The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth. Challenges are invited.
The day’s top political news:
After Obama speech, Democrats confused about path ahead
A day after President Obama called on them to renew efforts to pass his ambitious agenda, congressional Democrats remained in disarray Thursday about how to move forward, with at least some pointing at the White House as the cause of the legislative standstill gripping Capitol Hill.
Democrats left town early Thursday weighing their next steps on everything from the stalled health-care bill to competing job-creation packages. Before they departed, some criticized Obama for casting blame on the Senate, where moderates felt singled out for ridicule. Others sought to shift the burden to the GOP, latching on to Obama's call for Republicans to share responsibility for governing after a devastating special-election loss left Democrats a vote shy of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Still others said the president's calls for bipartisanship were wishful thinking and suggested that daring Republicans to block their ambitious agenda would set up a "liberating" contrast for November's midterm elections.
The first order of business continues to be the far-reaching health-care bill that Obama once considered the cornerstone of his domestic agenda but that took a back seat to the economy in his State of the Union address Wednesday. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he felt "a little bit" more confident about the health-care bill's prospects after Obama sought to rally the 48 million Americans who watched the speech.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012803750.html?hpid=topnews
Democrats shelve health care overhaul
Democratic leaders on Thursday shelved plans to push through a major health care overhaul, casting aside President Obama's top legislative goal, which has bedeviled congressional Democrats for more than a year.
Senate Democrats put a positive spin on it, arguing that they're sidelining it until later this year - possibly until the summer - so they could deal immediately with Mr. Obama's State of the Union call to address the economy and job creation.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said a comprehensive bill is still a priority, already has plans to pursue small, targeted health bills, such as a repeal of insurance companies' antitrust protection. Rank-and-file Democrats aren't optimistic about the fate of a comprehensive overhaul.
Economy soars 5.7 percent, fastest in 6 years
The economy grew at a faster-than-expected 5.7 percent pace in the fourth quarter, the quickest in more than six years, as businesses made less-aggressive cuts to inventories and stepped up spending.
The Commerce Department said on Friday its first estimate put fourth-quarter gross domestic product growth at its fastest pace since the third quarter of 2003. The economy expanded at a 2.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter.
Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast GDP, which measures total goods and services output within U.S. borders, growing at a 4.6 percent rate in October-December period.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Economy-soars-57-percent-in-rb-3553551014.html?x=0&.v=5
Opinion:
Obama’s State of the Union Address has left Democrats confused
We wont be able to honestly evaluate public reaction to Obama’s State of the Union Address the other night until about Monday. Experience indicates it takes about 72 hours for an event to register accurate measurements in survey research.
In the meantime, Washington is reflecting a reaction of its own. Significantly, almost all Republican House members will be heading up the road toward Baltimore for their regular retreat. It’s an ideal time for GOP political huddling, but the perceived environment suggests the Democrats are the people who are actually in “retreat”.
A year ago, things looked exceedingly glum for Republicans. They had been trounced at the polls and were left standing as Democrat rolled into the nation’s capitol sporting dominating majorities in both Houses of Congress and the White House as well. However, things have changed dramatically in the intervening 12 month period.
(Republicans should keep this fact in mind – public opinion can be a fickle thing and in politics, even “overnight” can be an eternity.)
Even good economic news (an unexpected 5.7% rise in GDP) has been modified by other economic facts.
While the GDP rose, wages and benefits rose only a weak 1.5 percent 2009.
Pressures from Republicans and others, is forcing Obama’s Justice Department to retreat on its previous plans to try the 9/11 terrorists in New York City. A new site has not been announced.
Democrats are openly retreating on Obama’s premium effort: health care take over, and refocusing on jobs, although far left Democrats such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledge they will continue fighting.
On top of all this, Democrat incumbents are opting out of races for 2010, and polling shows substantial weakness for Democrats. The recent Massachusetts special election demonstrates no Democrat anywhere is safe this year.
Most of all, a rising tide of public outrage – coalesced in the tea party movement – is taking aim at liberals in general, including weak Republicans, and prompts predictions of major overhaul of Capitol Hill.
Much of this was known as White House telepromter authors labored to craft a game changing address for Obama. Soaring oratory and rapturous rhetoric have been the hallmarks of Obama – his real strength politically.
That “strong point” deserted him big time in his speech.
Many saw it as rambling and containing too many off shoots in conflicting directions. He even insulted the Supreme Court even as those “Nine Wise Men” (now including two women) sat in robed silence while liberal Democrats surrounded them and cheered wildly at Obama’s barb.
