News

Democrats Could Lose 2010 Labor Vote to Republicans
<img src = "http://0.tqn.com/d/usliberals/1/0/1/9/SEIUcrowd030909AlexWong.jpg " hspace="5" align="right" width="185px" height="111px"> Organized labor and working class Americans will be key to President Obama's 2012 reelection prospects. On Labor Day 2010, these groups understandably feel l<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/theeconomyjobs/a/TrumkaSpeech.htm">et down, ignored and left behind</a> by Obama administration policies, and could desert the Democratic party at the polls this November.. Democrats should be terrified by new conservative efforts to woo organized rank-and-file labor workers to Republican ranks, illustrated by <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://governorpalin4president.blogspot.com/2010/08/sarah-palin-union-brothers-and-sisters.html">Sarah Palin's recent speech</a> in which she cleverly beseeched: <blockquote>"To my hardworking, patriotic brothers and sisters in the labor movement: you don't have to put up with the scare tactics and the big government agenda of the union bosses. There is a different home for you: the commonsense conservative movement. It cares about the same things you and I care about: a government that doesn't spend beyond its means, an economy focused on creating good jobs with good wages... "</blockquote> After all, recent headlines herald only terrible economic news for union workers, who are predominantly female, Latino and older white men: <ul><li><a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=11564397">From ABC News via AP</a> - "Whenever companies start hiring freely again, job-seekers with specialized skills and education will have plenty of good opportunities. Others will face a choice: Take a job with low pay -- or none at all... "That's the sobering message American workers face as they celebrate Labor Day at a time of high unemployment, scant hiring and a widespread loss of job security. Not until 2014 or later is the nation expected to have regained all, or nearly all, the 8.4 million jobs lost to the recession." <li>From economist <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03reich.html">Robert Reich in the New York Times </a>- "Even though the American economy kept growing, hourly wages flattened. The median male worker earns less today, adjusted for inflation, than he did 30 years ago... "In the late 1970s, the richest 1 percent of American families took in about 9 percent of the nation's total income; by 2007, the top 1 percent took in 23.5 percent of total income... little has been done since 2008 to widen the circle of prosperity." <li> From the <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-america-unemployment-mainbar-20100905,0,4447404.story">Los Angeles Times on Sept 5, 2010</a> - "Unemployment, long considered a temporary, transitional condition in the United States, appears to be settling in for a lengthy run... "Major employers including automakers and building contractors were at the core of the meltdown this time around. Even when the economy picks up, these sectors won't quickly rehire all the workers they shed during the downturn."</ul> As a further complication, <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=8468#more">a new poll found</a> "a huge 51% of Latinos less excited about the Democrats than they were in 2008" and concluded that "Obama and Senate Democrats took Latinos for granted, and now must scramble in the next two months to convince them to get to the polls and vote Democratic... " The ranks of organized labor are heavily Latino in certain states, as Nevada, which were essential to Obama's 2008 victory. How does the Obama administration respond on this Labor Day to the real distresses of America's working class? With a new <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/05/AR2010090501003.html">$100 billion dollar tax credit for U.S. corporations</a>, which is dandy for big businesses and, in the long run, helpful to the U.S. economy. But does absolutely zero to help American workers in the next few years. And with a sudden, feverish a<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41807.html">nnouncement today of a $50 billion bill</a> for an "infrastructure plan designed to expand and renew the nation's roads, railways and runways." Again, a terrific plan for the long term, one that should have been part of the 2009 stimulus bill, but a plan that does absolutely zero to help American workers in the immediate future. President Obama would be very wise to listen Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO president, when<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129674967"> he called today</a> "a defining Labor Day," adding about the 2010 elections, ""This election is about economic patriots, and it's also about corporate traitors." Lately, Trumka has stuck vociferously by the White House, <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2010/0902/Union-leader-Trumka-s-bleak-view-under-a-Republican-led-House">arguing that if Republicans retake control</a> of the House: <blockquote>"... we will go back to where corporate America and Wall Street ran wild. They will do everything they can to continue the policies of the last 30 years. You will see more tax cuts for the rich... "You won't get health and safety laws passed even though miners will continue to be killed or refinery workers will get killed on the job. You won't see constructive legislation, you won't see extensions of unemployment, you won't see job creation."</blockquote> Problem is, given the i<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/theeconomyjobs/a/TrumkaSpeech.htm">ntense pain today </a>of high unemployment, insecure jobs, poor job creation prospects, and high foreclosure rates, working class Americans are too overwhelmed by the painful challenges of the present to worry about the future. On Labor Day 2010, working class Americans and their families are<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/theeconomyjobs/a/TrumkaSpeech.htm"> markedly worse off </a>than they were on the day they voted for Barack Obama to be President. And they see no hope of help from the White House in the near future. That, in a nutshell, is why Democrats should be terrified by new conservative efforts to woo organized rank-and-file labor workers and working class Americans to Republican ranks. For more, read one of the most poignant and important speeches of 2010, at L<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/theeconomyjobs/a/TrumkaSpeech.htm">abor Leader Trumka's Speech on Financial Woes of Americans</a>. (Photo of SEIU workers: Alex Wong/Getty Images) <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/09/06/democrats-could-lose-2010-labor-vote-to-republicans.htm">Democrats Could Lose 2010 Labor Vote to Republicans</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/">About.com US Liberal Politics</a> on Monday, September 6th, 2010 at 14:05:32.<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/09/06/democrats-could-lose-2010-labor-vote-to-republicans.htm">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/09/06/democrats-could-lose-2010-labor-vote-to-republicans.htm#gB3">Comment</a> | <a href="http://usliberals.about.com/gi/pages/shareurl.htm?PG=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/09/06/democrats-could-lose-2010-labor-vote-to-republicans.htm&zItl=Democrats Could Lose 2010 Labor Vote to Republicans">Email this</a>

Liberal Agenda, Influence Will Be Dead in 112th Senate
