Bomber targets U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan.
Commander denies U.S. blame in deaths in Afghanistan.
President Obama lashes out at I.R.S.; dismisses Benghazi investigation.
Police I.D. suspect in New Orleans Mothers Day shooting.
Sleazy abortion doctor convicted on three counts of murder.
R.I.P. Dr. Joyce Brothers, 85, celebrity psychologist.
The Tigers beat the Astros 7-2.
We’ve already determined that Barack Obama is not very good at being a socialist, what with the stock market soaring to giddy heights, the unemployment rate falling, and corporate profits going through the roof. Now, according to Steve M, he’s not any good at being a tyrant.
The Obama “scandals” are: a pre-election “cover-up” of the truth about the Benghazi attack in which the administration acknowledged every fact said to have been covered up within less than two weeks after the attack (and more than a month and a half before the election); heightened scrutiny of the tax-exempt status of right-wing groups by the IRS that led to no revocations of tax-exempt status and happened while a Republican ran the agency; all of this following a “gun grab” that has led to exactly zero federal gun control because no bill could even pass the Democrat-controlled upper chamber of Congress; and a further “gun grab” said to be in the works in conjunction with the UN that involves a treaty that can’t possibly be ratified in the Senate, and wouldn’t do what the opponents say it does anyway, even if it did pass.
Can’t this guy do anything right?
President Obama at the interfaith service in Boston yesterday.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I managed to stay awake for the State of the Union speech; no small thing when you normally are asleep by 9 p.m. or so. My first thought was that it was a hard sell on a lot of new plans ranging from climate change to minimum wage to voting rights but not overly political. For instance, a lot of what President Obama pitched included “we can do this” in the phrasing, and he seemed to go out of his way to include the fact that a lot of what he was proposing had, at some point, been endorsed by the Republicans.
All in all, I’ll give him an A- for style, a B+ for substance, and since there were no strange outbursts from the gallery, an A- for decorum.
Here’s the full transcript via the Washington Post.
I do not plan on live-blogging the speech tonight, but my cohorts over at The Reaction doing it here.
Through the magic of the intertubes and the White House press office releasing some of the prepared text, here’s some of what President Obama will say:
“It is our generation’s task, then, to reignite the true engine of America’s economic growth – a rising, thriving middle class.
It is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country – the idea that if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead, no matter where you come from, what you look like, or who you love.
It is our unfinished task to make sure that this government works on behalf of the many, and not just the few; that it encourages free enterprise, rewards individual initiative, and opens the doors of opportunity to every child across this great nation of ours.”
“A growing economy that creates good, middle-class jobs – that must be the North Star that guides our efforts. Every day, we should ask ourselves three questions as a nation: How do we attract more jobs to our shores? How do we equip our people with the skills needed to do those jobs? And how do we make sure that hard work leads to a decent living?”
“Tonight, I’ll lay out additional proposals that are fully paid for and fully consistent with the budget framework both parties agreed to just 18 months ago. Let me repeat – nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime. It’s not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth.”
And here’s a preview of Sen. Marco Rubio’s rebuttal, which will be delivered in both English and Spanish:
“Good evening. Me llamo Marco Rubio. No te preocupes; yo no soy mexicano, y tengo un trabajo. I’m one of the good guys; soy Cubano.
All that stuff that President Obama just said is caca. No se deje dar gato por liebre. Thank you, and buenos noches.”
He’ll be followed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who will deliver the Tea Party response:
“Hamana hamana hamana. Kenyan Socialist Secret Gay Muslim. Birth certificate. Arms to Turkey. Freedom. And hamana.”
I’ll come back if something really interesting happens, like if Ted Nugent falls out of the visitors gallery.
Meanwhile, the live coverage of the standoff in Big Bear, California between the fugitive ex-cop and the police is stepping all over the SOTU foreplay. The metaphors write themselves.
Via TPM:
After President Barack Obama’s recent claim that he goes skeet shooting “all the time” was met with a chorus of skepticism, the White House on Saturday released a photo of him doing just that.
The photo, taken by White House photographer Pete Souza on Aug. 4, 2012, shows Obama shooting clay targets on the range at Camp David, Md.
Update: Following the Saturday morning release of the photo, a pair of White House confidants took to Twitter to poke fun at the skeet skeptics.
The picture does prove one thing the Republicans and Tea Partiers have always said about President Obama: He’s a lefty.
Frankly, I think it’s silly that presidents and candidates have to prove they’re up to the job by doing things like hunting — or varmint-shooting, as Mitt Romney once put it — or other such irrelevant things. It’s pandering, plain and simple, and just because a president can shoot a shotgun or hang out with NASCAR fans doesn’t make him or her a better candidate. And the people they do it with know they don’t mean it. So why bother?
One of the few interesting conservative reactions I saw to President Obama’s inaugural address yesterday came from Charles Krauthammer, the dour prognosticator of doom at the Washington Post:
“I thought it was an amazing speech, and historically very important,” Krauthammer said on Fox News in the aftermath of the speech. “This was really Obama unbound. And I think what’s most interesting is that Obama basically is declaring the end of Reaganism.”
He went on to say that it was a “hymn to big government,” which means he wasn’t listening to the same speech as the rest of us, but then, he’s paid to find the nits to pick at. Judging by other conservatives’ reactions to the speech, they were not impressed, either. And of course there was the unsurprising tut-tutting from a few Villagers and Grumpy Gusses who wanted to hear another call for unity and the end to partisanship in Washington. Yes, that worked so well the last time.
If, as Dr. Krauthammer bemoans, this is the end of Reaganism, then it’s about time. Even Ronald Reagan, the one that raised taxes, the one that supported the assault weapons ban, the one who signed an abortion bill when he was governor of California, would probably be happy to see the end of the era of big business kleptocracy that gave us such wonderful things as Enron and Wall Street rip-offs, the end of serial pollution and the denial of scientific reality, the end of racial polarization, the end of ignorance, intolerance, demonization of the LGBTQ community, and the end of the pursuit of an America that only existed in the half-hour black-and-white sitcoms of the 1950′s, all hosted by tobacco companies. Much of those policies and philosophies still exist and are still trumpeted by conservatives, but at least they’re no longer the mantra of an administration. At least for now.
