Time To Ask Time To Tell

This mornings Conservative Republican San Diego Union-Tribune has a compelling and provocative Page One story about a local San Diego Navy Veteran and SDSU student who has moved front and center in the debate on Gays in the Military.

James Rocha age 23 has become a poster boy for repeal of Don"t Ask, Don"t Tell. A position he seemed reluctant to embrace, a reluctant warrior perhaps (for a cause) which he now fights partly in memory of a former commanding officer.

The questions and debate has been covered fairly by the hometown paper which serves the Metro area with the largest Military presence in the Nation. (Both Active and Retired).

You can sense here a shift in attitudes as people confront the deeply prejudicial and bigoted reasons the original policy was put in place.

As the young man at the center of this controversy asks?

“Where was the honor in living like a criminal, in silence?”

Indeed the better question might be, Why do we support a national law of shame which was signed with the premise,,"Homosexuality is immoral,wrong and illegal"

If the last statement gives you pause may I remind you in 1993 the move to enact "Don't Ask Don't Tell was led by then Senate Majority Leader Sam Nunn a Democrat from Georgia a State where it was in fact ILLEGAL to engage in Homosexual conduct between consenting adults!

Don't Ask, Don't Tell belongs to a different era!

The era of a Segregated US Military. It is an Anachronism which destroys the credibilty of our Armed Forces, demonizes and denigrates a segment of our Citizenry for no just cause and sends a message to American Citizens.

Some Citizens are less Equal than Others. After 233 years isn't it about time we live up to the Ideals in the Declaration of Independence? Judge a citizen for military service based upon his ability and fitness for the job and not their color,sex,or sexual orientation!

Navy veteran combats ‘don't ask, don't tell’

The rejuvenated debate over the military's policy on gay service members has focused attention on a 23-year-old Navy veteran in San Diego who says he suffered prolonged sexually oriented hazing while serving as a dog handler in Bahrain.

A Navy investigation completed in 2007 and released last month confirmed nearly 100 instances of abuse in the 19-member dog-handling detachment between 2004 and 2006.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead is expected to respond to the report any day.

Some of the abuse targeted Joseph Rocha, now a junior at the University of San Diego majoring in political science.

Rocha has become a spokesman for the drive to lift the “don't ask, don't tell” policy and hopes to someday return to a military free of discrimination.

“You're going to need strong, powerful gay officers to help with the transition,” he said.

Rocha said that he never told anyone of his sexual orientation, but that he endured degrading sexual teasing by members of his unit — including the detachment commander, who assumed that he was gay.

Rocha later left the Navy after acknowledging his orientation to his commander.

“Bahrain is behind me. My cause is not what happened there, but in changing ‘don't ask, don't tell,’?” Rocha said last week. “This is not an attack of mine against the Navy or the military itself, but against the policy.”

In recent weeks, his story has been featured in the national news media. He has spoken at rallies and attended the dinner earlier this month in Washington at which President Barack Obama pledged to allow gay and lesbian troops to serve openly.

It's an unlikely place for someone who grew up in Riverside County in what he described as an abusive household. But the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, during his sophomore year of high school, fired up his patriotic drive. He enlisted in the Navy after failing to get an appointment to the Naval Academy.

Rocha knew he was gay, but that seemed less important at the time than fighting America's enemies.

“My understanding was if I didn't act on it, if I didn't tell anyone, then it was OK,” he said.

Rocha landed a military police job in Bahrain, the hub of U.S. naval operations in the Persian Gulf. He worked with dogs specially trained to sniff out bombs.

The investigation later documented that dog handlers were pelted in the groin with rubber balls, hog-tied and forced to eat liver dog snacks, made to stand at attention until a dog barked and walk around with chew toys in their mouths, or duct-taped to chairs and locked in kennels.

Some of the conduct took on sexual overtones. Prostitutes were hired for the unit's parties. One dog handler tried to climb in the shower with another. A sailor was forced to lean over a cabinet and spanked by the other handlers. Sailors told racist and homophobic jokes, according to the investigation report.