<img src = "http://0.tqn.com/d/usliberals/1/0/0/D/KennedyByrd091902AlexWong.jpg" hspace="5" align="right" width="195px" height="136px"> Because the <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ljs2010090201/">Obama administration's "summer of recovery" fizzled </a> miserably, Democratic prospects of keeping control of the U.S. Senate have likewise fizzled. I've <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/electionreform/tp/2010SenateRaces.htm#">reanalyzed every 2010 Senate race </a> on a state-by-state basis, and fellow liberals, excruciating reality is that, with a bit of luck, Republicans could win enough now-Democratic seats retake Senate leadership for the first time in six years. Most assuredly, though, Republicans will gain enough Senate seats in the 112th Congress to kill advancement of any semblance of a liberal agenda. If only the gloomy news about withering Senate Democratic fortunes ended there, but it doesn't. Shockingly, senior stalwarts of progressive leadership are battling in 2010 for their very political survival, including: <ul><li><a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/electionreform/tp/2010SenateRaces.03.htm">Russ Feingold of Wisconsin</a> <li> <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/electionreform/tp/2010SenateRaces.03.htm">Patty Murray of Washington</a> <li><a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/electionreform/tp/2010SenateRaces.htm">Barbara Boxer of California</a> <li> <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/electionreform/tp/2010SenateRaces.02.htm">Harry Reid of Nevada </a> </ul> Loss of these four senior legislators, who collectively have served 13 Senate terms (78 years), would be a severe blow to Democratic influence over federal legislation. Combine that with the recent deaths of liberal lions Sen. Ted Kennedy (47 years of Senate service) and Sen. Robert Byrd (51 years), and the retirement of Sen. Chris Dodd (29 years)... and well, liberal debate and policy-making as our country has known it since FDR will be moribund. Lifeless. Dead. Which, of course, is exactly as the Tea Party movement wants. A few months ago, Democrats' saving graces were <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/electionreform/tp/2010SenateRaces.htm">three Senate races</a> in which Democratic candidates were running strongly and threatening to capture seats now held by Republicans. But no more after Obama's summer of 2010 fizzle: in all three races, Republican candidates, none of them incumbents, have lurched into solid leads. Read my analysis at <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/electionreform/tp/2010SenateRaces.htm">2010 U.S. Senate Races - Who's Winning, Who's Losing</a>. Please tell me where I'm wrong. I would dearly love to be wrong... <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/09/02/liberal-agenda-influence-will-be-dead-in-112th-senate.htm">Liberal Agenda, Influence Will Be Dead in 112th Senate </a> originally appeared on <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/">About.com US Liberal Politics</a> on Thursday, September 2nd, 2010 at 12:22:29.<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/09/02/liberal-agenda-influence-will-be-dead-in-112th-senate.htm">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/09/02/liberal-agenda-influence-will-be-dead-in-112th-senate.htm#gB3">Comment</a> | <a href="http://usliberals.about.com/gi/pages/shareurl.htm?PG=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/09/02/liberal-agenda-influence-will-be-dead-in-112th-senate.htm&zItl=Liberal Agenda, Influence Will Be Dead in 112th Senate ">Email this</a>

President Obama's Latest Iraq Speech Matters Little to Americans
<img src = "http://0.tqn.com/d/usliberals/1/0/M/D/IraqDoverAFB082310MarkWilson.jpg" hspace="5" align="right" width="199px" height="124px"> President Obama is reportedly chagrined that he's not getting more credit and goodwill for ending the <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm">combat phase of the Iraq War</a>. As a result, he delivering an Oval Office <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/08/details-about-president-obamas-iraq-address-next-week.html">speech to the nation on August 31, 2010</a> presumably to make sure we've all taken notice that he kept this particular campaign promise. While President Obama's back-patting remarks on Iraq will likely be inspiring, as are most of his speeches, words alone won't bring him the droves of public accolades that he's craving, for several reasons: <ul><li>First, President Obama has <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm">left 49,700 U.S. troops in Iraq</a>. If combat is definitively over, why do almost 50,000 U.S. soldiers remain in Iraq? Why not just 10,000? Or 20,000? <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.economist.com/node/16888829?story_id=16888829">This week, The Economist reports</a> the obvious but unspoken, "... the country's new democracy remains chronically insecure, which is one reason why some 50,000 American 'support' troops are to stay behind to shore it up." <li>The American public has been repeatedly lied to about U.S. occupation of Iraq. In addition, President Obama has been less than scrupulously forthright on many vital issues since he took office. Americans long ago gave up believing President Bush regarding the Iraq War, and frankly, trusting President Obama to carry out promises made in his many uplifting speeches is getting to be a stretch, too, even for progressive Democrats. Americans are no longer naive about U.S. misadventures in Iraq. We'll believe genuine withdrawal when we actually see it... not when a President proclaims "Mission Accomplished" or makes pretty pronouncements from the Oval Office.</ul> The jubilation that President Obama believes that Americans should feel over his drawdown to 49,700 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq is further tamped down by realization that every taxpayer dollar spent in Iraq is a dollar not spent here in our own ailing country. I confess... I felt incensed by <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.economist.com/node/16888829?story_id=16888829">The Economist's statement this week in its article "After Iraq"</a>: <blockquote>"... it is a credit to Mr Obama that he has resisted the temptation to follow the popular mood and turn his focus entirely inward. In his gut, Mr Obama may well care more about nation-building at home than he does about exercising superpower abroad. But if so it is an instinct he has curbed."</blockquote> That, Mr. President, is precisely why most of us don't give much of damn about your supposed withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to a mere 50,000: <ul><li>because 50,000 will remain in Iraq to still exercise power, as you see fit; <li>because if the 50,000 aren't fighting in Iraq, they'll be nation-building in Iraq; <li>because the 50,000 will be rebuilding schools, roads, living areas, public utilities and the like in Iraq, rather than here in the United States. <li> because American schools, roads, living areas the like are crumbling here at home, but you choose to use our taxpayers funds to, instead, rebuild Iraq</ul> Bottom line, Mr. President: we're not sure we can believe your stated intentions on Iraq. And to put it bluntly, we have no idea what's in it for us to keep 50,000 troops stationed in Iraq for another 18 months.... or for another week. For a summary of the damage, mismanagement and fraud to date, read <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm">Iraq War Results & Statistics at August 23, 2010</a>. Also make time to read <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://middleeast.about.com/b/2010/08/29/private-contractors-in-iraq-still-double-overall-troop-presence.htm">Private Contractors in Iraq Still Double Overall Troop Presence</a> by Pierre Tristam, About.com's Guide to Middle East Issues. <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/30/president-obamas-latest-iraq-speech-matters-little-to-americans.htm"> President Obama's Latest Iraq Speech Matters Little to Americans </a> originally appeared on <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/">About.com US Liberal Politics</a> on Monday, August 30th, 2010 at 19:59:26.