Jindahl to west coast: Drop Dead

From Bobby Jindahl's Republican rebuttal to the Obama speech last night:

While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a 'magnetic levitation' line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called 'volcano monitoring.'

Now, granted some of this is just plain stupid. The government (like any public or private institution) needs certain resources and unless he is willing to provide us with some context like how many cars the government needs to carry out its duties, what kind of cars they are buying and what the market price is, and how old the cars they have now are and what kind of repair bills they are running up (not to mention the gas mileage of the old and the new cars), his assertion that $300 million for new cars is wasteful spending seems unsupported by any background information. He might be right, but if he is then he has to give us more information than just the price tag.

As for the high speed rail project, again we don't know the context. It certainly sounds wasteful, but for starters is the terminal actually at Disneyland, or is it simply someplace in the greater Los Angeles metro area? And if it is, how many people drive every day between Las Vegas and LA? It may be the best investment of funds we've ever seen, without any background information we don't know if it's wasteful or not.

But the real threat he makes is by attacking funding for volcano monitoring. The United States ranks third, behind Indonesia and Japan, for the number of active volcanoes. Over twenty are in areas where they represent a significant threat to people, and are being monitored. The metropolitan area most at risk is Portland, Oregon, which lives in the shadow of Mount Hood, which is active and erupts periodically. A Mount St. Helens-type blowup of Mount Hood (which is a distinct possibility and sooner or later is likely) could potentially incinerate or bury up to a million people in the Portland area. Now, granted life goes on in Portland but the idea that we should quit monitoring the volcano is asinine. Coming from a Governor who several times in his speech referred to Hurricane Katrina is obscene (Hey Guv, how about shutting down the National Hurricane Center? What do we spend on it every year? How about it, Guv?)

I live in northern Arizona, a region pretty much devoid of natural disasters, but I recognize as an American that I have a duty to pay taxes to help monitor natural disasters that may threaten people who live in regions that aren't as blessed that way as this one is.

Since I don't believe that Bobby Jindahl is stupid (willing to play politics with anything, yes, but stupid no) I have to conclude that this attack on volcano monitoring is a veiled threat against the citizens of Washington, Oregon and Northern California (the populated areas most endangered by volcanic explosions.) After all, the west coast now elects six Democratic Senators (out of six), a 44-23 Democratic split in the house, and has gone Democratic for President for the past five elections (past six for Washington and Oregon.) Last year the west coast handed Obama 73 electoral votes. So the clear message sent by his honing in on volcano monitoring (as opposed to tornados, hurricanes or other disasters that might affect people in red states) is "If you don't vote for us then drop dead." Literally.

Yeah, I know that there was recently a volcano threatening Anchorage, Alaska. Dang, maybe even Sarah Palin would have done a better job with this assignment than Jindahl.

Perish the thought.

George Lakoff and the Obama Code

Fivethirtyeight posted a special article written by George Lakoff and submitted to fivethirtyeight, entitled George Lakoff on the Obama Code.

Lakoff was the progressive who caught onto the way Republicans were winning the framing debate some years back and helped educate the left by explaining to us that we can't keep debating on their turf. A prime example of that is the term, "tax relief." Using the terms suggests that taxes are an affliction, so reducing them is always then a good thing. There are many other examples as well in which we stumble into their way of framing things (i.e. 'global warming controversy,' or 'war against terror.') It's like becoming the visiting team every time we debate with Republicans. That's not to say that we can't win a debate (sometimes the visiting team wins the game) but as long as we are debating using their language we are already starting at a disadvantage.

So Lakoff has analyzed the 'Obama code,' and discusses how we are likely to see things work, and the meaning of what Obama says, prior to tonight's speech. I won't repost the whole thing here (since Nate Silver is a guy I respect and he deserves credit for being selected by Lakoff as the outlet for this insightful article) but if you follow the link it's worth a read.

Sort of like the Energizer bunny.

Socks, formerly the Clintons' cat, died today. When the Clintons moved out of the White House, they gave Socks to press secretary Betty Curry, who has kept him for the past eight years.

Socks, it seems, had only one life.

But the Clintons do have nine lives.

The Republican one-page playbook

DEEP THOUGHT got an exclusive interview with an anonymous Republican Senator, who agreed to the interview on the condition that we keep his name anonymous.

DT: Thank you for coming today, Senator. Would you like some cookies?

S: Yes, thank you, and would you like some tax cuts?

DT: No, thanks. President Obama faces some huge problems. Chief among them is the economy. I noticed that like almost all of your GOP colleagues you voted against the President's stimulus plan, even after it had been watered down in negotiations with a handful of Republican RINOs.

S: It didn't include enough tax cuts.

DT: But by the end of the negotiations, almost 2/5 of the bill was tax cuts.

S: That's not enough.

DT: But Obama won the election, shouldn't he get a chance to do what he feels is necessary to fix the economy?

S: Sure, and we are willing to work with him on ways to cut taxes.

DT: Didn't tax cuts help get us into this mess? The economy prospered under the Clinton tax rates, but after Bush cut taxes in March 2001 companies built new factories overseas and outsourced millions of jobs, and the economy never did grow again after that as fast as it had under Clinton.

S: The problem was that after 2001, we didn't cut taxes enough. Bush's problem was that he wasn't aggressive enough, or he'd have pushed for another trillion in tax cuts the next year, and the year after that.

DT: And then raise them again when the economy is stronger?

S: Of course not. When the economy is good then you need to cut taxes.

DT: So when the economy is bad, we need tax cuts. But when it's good, as it was when Bush was running in 2000, you still need tax cuts?

S: Of course you do. It's sort of like breathing. You always need more tax cuts. Just repeat after me, "I need a tax cut... I need a tax cut..."

DT: Cut it out! Let's change the subject and talk about terrorism. How should the Obama administration approach the issue of international terrorism?

S: With tax cuts.

DT: How will tax cuts help?

S: They will just make things better, so much so that we won't care if terrorists attack again. We'll be able to afford our own private security guards.

DT: You maybe, I'm sure that one would be a bit out of my price range.

S: Offer the security guard a tax cut, maybe you can get a cheap rate.

DT: OK, let's talk about Iraq. George Bush completely lost his way after he started the war. How do you propose we get out of Iraq?

S: With tax cuts.

DT: TAX CUTS?!? How will they help get us out of Iraq?

S: They will cause all the people of Iraq to stop fighting and start hugging each other because they will all realize that they want tax cuts too. Remember, they're still looking for an excuse to throw flowers at us since we got rid of Saddam for them. Tax cuts would be the perfect reason for them to express their gratitude.

DT: So you are saying that tax cuts will fix Iraq. OK, what would you do about internet pornography?

S: Tax cuts.

DT: (sigh). Senator, what would you do about steroids in baseball?

S: Cut taxes.

DT: Pollution?

S: Tax Cuts.

DT: Identity theft and stock fraud?

S: A capital gains tax cut.

DT: Education and all the paperwork created by NCLB?

S: Tax cuts

DT: The flu?

S: Tax cuts are the cure.

DT: Gambling by NBA officials?

S: Tax cuts, for sure.

DT: Orbiting space junk?

S: Tax cuts.

DT: The peanut butter salmonella scandal?

S: They should have given the peanut company a tax cut.