The headlines of major papers are telling us that “Obama Lays Out Liberal Vision,” but that’s news only if you were not paying attention to the presidential campaign in 2012. There wasn’t a heck of a lot new in the speech. Even the breathtaking inclusion of “gay brothers and sisters” and the mention of Stonewall along with Seneca Falls and Selma was an echo from the stump. That he would be the first president to mention gay rights in an inauguration speech is important, but it is not a “liberal vision” any more than the simple idea of treating all of us as equals, which, as the president noted, was written into the Declaration of Independence.
If this is truly the beginning of a term with “liberal vision,” then there are a lot of people — myself included — who are saying that it’s about time. And if this is the beginning of a term where President Obama will not back down from his ideas before he’s even laid them out in dealing with the intransigent Republicans, its about time for that, too. Let’s just hope that he means it and sticks to it this time.
We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.
It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.
Including Stonewall — the birthplace of the gay-rights movement — along with Seneca Falls and Selma in a presidential inaugural address for the first time.
Do not tell me that the universe has not shifted.
Here is the full speech as prepared for delivery.
As I do every year on New Year’s Eve, I make predictions about the upcoming year. Let’s see how I did for 2012:
Barack Obama will narrowly win re-election against Mitt Romney. It will be a campaign of fear, loathing, excess, and outrage… and that’s just on the GOP side until the inevitable coronation of Mr. Romney. The amount of money to be spent on both sides will be enough to run several mid-sized countries. Re-election campaigns are, of course, a vote on the performance of the incumbent, and Mr. Obama will have to defend his record, but the Republicans have, by their own actions, inactions, and lurch to the right in response to their hatred of all things Obama, made the choice in the election pretty clear. The stated GOP agenda has been to deny Barack Obama a second term, but other than that, they have offered nothing of substance if they win the election. That’s not surprising; they never do. They live on bumper sticker slogans and ten-word answers — Repeal Obamacare; Ban Abortion; Deport the Brown People; No More Taxes; Kill the Queers — but they offer no solutions, unless you want to go back to revive the bold and new ideas from the administration of William McKinley. The campaign will resemble that of the one in 1948 where Harry Truman, coming back from dismal approval ratings, beat the patrician and automatonic Thomas E. Dewey. Mr. Truman ran against an intransigent and right-wing-whacky Republican Congress, and Mr. Obama has pretty much the same situation. It won’t be a landslide, but unless there’s a complete meltdown of the Obama campaign juggernaut, he’ll win and might even win back Congress for the Democrats. It will not be the end of the right-wingers by any means; if anything, the re-election of Barack Obama will drive them even further over the cliff, and we will find out that the level of lunacy is infinite.
As I noted shortly after the election in November, I nailed it. The only thing I missed on was the possibility of winning back the House, but the Democrats did gain seats.
The Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, will uphold the new healthcare law, and the California Prop 8 case will get on their docket for 2013.
Right on both counts.
Despite the best efforts of the Republicans, the economy will continue to improve, but at about the same pace as it currently is, meaning that by Election Day the unemployment rate will be around 8%. Consumer confidence will continue to grow, and while the housing market will still be soft, bigger ticket items like cars and appliances will start to sell; those old cars can’t run forever.
Right again, although I underestimated the strength of the auto market. They are having their best year in a long, long time.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker will be recalled, which will send a shiver through right-wing governors from Ohio and Michigan to Florida. As the thousands of people in the streets from Madison to Wall Street proved, you mess with the middle class at your peril, and that sleeping giant has been awakened.
Okay, I blew that one, and Rick Snyder in Michigan is making Scott Walker look like a liberal. But I think the backlash will continue, and he has to run for re-election in 2014.
Here in Florida, Sen. Bill Nelson (D) will win another term in a tight race against Rep. Connie Mack (R), and Rep. Allen West (R) will be tossed out on his ass by the good people of Broward County. Alan Grayson (D), who lost in 2010, will win back a seat in Congress, and this will send a strong message to the Florida Democrats that if they can find some good people to run for office, they can beat Rick Scott in 2014.
Nailed that one, too, but the strongest contender in the race against Mr. Scott is the newly-minted Democrat Charlie Crist. Hold your nose, Democrats; to quote E.J. Hornbeck in the film of Inherit the Wind, he may be rancid butter, but he’s on your side of the bread.
The Tigers will go all the way this year. They got very close this year, and there’s always next year.
They did make it all the way to the World Series, only to blow it in a four-game shut out. Argh.
We will lose the requisite number of celebrities and friends as life goes on. As I always say, it’s important to cherish them while they are with us.
This year seemed especially harsh, both with friends at work and at home, and names that have been part of our lives. Peace.
Personally, some things never change. I’ll go to the William Inge Festival in April — my 21st time — where we’ll honor David Henry Hwang. I’ll go to Stratford in July with my parents, and I’ll go back to work on Tuesday. I’ve done some tinkering with the Pontiac as it verges on becoming a certified antique, which happens when the 2013 models go on sale. I have no plans to move or change jobs, and the only momentous thing that will happen is that I turn 60 in September. Big whoop.
All true, and to celebrate the Big Six-Oh I threw a little party.
Okay, let’s move on to the predictions for 2013:
- President Obama moves into his second term with pretty much the same situation in Washington and Congress as he has had for the last two years, so nothing will really get done. The budget matters, including the fake drama of the Fiscal Cliff, will still be around in some form because it’s a lot easier to kick it down the road than actually do something, especially when you have a Republican Party that absolutely refuses to work with the president on anything at all. It has nothing to do with policy, deficits or debt, taxes or revenue. The reason is pretty simple: they don’t like him, and so like a kid in grade school who refuses to do his math homework because he hates the teacher, they refuse to budge. You can pick your excuses, ranging from his Spock-like demeanor to his refusal to suck up to the Villagers, but most of it comes down to the unspoken reason that dare not speak its name: he’s black. No one dares say that out loud, but get three beers in any Republican, and I’ll bet they’ll admit it by saying “He’s not one of us.” How many dog whistles do you need? A big tell was that in the last-minute budget negotiations, Mitch McConnell went to Vice President Joe Biden as the go-between the Congress and the president. Why? Because Mr. Biden was in the Senate and knows how to talk to them, and also because he’s the white guy. So we will have another year of gridlock, and the new Congress will make the one just concluded look good.
