Tag Archives: President Obama

What Passes For Intelligence On Facebook

It is hard to be a voter in America; the media establishment (all of it) long ago gave up reporting in favor of “story-telling”. One major news organization, Fox News, has become the communications arm of a virulent strain of right-wing ideology, while its competitors have destroyed themselves trying to destroy Fox. In today’s world, political information is being generated by blogs like The Wonkblog, aggregated by sites like Reddit, and disseminated through social networks like Facebook and Twitter.

There are good sources of information on the web, and original source material has never been easier to find, but it is the easy sources of information that are pervasive. Postings on Facebook, much like chain emails, are images and words written and/or shared by friends and family. They carry a tremendous weight. Where 40 years ago Americans may have trusted Walter Cronkite implicitly, there are today no voices we trust more than the people closest to us; even when those people are unwilling or unable to verify what it is they are sharing.

This picture is the result, and neatly sums up the “wisdom” floating around the net…spread from friend to friend, family member to family member. The picture is built around four points that are indeed factual; President Obama did not attend ceremonies at the D-Day Memorial in France in 2010, 2011, or 2012, and he did speak at a series of fundraisers in San Fransisco on June 6, 2012. But the libel, and it is a libel, occurs because of the lies that form the context of this picture.

Without the context, that President Obama is an essentially different person, that he has acted in a manner that seperates him from all of the other Commanders in Chief, that he doesn’t care enough about our troops to show his respect, this photo has no merit.

First and foremost, it should be noted that the most egregious error in this posting regards the date of D-Day. The individuals who produced this picture, a picture designed to highlight the insensitivity to history and our veterans allegedly held by President Obama, don’t appear to be sensitive to the history themselves. D-Day (at least the one that President Obama is supposedly slighting by failing to go to France, occurred on June 6, 1944…not 1945. It isn’t immediately obvious how any patriotic American with a profound respect and interest in our shared military history could miss so obvious a fact.

Next, the context of this picture is completely fabricated. In 1984, President Reagan became the first American president to visit the site, and that was the occasion of his only visit. His successor, George H.W. Bush. never visited the D-Day Memorial, while Bush’s son W. visited but twice. President Clinton attended once, on the 50th Anniversary of the invasion in 1994. And President Obama, has our current president attended the ceremony? Yes, he has. On the 65th Anniversary of D-Day, President Obama was in Normandy to pay his respects.

So, in complete opposition to the opening statement of the fraudulent picture above, the reality of the D-Day Memorial and American presidents is this:

In all of the years since D-Day 1944, four U.S. presidents have attended the ceremonies a total of 6 times, and Barack Obama was one.

It would be an interesting campaign indeed, were Campaign 2012 played out in the battleground of facts. But these slurs, these lies, this repeated breaking of the commandment against bearing false witness, have become politics du jour in our Rovian Democracy. More is the pity.

 

The Rational Middle is listening…

 

A Sickness About Health Care

Why can’t we fix this problem? Why can’t a nation that won the Space Race, won World War II, dominated the Cold War, and produced the doctors who pioneered a large percentage of the world’s most important surgical and medical interventions of the last century, figure out its own health care issues? Pundits and politicians have ranted about the economics and legalities for decades now, but regular Americans don’t seem (for lack of a more elegant term) to get it. A conversation I had with a relative recently has served to clarify the issue in my mind.

The reason we Americans are so responsive to single-issue campaigns (think the Reagan assassination attempt and handguns, spotted owls, gay marriage, and abortion), is that we don’t do well when confronted with systemic problems. For all of the regular news we get on housing starts, stock markets, the traded value of currencies, and various unemployment rates, macroeconomics is a foreign (and terrifying) language to most. Our nation’s health care system is immense; like most budget issues, regular folks who are busy with family and work, faith and friends, can’t grasp how truly big the numbers are. Our nation’s health care system is also filled with regular folks like us; people who worked through their schooling and training, people who have jobs to do, people that we trust.

Most Americans are ready to “reform” systems and organizations like the law or government, we readily recognize “crooks and liars” in both. But our family doctors? The nurse who held our hand when we got our shots? The facilitator who answered all of our questions, handed us tissue, and was there for us when our loved one was dying of cancer? Slimy lawyers and thin-lipped politicians (my Father-In-Law’s tone-perfect Midwestern description) need reform, not those good people at the top of this paragraph.