DT: OK. Let's remember some history. What do you think about the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln earlier this week?

S: He is overrated as a President. There would have been no need for the Civil War if he'd just passed a big tax cut when he became President.

DT: Fine. REALLY Off-topic, I have a 2003 Dodge and it keeps squeaking at me when I turn left. Any idea on what I should do fix the problem?

S: A tax cut, definitely would fix it.

DT: Is there ANYTHING that you believe can't be cured by tax cuts?

S: Sure.

DT: What is that?

S: Death. Wait--if taxes aren't a sure thing, then maybe neither is death. On second thought, no there isn't anything that a tax cut won't cure.

DT: OK. Good-bye Senator.

S: Good-bye. Oh, yeah, did I remember to talk about tax cuts?

Don Bivens for Arizona Democratic Party Chair

The other day I put up a post entitled "An open letter to Paul Eckerstrom."

It had to do with how disappointed I was, including in myself, for supporting a guy who clearly was not up to the job as state party chair. He quit after only thirteen days.

In the process I had voted against Don Bivens, who I believe has done a pretty good job over the past couple of years as state party chair. Yeah, we did lose several legislative races last year (when we faced the triple whammy of McCain at the top of the ticket, prop 102 and continuing to run against a Republican gerrymander that we were handed by the supposedly "non-partisan" redistricting commission in 2001.) I know the state party has made getting a fair redistricting following the 2010 census a high priority.

Despite that, under Bivens we have outraised and outorganized the Republicans (this is still a state with a clear Republican voter registration edge, but less so than it has been in the past.) Looking past the legislative losses, we gained a congressional district (this one), and came literally within a couple hundred votes of going from no seats on the five member corporation commission to gaining majority (3 out of 5) control. As it is, we have two seats on the commission and with two more Republican seats up in 2010 I believe there is a very good chance we could pick up a majority. And winning seats on the commission is something that has been a party priority since, well, I became active but we never were able to pull it out until this past year.

More the point, Bivens this week sent out a letter to all of us on the state committee saying that he gets it. I believe him about that. He knows that we are all disappointed about the legislative races. And he's prepared to lead on that. Certainly now everyone in the state has seen point blank what this legislature, with a Republican Governor who would sign whatever budget they send her, will do. I've had conversations with people the past few years, when Janet Napolitano was providing a safety zone against legislative excesses, say "they wouldn't really cut that much out of the schools." Well, they will. They are. People can see that now. So we have a chance to make substantial gains in the legislature this year.

And I believe that Don Bivens is the guy who can help us do it-- he certainly has made it clear that he can and does learn by experience. Further, in picking himself up from the stunning loss of a couple of weeks ago and getting back in the saddle, he's showing that he is capable and willing to shake it off, and to stay in for the long haul. That is exactly the role model we need as we go back to work on the legislative races. The truth is, we all lost those races last year. But the gains that he made, in helping us organize and gain more voters across the state, are long term gains.

One thing that Paul Eckerstrom said in his speech that resonated was to develop a think tank to balance some of the garbage that comes from the Goldwater Institute(something that a lot of us have talked about in the past.) But I found out later that Don Bivens had talked to Vince Rabago about it at a meeting just the night before last month's vote, just he didn't discuss it in his acceptance speech. But he supports the idea too.

So although I did not vote for Mr. Bivens two weeks ago (and told him I hadn't), I will vote for him this time around. It's not often in life that if you make a mistake you get a do-over, but I'm glad that this time I get one. And this time I will make the right decision, and vote for Don Bivens for Arizona Democratic Party chair.

Accident this week highlights how we are making space more hazardous than it needs to be

The astronaut worked carefully, adjusting the solar panel which collected energy for the space station. Space walks were rare nowadays, with sophisticated robots doing most of the routine, and increasingly more complex outside work. But once in awhile there was still a need for a human touch. As she carefully set the final rivet in place, the astronaut felt a sense of exhiliration, not unlike that which anyone would feel upon doing a job better than any robot could....

All of a sudden it happened. A piece of space debris four and a half inches long and perhaps half as wide, weighing about a pound, and probably from some old and forgotten satellite or other relic from the late twentieth or early twenty-first century, ripped through her space suit travelling at several miles per second, many times faster than any bullet that had ever been fired by any gun on the earth. Instantly it passed all the way through her body, and she died in excruciating pain, but very quickly as blood, entrails and other contents of the space suit were ripped out into the icy vacuum of space. The space suit, now useless, shredded as her body blew up in the vacuum and literally exploded.

Even before anything had spilled out, the projectile had shattered the solar panel, depriving the station of power, and smashed into the outside wall. Though the wall had been planned and built extra thick precisely in anticipation of this kind of event, the piece was large enough that it punctured the outer wall. The emergency doors detected the immediate drop in pressure and sealed off the compartment that had been breached, though this meant death for the two astronauts inside it (nothing could be done about that, they almost certainly died nearly as gruesomely as their colleague outside as the air was sucked at an incredible rate through the hole that had been made in the wall.

Science fiction? Perhaps. But this nightmare scenario will be faced by Captain Kirk or any other future astronauts as they venture out into space. It will be confined to the vicinity of earth, but it is our generation's gift to them.

A gift for which we will be cursed probably for hundreds or even thousands of years, just as we today curse those who left such hazards as chemical dumps that continue to poison people who live near them and which we all pay thousands of dollars a year to clean up as those who created them are long since dead, radioactive islands in the Pacific that will not be habitable for thousands of years, or who chose to hunt animals like the passenger pigeon to extinction without giving any thought to what we can't do or see anymore. And remember the tragic episode that happened here in Arizona about a year and a half ago which I blogged about, when a girl lost her life and another was critically injured, courtesy of some now-forgotten miners from a hundred years ago or longer, who simply walked away from the mineshaft they had dug into the earth without bothering to mark it.

Well, now it's our turn to be the miners who don't care what future generations will go through in space as the consequence of our own devil-may-care attitude about it.

As portrayed graphically in this image (though it is a graphic designed to make a point-- the objects are portrayed by scale as miles wide, when they are at most a few meters across), the earth is now being orbited by over 12,000 known pieces of space debris, ranging from fractions of an inch to defunct satellites or pieces of satellites weighing several tons. Pieces now being tracked include such objects as a screwdriver that was once lost on a spacewalk, along with the more mundane such as military, weather or communications satellites that are no longer in use.

But the pieces which are known about and are being tracked are not the ones we have to worry the most about. Rather, it is those which are not being tracked. This problem came into perspective last Thursday when an old Russian military satellite collided with a communications satellite operated by Iridium communications, inc. The fault was clearly that of the Russian government. It is true that most governments don't make the locations of their military satellites public (especially since we know that several nations have the technology to shoot down satellites) but certainly once it was no longer in use the Russians should either have provided tracking data to NASA and other organizations that keep track of this kind of stuff, or else put it into a decaying orbit which would cause it to burn up and fall to earth over water (what is usually done with old satellites.)