<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/30/president-obamas-latest-iraq-speech-matters-little-to-americans.htm">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/30/president-obamas-latest-iraq-speech-matters-little-to-americans.htm#gB3">Comment</a> | <a href="http://usliberals.about.com/gi/pages/shareurl.htm?PG=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/30/president-obamas-latest-iraq-speech-matters-little-to-americans.htm&zItl= President Obama's Latest Iraq Speech Matters Little to Americans ">Email this</a>

Liberals Should Be Wary of Alaska's Formidable Joe Miller
<img src = "http://i856.photobucket.com/albums/ab125/dcwrose/joemiller-1.jpg" hspace="5" align="right" width="185px" height="191px"> The near nomination of Republican Joe Miller to the <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/electionreform/tp/2010SenateRaces.htm">Alaska Senate race</a> should have Democrats, not just establishment Republicans, seriously asking "What's going on here?" to paraphrase the late soul singer Marvin Gaye. Sure, liberals understand that: <ul><li>Utah Republicans might nominate to the U.S. Senate race the likes of Mike Lee who "<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/opinion/20fri2.html">favors repealing</a> the progressive income tax and supports a low cap on liability for oil companies that cause extensive environmental damage." <li>Colorado Republicans, anchored by the national hotbed of evangelical Christians in Colorado Springs, might nominate to the U.S. Senate race the likes of Ken Buck who "said that the <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/opinion/20fri2.html">separation of church and state is too strictly enforced</a> and wants to eliminate the Energy and Education Departments." <li>Kentucky Republicans might nominate to the U.S. Senate race the likes of optometrist Rand Paul who "has <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/opinion/20fri2.html">denigrated Medicare</a> as 'socialized medicine'" and believes that "government that <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003500.html">should not force private businesses</a> to abide by civil rights law."</ul> Yes, liberals can comprehend ultra-conservatives in regional pockets of our country nominating and electing wingnut oddities who reflect their demographics, their values, their political extremism. Yes, as the <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/opinion/20fri2.html">New York Times recently puzzled</a>, "... the Republican brand is barely recognizable." But given the angry tone of the times, such election results are not entirely unexpected from deeply red states Utah and Kentucky, or from the western seat of religious right activism. But the likely Republican <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/republican-lawyer-heads-to-ala.html">nomination of Alaskan Joe Miller over respected Republican incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski </a>should shock liberals, who apparently don't yet realize that this guy could be a powerhouse political force to be reckoned with. No one doubts that the Republican nominee will win the 2010 Alaska senatorial election since the <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014784-503544.html">Democratic National Committee didn't bother </a>to field a credible candidate (or learn the actual Democratic candidate's name.) Hear me out. After hearing Miller's name for the first time yesterday, I researched his background, condescendingly expecting little beyond Mayor of Wasilla and a community college education. Perhaps an Alaska native, a solid family man active in his kids' soccer and basketball leagues. In his few TV campaign ads, Joe Miller emerges from an Alaskan pine grove, unshaven, sporting lumberjack duds and a warm, nice-guy smile. The quintessence of Sarah Palin-like appeal. Someone to be dismissed as a regional anomaly. Another Republican oddball. In great contrast to my preconceived expectations, though, 43-year-old Miller's resume reveals a man of intellect, depth, leadership and proven bravery: <ul><li>Born in heartland Kansas to a working-class family <li>Appointed to the U.S. Military Academy, West Point where he earned a B.S. in Political Science, graduating with honors in 1989. <li> As a U.S. Army Captain, was awarded the Bronze Star for combat leadership in the Gulf War. <li>J.D. from Yale University Law School, 1995. <li>By age 34, was U.S. Magistrate Judge in Fairbanks <li> Masters degree in Economics from University of Alaska, 2009.</ul> Count me as shaken by the prospect of an educated, informed, rational, well-spoken Sarah Palin... someone who can't simply be dismissed as bigoted or frivolous. In fact, the conflict between Miller's formidable resume and his wildly extremist conservative "small government," anti-choice beliefs confuses me to the point of asking "What's going on here?" Why would a leader of Miller's background hold stances so anathema as to be considered nonsensically anti-progress, anti-democracy views? I'm starting to wonder if the Obama White House, if the Democratic-led Congress, if the Democratic party machinery, indeed, if progressives... aren't all missing something crucially important happening among the American people. Something related to the incompetence, the cost, the egregious insider-favoritism of gigantic government in 2010. Obviously, President Obama's important humanitarian and democratic reasons for expansion of health care, for massive reform of public education, <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013683,00.html">for stimulus spending</a>, for temporary bailout of the U.S. auto industry, for extension of unemployment benefits, for foreclosure assistance, college affordability, and child nutrition programs and more have been poorly explained and sold to the frustrated American electorate. One thing is crystal clear, though: Should Alaska's Joe Miller, Utah's Mike Lee, Kentucky's Rand Paul, and Colorado's Ken Buck all <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/electionreform/tp/2010SenateRaces.htm">get elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2010</a>, any vestige of Senate Republican compromise to assist President Obama's agenda is dead, dead, dead in the 112th Congress. And like it or not, liberals may be painfully forced in 2011 to understand and confront "What's going on here?" The improbable success of the surprisingly formidable Joe Miller against Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski should warn both Democrats and inside-the-beltway Republicans that indeed, something's going on here. Something credible to millions of U.S. voters. Something growing in power and momentum. (Photo of Joe Miller courtesy of the Joe Miller for U.S. Senate campaign) <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/26/liberals-should-be-wary-of-alaskas-formidable-joe-miller.htm">Liberals Should Be Wary of Alaska's Formidable Joe Miller</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/">About.com US Liberal Politics</a> on Thursday, August 26th, 2010 at 18:56:34.<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/26/liberals-should-be-wary-of-alaskas-formidable-joe-miller.htm">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/26/liberals-should-be-wary-of-alaskas-formidable-joe-miller.htm#gB3">Comment</a> | <a href="http://usliberals.about.com/gi/pages/shareurl.htm?PG=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/26/liberals-should-be-wary-of-alaskas-formidable-joe-miller.htm&zItl=Liberals Should Be Wary of Alaska's Formidable Joe Miller">Email this</a>