- The Supreme Court will rule the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Prop 8 are unconstitutional. It will be a very close vote, probably 5-4 on both cases, and they will narrowly rule on both cases, doing their best not to fling open the doors to marriage equality with a blanket ruling and leave the rest of it up to the states. But they will both go down. On the other hand, they will rule against Affirmative Action. I also think there will be some changes to the make-up of the Court with at least one retirement, either voluntary or by the hand of fate.
- Even if we went over the fiscal cliff or curb or speed-bump, the economy will continue to improve, with the unemployment rate going below 7% by Labor Day. I know this only because I know that our economy, like the water level in the Great Lakes, goes in cycles no matter what the hand of Wall Street or Washington does… unless they completely screw it up like the last time and make it even worse.
- After the extreme weather we saw in 2012, at long last we will move to do something about climate change or global warming or whatever it is fashionably called. It won’t be done by Congress, however; it will be because the people who make a living off the climate, such as agriculture and coastal enterprises such as fishing and tourism, will make it happen through their own efforts. (Yeah, I’m being extremely optimistic on this one. A year from now I will happily concede I blew it.)
- The extremism from the right that entertained us in 2012 will continue, albeit muted because 2013 isn’t an election year except in New Jersey, where Chris Christie will be re-elected and start his Howard Dean-like campaign for the presidency in 2016. The GOP will refuse to acknowledge they have a problem, but as 2014 looms and the wingers that were elected in 2010 face re-election, they will find themselves scrambling hard for candidates that can survive primary battles where the nutsery reigns and then win the general election. The only reason Governors Rick Scott of Florida, Rick Snyder of Michigan, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and John Kasich of Ohio will be re-elected in 2014 is if the Democrats don’t move in for the kill.
- I’ve given up predicting the Tigers’ future this year. Surprise me, boys.
- We will lose the requisite number of celebrities and friends as life goes on. As I always say, it’s important to cherish them while they are with us.
- Personally, this year looks good on a couple of fronts. The Pontiac is due back from the body shop this week, and I have formally entered it in its first national Antique Automobile of America car show to take place in Lakeland, Florida, in February. Things are looking better at work with the Miami-Dade County Public Schools getting a number of important grants, including a $32 million program from Race To The Top for math preparation, and the District won the coveted Broad Prize for Urban Education this past fall. One of my short plays has been selected for production in May 2013 at the Lake Worth Playhouse’s Short Cuts series, and hope springs eternal for a full-scale production again of Can’t Live Without You here in Florida. This time I have a good director who would love to do it if we can get a theatre. I’ll be off to the William Inge Festival in May to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Inge’s birth, and plans are in the works for our annual trip to Stratford, Ontario, next summer. My family continues to enjoy good health and good spirits. The blessings continue. (PS: No, I still don’t have a Twitter account.)
- And of course, the usual prediction: One year from now I’ll write a post just like this one, look back at this one, and think, “Gee, that was dumb.” Or not.
President Obama thanks his campaign staff.
John Heilemann has a long piece in New York magazine wherein he analyzes the Obama re-election campaign. There’s a lot of interesting nuggets, including some mind-boggling number crunching on how the president could win without winning Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina (go west, young man), and some insight into the campaign they plan to run against Mitt Romney: take no prisoners.
Though the Obamans certainly hit John McCain hard four years ago—running more negative ads than any campaign in history—what they intend to do to Romney is more savage. They will pummel him for being a vulture-vampire capitalist at Bain Capital. They will pound him for being a miserable failure as the governor of Massachusetts. They will mash him for being a water-carrier for Paul Ryan’s Social Darwinist fiscal program. They will maul him for being a combination of Jerry Falwell, Joe Arpaio, and John Galt on a range of issues that strike deep chords with the Obama coalition. “We’re gonna say, ‘Let’s be clear what he would do as president,’ ” Plouffe explains. “Potentially abortion will be criminalized. Women will be denied contraceptive services. He’s far right on immigration. He supports efforts to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage.”The Obama effort at disqualifying Romney will go beyond painting him as excessively conservative, however. It will aim to cast him as an avatar of revanchism. “He’s the fifties, he is retro, he is backward, and we are forward—that’s the basic construct,” says a top Obama strategist. “If you’re a woman, you’re Hispanic, you’re young, or you’ve gotten left out, you look at Romney and say, ‘This fucking guy is gonna take us back to the way it always was, and guess what? I’ve never been part of that.’ ”
As the saying goes, politics ain’t beanbag.
As we’ve been told by every candidate out there, this election is the most important one in our nation’s history. Well, of course they’re going to say that. Would they be out there if they couldn’t portray themselves as the Saviour of the Western World, battling the hordes of “others” seething in over our borders, if it was just another election?
But in this case, they might have a point. Re-electing the first black man as president would indicate that despite the best — or worst — efforts of some truly extreme elements, this country has taken a new course, if only be a few degrees. The fact that Barack Obama is, by any fair definition, a centrist on a lot of issues (just ask Bill Maher how liberal Mr. Obama is) but portrayed as a radical by the GOP only tells you that it’s the Republicans who have moved way off the road, not the other way around, and if it was Mark Warner up for re-election, no one would be sending a posse of Arizona sheriffs to Indiana to hunt down his birth certificate. And while it may be a stretch to say that electing a Republican would take us back to the ’50′s — I mean the 1850′s — it could mean a return to the mindset of a time when the rich got rich and the poor got a re-run of The Grapes of Wrath. So we’re going to see a campaign painted in those terms.