God knows how many new, certainly untracked pieces of space junk were created by the collision. Most fell to earth, but many did not and are now orbiting in orbits that no one has a clue about-- until they hit something. Several years ago a tile on the space shuttle was damaged when it apparently hit a fleck of paint-- in other words a tiny piece of orbital debris-- that had apparently flaked off of some long ago space mission. Unneeded trash, human waste (yes, there are shits in space, zipping along hundreds of miles over our head at several miles per second)-- those were once let go into space as well (though to our credit we now recycle everything that can be recycled, and stash the rest.)

Most galling, China test fired a missile several years ago at a real target, a satellite six hundred miles in space. This certainly created thousands of untracked pieces of space debris (well, what do they care? They're China.) Then the U.S. responded with our own missile test last year. The cover story was that we were protecting the population of the earth from lethal hydrazine fuel from a disabled satellite. Of course, even if you found the fuel tank, hydrazine would only be lethal if you stood there and sniffed it for hours (and dozens of satellites with hydrazine fuel tanks have fallen to earth in the past without any consequences.) In other words, it was a missile test to show that we could do what the Chinese can do, but after the flack they took for theirs we had to find an excuse.

Unlike explosions on earth, where nature eventually heals even the most horrific of scars (such as those caused by nuclear testing), an explosion in space is destined to leave debris that will orbit the earth into the far distant future, perhaps forever. It's safe to say that if there is ever a war fought in space then it will turn low earth orbit into a deadly field of orbiting debris that future astronauts will breathe a sigh of relief when they clear. The asteroid belt would probably be a safer place.

Obviously there will always be accidents in space (like dropping a screwdriver) and that can't be helped, but we have an obligation to future generations to begin urging governments and private companies that venture into space to put together a policy by which 1. no dumping of any kind will be allowed (just because we've wised up on this doesn't mean everyone will-- so let's get it in writing while we can and this provision remains relatively non-controversial); 2. all satellites should be tracked or safely removed from near earth orbit (whether that means putting them into a decaying orbit to re-enter over water, as is done now, or whether it means boosting them out of earth's orbit entirely either out of the solar system or into the sun), including military satellites that are no longer in use; and 3. (especially this one) just like the nuclear test ban that the United States and the Soviet Union inked in 1962 when the hazards of atmospheric radiation were becoming obvious and could no longer be ignored, it is time to urge that the U.S., China and any other nation that is developing into space sign a ban against test firing anti-satellite missiles at targets outside of earth's atmosphere (which would in no way prevent any nation from firing a missile not set to explode, into empty space against a virtual target, which a computer could model its motion and indicate whether the missile got there or not.)

But now that we are becoming aware that this is a problem, to do nothing and continue to fill space with thousands of physical hazards and leave it to future generations to fix problems that we could much more easily not cause in the first place, would be the spineless way out.

RINOs are still elephants at the end of the day.

President Obama has said repeatedly that he wants to reach out to Republicans.

He's also put actions behind those words. He kept George Bush's Defense Secretary, Bill Gates, on the job. He named Republican representative Ray LaHood as Transportation Secretary (George Bush had a Democrat, Norman Mineta as Transportation Secretary, but Mineta was the only Democrat in the Bush cabinet, while with Gates, LaHood was Obama's second Republican.) He appointed another Republican, retired General James Jones, as his National Security Advisor.

Obama made the trek back to Capitol Hill to hold several meetings with only Republicans (something previous Presidents had not done, insisting that members of the opposition party, especially when they were in the minority, come to the White House instead for consultations and then accompanied by members of the majority party.)

He included billions of dollars worth of tax cuts in the stimulus proposal, despite angering some members of his own party.

He asked Republican Senator Judd Gregg to become the third Republican in his cabinet, as Commerce Secretary. After a bit more than a week as the presumptive appointee, Gregg withdrew his name.

Now, I don't blame a lot of Republicans for voting against the stimulus bill. If someone fundamentally disagrees with something for ideological reasons then they absolutely should vote against it. I understand that and I can respect that.

Rather, what has bothered me is a report on today not only saying that Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell was disappointed with three RINOs who agreed to support a watered-down stimulus bill, but that apparently there was a plan afoot to vote as a bloc against the bill specifically and for the singular purpose of sticking Obama with a defeat.

What this says is that the GOP in Washington, rather than agreeing with the President that the voters expect everyone to work together to solve problems, are still playing partisan games. The only bullet they have left is a 41-Senator solid bloc sticking behind a filibuster, but instead of using it once or twice when it might prevail, the GOP leadership intends to force the issue more often, even if it is difficult to get all the rinos to hold the line with them.

As Democrats we should be careful though. First, let's get this straight-- a Rino is still a Republican, and is even less a friend of ours than, say, Joe Lieberman. They may be pursuadable on specific issues but if we had 60 Democrats in the Senate the whole question of how far to cut the stimulus would be moot, and we'd have gotten a better bill.

Second, Rinos are notoriously erratic and unpredictable. For example, the prototypical Rino, John McCain, was squarely against the stimulus bill. He might be pursuadable on issues like torture or immigration, on the other hand. But I don't like being in the position of having to depend on a John McCain or an Arlen Spectre or a Susan Collins to be the tie-breaking vote.

Third, as we saw on the stimulus bill, there is a price for support from Rinos. Maybe it is such an emergency that this price was necessary but it still may not achieve a big enough jolt to the economy, thanks to RINO's cutting things out of the bill and diluting it with more tax cuts.

In 2008, Nancy Pelosi's House, though increasing the Democratic margin by a modest number, crossed a key benchmark when the size of the majority outnumbered the number of 'Blue Dog' Democrats. That meant that the conservative caucus no longer can pull the entire House to the right by defining the center.

That doesn't mean that the congressional leadership should ignore the blue dogs, but they also no longer have to bend over for them, and they shouldn't. Listen, let them be involved, incorporate any good ideas they have. But don't let them hold the Democratic Congress hostage. Somewhat similarly, looking especially at the Senate, it would be good if we were able to ignore RINO's. Right now there is little choice-- even if Al Franken pulls out a win in Minnesota, Democrats will still need a vote from a Republican whenever Senator McConnell decides to try and filibuster (which seems to be on most votes.) Rinos may be the most likely ones to crossover, but if it's not such an emergency I hope our leadership remembers that in this election and last, it was Republican ideas that the American people rejected, not Democratic ones.

Oh, no. Not another one.

The President needs support from the Senate, as we saw this week, to get his bills passed.

And equally on display this week was that despite his attempts to reach out to Republicans, the GOP in the Senate is as partisan today as it ever has been.

With this in mind, the Democrats' 58-41 advantage in the Senate (probably 59-41 once all the appeals are exhausted in Minnesota) is one vote shy of the magical 60 vote mark, which prevents the GOP from launching a filibuster.

You'd think after the way this week has gone that the Obama administration would take better note of the numbers game in the Senate than they have been.

In 2010, as of right now there are likely to be 19 Republican and 17 Senate seats up (including special elections for Senators appointed to seats.) So far, The President has chosen four sitting Senators for his cabinet (including Joe Biden for Vice President.) Two of those, in Delaware and New York are probably going to go Democratic (though Delaware Republican Representative Mike Castle could make things interesting if he runs for the Senate, presumably against Biden's son.) In Colorado, Ken Salazar's departure and replacement by a little known Denver schools superintendent certainly puts the seat in play, a seat which Salazar would have held easily. On the other hand let the President appoint who he wants, and he essentially undid the Colorado situation this week when he announced that New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg would be appointed to be the next Commerce Secretary (after Bill Richardson had to withdraw from contention for that post.) Gregg only agreed to go after a deal was struck with the state's governor for his chief of staff to be named as his replacement, which won't change the present partisan balance of the Senate; but she almost certainly won't run in 2010 and while Gregg would probably have held the seat in increasingly blue New Hampshire it looks at least as ripe for Democrats as Colorado may or may not be for Republicans.