Obama Messaging on Islam, Christianity is Muddled
<img src = "http://0.tqn.com/d/usliberals/1/0/L/D/ObamaIftar081310MartinHSimon.jpg" hspace="5" align="right" width="125px" height="199px"> In today's broadcast culture, in which issues are addressed in thirty-second sound bites and millions are glued to deeply stupid TV programming, it's no wonder that "<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/19/nearly-americans-thinks-obama-muslim-survey-shows/">nearly 1 in 5 Americans thinks Obama Is Muslim</a>" per the nonpartisan Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. What the American public is experiencing is a gaping chasm between <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/a/Obama-Remarks-On-Muslims-in-US.htm">President Obama's intellectually complex messaging</a>, and the dumbing down of American culture in the 21st century. It's a classic confrontation between Ivy League elites and their political opposites, working class stalwarts who daily grow more and more puzzled by who Barack Obama is. Truth is... President Obama is partly at fault for this confusion for two reasons: <ul><li>As President, he persists in using the stultifying language patterns of a professor at a top university, combined with the sensibilities of a civil libertarian attorney who focuses on "rights." Think the cross-section of political correctness meets intellectual complexity. <li>Once Obama makes a bold statement of his beliefs, as he did in his August 13, 2010 <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/a/Obama-Remarks-On-Muslims-in-US.htm">Remarks about "Muslim-Americans,"</a> he soon backpedals, thus creating great confusion, as he did on <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/14/obamas-support-ground-zero-mosque-draws/">August 14th when he told the press</a> "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there... I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding."</ul> President Obama's muddled messaging formula is perfect for creating confusion in U.S. voters' minds in 2010. Enter desperate, agenda-less Republicans who, to win, will mercilessly exploit any confusion about all things Obama... and you have the 2010 mid-term elections. The situation stinks. Both the White House and Republicans are to blame for American confusion about whether or not President Obama supports the "Ground Zero" mosque. About the appropriateness of building a mosque at the location in question. Indeed, about whether or not Obama is Christian, or Muslim, or neither. Fact is that religious faith is a personal and private matter, and it's no one's business what a person's faith might be, even if that person is President of the United States. However, during his 2008 presidential run, candidate Obama made his religious beliefs our business by speaking about and publicly exhibiting his Christianity at enormous length, including: <ul><li>Lots of trips to churches, where he spoke from innumerable pulpits <li> A plethora of photos showing him kneeling, praying, even gazing at crosses <li><a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/Faith_in_Public_Life_FaithBased_Funding_ChurchState_Issues.htm">Speeches galore</a>, in which he proclaimed himself to be Christian <li>Several well-publicized <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/barackobama/a/ObamaWarren.htm">appearances at conservative evangelical Pastor Rick Warren's church</a> <li> <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/2008candidatesonissues/a/FaithConvention.htm">Drenching the 2008 Democrat convention</a> in public shows of religion </ul> In 2006, <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/a/ObamaReligion.htm"> Sen. Obama touchingly described his conversion</a> to Christianity: <blockquote>"I was not raised in a particularly religious household, as undoubtedly many in the audience were... It wasn't until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma. "It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith..."</blockquote> But in the last year, in stark contrast to years 2006 through 2008, President Obama has rarely spoken of his Christian beliefs, has rarely attended church, has rarely evidenced reliance on the Bible or pastors or prayer. Of course, as a Christian, I realize that the lack of observable Christian practices certainly doesn't mean that Barack Obama isn't a Christian. What I'm saying is that, in 2010, given the potent brew of: <ul><li>The abrupt drop between Obama's observable pre-election and post-election Christian walk-and-talk, <li>President Obama's muddled, boringly complex speeches, <li>Predictably hateful fear-mongering by Republicans, and <li>Obama singing the praises of Islam, including as <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/a/Obama-Remarks-On-Muslims-in-US_2.htm">"a faith known for great diversity"</a></ul> ... well, I understand how the American people can feel confused about President Obama's personal religious beliefs, especially in a media culture based on thirty-second sound bites and the short attention spans engendered by reality TV. Problem is... <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/23/park51">Democrats will lose and Republicans will win</a> this election round, unless and until the White House sharpens its messaging. Now. Immediately And unless the President starts minding his own business, and <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/19/obama-meddling-in-mosque-zoning-ignited-fake-controversy.htm">staying out of local issues, including New York City zoning laws</a>. <ul> Related Essentials <li> <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/a/Obama-Remarks-On-Muslims-in-US.htm">Obama Remarks on Muslim-Americans, U.S. Religious Freedoms</a> <li> <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/a/ObamaReligion.htm">Obama's Controversial Speech on Religion & Politics</a> <li> <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/a/ObamaFaithBased.htm">Obama's Office of Faith-Based & Neighborhood Partnerships</a></ul> (Photo: President Obama hosting an Iftar dinner in celebration of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan in the State Dining Room of the White House on August 13, 2010. During the dinner, <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/a/Obama-Remarks-On-Muslims-in-US.htm">Obama spoke in support of the controversial construction of a mosque</a> near the World Trade Center site in lower Manhattan. Martin H. Simon-Pool/Getty Images.) <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/23/obama-messaging-on-islam-christianity-is-muddled.htm">Obama Messaging on Islam, Christianity is Muddled</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/">About.com US Liberal Politics</a> on Monday, August 23rd, 2010 at 20:32:35.<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/23/obama-messaging-on-islam-christianity-is-muddled.htm">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/23/obama-messaging-on-islam-christianity-is-muddled.htm#gB3">Comment</a> | <a href="http://usliberals.about.com/gi/pages/shareurl.htm?PG=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/23/obama-messaging-on-islam-christianity-is-muddled.htm&zItl=Obama Messaging on Islam, Christianity is Muddled">Email this</a>

