beat the president by reading 110 books to Mr. Bush’s 95 in 2006),

So now, the President who was too much of a Chimp to be able to read is accused of reading too much .... and too fast.  His successor reads occasionally and slowly.
Bush, who was accused of not listening to advice, now stands accused of taking the advice he was given.  His successor is not known for reading books that offer practical advice.  He prefers poetry and philosophy.
Bush stood accused of acting.  Apparently that is not Barack's way.  He ruminates (Ruminate: to chew the cud as does the placid and docile cow).

But he does look good doing it and reads a speech very well.
 
“I WON.” In Bush, this would have been troubling hubris. In Obama, fortunately, it’s just manly self-assurance.

Posted at 6:45 pm by Glenn Reynolds 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html

Obama to GOP: 'I won'
By JONATHAN MARTIN & CAROL E. LEE | 1/23/09 1:25 PM EST  Updated: 1/23/09 6:36 PM EST  Text Size:   
 
President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

The exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who don’t pay income taxes, the sources said.

The Republicans stressed that they want to include more middle class tax cuts in the package, citing their proposal to cut the two lowest tax rates — 15 percent and 10 percent — to ten percent and five percent, rather than issue the refundable credit Obama wants.

At another point in the meeting, sources said Obama told the group: “This is a grave situation facing the country.” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama would hold another economic meeting in the White House Saturday for a "broader group."

After Friday's meeting, Democratic and Republican leaders publicly wrangled over the developing stimulus plan.

But perhaps taking a cue from Obama’s “I won” line when Democrats were asked if they were concerned about Republicans blocking the package, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a swift one-word answer: “No.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the bill was on track for passage by February 16, while Republicans continued to voice their opposition.

“We expressed our concerns about some of the spending that’s being proposed in the House bill,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said after meeting with Obama.

“How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives?” Boehner asked. “How does that stimulate the economy?”

Boehner said congressional Republicans are also concerned about the size of the package.

“Government can’t solve this problem,” he said.

Reid said a Congressional Budget Office report that says the stimulus funds won’t be pumped into the economy until 2010 doesn’t provide an accurate picture.

Republicans have used the report to back up their argument against a near $1 trillion package. But Reid said Obama Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag told them CBO only analyzed 40 percent of the bill.

He also said Orszag guaranteed “that at least 75 percent of the bill would go directly into the economy within the first 18 months.”

Pelosi suggested that the package, currently at $825 billion, could become even larger.

“It has grown,” Pelosi said, “and we’re still in the process.”


At the meeting, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, passed out copies of the Republicans’ five-point stimulus plan. At first blush, Obama said, “Nothing on here looks outlandish or crazy to me,” Obama said, according to a source familiar with the conversation. He seemed particularly receptive to some Republican ideas about increasing benefits to small businesses.

But when the conversation got down to other specifics, it was clear that some of the Republican ideas were clearly non-starters with the new president – including calls to put off tax hikes during the recession. “He rejected that out of hand and said we couldn’t have any hard and fast rules like that,” Cantor said.

Lisa Lerer and Josh Gerstein contributed.

I think the next four years will be very entertaining since I will constantly be able to point out the current administration "did it just like George W Bush". Cover from exploding heads is advised!
 
Comparisons to FDR and the "New Deal" should be treated seriously, considering what really happened then as opposed to the mythology:

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/012606.html

A country in need of a dictator...
...when Mussolini was a Good Thing. It's interesting what has been forgotten about attitudes when FDR assumed the presidency. From a review essay in the New York Review of Books:

[...]
"The nation expected Roosevelt to claim the powers of a dictator, or close to it," Adam Cohen states in Nothing to Fear. He quotes Senator William Borah, the highly respected progressive Republican from Idaho, declaring himself ready to put politics aside and "give our incoming President dictatorial power within the Constitution for a certain period."

"If this country ever needed a Mussolini, it needs one now," said Senator David Reed, a Pennsylvania Republican. Even Lippmann, having dismissed candidate Roosevelt just a few months earlier, wrote that the use of "'dictatorial powers,' if that is the name for it—is essential.'"

Roosevelt addressed the dictatorship question in his Inaugural Address, saying he intended to work with Congress on the nation's problems and hoped the president's traditional powers would suffice to help solve them. If not, he would ask for a "temporary departure," asking for "broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe."

As Cohen observes, this was "the most radical" passage in the Inaugural, "with its understated suggestion of autocracy." He notes that "it received an enthusiastic response from the crowd." Adolf Hitler had become chancellor of Germany just over one month earlier; Benito Mussolini, as Italy's prime ministerial dictator since 1922, was fairly popular in the United States. In the astonishing tumult of legislation that immediately followed Roosevelt's inauguration, Congress proved so eager to vote immediately for anything he wanted that he seemed to have been granted dictatorial power without asking for it.

...the present economic breakdown is obviously not terrifying enough for Obama to engage in such presidential strutting. Republican senators are not yet yearning for a Mussolini to save us from the greedy bunglers of Wall Street...
 
Back
Top