Obviously in being elected President, Obama gave up his Senate seat in Illinois. That seat would almost certainly have gone Democratic, pre-Blago scandal, but now it's anyone's guess.

But now let's go beyond current Senators. In selecting Janet Napolitano as Homeland Security Chief, Obama did his election opponent, John McCain a huge favor. A poll out last year showed Napolitano beating McCain in a 2010 head to head matchup. But with her out of the equation here in Arizona I am not sure if we have another Democrat who could do as well versus McCain (Terry Goddard will almost certainly run for Governor.) We saw this week that minus any threat from Napolitano McCain was certainly anything but bipartisan. So Obama may well have handed the GOP a seat (or at least prevented a Democratic takeover next year) with his pick.

Again, he can pick who he wants and I'm sure that Janet will do an excellent job at Homeland Security (or even at the Supreme Court, which she is rumored to also be on the short list for.)

So now after the withdrawl of Tom Daschle, we see that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius is rumored to be the front runner for Health and Human Services. Like Napolitano, she has been the popular Democratic Governor of a Republican state. One reason why Senator Sam Brownback is retiring is that he supposedly expected a challenge from Sebelius, one which he might well lose. With him gone, she has to be considered the front runner for the seat.

Except that once again, Obama is going to the Senate 'farm system' to call up a promising prospect for his cabinet.

Like I've said three times here, he has the right to pick who he wants to pick. But this continuing stream of Senators and likely Senate candidates is going to cost him, later if not sooner. If a loss in Colorado, Arizona and/or Kansas ends up costing Democrats the 60 vote margin in 2010 then Obama may have to blame himself if he has trouble getting legislation passed as he is running for re-election.

An open letter to Paul Eckerstrom

BACKGROUND Two weeks ago the state committee of the Democratic Party met and voted out incumbent chair Don Bivens in favor of Paul Eckerstrom, who seemingly popped up from nowhere. In my opinion, Bivens did a pretty good job, outfundraising the Republicans and helping to better organize the party. And we did have an uphill fight this year, with proposition 102 (Gay Marriage) bringing out the Republican base and with John McCain at the top of the ticket.

Nonetheless we did lose legislative seats and from my perspective it seemed like we were more worried about not losing than we were about winning; there was no clear message articulated about why voters should vote for our candidates. Also, the state party seemed at times disorganized. We ran a write-in candidate in the September primary for the state Senate after the Republican incumbent died and a staunch conservative was appointed to replace him. We did our part, and got the write-in enough votes to appear on the November ballot. But then the state party was late or non-existent in support of his campaign, and this is a district where Democrats can win. S

o as such, I was open to looking for new leadership even though I felt that Bivens deserved to be re-elected. Eckerstrom gave a resounding speech after being nominated from the floor at the state committee meeting, and he ran a good campaign that day. For example he got his stuff out on the seats. Of course Bivens probably came that morning expecting to be re-elected by acclaimation, but he had nothing out there. People read what is on their seats while waiting for the meeting to start and if they have no other information about the candidates, as many of the first time members did not, they tend to vote based on what they see on the seats. Bivens had sent out an email but people usually get emails when they have a bunch of others to read, in sharp contrast to the sometimes long waits they endure while sitting in the meeting.

What Eckerstrom said that got my vote (and probably many others) was that he favored a more focused message that concentrated on articulating what we stand for, and also that he favors the creation of a think tank in the state (which the Republicans already have, the Goldwater Institute.) He also said that he believes that the Colorado model for turning the state blue could and should be replicated in Arizona, and I also have said that myself in the past. It took me less than twenty-four hours to regret that vote, when I read the Sunday Arizona Republic and Eckerstrom was quoted as saying he had 'no intention of winning.' ?? If he didn't intend to win, then why did he run? In a group of six hundred voters, it's safe to say that if you get nominated for a position then you might, **gasp** win!

As such, I was personally disappointed but hardly surprised when Eckerstrom sent the members of the state committee an email indicating that he is resigning after two weeks on the job. He said that he did not realize the time commitment that a state chair has to put in (there is no excuse for being surprised by that. Even I know that, which is one reason why I have no intention of ever seeking any level of state party office.) I tried to respond but apparently his email is not set to accept responses. So, I am rephrasing my reply as an open letter:

AN OPEN LETTER TO PAUL ECKERSTROM:

Dear Paul,

Unlike many of those who voted for you, I had a very difficult time deciding to do so because I felt that Don Bivens has done as good a job as anyone could have done under the circumstances (people tend to forget that we are still fighting against what amounts to a Republican legislative gerrymander that the officially 'nonpartisan' redictricting board handed us in 2001.)

I voted for you because I agree that we need to confront these issues head on and your idea for a think tank is something I have believed is necessary for a long time. However, it was not an easy decision (and I have enough respect for Don Bivens that I told him that I didn't vote for him and why, which was not easy for him to hear.)

In this context I am disappointed with your decision to quit. If you were not fully prepared to serve then it would have been appropriate to officially withdraw your candidacy at the conclusion of your speech (as has been done by others in the past) and move that Mr. Bivens be elected by acclamation. There are many, many new state committee members and it is certainly going to be a drain on their enthusiasm to have to go back next month and elect another new chair, to say nothing of how much it will set our efforts back for the 2010 election cycle.

Paul, if you weren't aware of what the job would entail and if you weren't completely ready and willing to serve then you had an obligation to withdraw your name before the vote, and I am saying that as someone who did vote for you. In a group of six hundred voters, it is certainly feasible that anyone who accepts a nomination, might win.

-- Eli Blake

The good news out of all this is that I will get that rarest of moments in life, a do-over after screwing up (Eckerstrom won by a fairly healthy margin, but I'm still glad I at least get to fix my mistake.) And this time I will support Don Bivens if he runs. If he does not then I will still have a chance to vote for somebody who I feel confident actually wants the job, knows what it will entail and is ready to accept all responsibilities associated with the job.

Howard Dean would be an excellent choice to head HHS

Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Raul Grijalva are both pushing the same idea: Howard Dean as the new Secretary for Health and Human Services. Of course the position is now open following the withdrawl of Tom Daschle.

I can't think of a better choice. Dr. Dean was a practicing physician who has succeeded in providing health coverage for all kids in Vermont, and during his tenure at the DNC did an outstanding job of building our party.

Another argument in favor of Dean is that given the circumstances that led to Daschle's withdrawl the Obama administration can't afford another vetting mistake in making the pick. But Republicans have just spent the past five years digging dirt on Dean, so if there was any don't you think they'd have slung it by now? About all they've got is the 'Dean scream' geography lesson which is old news and irrelevant.