Obama, whose resume claims a stint as a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, confused the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.(but we wont be picky about that)
Obama even attempted to take credit for the success of the Iraq War – he was a bitter opponent of the successful troop surge implemented by Bush – but now takes credit for the success. “I promised I would end this war, and that is what I am doing…“
Desperation is apparent among Democrats, yet the Obama White House seems to remain oblivious. Charles Krauthammer diagnoses it as “clinical denial”.
So another week ends in Washington. Republicans gleefully huddling in Baltimore, wile Democrats head home in disarray. Monday will no doubt be significant. While autopsies of the State of the Union Address will continue, we can already see it failed to accomplish what Democrats had prayerfully hoped.
In fact, when all the dust settles, it may prove to have signaled a major political downturn for liberals nationwide.
Buddy
The day’s top blogs:
1.
http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2010/01/29/soft_on_terror
Soft on Terror
Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- The real scandal surrounding the failed Christmas Day airline bombing was not the fact that a terrorist got on a plane -- that can happen to any administration, as it surely did to the Bush administration -- but what happened afterward when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was captured and came under the full control of the U.S. government.
After 50 minutes of questioning him, the Obama administration chose, reflexively and mindlessly, to give the chatty terrorist the right to remain silent. Which he immediately did, undoubtedly denying us crucial information about al-Qaeda in Yemen, which had trained, armed and dispatched him.
We have since learned that the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab had been made without the knowledge of or consultation with (1) the secretary of defense, (2) the secretary of homeland security, (3) the director of the FBI, (4) the director of the National Counterterrorism Center or (5) the director of national intelligence (DNI).
The Justice Department acted not just unilaterally but unaccountably. Obama's own DNI said that Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated by the HIG, the administration's new High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.
Perhaps you hadn't heard the term. Well, in the very first week of his presidency, Obama abolished by executive order the Bush-Cheney interrogation procedures and pledged to study a substitute mechanism. In August, the administration announced the establishment of the HIG, housed in the FBI but overseen by the National Security Council.
Where was it during the Abdulmutallab case? Not available, admitted National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, because it had only been conceived for use abroad. Had not one person in this vast administration of highly nuanced sophisticates considered the possibility of a terror attack on American soil?
It gets worse. Blair later had to explain that the HIG was not deployed because it does not yet exist After a year! I suppose this administration was so busy deploying scores of the country's best lawyerly minds on finding the most rapid way to release Gitmo miscreants that it could not be bothered to establish a single operational HIG team to interrogate at-large miscreants with actionable intelligence that might save American lives.
Travesties of this magnitude are not lost on the American people. One of the reasons Scott Brown won in Massachusetts was his focus on the Mirandizing of Abdulmutallab.
Of course, this case is just a reflection of a larger problem: an administration that insists on treating Islamist terrorism as a law-enforcement issue. Which is why the Justice Department's other egregious terror decision, granting Khalid Sheik Mohammed a civilian trial in New York, is now the subject of a letter from six senators -- three Republicans, two Democrats and Joe Lieberman -- asking Attorney General Eric Holder to reverse the decision.
Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins had written an earlier letter asking for Abdulmutallab to be turned over to the military for renewed interrogation. The problem is, it's hard to see how that decision gets reversed. Once you've read a man Miranda rights, what do you say? We are idiots? On second thought ...
Hence the agitation over the KSM trial. This one can be reversed and it's a good surrogate for this administration's insistence upon criminalizing -- and therefore trivializing -- a war on terror that has now struck three times in one year within the United States, twice with effect (the Arkansas killer and the Fort Hood shooter) and once with a shockingly near miss (Abdulmutallab).
On the KSM civilian trial, sentiment is widespread that it is quite insane to spend $200 million a year to give the killer of 3,000 innocents the largest propaganda platform on earth, while at the same time granting civilian rights of cross-examination and discovery that risk betraying U.S. intelligence sources and methods.
Accordingly, Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Frank Wolf have gone beyond appeals to the administration and are planning to introduce a bill to block funding for the trial. It's an important measure. It makes flesh an otherwise abstract issue -- should terrorists be treated as enemy combatants or criminal defendants? The vote will force members of Congress to declare themselves. There will be no hiding from the question.
Congress may not be able to roll back the Abdulmutallab travesty. But there will be future Abdulmutallabs. By cutting off funding for the KSM trial, Congress can send Obama a clear message: The Constitution is neither a safety net for illegal enemy combatants nor a suicide pact for us.
2.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100127/D9DG9RG80.html
Geithner draws fire defending Fed on AIG bailout
TOM RAUM and DANIEL WAGNER
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats and Republicans alike pummeled Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday over his role in the $180 billion bailout of insurance giant AIG Inc., venting public anger over Wall Street's return to prosperity while 10 percent of Americans are still jobless.