Nothing could more garishly illustrate a bedrock truth about the campaign that lies before us: It will bear about as much resemblance to 2008 as Romney does to Nicki Minaj. In the campaign prior, any mention of Wright caused a collective coronary in Chicago; this time, it provokes high-fives. In the campaign prior, Team Obama boldly bid to expand the map; this time, it is playing defense. In the campaign prior, the candidate himself sought support from the widest possible universe of voters; this time, instead of trying to broaden his coalition, he is laboring to deepen it. Indeed, 2012 is shaping up to be an election that looks more like 2004 than 2008: a race propelled by the mobilization of party fundamentalists rather than the courtship of the center.If Obama wins a second term this way, the implications for governing could prove salutary—or god-awful. The president, energized by the prospect of a debate about “big things,” purports to take the optimistic view. “I think the general election will be as sharp a contrast between the two parties as we’ve seen in a generation,” Obama told Rolling Stone. “My hope is that if the American people send a message to [the GOP] … there’s going to be some self-reflection going on—that it might break the fever.” And, hey, who knows, crazier things have happened. Likelier, though, is that an incessantly negative, base-driven election will yield an uglier outcome. More polarization. More acrimony. More gridlock. (Yippee!)
What’s clear is that an Obama victory could have profound political implications for the future of the Democratic Party. When 44 arrived in office, some forecast that he might usher in a New New Deal. (Nope.) But if he gains reelection by consolidating his party’s position with the electorate’s ascendant demographic forces, Obama may succeed in creating a viable post–New Deal coalition on which Democrats can build for years to come. “Ronald Reagan turned a whole bunch of people who are now seniors into Republicans,” says Messina. “What is happening now is that young people, women, and Latinos are becoming Democrats. That’s the coalition Obama brought; demographics brought it, too. And for the next 30 years, it is going to be a real challenge for Republicans.”
And we all know how well Republicans take to losing. The second term of Barack Obama could make the first one look like a tea garden party.
I see this election in terms of my personal life as a single gay man who would like to settle down with someone, and in my professional life as an administrator in the public education system. Both aspects are targets of the Republican agenda; they would like to see both of them marginalized in America. So to say that I am understandably interested as to the outcome of this election would be an understatement.
John Heilemann has a long piece in New York magazine wherein he analyzes the Obama re-election campaign. There’s a lot of interesting nuggets, including some mind-boggling number crunching on how the president could win without winning Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina (go west, young man), and some insight into the campaign they plan to run against Mitt Romney: take no prisoners.
Though the Obamans certainly hit John McCain hard four years ago—running more negative ads than any campaign in history—what they intend to do to Romney is more savage. They will pummel him for being a vulture-vampire capitalist at Bain Capital. They will pound him for being a miserable failure as the governor of Massachusetts. They will mash him for being a water-carrier for Paul Ryan’s Social Darwinist fiscal program. They will maul him for being a combination of Jerry Falwell, Joe Arpaio, and John Galt on a range of issues that strike deep chords with the Obama coalition. “We’re gonna say, ‘Let’s be clear what he would do as president,’ ” Plouffe explains. “Potentially abortion will be criminalized. Women will be denied contraceptive services. He’s far right on immigration. He supports efforts to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage.”The Obama effort at disqualifying Romney will go beyond painting him as excessively conservative, however. It will aim to cast him as an avatar of revanchism. “He’s the fifties, he is retro, he is backward, and we are forward—that’s the basic construct,” says a top Obama strategist. “If you’re a woman, you’re Hispanic, you’re young, or you’ve gotten left out, you look at Romney and say, ‘This fucking guy is gonna take us back to the way it always was, and guess what? I’ve never been part of that.’ ”
As the saying goes, politics ain’t beanbag.
As we’ve been told by every candidate out there, this election is the most important one in our nation’s history. Well, of course they’re going to say that. Would they be out there if they couldn’t portray themselves as the Saviour of the Western World, battling the hordes of “others” seething in over our borders, if it was just another election?
But in this case, they might have a point. Re-electing the first black man as president would indicate that despite the best — or worst — efforts of some truly extreme elements, this country has taken a new course, if only be a few degrees. The fact that Barack Obama is, by any fair definition, a centrist on a lot of issues (just ask Bill Maher how liberal Mr. Obama is) but portrayed as a radical by the GOP only tells you that it’s the Republicans who have moved way off the road, not the other way around, and if it was Mark Warner up for re-election, no one would be sending a posse of Arizona sheriffs to Indiana to hunt down his birth certificate. And while it may be a stretch to say that electing a Republican would take us back to the ’50′s — I mean the 1850′s — it could mean a return to the mindset of a time when the rich got rich and the poor got a re-run of The Grapes of Wrath. So we’re going to see a campaign painted in those terms.
Nothing could more garishly illustrate a bedrock truth about the campaign that lies before us: It will bear about as much resemblance to 2008 as Romney does to Nicki Minaj. In the campaign prior, any mention of Wright caused a collective coronary in Chicago; this time, it provokes high-fives. In the campaign prior, Team Obama boldly bid to expand the map; this time, it is playing defense. In the campaign prior, the candidate himself sought support from the widest possible universe of voters; this time, instead of trying to broaden his coalition, he is laboring to deepen it. Indeed, 2012 is shaping up to be an election that looks more like 2004 than 2008: a race propelled by the mobilization of party fundamentalists rather than the courtship of the center.If Obama wins a second term this way, the implications for governing could prove salutary—or god-awful. The president, energized by the prospect of a debate about “big things,” purports to take the optimistic view. “I think the general election will be as sharp a contrast between the two parties as we’ve seen in a generation,” Obama told Rolling Stone. “My hope is that if the American people send a message to [the GOP] … there’s going to be some self-reflection going on—that it might break the fever.” And, hey, who knows, crazier things have happened. Likelier, though, is that an incessantly negative, base-driven election will yield an uglier outcome. More polarization. More acrimony. More gridlock. (Yippee!)
What’s clear is that an Obama victory could have profound political implications for the future of the Democratic Party. When 44 arrived in office, some forecast that he might usher in a New New Deal. (Nope.) But if he gains reelection by consolidating his party’s position with the electorate’s ascendant demographic forces, Obama may succeed in creating a viable post–New Deal coalition on which Democrats can build for years to come. “Ronald Reagan turned a whole bunch of people who are now seniors into Republicans,” says Messina. “What is happening now is that young people, women, and Latinos are becoming Democrats. That’s the coalition Obama brought; demographics brought it, too. And for the next 30 years, it is going to be a real challenge for Republicans.”