He's not all that popular with Rahm Emmanuel, to be sure, but then whose white house is it, anyway? Dean has certainly showed he is willing to submerge his own ego to help others succeed, and that he is a team player. Picking Howard Dean would help put to rest the rumors that got started earlier this month when Tim Kaine was announced as the new head of the DNC after Howard Dean was off building the party in American Samoa.

Groundhog day roundup.

On groundhog day:

President Obama saw his shadow. It's still larger than anyone else's. But house Republicans are still working on a way to cut it off at the knees.

Vice President Biden did not see his shadow. He's standing in Obama's shadow.

Former Vice President Cheney did not see his shadow. He's in some new undisclosed location, and it's one where the sun don't shine.

Osama bin Laden did not see his shadow, for the same reason as Cheney didn't see his.

Cardinals Quarterback Kurt Warner saw his shadow. It still looks like the Steelers defensive line.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner did not see his shadow. He forgot he had to have one.

Indicted former Congressmen Rick Renzi, William Jefferson and John Doolittle took a long look at their shadow. By this time next year they may not get to look at it.

Mitch McConnell saw his shadow. It's only about 41/49ths as large as it was just last month.

Former President Bush saw his shadow. And it was much diminished from four years ago.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn't see her shadow. Spring is here, and she's trying to thaw out some of our foreign relations.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin saw his shadow. And it looks like Lenin, Khruschev and Gorbachev. The fact that he is bald is the second similarity.

Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps isn't sure whether he saw his shadow or not. It was sort of hazy right where he was standing.

Rod Blagojevich won't decide whether he saw his shadow yet. He said, "A shadow is a bleeping valuable thing. And if I don't get the money then I'll bring six more weeks of winter, and then you'll all be sorry."

United Airline Pilot 'Sully' Sullenberger saw his shadow. And he laid it down perfectly, right where he wanted it.

President Obama signs the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Lilly Ledbetter worked for nearly twenty years at the Goodyear Tire plant in Gadsden, Alabama. She became a supervisor at the plant and filed suit in 1998 after learning that she had been paid hundreds of dollars less per month than even the lowest paid man (a relatively new hire) who was doing her same job. This comes as no surprise to working women, who even after the 'seniority' argument that had been made during the 1970's and 1980's as to why men were typically paid more has played itself out, still see that women are paid only $.78 per hour for every dollar a man earns for doing the same job.

After a series of victories in the lower courts, the Eleventh Circuit court reversed the lower court decisions, and when it went to the Supreme Court Ledbetter lost last year on a 5-4 vote. Though the Supreme Court agreed that she did have both identical job titles and duties to men who were being paid a lot more than she was, they argued that she was only entitled to additional back pay for 180 days prior to the date of her filing the suit and could not challenge decisions that had been made before that even though the discriminatory pay rates had been going on for years without her knowledge (and her fruitless attempt to get the problem fixed internally at Goodyear worked against her because it delayed her filing the suit.) The focus of the suit is what is known as 'paycheck accruel,' a longstanding precedent in which the clock on filing a discrimination case resets with every paycheck. The Supreme Court ruling upholding the eleventh circuit essentially voided that provision and therefore ruled that only the 180 day limit set under Title VII applied.

The pay difference that she experienced over years, and which many, many women still suffer from is exacerbated because it compounds into lower Social Security after retirement.

Last year after the Supreme Court decision, Congress tried to pass the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which stipulates that women who can prove that they were discriminated against at work are entitled to up to two years of back pay differential to make up the difference, and more importantly specifically writes 'paycheck accruel' into law. The bill was blocked by a Republican filibuster (and it became an issue that Barack Obama made some ground on during the campaign since John McCain had made a speech opposing it, and Obama aired a commercial featuring Lilly Ledbetter that may have helped him re-open the gender gap that McCain had closed a bit when he picked Sarah Palin.)

This year it passed, with unanimous support from Senate Democrats, plus five Republicans-- significantly including all four of the Republican women in the Senate (and two of them, Lisa Murkowski and Kay Bailey Hutchison, are considered conservative). House Republicans were House Republicans, with only three voting in favor.

President Obama has now signed the law, the first piece of legislation he has signed that was passed by the new Congress. Besides equal pay for women, it represents a direct and specific repudiation of the Supreme Court, essentially restoring the law back to what lower courts had held, but now spelled out and codified as Federal law.

Obama's first foreign interview sets new priorities.

The Obama administration is rapidly making it clear that the 'coalition of the willing,' or'for us or against us' view of the Bush administration is the foreign policy of the past.

Today, President Obama gave his first interview to a foreign source. And his choice-- el-Arabiyah, could not have been a better one. He discussed a range of issues-- including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran, terrorism, mutual respect and the international political situation.

While what he said was important, the simple fact that he chose an Arabic news outlet for his first interview speaks volumes. It's hardly a secret that the majority of the foreign policy challenges facing the United States right now involve the muslim world, nor is it a secret that both because of longstanding history and the relatively recent actions taken by the Bush administration, relations between America and the muslim world are at historically low levels. So in granting the interview, President Obama has made it clear that he wants to change that, and develop a long term relationship in which the United States respects and works towards a peaceful future involving the muslim world.

Let's start with the Israeli-Palestinian situation since that is a constant irritant that underlies every other facet of relations between America and muslim countries. Long time readers of this blog know that I've always been a supporter of Israel and of the right of Israel to exist. However, the one-sided policy of the Bush administration, which failed to challenge Israel in anything they did while only blaming the Palestinians for anything that happened, and which further didn't bother to even try to achieve a peace deal until Bush was vainly searching for any kind of a legacy during his last year in office, did not do Israel any favors. It created an endless cycle of war, and one which Israel will continue to be mired in until there is a lasting peace that involves the creation of a Palestinian state. President Obama pretty much said as much in his interview today.

Let me repeat that-- if Israel wants peace there is only one way to achieve it, and that is to create a Palestinian state without any Israeli settlements on its territory. And the recent Israeli actions in Gaza, while their cause can be justified (to end Hamas rocket attacks) have resulted in huge numbers of civilian deaths and more and more reports that Israeli troops committed some truly disturbing actions (like the report on NPR this morning of soldiers shooting a homeowner with no ties to Hamas in the face in front of his children, and later an ambulance driver being pulled out of his ambulance and forced to lie face down with a gun stuck in his neck, and then being told to leave the area despite having been called to a home with wounded children inside.) Israel is a democracy, and in a democracy you have to be willing to air some rotten garbage, and there is some here that will need to be aired. And then investigated and corrective action taken. As a supporter of Israel, I am willing to say it is time for Israel to take that action.

Further, an unnoticed story of the recent war (as well as the one two years ago between Israel and Hezbollah) is one which went unnoticed precisely because nothing happened-- which is the story itself. During both the Israeli-Hezbollah and Israeli-Hamas conflicts there was little or no violence (beyond a few demonstrations) in the West Bank. Israel was often able to claim they could not create a Palestinian state under Yassir Arafat because he was either unable or unwilling to call off his own militants. And in fact history seems to suggest they had a point, since even during negotiations there were often attacks on settlers and soldiers in the West Bank as well as terrorist attacks inside Israel. But this time there were practically none (despite calls by Hamas for a third intifada in the West Bank), so clearly Mahmoud Abbas is able and willing to police his own territory. Which means that Israel has no good excuse now for not working with him to create an independent Palestine with open borders and no Israeli settlements. The trip by George Mitchell to the middle east, and statements by both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama indicate that they will push negotiations designed to hasten the creation of a Palestinian state (as well as create a lasting cease-fire in Gaza.)