Geithner, one of the original architects of the government's 2008 response to the financial crisis as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, defended the use of taxpayer money as necessary to head off "potentially catastrophic damage to the economy."
But members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hammered away at why regulators allowed American International Group to pass on billions of the bailout money to big Wall Street banks that were business partners.
"In effect, the taxpayers were propping up the hollow shells of AIG by stuffing it with money. And the rest of Wall Street came by and looted the corpse," committee chairman Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., told Geithner.
Geithner, whose last job was president of the New York Fed, clearly was getting no cover from committee Democrats on the day that President Barack Obama was to give a State of the Union address intended to assure Americans he shares their economic priorities.
Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, suggested Geithner was more beholden to banking interests than to taxpayers when he ran the New York Fed and cut him off abruptly when he tried to deny it.
"You are suggesting that the people involved in this were not acting in the public interest and you are suggesting they were working for the private interest, and that is not true," he told her.
Both Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke have recently found themselves on the defensive, both targets of political discontent and rising voter anger sweeping the nation.
Bernanke had to scramble for support for confirmation for a second term. And Geithner faced speculation over whether his influence was fading after Obama reset his economic priorities to go with a far more aggressive attack on Wall Street and large banks and began paying more attention to advice from former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker.
But if Geithner risked being hung out to dry by the administration, it was not obvious in his testimony, in which he tied to deflect repeated congressional criticism and vigorously defended his record.
"Deciding to support AIG was one of the most difficult choices I have ever been involved in, in over 20 years of public service. The steps that were taken were motivated solely by what we believed to be in the public interest," Geithner said.
He also repeated an insistence that he played no direct role in AIG deals with business partners or in withholding information about them from the public.
When Obama picked him for the Treasury post on November 24, 2008, "I withdrew from monetary policy decisions ... and day to day management of the New York Fed," Geithner testified. "I don't think there was a better alternative available."
AIG eventually received an aid package from the government of more than $180 billion. At issue is the part of this money to repay banks that were its business partners, known as counterparties, and alleged efforts to cover up details of the payments.
The committee subpoenaed 250,000 pages of documents from the Fed.
Lawmakers are concerned with revelations about efforts to keep details of the AIG deals secret. Officials from the Treasury Department and the New York Fed worked to keep the public from learning details about those deals and other AIG decisions.
"I played no role in those decisions," Geithner said. "I will take complete responsibility for decisions I played a role in shaping," he said.
But lawmakers expressed skepticism.
"Many people, including people of this committee, have a hard time believing Secretary Geithner entered into an absolute cone of silence," California Rep. Darrell Issa, the committee's top Republican, said. Issa said he had "lost confidence" in Geithner.
Democrats and Republicans took turns lambasting the Treasury secretary.
"Either you made a bad decision there, or there was the attempt to cover up one of the biggest bailouts, backdoor bailouts, in history," Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., told him.
Recalling the early controversy over Geithner's failure to pay some personal income taxes, Mica said: "You gave lame excuses then, you are giving lame excuses now. Why shouldn't we ask for your resignation as secretary of the Treasury?"
"You have a right to your opinion," Geithner said.
Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., told Geithner: "It just stinks to the high heaven what happened here."
Lynch said later that Geithner's reputation "has been hurt greatly."
Bernanke also said Wednesday he was "not directly involved in negotiations" involving payments from AIG to its business partners including Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms. Those negotiations were handled primarily by the staff of the New York Fed, he said.
Bernanke made the comments in written responses to questions posed by Issa.
Although Bernanke and Geithner have taken the most heat, the government's bank rescue effort began under former President George W. Bush and Henry Paulson, his Treasury secretary.
Paulson, who followed Geithner at Wednesday's hearing, defended his own role. "An AIG failure would have been devastating to the financial system and the economy," he said. "AIG could not be effectively wound down."
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., asked Paulson if he didn't realize how angry people were at wealthy bankers and Wall Street barons who he said play golf together and are always "looking out for themselves" while the rest of the country suffers.
"I'm not a golfer but I sure know that's how people feel. Congressman, you've got it. People are very, very angry. And rightfully so ... They don't recognize that what was done wasn't done for the banks" but to save the nation's financial system and economy.
3.
Noted Con-Law Prof Out of Order
Washington, DC – Last night, President Obama just couldn’t help himself and took advantage of his bully pulpit to engage in a little judicial bullying.
“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.” (President’s Address, 1/27/10)
First of all, the optics of a President using Chicago-style politics to publicly berate and intimidate the Supreme Court (our only non-political branch of government) aren’t so great.