And we all know how well Republicans take to losing. The second term of Barack Obama could make the first one look like a tea garden party.
I see this election in terms of my personal life as a single gay man who would like to settle down with someone, and in my professional life as an administrator in the public education system. Both aspects are targets of the Republican agenda; they would like to see both of them marginalized in America. So to say that I am understandably interested as to the outcome of this election would be an understatement.
David Brooks can’t figure out why President Obama isn’t being crushed.
The economic mood of the country is terrible. Roughly 75 percent of Americans believe the economy is still in recession. According to a Quinnipiac survey, only 35 percent of Americans say they are better off than they were four years ago. Barely a third believe the country is heading in the right direction. The economic climate is as bad as or worse than it was in 1968, 1976, 1992 and 2000, years when incumbent parties lost re-election.Then there is the ideological climate. Obama has governed from the left, but the country, as [Brookings Institution pollster Bill] Galston notes, has shifted to the right. Forty percent of Americans call themselves conservatives, the highest number ever measured.
According to an ABC News/Washington Post survey, only 22 percent of voters believe Obama’s views on the size and role of government are a reason to vote for him. The share of Americans who say the current level of inequality is acceptable has increased by seven percentage points since 1998, to 52 percent. Obama’s main policy initiative, health care reform, remains decidedly unpopular: 39 percent now support it, and 53 percent oppose, according to another ABC News/Washington Post poll.
Finally, Obama has lost support among crucial constituencies. He alienated independents in 2009 and has never won them back. According to a Pew Research Center poll, his support among Catholics has fallen to 42 percent from 49 percent. Even young voters are moving away. And as Galston notes, voter registration among Hispanics has declined by five percentage points, the first significant drop in four decades.
The fundamentals suggest that Obama will go the way of Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy — incumbents who were trounced in hard times. And yet Obama isn’t on the same trajectory as other global leaders, left or right.
Shorter version: Augh, why, why, why?
Well, let’s take a look at some of his points. “Obama has governed from the left…” Sure, assuming that you’re seeing the world through tea-colored glasses. By any measure of left vs. right historically — and certainly by the measure of progressives — he’s in the center in terms of economics and dealings with Wall Street. A leftist would have prosecuted the hell out of the people who brought the economy down in 2008, and a leftist would have been out camped out in Zucotti Park. A leftist would never have allowed the Bush tax cuts to be continued; “no more tax cuts for the rich” is about as bright a line to the left as “abortion is murder” is to the right, and he compromised on them to a fare-thee-well. He’s maintained and even strengthened the Bush foreign policy, including drone warfare, dealing with enemy combatants, and he caved on the Gitmo closing without much of a fight, leading a lot of us to believe he never intended to close it in the first place. It took him almost four years to come around to being on board with marriage equality, something a real progressive would have declared before the first election. The only people who consider Barack Obama to be a leftist are the ones who wouldn’t let that liberal Ronald Reagan get past a primary today.
“Obama’s main policy initiative, health care reform, remains decidedly unpopular.” Gee, you’d think that after all the demonization, exaggerations, and outright lies from the GOP and Fox News, that’s a surprise? What’s actually the case is that while 39 percent support it when you ask about it generally, support goes way up when you ask people about the actual elements in it such as coverage for pre-existing conditions, including children to the age of 26, and closing the doughnut hole for senior citizens. The biggest problem with both the polling and the perception is that most of the reforms haven’t taken place yet. If it survives the Supreme Court and goes into full effect, people will never want to give it up, including the tri-cornered hat set on their Rascal scooters paid for by Medicare.
“Obama has lost support among crucial constituencies.” Mr. Obama “disappointed” a lot of independents because he wasn’t Lancelot on a steed, and some of these are the folks who would have voted for Ralph Nader if he’d been on the ballot. Independents are notably unreliable in terms of party politics, hence the term “Independents.” As for the fall-off in Catholic support, gee, what a surprise after the entire collection of Robespierres from the pope on down got their tails all puffed up about sound medical advice and guidance on contraception. Oh, the humanity. As for the decline in Hispanic voter registration, perhaps the “papers, please” mentality coming from Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia on immigration might have something to do with it. As it is, Mr. Obama is still in a double-digit lead among that demographic no matter what Marco Rubio may do.
So why, according to Mr. Brooks, is Obama not being tossed out? Well, he admits that he has women and the non-religious on his side, but when you get right down to it, people just like him.
But most of the cause is personal. There’s an interesting debate over how much personal qualities matter in a presidential election. The evidence this year suggests: a lot. Take one contrast. According to a Fox News poll, only 36 percent of voters believe Obama has a clear plan for fixing the economy. But 48 percent approve of his performance. That means 12 percent of Americans approve of Obama even though they don’t think he has an agenda for moving us forward. In survey after survey, Obama is far more popular than his policies.
In other words, compared to that insufferable clueless weathervane of a plutocrat the GOP has finally settled on after a year of sheer sideshow abandon that gave us everything from “Nine-nine-nine” to “Oops,” thrice-married Newt Gingrich lecturing us on the sanctity of marriage and Rick Santorum obsessing about masturbation and gay sex, and despite having to run against the most vicious and racist political machine since Sheriff Bart rode into Rock Ridge, fortune favors Barack Obama.
Of course, Mr. Brooks can’t come right out and say that.
I’d say that Obama is a slight underdog this year: the scuffling economy will grind away at voters. But his leadership style is keeping him afloat. He has defined a version of manliness that is postboomer in policy but preboomer in manners and reticence.
Okay, I admit I have no clue as to what that last sentence of psycho-babbitry means — “manliness” “postboomer” vs. “preboomer” wha…? — but what he seems to be saying is “oh, the hell with it; Obama is going to win.”
David Brooks can’t figure out why President Obama isn’t being crushed.
The economic mood of the country is terrible. Roughly 75 percent of Americans believe the economy is still in recession. According to a Quinnipiac survey, only 35 percent of Americans say they are better off than they were four years ago. Barely a third believe the country is heading in the right direction. The economic climate is as bad as or worse than it was in 1968, 1976, 1992 and 2000, years when incumbent parties lost re-election.Then there is the ideological climate. Obama has governed from the left, but the country, as [Brookings Institution pollster Bill] Galston notes, has shifted to the right. Forty percent of Americans call themselves conservatives, the highest number ever measured.