Obama Meddling in Mosque Zoning Ignited Fake Controversy
<img src = "http://0.tqn.com/d/usliberals/1/0/K/D/Obama081910RonSachs.jpg" hspace="5" align="right" width="142px" height="199px"> I have no earthly idea why <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/13/remarks-president-iftar-dinner-0">President Obama grandly weighed</a> in on the Ground Zero mosque controversy. A more self-disciplined, more focused President would have kept his personal view private, or, at minimum, put the whole, overheated mess into perspective while proferring a few perfunctory words about freedom of religion. Instead, <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-19/smart-president-flunks-test-at-ground-zero-margaret-carlson.html">President Obama grandstanded</a> the issue by proclaiming at a White House dinner honoring the start of Ramadan: <blockquote>"Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -- particularly New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan... "But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances."</blockquote> Mr. Obama is correct, of course, but that's beside the point. The most relevant words in his statement of extremely obvious fact were "in accordance with local laws and ordinances." Bingo! This is a local zoning issue. This is not an issue of national importance, or even of state importance, but instead, is a routine issue of city governance. Frankly, the zoning of and building permits for a mosque (or church or library or parking lot or tattoo parlor) are none of President Obama's damn business, except as just another citizen! Mildly intriguing, I suppose, that this particular controversy caught his perpetually wandering attention... but seriously, does Mr. Obama not comprehend that presidential responsibilities mandate that he prioritize more attention burning issues actually under his purview? (Unemployment? Afghanistan? Alternative energy sources?) And less to inflammatory headlines of the day that catch his fancy? Further, did the President genuinely not realize that him stepping into the middle of this <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/18/pelosi-calls-mosque-debate-zoning-issue-says-new-yorkers-decide/">fake-outrage ginned-up by the loony right</a> would be akin to throwing gasoline onto a raging fire? Or did he believe that the value of his vaunted word was precious enough to outweigh the political damage his meddling would cost? If so, he was quite incorrect. And again, I find myself fearing that narcissism clouded his political judgment. For the record, Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of religion dictates that mosques be accorded the same location/zoning rights as any other religious building. But local zoning ordinances necessarily also take into account community sensitivity and safety, as well as parking, traffic and the like. In the situation now, in the words of <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-19/smart-president-flunks-test-at-ground-zero-margaret-carlson.html">Bloomberg columnist Margaret Carlson</a>, of the "so-called Ground Zero mosque (which) won't be at Ground Zero, as headlines suggest, but two blocks away and a world apart, amid peep shows, betting parlors and other dives," fake-outrage has grown so heated and hatefully partisan that I <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/18/dean-stands-by-mosque-rem_n_687049.html">agree with Howard Dean</a> and Harry Reid: the mosque has grown too provocative... and should be constructed elsewhere. My greater concern, though, is the President, who seems to focus his attention on whatever piques his interest at the moment, and seemingly ignores his sworn duty to do the hard, hands-on work of finding solutions for the gritty, unglamorous problems plaguing the American people. Our nation is suffering due to President Obama's undisciplined lack of focus on relevant issues, and his frittering away of political capital on manufactured controversies such as the Ground-Zero mosque and his administration's premature firing of Shirley Sherrod. Count me as perplexed by President Obama's lack of interest in doing his job. Lately, it's as if he's merely voting "Present," except on theoretical issues that catch his intellectual fancy. <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/19/obama-meddling-in-mosque-zoning-ignited-fake-controversy.htm">Obama Meddling in Mosque Zoning Ignited Fake Controversy</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/">About.com US Liberal Politics</a> on Thursday, August 19th, 2010 at 16:10:10.<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/19/obama-meddling-in-mosque-zoning-ignited-fake-controversy.htm">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/19/obama-meddling-in-mosque-zoning-ignited-fake-controversy.htm#gB3">Comment</a> | <a href="http://usliberals.about.com/gi/pages/shareurl.htm?PG=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/19/obama-meddling-in-mosque-zoning-ignited-fake-controversy.htm&zItl=Obama Meddling in Mosque Zoning Ignited Fake Controversy">Email this</a>

Obama Is Clever, Coy in Social Security Remarks
<img src = "http://0.tqn.com/d/usliberals/1/0/2/5/ObamaSeniors2ndJoeRaedle.jpg" hspace="5" align="right" width="170px" height="126px"> In his weekly address, President Obama pledged that he firmly <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/socialsecurit1/a/President-Obama-on-Social-Security.htm">opposes privatization of Social Security</a>, declaring, "That agenda is wrong for seniors, it's wrong for America, and I won't let it happen. Not while I'm President." The President <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/socialsecurit1/a/President-Obama-on-Social-Security.htm">empathetically added</a>: <blockquote>"Because you shouldn't be worried that a sudden downturn in the stock market will put all you've worked so hard for - all you've earned - at risk. You should have the peace of mind of knowing that after meeting your responsibilities and paying into the system all your lives, you'll get the benefits you deserve."</blockquote> All well and good, of course, but after the erraticism of Wall Street returns over the last two years, no one seriously believes that Social Security privatization legislation has a snowball's-chance-in-hell of passing Congress, much less be signed into law by President Obama. Pledging to fight for Social Security, though, is a dandy election year strategy, especially if it makes the opposition look frighteningly bad.... which is naturally <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/socialsecurit1/a/President-Obama-on-Social-Security.htm">what Mr. Obama entoned</a>: <blockquote>"... some Republican leaders in Congress don't seem to have learned any lessons from the past few years. They're pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall."</blockquote> The truth is that the biggest threat today to Social Security is the President's own Deficit Commission, which, like <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Task_Force">Dick Cheney's secretive Energy Task Force</a> policy-writing, operates entirely under public radar. Explains <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/16/democrats">Glenn Greenwald in a smart Salon.com</a> article: <blockquote>" The true threat to Social Security is Obama's Deficit Commission, which has inexcusably been working in total secrecy throughout the year, cooking up its recommendations to be released in December and likely to be voted on by Congress once the elections are nice and over with. "From the start, that Commission was stacked with people from both parties with a long history of advocating for serious cuts in benefits. The Democratic co-Chair, Erskine Bowles, worked a decade ago with Newt Gingrich to try to privatize Social Security when he was Clinton's Chief of Staff, and in 1998, was hailed by Business Week as 'Corporate America's Friend in the White House.'"</blockquote> Here's my fear: Barack Obama's 2012 presidential campaign begins on November 3, 2010, the day after mid-term elections. Given his sagging approval ratings, ever-ambitious Mr. Obama will do anything... anything... to curry favor with economic-minded Independents and moderate Republicans, and that includes throwing Social Security under the proverbial bus. The President's brief words over the weekend were intriguing when he cleverly recommitted to FDR's goal of "assuring generations of America's seniors that after a lifetime of hard work, they'd have a chance to retire with dignity." Mr. Obama then went on to coyly remark: <blockquote>"I'm committed to working with anyone, Democrat or Republican, who wants to strengthen Social Security. I'm also encouraged by the reports of serious bipartisan work being done on this and other issues in the fiscal commission that I set up several months ago."</blockquote> All we're getting from President Obama on Social Security these days is secretiveness, utter intransparency, and clever, coy, politically cute remarks. Liberals, don't be afraid, but do be wary. Be fiercely diligent. And be energized, vocal advocates for Social Security. Because if we're not, Mr. Obama absolutely will throw Social Security under the bus for the sake of his own political ambitions... just as he most famously did to the public plan option in health care reform, and in so many other unnecessary but politically profitable "compromises." I reommend that you read <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/socialsecurit1/a/President-Obama-on-Social-Security.htm">President Obama Says NO Privatization of Social Security</a>, followed by <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/16/democrats">The Fear Campaign and Social Security </a>at Salon.com. <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/16/obama-is-clever-coy-in-social-security-remarks.htm">Obama Is Clever, Coy in Social Security Remarks</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/">About.com US Liberal Politics</a> on Monday, August 16th, 2010 at 20:11:02.<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/16/obama-is-clever-coy-in-social-security-remarks.htm">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/16/obama-is-clever-coy-in-social-security-remarks.htm#gB3">Comment</a> | <a href="http://usliberals.about.com/gi/pages/shareurl.htm?PG=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/16/obama-is-clever-coy-in-social-security-remarks.htm&zItl=Obama Is Clever, Coy in Social Security Remarks">Email this</a>

DREAM Act May Vanish if Not Passed in 2010
<img src = "http://0.tqn.com/d/usliberals/1/0/F/D/DREAMmarch090206JEmilioFlores.jpg" hspace="5" align="right" width="199px" height="134px"> One of the cruelest, and most illogical, aspects of present-day U.S. immigration laws is that of the fate of young adults who were brought to this country illegally as small children by their parents. The DREAM Act, which is an acronym for <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/immigration/a/Profile-Of-Dream-Act.htm">Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors</a>, would cure this injustice. Quite often, these 18 to 30 year olds have grown up in the United States, attended schools, earned terrific grades, gone on to attend college or join the military, and proven to be contributing, law-abiding community members. Then one day, a fateful connection is made, usually regarding their parents, and their lives are turned upside-down overnight with threats of detention and/or deportation. Heartbreaking examples are legion of upstanding, high-achieving young adults caught in an immigration trap not of their own making and often previously unbeknownst to them: <ul><li> <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/11/AR2010081105284.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzhead">From the Washington Post today</a> - "In many ways, Eric Balderas's story is the typical American dream. He came to the United States with his parents at age 4. He was the valedictorian of Highlands High School in San Antonio and was admitted to Harvard's class of 2013. There, he studies molecular and cellular biology and is about to begin his sophomore year. He dreams of helping to find a cure for cancer. "But there is one problem: He is not in the country legally. On June 7, boarding an airplane back to Boston after visiting his mother in San Antonio, he was arrested and threatened with deportation." <li> <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.latinalista.net/palabrafinal/2010/04/deported_dream_act_student_claims_dept_o.html">From LatinaLista </a>- "... a young, bright college freshman studying electrical engineering on a full scholarship at a local Dallas university suddenly caught in... U.S. immigration policy, and deported back to a country (Bangladesh) he barely remembered -- but only after spending 42 days in detention separated from both of his parents." <li>From <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.dreamactaz.org/stories_of_hope_courage_and_sorrow">DreamActArizona.com</a> - "Virginia , an '07 honors graduate from North High School was deported following a routine traffic stop. After her arrest and subsequent four-day stay in a small holding cell with 35 women with no blankets, no pillows and beds, Virginia signed a voluntary deportation order and was taken, by bus to Nogales , where she was left without any concern for her well being. "Virginia had been awarded numerous scholarships to attend ASU. She wanted to be a nurse and looked forward to making a meaningful contribution to our community. " <li><a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.armeniandiaspora.com/showthread.php?134517-FRESNO-Bullard-High-Valedictorian-To-Be-Deported">From the Fresno Bee newspaper </a>- "Arthur Mkoyan's 4.0 grade-point average has made him a valedictorian at Bullard High School in Fresno and qualified him to enter one of the state's top universities. "But while his classmates look forward to dorm food and college courses this fall, Arthur Mkoyan may not make it. He is being deported. "Arthur, 17, and his mother have been ordered out of the country. By late June, they may be headed to Armenia. Arthur hasn't seen Armenia since he was 2, and he doesn't want to return."