President Obama also said that if our enemies in the region (and he specifically mentioned Iran) are willing to unclench their fist, they will find our hand extended in friendship. I believe that this is also long overdue. Ever since the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis of thirty years ago, relations between the U.S. and Iran have been frosted. Further, if Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, can one blame them after George Bush named them a member of the 'axis of evil,' and then invaded one of the other 'members?' Like a diplomat from North Korea (the third member) famously said after referring to President Bush's threats, "Of course we have a nuclear program." Only a Bush would have needed to be reminded of a basic fact-- if you threaten someone they will assume you may not be bluffing (as if Iraq didn't prove that in Bush's case) and will work to arm themselves accordingly. In a word: DUH! Maybe with the new approach President Obama can make some progress on getting Iran to quit working towards nuclear weapons. Maybe he can't. But given that they are already to the point where it would be all but impossible to take out their decentralized, deeply buried program, we are at least better off if we have a dialogue with Iran (after all, history shows that we can survive a nuclear-armed opponent, like the Soviet Union.)

Beyond that, Obama has shown that he will be a President whose foreign policy won't be focused on Europe first. That in itself is a huge change, and represents the fact that the world has changed. Europe is a fine place but it is at the end of the day only a peninsula on the end of the Asian continent. By speaking first to people from the part of the world where we have the biggest challenges right now, President Obama is making it clear from the outset that he will be engaged with the world, not just those who think like us.

An army of Won.

Barack Obama had a meeting earlier today with a group of House Republican leaders to discuss the proposed stimulus bill.

He did as he had pledged in the campaign, and listened to them and tried to work something out with them. He's already cut down some of the infrastructure spending and as much as one third of the stimulus is likely to be tax cuts. He's spent some of his political capital taking on his own speaker over the issue of whether to repeal the Bush tax cuts or not (she wants to repeal them immediately, Obama in seeking Republican support has said he's not ready to just yet.) But the Republican leaders kept on pushing and pushing and pushing, wanting to change more and more things in the bill and simultaneously hinting that no matter what the bill says they might play hardball in the house and marshall Republicans to oppose it. Finally, Obama could see that unless he practically let them write the bill themselves they wouldn't accept or agree to support whatever he gave them, so he got up, looked directly at them and said, "I won."

It was not a sign of frustration at all. He's reminding them of a simple fact. The American people voted in November and gave him a mandate to change course. His share of the vote and winning margin were both the most any Presidential candidate in twenty years (in fact his share of the vote was the highest for any non-incumbent candidate and non-sitting Vice President running for the top job, in over sixty years.) Add to that the fact that in addition to Obama they voted in seven or eight new Senators (depending on what happens in Minnesota) and twenty-one house members, for a net gain of 54 house seats over the past two election cycles. Republicans put their ideas and candidates out there, and they lost. Pure and simple.

Under the circumstances, President Obama is being very generous and doing something he doesn't have to do, and offering the house Republicans a seat at the table and some input into writing this bill. But the party which not so long ago believed they had a 'permanent majority,' and even over the past two years could usually count on a Presidential veto to back them up in Congress, now has neither.

They need to get used to being the minority party because they lost. We won ('we' instead of 'I' is the only change I believe Obama should have made.) The President has reached out to them and offered them something that quite frankly, President Bush never did anything like that. They can choose between accepting what he gives them or opposing everything. But they no longer have the power and influence to insist on anything.

Predicting the past-- and I got it wrong

NOTE: I POSTED THIS COLUMN ON ANOTHER BLOG AS WELL, Coldheartedtruth. Commenters corrected me. I've edited this version to reflect the actual state of things.

Apparently, Fidel Castro has put his thoughts online in an internet column, saying he believes he won't be alive in four years.

Now, I've been wondering about whether he was alive at all since he was a no-show earlier this month at the fiftieth anniversary celebration of the Cuban revolution. I mean, the downfall of corrupt and despotic dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959 was the high point of Castro's life and the start of his 'new Cuba.' It is hard to imagine that no matter how sick he was, he wouldn't at least have a photograph taken or something. But no, he did not show up, not even in the newspapers. However, he has been photographed several times since he dropped out of sight.

Here's what we know. We know that in July 2006, El Presidente abruptly dropped from sight and underwent emergency surgery for an intestinal blockage (according to some reports the 'blockage' was a very aggressive cancer.) Shortly thereafter official statements reported that he was resigning from the Presidency and handing the reigns of power to his brother Raul, who has ruled the island since then. Television news in the notoriously secretive and carefully controlled country have claimed that Comrade Fidel is alive and well, and is intently observing things. One of them included a statement from Castro in which he vowed to outlast the Bush administration (as he has outlasted the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Clinton administrations.) He apparently took pride in the prospect. I mean, even look at this letter. He says he won't live for another four years. What is four years? A U.S. Presidential term. This guy has always loved to tweak U.S. Presidents for amusement. We've seen him send out written correspondence like this periodically, to be faithfully published in Cuban newspapers.

But live pictures? No. Televised pictures? No. Only a few photographs. He may be alive, but clearly not well.

I believed, and I originally went on record here-- that Fidel Castro did not survive much past his 2006 operation. He had vowed to outlive the Bush administration so we've seen every facade one might expect in a country where things are done in secret, to project the image that Fidel is still alive. We now get this penultimate letter (which may have been penned by Castro two years ago or may have been written by someone else), which is in effect a goodbye letter. Not long from now, just long enough to be believable, we will get an official death announcement. Maybe even a nice parade and a funeral with speakers lavishing praise on Castro and on the regime he created. But it will all be carefully choreographed to hide an empty casket, just like Castro's dream of a better Cuba through communism was carefully choreographed to hide an empty promise.

OBVIOUSLY I ERRED HERE. This is the tenth time I've had to publically acknowlege an error because a commenter caught it before I did. I've posted 816 times on Deep Thought so this reduces my fielding percentage to .988

Rush on Obama: "I hope he fails"

This is what Rush Limbaugh had to say today:

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. I don't want --what he'd talking about. What he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the U.S. Government as possible. From the banking business, the mortgage industry, to the automobile business, to the healthcare-- I don't want the Government in charge of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, so, OK I'll send you a response, but I don't need four hundred words, I need four. I hope he fails.

Now, leaving aside his gross distortions of what the Obama plan is (it is NOT the Government taking over any of the above industries), we now have Rush actually hoping that it fails. If it were to fail of course, it would result in more people losing their jobs, more businesses going bankrupt and likely the end of the United States as the premier economic and political power in the world.

As much as I never liked George W. Bush, I never once wished he would fail. I often believed that he would fail, predicted that he would fail, expected that he would fail, chronicled his failures and criticized his failures (for they were legion), but never once did I DESIRE that he would fail. Because if the President fails it harms our country. In fact in a number of cases I predicted he would fail but openly expressed hope that I was wrong.

But this is a guy who is willing to directly suffer harm to the United States so he will have something to pin on the President. Disgusting and appalling.

January 20, 2001-- January 20, 2009. The record of the Bush economy.