According to an ABC News/Washington Post survey, only 22 percent of voters believe Obama’s views on the size and role of government are a reason to vote for him. The share of Americans who say the current level of inequality is acceptable has increased by seven percentage points since 1998, to 52 percent. Obama’s main policy initiative, health care reform, remains decidedly unpopular: 39 percent now support it, and 53 percent oppose, according to another ABC News/Washington Post poll.
Finally, Obama has lost support among crucial constituencies. He alienated independents in 2009 and has never won them back. According to a Pew Research Center poll, his support among Catholics has fallen to 42 percent from 49 percent. Even young voters are moving away. And as Galston notes, voter registration among Hispanics has declined by five percentage points, the first significant drop in four decades.
The fundamentals suggest that Obama will go the way of Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy — incumbents who were trounced in hard times. And yet Obama isn’t on the same trajectory as other global leaders, left or right.
Shorter version: Augh, why, why, why?
Well, let’s take a look at some of his points. “Obama has governed from the left…” Sure, assuming that you’re seeing the world through tea-colored glasses. By any measure of left vs. right historically — and certainly by the measure of progressives — he’s in the center in terms of economics and dealings with Wall Street. A leftist would have prosecuted the hell out of the people who brought the economy down in 2008, and a leftist would have been out camped out in Zucotti Park. A leftist would never have allowed the Bush tax cuts to be continued; “no more tax cuts for the rich” is about as bright a line to the left as “abortion is murder” is to the right, and he compromised on them to a fare-thee-well. He’s maintained and even strengthened the Bush foreign policy, including drone warfare, dealing with enemy combatants, and he caved on the Gitmo closing without much of a fight, leading a lot of us to believe he never intended to close it in the first place. It took him almost four years to come around to being on board with marriage equality, something a real progressive would have declared before the first election. The only people who consider Barack Obama to be a leftist are the ones who wouldn’t let that liberal Ronald Reagan get past a primary today.
“Obama’s main policy initiative, health care reform, remains decidedly unpopular.” Gee, you’d think that after all the demonization, exaggerations, and outright lies from the GOP and Fox News, that’s a surprise? What’s actually the case is that while 39 percent support it when you ask about it generally, support goes way up when you ask people about the actual elements in it such as coverage for pre-existing conditions, including children to the age of 26, and closing the doughnut hole for senior citizens. The biggest problem with both the polling and the perception is that most of the reforms haven’t taken place yet. If it survives the Supreme Court and goes into full effect, people will never want to give it up, including the tri-cornered hat set on their Rascal scooters paid for by Medicare.
“Obama has lost support among crucial constituencies.” Mr. Obama “disappointed” a lot of independents because he wasn’t Lancelot on a steed, and some of these are the folks who would have voted for Ralph Nader if he’d been on the ballot. Independents are notably unreliable in terms of party politics, hence the term “Independents.” As for the fall-off in Catholic support, gee, what a surprise after the entire collection of Robespierres from the pope on down got their tails all puffed up about sound medical advice and guidance on contraception. Oh, the humanity. As for the decline in Hispanic voter registration, perhaps the “papers, please” mentality coming from Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia on immigration might have something to do with it. As it is, Mr. Obama is still in a double-digit lead among that demographic no matter what Marco Rubio may do.
So why, according to Mr. Brooks, is Obama not being tossed out? Well, he admits that he has women and the non-religious on his side, but when you get right down to it, people just like him.
But most of the cause is personal. There’s an interesting debate over how much personal qualities matter in a presidential election. The evidence this year suggests: a lot. Take one contrast. According to a Fox News poll, only 36 percent of voters believe Obama has a clear plan for fixing the economy. But 48 percent approve of his performance. That means 12 percent of Americans approve of Obama even though they don’t think he has an agenda for moving us forward. In survey after survey, Obama is far more popular than his policies.
In other words, compared to that insufferable clueless weathervane of a plutocrat the GOP has finally settled on after a year of sheer sideshow abandon that gave us everything from “Nine-nine-nine” to “Oops,” thrice-married Newt Gingrich lecturing us on the sanctity of marriage and Rick Santorum obsessing about masturbation and gay sex, and despite having to run against the most vicious and racist political machine since Sheriff Bart rode into Rock Ridge, fortune favors Barack Obama.
Of course, Mr. Brooks can’t come right out and say that.
I’d say that Obama is a slight underdog this year: the scuffling economy will grind away at voters. But his leadership style is keeping him afloat. He has defined a version of manliness that is postboomer in policy but preboomer in manners and reticence.
Okay, I admit I have no clue as to what that last sentence of psycho-babbitry means — “manliness” “postboomer” vs. “preboomer” wha…? — but what he seems to be saying is “oh, the hell with it; Obama is going to win.”
Newsweek is out (no pun intended) with a cover photo and essay by Andrew Sullivan that dubs President Obama as the “first gay president.”
Sigh.
Both Newsweek and Mr. Sullivan are shorthanding the president’s support of same-sex marriage by labeling him as gay. Except I’m not comfortable with the label — not that there’s anything wrong with it — and the idea that supporting same-sex marriage and other civil rights for the LGBTQ community makes him gay. If that’s the case, my parents and a lot of my family members are gay, too, which would come as a surprise to them and their respective children and spouses. It would also apply to a number of people I know who are demonstrably straight. It’s catchy, it sells magazines, and I’m sure the editors of Newsweek felt they had to come up with something to counter last week’s Time magazine cover article on breastfeeding. (Oh, please, don’t even go there.)
Contrast that with The New Yorker‘s cover and Margaret Talbot’s comments on civil rights and their evolution, so to speak, throughout recent history and how both presidents and our society dealt with them.
One day, not long from now, it will be hard to remember what worried people so much about gay and lesbian couples committing themselves to marriage. And, when that day comes, President Obama’s remarks last week about how, “personally,” it was “important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married” will seem mild and obvious. That is not to diminish the importance of his statement. It’s just to note that same-sex marriage is a historical inevitability—and what people say about it now, for and against, will be seen in that light.