</ul> <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/immigration/a/Profile-Of-Dream-Act.htm">The DREAM Act</a>, which has been proposed in every Congress since 2001, would cure this inhumane situation by granting conditional permanent residency to persons aged 12 to 35 years old if they meet a <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/immigration/a/Profile-Of-Dream-Act.htm">long list of specific conditions</a>, and if they either: <ul><li>"Enroll in an institution of higher education in order to pursue a bachelor's degree or higher degree or <li>"Enlist in one of the branches of the United States Military."</ul> After successful completion of either college or military service within six years, they would be eligible to apply for permanent U.S. residency. They could then get in line to apply for United States Citizenship. The DREAM Act is fair and just, both for the children of immigrants, and for the United States, which stands to benefit greatly from the rich contributions of these law-abiding persons. <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/immigration/a/Obamas-2010-Immigration-Plan_4.htm">President Obama supports</a> passage of the DREAM Act, <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/immigration/a/Obamas-2010-Immigration-Plan_4.htm">declaring on July 1, 2010</a>: <blockquote>"... we should stop punishing innocent young people for the actions of their parents by denying them the chance to stay here and earn an education and contribute their talents to build the country where they've grown up. The DREAM Act would do this..."</blockquote> The DREAM Act is again languishing in both Congressional houses, despite being sponsored by a bipartisan coalition of more than 100 elected leaders. Become informed at <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/immigration/a/Profile-Of-Dream-Act.htm">Profile of the DREAM Act - Immigration Legislation for Educated Minors</a>. Then URGE your elected representatives to Congress to support passage of the DREAM ACT now in 2010.... because given the angrily partisan mood of much of the country, 2011 may be too late. If not passed by Congress in 2010, the DREAM Act may vanish as a legislative priority for many years. And that would be a tragedy for a generation of smart, hard-working, law-abiding young adults who want to contribute to our country. <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/12/dream-act-may-vanish-if-not-passed-in-2010.htm">DREAM Act May Vanish if Not Passed in 2010</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/">About.com US Liberal Politics</a> on Thursday, August 12th, 2010 at 19:08:51.<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/12/dream-act-may-vanish-if-not-passed-in-2010.htm">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/12/dream-act-may-vanish-if-not-passed-in-2010.htm#gB3">Comment</a> | <a href="http://usliberals.about.com/gi/pages/shareurl.htm?PG=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/12/dream-act-may-vanish-if-not-passed-in-2010.htm&zItl=DREAM Act May Vanish if Not Passed in 2010">Email this</a>

Obama, Clinton Influence Tested in Colorado Senate Primary
<img src = "http://0.tqn.com/d/usliberals/1/0/I/D/ClintonBH073010BryanBedder.jpg" hspace="5" align="right" width="199px" height="199px"> Three states... Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota... hold primary elections today,and Georgia holds a runoff election to decided the state's Republican gubernatorial nominee. The only suspenseful Democratic race today is the <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/electionreform/tp/2010SenateRaces.htm"> senatorial nomination elections in Colorado</a> between incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet, who was appointed in 2009 to fill the seat vacated by Obama Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and Andrew Romanoff, former Colorado state House Speaker from 2005 to 2009. Bennet, wealthy former investment banker and Denver schools superintendent, is a malleable centrist who has proven a reliable vote for White House legislative agenda. Bennet is strongly supported by President Obama who <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33160.html">lavishly praised Bennet as</a> a "rookie" who could become "one of the most outstanding senators we've ever had." Romanoff is a scrappy progressive Democrat who <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20013097-503544.html">quipped that</a> "It is possible to be pro-Obama and pro-Romanoff at the same time" despite his anger at legislative compromises made by the Obama administration on innumerable issues important to liberals. <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://coloradoindependent.com/56879/a-moderate-lawmaker-candidate-romanoff-has-moved-left">Said Andrew Romanoff in July</a>, ""On health care, energy, the environment, financial reform -- my positions are not just more progressive. They're more aggressive." Interestingly, Romanoff was an early and vocal supporter of Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Defying the stunned White House, former President Bill <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7937448/Barack-Obama-and-Bill-Clinton-back-different-Colorado-candidates.html">Clinton heartily endorsed Romanoff</a> in today's Senate race, c<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/29/bill-clinton-endorses-and_n_629700.html">alling him Democrat's</a> "best chance to hold this seat in November." President Clinton has also recorded robocalls endorsing Romanoff. Aided by Obama appearances on the campaign trail, Bennet led the race early on, but in May, <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/electionreform/tp/2010SenateRaces.htm">Colorado Democrats endorsed Romanoff</a> at their annual convention with 60% of their votes, giving Bennet less than 40%. A loss by Bennet would be a blow to the centrist Senate coalition Obama relies on to cobble together his "bipartisan" legislative agenda. A loss by Bennet would also prove embarrassing to the White House... although no more embarrassing than<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/08/if-michelle-obama-was-a-republican.htm"> many other recent incidents</a>. Besides being a victory for progressives, a win by Romanoff would be a remarkable show of ballot-box influence by Bill Clinton, who is also credited with singlehandedly rescuing Sen. Blanche Lincoln from losing her primary reelection race in Arkansas. I have no predictions as to who will win the Bennet-Romanoff race today, although I'm certainly rooting for progressive Andrew Romanoff, whose energy and excitement for the race are hopefully contagious. One thing is certain, though: if Romanoff wins today, Bill Clinton will be regarded as more powerful than President Obama at getting out the vote for Democrats. And at getting what he, Bill Clinton, wants... Which begs the fascinating question, what do Bill and Hillary want? <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/10/obama-clinton-influence-tested-in-colorado-senate-primary.htm">Obama, Clinton Influence Tested in Colorado Senate Primary</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/">About.com US Liberal Politics</a> on Tuesday, August 10th, 2010 at 15:20:56.<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/10/obama-clinton-influence-tested-in-colorado-senate-primary.htm">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/10/obama-clinton-influence-tested-in-colorado-senate-primary.htm#gB3">Comment</a> | <a href="http://usliberals.about.com/gi/pages/shareurl.htm?PG=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/10/obama-clinton-influence-tested-in-colorado-senate-primary.htm&zItl=Obama, Clinton Influence Tested in Colorado Senate Primary">Email this</a>

If Michelle Obama Was a Republican...