My relative doesn’t like “socialized medicine”. She is alive today because of the Social Security and Medicaid systems, but in her mind, those two sentiments are perfectly compatible. Her brother has lived in Germany for most of his adult life, and struggled mightily with many debilitating problems. Were he to have had the same problems in America, it is unlikely he would be alive today. But my relative was ardently complaining about the German system of socialized medicine. She was upset that “they” wouldn’t approve of a certain treatment.  She thought (and thinks) it wrong that the poor of the world should be denied health care. But she doesn’t like “socialized medicine”.

My relative is a caring, intelligent, and motivated individual. She would give her own life to save a friend or family member, and would probably consider doing the same for a stranger. She is one of the reasons that I dislike it when treasured liberal friends use the phrase “right-wing nut job”. She is one of a majority with little understanding of how a market really works, and how badly constructed our American health care market really is. For us as a country to move past these issues, we need people like my relative to gain some level of basic understanding of the marketplace, and economics, and the realities of medical delivery.

Until she understands, we will never have the critical democratic mass necessary to support real fixes. Without a real fix to our medical marketplace (regardless of the president or party who champions it), we will never control long term deficits, and we will never ensure long term retirement benefits. What is certain is that the free market can never provide a comprehensive solution set, because the profit motive is not compatible for quality, universal medical outcomes. The Rational Middle will feature many more columns on this topic in the run-ups to both the June announcement on the Supreme Court case, and the general election in November. Until then, in the comment section and on the Facebook page…

 

The Rational Middle is listening…

From An Eagle Claw To Neptune Spear

NASCAR fans and pundits call it silly season; that time of year where drivers and crew chiefs and deep pockets jockey for position and betray loyalties. Political campaigns have one also, and America is in the throes of it now. Economics and the jobs picture will garner attention in the Middle later this week; for now, let’s talk about national security…and perception. History is written by the winners, but the winners are often decided by the best storytellers. In today’s politics, rewriting the story is the only key to victory, and when the Democrat in the White House is doing well on national security, the conservative storytellers have to be at the top of their game.

Mitt Romney’s storytellers are the best, not surprisingly, that money can buy. The other day, Romney’s writers fed him a fantastic line;

Even Jimmy Carter would have ordered the Bin Laden raid.

At once, the men behind the mannequin reinforced the mythology of Jimmy the Peanut Farmer, minimized the role and responsibility of Commander in Chief, and effectively misplaced all of the important facts of the Abbottabad raid. Somewhere, Karl Rove is a NASA wife circa 1960; happy, thrilled, and proud. The Texas Turd Blossom operates under the commandment that “Thou shall attack thy opponent’s strength.” Jimmy Carter faced the prospect of 52 Americans held hostage by militants inside the capital city of a large country. He called on a brand new unit of the U.S. Army to plan and execute a complex and daring rescue mission. In what was (to public knowledge anyway), Delta Force’s first mission, Murphy’s Law prevailed. Everything that could go wrong did, and at the most inopportune moment. Eventually, the commanders on the ground asked for permission to abort, and the President agreed.

History is written by the winners, and Jimmy Carter took responsibility for the failure of the mission, and his inability to bring the crisis to a conclusion while in office. Mitt Romney, who has led a life devoid of most of the crisis triggers that 99% of Americans face, managed to say that “Even Jimmy…” would order the raid. The question voters have to decide is, would Mitt order the raid? And the problem, the raging elephant in the room for conservatives, is that the previous Republican president never got within striking distance of that decision. He talked about it, he made cowboy references to it, then he deployed 180,000 U.S. troops in the wrong country and forgot about it.

President Obama, to the surprise (and pleasure) of many conservative friends and relatives of mine, gave the order. But before he gave the order, he gave orders to recommit forces to the path that would make the raid possible. That Candidate Obama pledged to focus on destroying Al Qaeda and Bin Laden is indisputable; that he redeployed assets to accomplish that pledge is beyond debate; that he was successful in fulfilling that promise is settled history. Neptune’s Spear was a success, and a success demanded by almost all Americans.

Even Mitt Romney can see that.

The Rational Middle is listening…

 

The Hoopla Over Recess Appointments

Let’s all be political conservatives, and ask the no-nonsense, rural, heartland-approved question: to be considered at work, do you actually have to be doing any work? If a farmer in Illinois drove out to a field and punched a time-clock once every three days (because a lawyer told him in 1993 that punching that clock was the definition of working his fields), would that get the job done?

That is the question on display in this week’s artificially manufactured Obama controversy. The Constitution clearly allows the President to make recess appointments. President Obama has clearly made fewer of them than any of his recent predecessors of either party. Republicans claim that the President’s move was unconstitutional because they are not in recess.