Don’t get me wrong; I am very, very glad that President Obama has come to this point. I grant that it was not an easy thing to do and that he may have struggled with it over the years… or at least since he supported same-sex marriage when he was in the Illinois state house. But I agree with my cohort, Michael J.W. Stickings:
And now Obama is supposedly the first gay president? Why? For being behind the curve (and behind his own administration, including Vice President Biden, of course) on a basic civil rights issue, and for finally announcing his support for same-sex marriage only after most of the rest of the country, according to polls, had come to the same conclusion, and for doing so because he needed to fire up the base, not to mention his big-time donors?Call me cynical, but this doesn’t make Obama gay, it just proves he’s a smart politician who may have had generally progressive views on gay rights all along but who obviously allowed political considerations to get in the way of doing what was right.
If we label every president as being a member of a group because he supports their civil rights or “gets them,” (vide Bill Clinton as the “first black president”), then it was actually Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson who were the first black presidents and Woodrow Wilson was the first woman president.
Newsweek is bumpersticker journalism; something it has increasingly indulged in over the last decade or so, and one of the reasons I let my subscription expire. If I wanted to read that sort of stuff, I’d pick up a copy of People.
[Edited for clarity after posting.]
Newsweek is out (no pun intended) with a cover photo and essay by Andrew Sullivan that dubs President Obama as the “first gay president.”
Sigh.
Both Newsweek and Mr. Sullivan are shorthanding the president’s support of same-sex marriage by labeling him as gay. Except I’m not comfortable with the label — not that there’s anything wrong with it — and the idea that supporting same-sex marriage and other civil rights for the LGBTQ community makes him gay. If that’s the case, my parents and a lot of my family members are gay, too, which would come as a surprise to them and their respective children and spouses. It would also apply to a number of people I know who are demonstrably straight. It’s catchy, it sells magazines, and I’m sure the editors of Newsweek felt they had to come up with something to counter last week’s Time magazine cover article on breastfeeding. (Oh, please, don’t even go there.)
Contrast that with The New Yorker‘s cover and Margaret Talbot’s comments on civil rights and their evolution, so to speak, throughout recent history and how both presidents and our society dealt with them.
One day, not long from now, it will be hard to remember what worried people so much about gay and lesbian couples committing themselves to marriage. And, when that day comes, President Obama’s remarks last week about how, “personally,” it was “important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married” will seem mild and obvious. That is not to diminish the importance of his statement. It’s just to note that same-sex marriage is a historical inevitability—and what people say about it now, for and against, will be seen in that light.
Don’t get me wrong; I am very, very glad that President Obama has come to this point. I grant that it was not an easy thing to do and that he may have struggled with it over the years… or at least since he supported same-sex marriage when he was in the Illinois state house. But I agree with my cohort, Michael J.W. Stickings:
And now Obama is supposedly the first gay president? Why? For being behind the curve (and behind his own administration, including Vice President Biden, of course) on a basic civil rights issue, and for finally announcing his support for same-sex marriage only after most of the rest of the country, according to polls, had come to the same conclusion, and for doing so because he needed to fire up the base, not to mention his big-time donors?Call me cynical, but this doesn’t make Obama gay, it just proves he’s a smart politician who may have had generally progressive views on gay rights all along but who obviously allowed political considerations to get in the way of doing what was right.
If we label every president as being a member of a group because he supports their civil rights or “gets them,” (vide Bill Clinton as the “first black president”), then it was actually Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson who were the first black presidents and Woodrow Wilson was the first woman president.
Newsweek is bumpersticker journalism; something it has increasingly indulged in over the last decade or so, and one of the reasons I let my subscription expire. If I wanted to read that sort of stuff, I’d pick up a copy of People.
[Edited for clarity after posting.]
The story of the day is President Obama finally saying out loud that he supports marriage equality. It is, as countless pundits and commentators have said, a breakthrough for civil and gay rights in America. And it is; a sitting American president has finally said he supports the right of same-sex couples to get married and share in the benefits and responsibilities of that state and contract.
And a lot of people — including myself — have said that it’s about time. It is nice to hear it. But it also should not obscure the fact that compared to his predecessors — and those who would wish to replace him — the Obama administration has done more for LGBTQ rights than all the previous presidents put together, and it is the actions, not the words, that really matter. And there have been a lot of actions.
There’s another level to this. It is more than just the actions and the policies that matter. It is the simple assurance that we Americans who happen to be members of the LGBTQ community take from the fact that the President of the United States is with us. In this cynical age (and trust me, I know from cynicism), where politics and partisanship and campaigning are paramount considerations, it is still important for us to hear it.
It may not matter as much to a middle-aged guy like me who has been comfortable with being out of the closet since the Ford administration, but I know that there are a lot of people who are still struggling with it because of family or faith or social pressure to conform with the straight configuration of boys liking girls leading to marriage and kids and minivans. (By the way, a lot of same-sex couples have kids and minivans.) There are kids who are too young to understand why they are more interested in being with someone of their own gender and wonder when they will grow out of it and know instinctively that they can’t talk about it for fear of schoolyard taunts and being “different” at a stage when conformity is the lifeblood of social interaction. They hear the voices on TV railing against the radical homosexuals and their tawdry life of debauchery, but do not understand why they feel like they’re the target, and they feel apart from their faith and practice because they know, deep in their heart, that they do not measure up to the expectations of the church. And while the preachers and scolds are obsessed with sex, kids and adults who don’t care one bit about what goes on in the bedroom cannot understand why they should be made to feel ashamed of what is for them a perfectly natural attraction in both a physical and intellectual way to someone who is plumbed and wired the same way they are.
For the President of the United States — the most powerful man in the world — to calmly tell a TV interviewer in a casual conversation on a sunny May afternoon that he believes that same-sex couples should be able to get married just like everyone else may be a very big deal in the gay rights movement. It may be a big deal in the political arena as that president stands for re-election, and it will certainly bring the issue to the forefront for the next couple of news cycles, as it has since the vice president got out in front of it last Sunday. It is certainly a distraction from the issue of the economy and the lagging recovery, and if the cynics and the skeptics want to point out that Mr. Obama has provided an “oh look at the kitty” moment for his campaign, they are welcome to say so.