One year ago I wrote a post entitled, seven years of the Bush economy.

Well, today it's time to update and close the book on it. Of course there are those who will point out that eight years ago today the economy was slowing down and heading towards a recession and they are right. But it is hardly like the economy that George Bush is handing the keys to, to Barack Obama is a model of stability. In fact if anything the numbers look much, much worse today than they did eight years ago. But so be it. Fairly or not, January 20th is more than just a symbolic date. It is the day in which total control over the Presidency passes in its completeness from one President to the next. And so, let's look at the same metrics we did a year ago: the stock market, the dollar/euro exchange rate, net job creation, the spot price of oil and the national debt.

The stock market closed on January 20, 2001 at 10,587.60. It's last close before January 20, 2009 is 8281.22. I will update this number tomorrow so we have consistency and post it as the final number for Bush (or start of Obama.) HERE IS THE UPDATE: IF I USED IT CONSISTENTLY WITH THE WAY I USED THE 1/20/01 CLOSE, IT WOULD BE 7949.09. BUT EVEN IF WE KEEP THE OLD NUMBER the stock market under Bush has fallen a net 22% over the past eight years. AND YES, IT DID NOW CLOSE AT 7949.09. FROM NOW ON IT'S OBAMA'S MARKET. If it's still below 8,000 by 2012 you are welcome to stuff this post back in my face. But I expect him to succeed and it will go up significantly from 7949.09 by then.

And 22% in eight years is enough that Bush apologists can't blame it on the 2002 recession, Clinton's economic policies or 9/11. The truth is, if you were heavily invested in the U.S. stock market in 2001, you probably have lost money. And the decision by Congress not to tie Social Security to the stock market looks to have been a very wise one. T-bonds may be boring, but they haven't lost money.

On January 20, 2001 it cost $.94 to buy one euro (in fact it got as low as eighty-three cents later on that summer.) Right now it costs $1.32 to buy one euro. True that this is better than the price of $1.45 that it was a year ago, but it is a fact that you would have made just better than a 40% profit over the past eight years if you had at the start of the Bush administration simply traded all your dollars in for euros and hidden the euros in your mattress. A lot better than losing 22 percent in the stock market.

Over the course of eight years, George W. Bush presided over the net creation of 3.8 million jobs. This averages out to less than 40,000 per month (vs. an average of over 200,000 per month over the preceding eight years.) Again, Bush apologists like to not count the loss of 2.8 million during the first two years of the Bush Presidency, and blame that on Clinton. But if it is then what would they say about current projections that the U.S. could lose even more than that many jobs over the next two years, and if it doesn't it will likely be due to government jobs created under the Obama stimulus plan? Again-- January 20 is the day of the handover. Any other date you choose to compare is arbitrary-- but then you take ownership of that much of the coming economy as well. Further, even using numbers from the truncated middle part of the Bush administration when we were not in a recession-- about 8.5 million created in four years, Bush still falls short of the monthly average over all eight years of the Clinton administration. No matter how you slice it, the Bush economy did very poorly in terms of job creation.

Price of crude oil: Was $25.98 per barrel eight years ago, and is $34.20 today. This is the one number where Bush is much better off today than he was last year. And if it had simply increased from $25.98 to $34.20 in eight years I'd be the first one to say the President Bush deserved credit for keeping oil prices under control. Only, he can't get credit for that since as recently as this summer it was pushing above $140 a barrel, and the resulting record gasoline prices delivered a hammer blow to an already soft economy over the summer. Further, much of the decline is credited to falling demand caused by the fact that millions fewer people are on the road going to work, because they don't have jobs to go to. The wild price gyrations have also played havoc with everything from the energy resale markets to automobile sales.

The national debt has increased from 5.8 trillion dollars to (including bailouts): 11.8 trillion dollars. In other words, it has more than doubled. Or in other words, Bush ran up more accumulated debt than every President combined from George Washington through his father (the reason I don't include Clinton in that is because the national debt actually experienced a slight decline under Clinton.)

Of course another dodge that Bush apologists often use is to argue that the President and his administration don't really have much effect on the economy. That is of course ridiculous. Even ignoring the fact that trillions of dollars in spending are controlled by the Government, some Government policies that influence the economy include tax policy, monetary policy, energy policy, trade policy, labor policy, regulatory policy and immigration policy. Funny to hear conservatives who scream about how bad tax increases, minimum wage hikes or pollution controls will be for the economy, suddenly switch gears when we are talking about Bush and saying that his policies had no effect on the economy. Clearly, they did, and clearly it was not the effect they had intended.

I did not include unemployment of course in the post a year ago and was (incorrectly) challenged on it. So I will mention it here: When Bush took office, the unemployment rate was 4.2% It is now pushing past seven percent. So Bush benefits by the fact that I didn't include it as one of my metrics.

The simple fact is that the Bush economy was spectacularly bad-- both from an historical perspective and when taken on its own. Of the five original metrics I used, only one-- crude oil prices-- looks good for Bush, and that only if you ignore the intervening history. And eight years is long enough that excuses aren't good enough. Any President can have a bad year or even a bad term, but this guy has owned most of the decade of the 2000's. And his economy has failed.

The 'vision thing.'

Back in the 1988 campaign, there was a discussion of Presidential qualities. High on the list was what came to be called, "the vision thing," almost a play on the fact that neither candidate seemed to be able to lay out a larger vision, focusing almost exclusively on specific issues, talking points and ideas seen from a very close (and therefore very narrow) view. George H.W. Bush tried to stretch himself to wrap around some semblance of a vision by including in one of his speeches a clearly scripted line about 'a thousand points of light' but it fell as flat as-- well, as his Presidency did over the following four years. Bill Clinton, though a master of the middle, and of focus groups, polls and political calculation, also seemed to get things done in small drivets. His wife seemed to have more of a sense of a larger vision but (as we saw in the 1994 health care debacle) didn't share his political insticts (though she has improved in this area-- but still made some political miscalculations last year that likely cost her the Presidency.)

President Bush tried to lay out a larger vision in the wake of 9/11, but he probably shouldn't have tried. In the 2000 election he was all about the same kind of myopic vision that voters had become accustomed to from politicians by that time, and if it took an event to spur him to come up with a larger vision then perhaps that should have been a clue right there that he would have been better off to narrow it to what he was realistically capable of putting together. President Bush was a decisive figure to begin with, and was just not capable of inspiring people to come together with a broad, far reaching and encompassing vision for the future.

To be honest, we've not had a truly visionary President in at least a generation. I've never personally been a fan of Ronald Reagan, but he was able to inspire a lot of people and lay out a vision, I will give him that much. Tragically it was not a good vision though. Rather, it has been a vision that has overlaid much of our political, social and economic life since then and came to its tragic fruition in last year's economic collapse, driven by years of loose regulation and trickle down economics that encouraged people to dream bigger than their wallets would allow.

But the fact that the Reagan vision has persisted as the dominant paradigm until it's failure last year is both a testimony to his vision and the lack of vision laid out by his successors.

There has not been a really visionary Democrat in the White House since John F. Kennedy, nearly half a century ago.

That will change on Tuesday.