<img src = "http://0.tqn.com/d/usliberals/1/0/H/D/MichelleObama051910GaryFabiano.jpg" hspace="5" align="right" width="145px" height="228px"> Let's be honest, Democrats. If First Lady Michelle Obama was a Republican, we'd rightfully be pitching a public tantrum about the <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/what-was-michelle-obama-thinking/61118/">galling arrogance of Michelle Obama</a> using Air Force 2, which cost $11,351 hourly to operate, to ferry her, 9-year-old Sasha Obama, a handful of White House staff, and security personnel for a "private" vacation this past weekend in a glitzy five-star Spanish coastal resort. <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/06/michelle-obamas-lavish-spain-vacation-sparking-criticism/"> Per Lynn Sweet at Politics Daily</a>, expenses born by U.S. taxpayer for Mrs. Obama's grand holiday include "about $95,000 in hotel costs for an estimated 70 security personnel -- Secret Service and military -- who get a $273-a-day government per diem, plus costs for the dozen or so cars in her motorcade. I'm told that three shifts of agents are needed for a trip of this magnitude." Understandably, if Mrs. Obama was a Republican, we would've ranted and raved about all her other pricey trips on our taxpayer dime, as well. Three of numerous examples rush to mind: <ul><li> <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/06/the_obama_family_in_paris.html">Paris in June 2009</a>, when Michelle and her young daughters toured the Eiffel tour, shopped the toniest streets in downtown Paris, noshed epicurean French cuisine, and admired modern art. Michelle and entourage then flew on to London to prolong their European vacation fun while the President returned to D.C. <li>Also in June 2009, <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1189893/How-Obamas-romantic-120-trip-Broadway-racked-45-000-bill.html">Michelle's romantic date to Manhattan</a>... "a campaign pledge that Barack Obama didn't dare break - a promise to take his wife out for dinner and a show once the election was over," <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1189893/How-Obamas-romantic-120-trip-Broadway-racked-45-000-bill.html">per the UK Mail.com</a>. To impress his globe-trotting wife, Mr. Obama escorted her to dinner, a Broadway show, and after-show martinis, all reasonable expenses paid by the President, of course. But taxpayers picked up the tab <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1189893/How-Obamas-romantic-120-trip-Broadway-racked-45-000-bill.html">for much more, including most costs of </a> "... three planes, one to carry the couple and two to ferry aides and reporters all the way from Washington... The bill was pushed even higher with the use of two helicopters, one to take the Obamas to catch their plane in Washington and another to zip the party into Manhattan from JFK airport. Police also shut down New York streets for the motorcade to pass through so they could get to their date on time." <li>Here in my hometown of Los Angeles in June 2010, when, after a uber-brief visit with Camp Pendleton Marines, <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/16/michelle-obama-in-la-firs_n_613159.html">Mrs. Obama, daughters and entourage took</a> "the town by storm, popping up at Hollywood restaurants" and attending game six of the NBA play-offs between the LA Lakers and Boston Celtics. <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/16/michelle-obama-in-la-firs_n_613159.html">Reported the Huffington Post</a> the day after Mrs. Obama arrived in the City of Angels, "The next day the First Lady was spotted with her huge security entourage (CHP motorcycle cops, a CHP patrol car, and four SUVs) at Chef Mario Batali and Chef Nancy Silverton's Osteria Mozza... "</ul> At minimum, if Michelle Obama was a Republican, we would've called out her dreadfully insensitive fashion faux pas which range from: <ul><li> <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/05/01/2009-05-01_first_lady_michelle_obama_kicks_in_own_foot_feat_for_fashionistas_lanvin.html">sporting $540 designer sneakers</a> to volunteer at a D.C. food bank, to... <li> wearing an impossible-to-miss <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://victoriataftkpam.blogspot.com/2010/07/michelle-obama-wears-ink-blot-dress-at.html">white designer dress with over-sized black ink splotches</a>, for her visit to tour a Gulf Coast beach heavily damaged by history's largest oil spill. (<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://victoriataftkpam.blogspot.com/2010/07/michelle-obama-wears-ink-blot-dress-at.html">Quipped one blog commenter</a>, "Perfect wardrobe choice. If some oil splashes up on the dress, it will blend right in."), to... <li> <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2288870/posts">allegedly toting an Italian-made </a> "shiny black alligator manila bag - with a retail sticker price of $5,950" while "strolling the wooded landscape outside of Moscow." (<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2288870/posts">Per the New York Daily News</a>, "Told that Obama's office denied the bag was the high-end VBH clutch, Kelly Vitko, a rep for the company replied, "It's definitely ours.")</ul> As a devoted cook and amateur foodie, I distinctly remember when, in September 2009, Mrs. Obama, who admits to not cooking, made a remarkably costly show of pretending to shop for healthy ingredients for her family meal table. R<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091703679.html">eported columnist Dana Milbank of the Washington Post</a>: <blockquote>"The Secret Service and the D.C. police brought in three dozen vehicles and shut down H Street, Vermont Avenue, two lanes of I Street and an entrance to the McPherson Square Metro station. They swept the area, in front of the Department of Veterans Affairs, with bomb-sniffing dogs and installed magnetometers in the middle of the street, put up barricades to keep pedestrians out, and took positions with binoculars atop trucks. Though the produce stand was only a block or so from the White House, the first lady hopped into her armored limousine and pulled into the market amid the wail of sirens. "Then, and only then, could Obama purchase her leafy greens. "Now it's time to buy some food," she told several hundred people who came to watch. "Let's shop!"... the result was quite the opposite of a quaint farmers market. Considering all the logistics, each tomato she purchased had a carbon footprint of several tons."</blockquote> Yes, if Michelle Obama was a Republican, Democrats would undoubtedly point out the self-absorbed insensitivity and unfettered hypocrisy of our First Lady consistently living so luxuriously and wasting millions in public largesse while in 2010, <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/od/theeconomyjobs/a/TrumkaSpeech.htm">middle-class and working-class Americans suffer miserably</a>. But Michelle Obama is a Democrat, not Republican, and accordingly, most <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/opinion/08dowd.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss">(not all!)</a> liberals turn their heads and conveniently ignore the irresponsible excesses of our First Lady, despite this time of desperate need for Americans. I wonder... does Democratic passive acceptance of these greedy wrongs make liberals complicit in Mrs. Obama's waste of millions in public funds? If Democrats don't challenge her frittering away of our hard-earned funds, how can they lay claim to moral credibility when calling out conservatives for the same bad behavior? One thing I know: I will never again find Michelle Obama believable when she ladles food at a soup kitchen, or volunteers a couple hours at a food bank. She is one woman who looks terrific for the press while talking the walk, but who feels too privileged, too special, to walk the walk of meaningful sacrifice in her own life for others. (Photo taken of First Lady Michelle Obama on May 19, 2010: Gary Fabiano/Getty Images) <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/08/if-michelle-obama-was-a-republican.htm">If Michelle Obama Was a Republican... </a> originally appeared on <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/">About.com US Liberal Politics</a> on Sunday, August 8th, 2010 at 21:45:10.<a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/08/if-michelle-obama-was-a-republican.htm">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/1hc&zu=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/08/if-michelle-obama-was-a-republican.htm#gB3">Comment</a> | <a href="http://usliberals.about.com/gi/pages/shareurl.htm?PG=http://usliberals.about.com/b/2010/08/08/if-michelle-obama-was-a-republican.htm&zItl=If Michelle Obama Was a Republican... ">Email this</a>