But I have to say that regardless of whatever the motive may be, it is still a gift of comfort and assurance to the millions of us who have waited to hear this simple statement. He didn’t have to do it, and there is nothing he can do in terms of the power of his office to make the bans on same-sex marriage that have been embedded in federal law and various state constitutions go away. He is simply giving voice to the one thing that ties all of the issues of life as a gay man or lesbian in America together: the simple but profound meaning of “I now pronounce you….”
This doesn’t change things overnight. Today there will still be people fired from their job or denied a place to live or a couples-only vacation because they are gay. The schoolyard bullies will still be there with their taunts, the preachers will still be there with their obsessive and all-too-enthusiastic talk about sodomy, and teenaged boys and girls will still be thrown into the streets by parents who tell them that no kid of theirs will be queer. But there is no doubt that a cog has shifted in the universe, and no matter what happens in an election in November, the simple fact is that we among you who happen to be gay have been given the gift of encouragement to become part of us.
The story of the day is President Obama finally saying out loud that he supports marriage equality. It is, as countless pundits and commentators have said, a breakthrough for civil and gay rights in America. And it is; a sitting American president has finally said he supports the right of same-sex couples to get married and share in the benefits and responsibilities of that state and contract.
And a lot of people — including myself — have said that it’s about time. It is nice to hear it. But it also should not obscure the fact that compared to his predecessors — and those who would wish to replace him — the Obama administration has done more for LGBTQ rights than all the previous presidents put together, and it is the actions, not the words, that really matter. And there have been a lot of actions.
There’s another level to this. It is more than just the actions and the policies that matter. It is the simple assurance that we Americans who happen to be members of the LGBTQ community take from the fact that the President of the United States is with us. In this cynical age (and trust me, I know from cynicism), where politics and partisanship and campaigning are paramount considerations, it is still important for us to hear it.
It may not matter as much to a middle-aged guy like me who has been comfortable with being out of the closet since the Ford administration, but I know that there are a lot of people who are still struggling with it because of family or faith or social pressure to conform with the straight configuration of boys liking girls leading to marriage and kids and minivans. (By the way, a lot of same-sex couples have kids and minivans.) There are kids who are too young to understand why they are more interested in being with someone of their own gender and wonder when they will grow out of it and know instinctively that they can’t talk about it for fear of schoolyard taunts and being “different” at a stage when conformity is the lifeblood of social interaction. They hear the voices on TV railing against the radical homosexuals and their tawdry life of debauchery, but do not understand why they feel like they’re the target, and they feel apart from their faith and practice because they know, deep in their heart, that they do not measure up to the expectations of the church. And while the preachers and scolds are obsessed with sex, kids and adults who don’t care one bit about what goes on in the bedroom cannot understand why they should be made to feel ashamed of what is for them a perfectly natural attraction in both a physical and intellectual way to someone who is plumbed and wired the same way they are.
For the President of the United States — the most powerful man in the world — to calmly tell a TV interviewer in a casual conversation on a sunny May afternoon that he believes that same-sex couples should be able to get married just like everyone else may be a very big deal in the gay rights movement. It may be a big deal in the political arena as that president stands for re-election, and it will certainly bring the issue to the forefront for the next couple of news cycles, as it has since the vice president got out in front of it last Sunday. It is certainly a distraction from the issue of the economy and the lagging recovery, and if the cynics and the skeptics want to point out that Mr. Obama has provided an “oh look at the kitty” moment for his campaign, they are welcome to say so.
But I have to say that regardless of whatever the motive may be, it is still a gift of comfort and assurance to the millions of us who have waited to hear this simple statement. He didn’t have to do it, and there is nothing he can do in terms of the power of his office to make the bans on same-sex marriage that have been embedded in federal law and various state constitutions go away. He is simply giving voice to the one thing that ties all of the issues of life as a gay man or lesbian in America together: the simple but profound meaning of “I now pronounce you….”
This doesn’t change things overnight. Today there will still be people fired from their job or denied a place to live or a couples-only vacation because they are gay. The schoolyard bullies will still be there with their taunts, the preachers will still be there with their obsessive and all-too-enthusiastic talk about sodomy, and teenaged boys and girls will still be thrown into the streets by parents who tell them that no kid of theirs will be queer. But there is no doubt that a cog has shifted in the universe, and no matter what happens in an election in November, the simple fact is that we among you who happen to be gay have been given the gift of encouragement to become part of us.
President Obama was interviewed by Rolling Stone. Nothing earth-shaking was revealed, but it’s still worth the read because it’s easy to forget — especially after all the screaming from the right wing — just how together he is about everything. No drama, indeed.
I think the general election will be as sharp a contrast between the two parties as we’ve seen in a generation. You have a Republican Party, and a presumptive Republican nominee, that believes in drastically rolling back environmental regulations, that believes in drastically rolling back collective-bargaining rights, that believes in an approach to deficit reduction in which taxes are cut further for the wealthiest Americans, and spending cuts are entirely borne by things like education or basic research or care for the vulnerable. All this will be presumably written into their platform and reflected in their convention. I don’t think that their nominee is going to be able to suddenly say, “Everything I’ve said for the last six months, I didn’t mean.” I’m assuming that he meant it. When you’re running for president, people are paying attention to what you’re saying.
President Obama was interviewed by Rolling Stone. Nothing earth-shaking was revealed, but it’s still worth the read because it’s easy to forget — especially after all the screaming from the right wing — just how together he is about everything. No drama, indeed.
I think the general election will be as sharp a contrast between the two parties as we’ve seen in a generation. You have a Republican Party, and a presumptive Republican nominee, that believes in drastically rolling back environmental regulations, that believes in drastically rolling back collective-bargaining rights, that believes in an approach to deficit reduction in which taxes are cut further for the wealthiest Americans, and spending cuts are entirely borne by things like education or basic research or care for the vulnerable. All this will be presumably written into their platform and reflected in their convention. I don’t think that their nominee is going to be able to suddenly say, “Everything I’ve said for the last six months, I didn’t mean.” I’m assuming that he meant it. When you’re running for president, people are paying attention to what you’re saying.