For a change we will have a President who is inspirational and has already inspired millions of people to do their best. In the finest tradition of 'ask now what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country' it is likely that President Obama will challenge each and every one of us to do. Not just to put a little sticker on our car or something, but rather to do great things, both in our communities and for our country at large.

Beyond that, he is without question the first President since at least Reagan who can inspire millions of people just by his words. I've felt a sense of renewal listening to Barack Obama that I've not heard, probably ever listening to a President (or President elect). A lot of people saw the same thing in the campaign, if polls are any indication. Obama had and projected a Presidential vision. John McCain did not.

That doesn't mean that times are not hard. They are hard. And they will get harder before they get better. But I am optimistic for a change. I am optimistic that we hvae a leader who not only can see what is coming just ahead, but has a plan for where he wants to lead us for the long term as well.

Success should be rewarded, not punished. And as Democrats we should remember that, especially regarding Chairman Dean

I'm really having a hard time keeping shut up about this one, so I will go ahead and vent.

In an earlier post I discussed the successes of Howard Dean, certainly the most successful DNC chair I've seen in my lifetime.

And Barack Obama, while he built a very good organization himself, had the scaffolding of a national party that Howard Dean had built.

You may recall that back in 2004, Zell Miller (the turncoat from Georgia) had written a book entitled 'A National Party No More' in which he claimed that the Democratic party had become shrunken down to a collection of special interests in certain parts of the country and unable to compete nationally. Of course as Democrats, we took issue with Zell's book, but the truth is that in 2004, he was onto something. Howard Dean cured that problem though, building the Democratic party in every state so that among the numerous pickups that Democrats netted during Dean's four years at the DNC were victories in places where Democrats had simply not won anytime within the memory of most people. In fact by the time he was done, it was the Republican party that for all intents and purposes has been kicked out of the urban northeast, California (where only a Republico-Democrat like Arnold Scharzeneggar can come close to winning) and a lot of places in the upper midwest. Democrats, had they won the relatively close Wyoming open seat, would now have a Democrat in the congressional delegation (house or Senate) in all fifty states. And note-- the Governor of Wyoming is a Democrat (though he was first elected two years before Dean took over at the DNC.)

So what did Howard Dean get for his spectacularly brilliant and successful leadership? Well, first of all, he was snubbed by having his successor, Tim Kaine (who it's been known for some time had been hand-picked by the incoming President, as is his prerogative) announced on a day when Dean was in American Samoa, where he was building the party there (Dean believes that every Democrat needs to be represented within the party, and for this egalitarian philosophy he was painted as a fool, mainly by fools.)

But the biggest slap (unfortunately, but facts being what they are I have to say this) came from Obama himself. His obligatory statement recognizing Dean's service read this way:

He launched a 50-state strategy that made Democrats competitive in places they had not been in years, working with my chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, to give Democrats a majority in the House for the first time in over a decade.

Half of that is accurate. It is true that Dean launched the 50-state strategy, that it made Democrats competitive in places they had not been in years, and that it helped give Democrats a majority in the House for the first time in over a decade.

And it is also true that Emanuel, as chair of the Democratic congressional committee deserves some of the credit for what happened in the 2006 campaign cycle. But keep in mind that Democrats have since then gained a net of 24 more seats in the house, as well as (between the two cycles) fourteen in the Senate.

But we well know that Dean did not work at all with Emanuel. Emanuel in fact opposed Dean's strategy preferring to concentrate on places where Democrats were traditionally competitive (and I had myself once written a piece detailing back about 2003 that the GOP's congressional 'soft underbelly' was composed of northeastern Republicans who represented left-leaning districts and could be picked off just by tying them to the conservatism of the Republican leadership (using Chris van Hollen's 2002 upset of Maryland moderate Connie Morella as a model.) And that was in fact correct as far as it went, so that Democrats have taken over all 22 New England house seats and all but three in New York. But those wins alone would have only given Democrats a slim majority. They instead have a sizeable majority and it's because the 'fifty state strategy' allowed them to win Republican house seats all over the country. The fact that obnoxious Republicans like J.D. Hayworth, Charles Taylor, Robin Hayes, Virgil Goode, Bill Sali and Marilyn Musgrave, and Senator Rick Santorum, who had never been really pushed before lost, adds a measure of satisfaction.

Let's be blunt here: Emanuel and Dean don't like each other. Dean won the argument and turned out to be right. Emanuel is Obama's chief of staff. You figure out what the 'lauditory message' was supposed to say. There was no reason to give any specific mention of Rahm, all the more so since the scope of successes the party has gone through under Dean went far beyond the 2006 Congressional cycle. Issuing the statement after denying Dean even the chance to be present as his successor was introduced is a gross insult to a man to whom we all owe a heck of a lot.

I fully support the Obama administration and will continue to support them as we move forward during the most challenging economic crisis that America has faced in my 46 years. But a cheap shot is a cheap shot, and after everything Howard Dean has done for the party he deserves better than that. By signing off on that statement, the President-elect did cheapen himself. And I know he's a better man than that.

Bush throws a 'Hail Mary'

Most Presidents, ten days before the end of their administration, would be busy packing, signing letters of reference for their staff, soliciting donors for their Presidential libraries, figuring out who they want to pardon,...

That's what most outgoing Presidents would be doing.

But then George W. Bush is one of a kind (thank God for that.)

In just his last ten days in office, he's looking to spend another third of a trillion dollars.

Specifically, he's asking Congress for the other half of the $700 billion TARP bailout fund. Recall that when the bill was passed, it was carefully divided into two halves-- half for Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to pass around, and half that would be appropriated after the new administration took office. Bush and Paulson have exhausted their half.

Congressional Democrats were notified Friday afternoon by the White House that they could get a request soon for the second half of the allocated bailout funds. Once Congress receives the request for the money, both chambers can try to block the release of the money if they do so within an expedited time frame....

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed unhappiness with the way Treasury used the first $350 billion to capitalize banks. Specifically, they object to how Treasury made investments with few strings attached and no process for tracking how the banks are using the money.

They also are unhappy that none of the $350 billion allocated to date has been used to prevent foreclosures.

No, instead of using them to help ordinary Americans, banks and other corporations that received Federal bailout funds with no strings attached used them for, among other things, a posh party thrown for AIG executives at a resort in California and the swallowing up of smaller but solvent banks by larger ones, a taxpayer-funded orgy of a short and nostalgic return to the era of 'mergers and acquisitions.' That's what banks used to do when they had money, and nobody bothered to make sure they wouldn't spend Federal funds to do the same thing again.

In fact, virtually the only part of the first half that was given with any real strings attached was the final $14 billion, given as a loan to the auto industry.

So now, Bush is claiming that he needs the other $350 billion. But he's not saying anything about who he plans to give it to, or why they need it. If there is another imminent financial crisis about to happen, then I want to know what my $1,000 share of that debt is being spent on. Not so some bank can buy some other bank, or so insurance executives can go to a spa and get me to pay for their pedicure. If the roof is about to cave in, and it can't wait for ten days, then I want to know why and how much it is going to cost. If absolutely necessary then release exactly what is needed and send it directly to the recipient-- with a clearly stated itemization of how it will be spent. But that's all. Don't hand Bush another $350 billion. The way he spends money, it will all be gone even faster than he will be.

Who is he looking to pay off, anyway?