But beyond embarrassing himself with an ugly attack on the Supreme Court, and “with all due deference to separation of powers,” President Obama’s characterization of the Citizens United decision is flat wrong. (Even The Huffington Post understands that.)
As a former professor of Constitutional Law, the President should know that corporations (both foreign and domestic) have long been prohibited from making direct contributions to political campaigns. The Citizens United case didn’t change that one bit. Furthermore, “foreign nationals” (including foreign governments, political parties, and corporations) are barred from participating in our elections. Citizens United didn’t change that either. Contrary to the President’s assertion, no floodgates have been opened for foreign corporations to throw money into our elections.
Perhaps he should get the facts straight before opening up his own floodgate.
The Citizens United case simply said that domestic corporations and labor unions have the First Amendment right to publicly communicate their views on political issues independent of any political campaign. American citizens, both as individuals and as groups, have the same right. It’s called freedom of speech. You’d think that’s something a noted former Con-Law professor would appreciate and understand.
4.
Dems Fall as Fast as Nixon Republicans in 1974
A Commentary By Michael Barone
Republican Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts' special Senate election was for Democratic leaders a moment that can be described in two words, of which I will only print the first here, which is "oh."
Left-wing bloggers, liberal columnists and the stray Nobel-Prize-winner-turned-polemicist are all urging Democrats in Congress to pass, somehow, some way, a health care bill, and many of them are calling for a second and even larger stimulus bill.
But Democrats in Congress are replying, as politicians are wont to do when challenged by party wingers, that their name is on the ballot. New York Times editorialists can opine that the Massachusetts result had nothing to do with opposition to health care, but their life's work is not in peril.
Democratic officeholders know theirs is. Some are heading for the hills. Four well-regarded veteran congressman announced their surprise retirements in December; two longtime Democratic senators folded in January. Family concerns have suddenly become very pressing.
Others are holding out against the bloggers. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that "unease would be the gentlest word" to describe House Democrats' refusal to pass the Senate health care bill. Her elegant ears must have burned in that caucus meeting.
Sens. Evan Bayh and Blanche Lincoln, up for re-election in Indiana and Arkansas and facing by far the most negative poll numbers in their long political careers, let it be known that there was no way they would support the reconciliation process, requiring only 51 votes, to jam through a health care bill.
But more than health care legislation is in trouble. I have not seen a party's fortunes collapse so suddenly since Richard Nixon got caught up in the Watergate scandal and a president who carried 49 states was threatened with impeachment and removal from office.
The victory of a Democrat in the special election to fill Vice President Gerald Ford's House seat in February 1974 was a clear indication that the bottom had fallen out for the Republican Party. The victory of Scott Brown last week looks like something similar has happened to the Democratic Party.
Many people ask me whether the Democrats are in as much trouble as they were in 1994. The numbers suggest they are in much deeper trouble, at least at this moment. Back in 1994, I wrote the first article in a non-partisan publication suggesting that the Republicans had a serious chance to win the 40 seats necessary for a majority in the House. That article appeared in U.S. News & World Report in July 1994.
This year, political handicapper Charlie Cook is writing in January, six months earlier in the cycle, that Republicans once again would capture the 40 seats they need for a majority if the House elections were held today. I concur. The generic vote question -- which party's candidates would you vote for in House elections -- is at least as favorable to Republicans as it was in the last month before the election in 1994.
Nothing is entirely static in politics, and opinions could change. Barack Obama could shift to the center, as Bill Clinton did after his party's thumping in 1994; the economy could visibly recover and start producing new jobs; a crisis like Sept. 11 and a good presidential response could boost the president and his party as Sept. 11 boosted George W. Bush and his party in 2001 and 2002.
But I sense that something more fundamental is at stake. Barack Obama in his first year adopted the priorities of what pundit Joel Kotkin, a Democrat himself, calls the "gentry liberals." Obama called for addressing long-term issues like health care and supposed climate change. He and his economic advisers, like many analysts across the political spectrum, underestimated the rise in unemployment. Talk about "green jobs" has proved to be just talk.
Obama's conciliatory foreign policy and his attempts to mollify terrorists have produced no perceptible positive responses and run against the grain of most American voters. Questioning the Christmas bomber for just 50 minutes and then reading him his Miranda rights has left Obama open to charges that his policies fail to protect the American people.
The cacophony of conflicting advice from left-wing bloggers, pundits and elected officials are all signs of a party in disarray, its central premises undermined by events. Massachusetts may have been a wake-up call enabling the Democrats to recover. But right now they're tossing and turning.
Michael Barone is senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner.
COPYRIGHT 2010 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Comments