This is the memo describing today’s Senate session (that was not, according to the GOP, in recess):

The Senate met in pro forma session to convene the second session of the 112th Congress at 12:01:32 p.m., and adjourned at 12:02:13 p.m. until 11 a.m., on Friday, January 6, 2012.

The Senate met for 41 seconds today. The same party whose head exploded as they impeached a president for asking an attorney to define the word “is”, is now threatening to sue or impeach the President for not considering a 41 second day a work day. Just for interest, here is the day put in by the House:

12:02 P.M. - The Speaker announced that the House do now adjourn pursuant to section 4(c) of H. Res. 493. The next meeting is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on January 6, 2012
12:01 P.M. - ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIR – Pursuant to section 4(a) of House Resolution 493, 112th Congress, the Chair announced that no organizational or legislative business will be conducted on this day.
12:01 P.M. - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – The Chair led the Members in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
12:00 P.M. - Today’s prayer was offered by the House Chaplain, Rev. Patrick J. Conroy.

The House at least worked for 2 minutes on the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer. Go team!

Speaking on doing one’s work in the democracy, the reason that Barack Obama has felt the need to make the appointments is because the Senate is not doing their constitutional job. Almost 200 important positions in the Executive Branch have yet to be filled, not because the President hasn’t made appointments, and certainly not because the Senate has voted against the appointments. These positions are open because individual senators have placed holds on nominees, stopping the democracy from working as the Framers intended.

The Constitution gives the Senate, as a whole, the responsibility to give “advice and consent” to the President’s nominees, not to sit on their thumbs and whine about the number of seats the other party holds. But then the Constitution doesn’t seem to matter to GOP politicians as much as it matters to the folks they represent.

The President appointed a director to the new federal entity charged with exercising some control over the bankers whose “genius” sunk our economy. He also appointed members to the National Labor Relations Board, an entity who has literally come to a standstill thanks to the obstructionism of the Republicans in the Senate who don’t want it to exist.

Just another terrible day of the President doing his job, and the GOP members in Congress thinking theirs is to hold press conferences, Presidential nominees, and their breath.

 

The Rational Middle is listening…

Deconstructing Glenn Greenwald

Civil libertarian’s (I am writing of real ones, not Ron Paul), are hopping mad at President Obama. Green Greenwald has written extensively on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012, a law he calls the “Indefinite Detention Bill”. Greenwald I try to ignore, as he finds (intelligent) ways to attack this President with a regularity that makes me wonder why Rupert Murdoch hasn’t called yet. The Salon.com writer is one of the intellectual leaders of the liberal fantasy parade that dreams a “stronger” president, or at least one who is less of a “corporatist” could have passed tougher health care reform and other dreamy dreams.

Jonathan Turley is another story; the respected constitutional scholar is brilliant, consistent, and well-meaning. His recent post on the appropriation bill, its content, and the President’s decision to sign it must be taken seriously. And serious is the best description for the thrashing given President Obama by Turley in his recent piece. The issues central to this debate are difficult for me; as a fervent Obama supporter, his record on civil liberties is (for me) a painful failing. I desired a stronger, more brisk roll-back of Bush-era tactics, President Obama has fallen short of the mark. But I will point out that the criticism of this President on this signing has, as is typical, overshot its mark. I will also point out that its mean-spirited tone, and monolithic objection to available evidence is typical of the behavior the anti-Obama liberal sees in Obama apologists.

Continue reading →

Af-Pak: To Leave, Or Not To Leave

Do we define national security by absolute need and best practice, or do we define it as a function of political context? Is the conflict in Afghanistan (and the sticky situation in Pakistan) a matter of national security, or is it a war of choice based on stubborn ideals and historical ignorance? As President Obama comes to the end of an abbreviated review of the 18 months since the Afghan Surge, these should be questions at the top of his mind.

For a nation that spent two decades avoiding conflicts under the aegis of “It could be another Viet Nam”, with Afghanistan the United States was quick to jump feet first into “another Viet Nam”. The conflict is expensive, bloody, logistically difficult, reliant on a corrupt local government, unpopular with the locals, and geopolitically risky. The delicate balance crafted by David Petraeus in Afghanistan has not (and cannot) limit the collateral damage done in Pakistan. The wars we might win or avoid via a succesful action in Afghanistan, pale in comparison to the wars we can unintentionally start involving Pakistan. Foreign policy is a high wire act at the best of times; the addition of military action, however, makes it a one-legged high wire act.

Continue reading →