The report said a detachment leader concocted sexually degrading “training scenarios” involving the working dogs. In one such case, Rocha said, he was forced to pretend to engage in a sex act with another male sailor, once for each of the unit's 32 dogs. Female sailors similarly were forced to play-act as lesbians, the report said.

“I appreciate tough training. I appreciate a rite of passage,” Rocha said. “There was nothing educational about what they were doing to me. There was nothing dignified.”

He said he kept silent because complaining might have forced him to reveal his sexual orientation. A complaint by a new dog handler in late 2006 prompted the investigation.

Rocha's best friend, Petty Officer 1st Class Jennifer Valdivia, was the detachment's second-in-command during the abuse and later was its commander. A former Sailor of the Year, she had planned to leave the Navy and move back to the United States in early 2007.

But as the investigation concluded, Valdivia was ordered to stay in Bahrain and face disciplinary action for failing to stop the abuse. She gassed herself inside an outbuilding near her villa Jan. 12, 2007. On her MySpace page, Rocha said, Valdivia wrote that she was tired of taking the blame for other people's mistakes.

“I saw her two days before she killed herself,” Rocha said. “She gave me a long, awkward hug, which I realize now was her way of saying goodbye.”

Rocha suffered nightmares after his friend's death, but he proceeded with plans to attend Naval Academy prep school. After a few weeks there, though, he wrote to his commander that he was gay and was honorably discharged.

“Where was the honor in living like a criminal, in silence?” Rocha said.

For the next two years, Rocha attended community college and interned for Democratic politicians, including Rep. Susan Davis, D-San Diego. Although he had lobbied for gay-rights causes, Rocha said he never intended to go public with his story of abuse. Then, during a protest May 26 in San Francisco against the California Supreme Court's decision to uphold an initiative barring same-sex marriage, he met a reporter for the Bay Area investigative reporting group Youth Radio. A few weeks later she reported the abuse, with supporting documents, on the group's Web site.

Other media picked it up, just as gay-rights activists began a new push to force the repeal of “don't ask, don't tell.” Suddenly, Rocha is a national figure.

“It's been hard,” he said. “But I feel the imperative of doing this now.”

Source San Diego Union Tribune

An older Veteran 86 years old asks a different question.

Where is the compassion and the Equality? Speaking on the subject of Gay Marriage this past April.

Obama still isn’t president in the south

Denying the Obamas American birth is just another form of racism
Andrew Sullivan

A naive person might believe that Barack Hussein Obama was born, as he has long said he was, in Hawaii to a young American mother and a distant father from Kenya. There are notices in two local papers and the certification of birth is filed in the state of Hawaii’s records.

An independent body — FactCheck.org — part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, asked to see a copy of the original during last year’s campaign. FactCheck is non-partisan and takes all sorts of politicians’ claims to task. Here’s its take on Obama’s birth certificate: “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving US citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. . . Our conclusion: Obama was born in the USA just as he has always said.”

You may be persuaded. Once I’d seen the short-form certificate online, verified by independent journalists and vouched for by state authorities, I was, too. But staggering numbers of Americans remain sceptical. In fact, a majority of Republican voters — 58% — either do not believe or are unsure that Obama is a natural-born American citizen. That means most Republicans believe Obama is constitutionally illegitimate in the presidency because the constitution reserves it for those born in America. The scepticism is — surprise! — concentrated in the south. In Virginia, a southern state that backed Obama last year, only 53% are sure Obama is legitimately president and 70% of Virginia Republicans either don’t believe he is an American or aren’t sure. A poll last week also found that many Republicans believe this issue has not received enough media attention.

What do they believe? The most common theory is that Obama was born in Kenya while his mother was visiting his father. The Hawaiian birth certificate exists, the sceptics claim, because Hawaii recognises as natural-born citizens those born to American mothers temporarily outside the United States. The only problem with that theory is the certificate would mention that fact and it doesn’t.

So Obama was born where all the evidence says he was: Honolulu. Why would a woman in her last month of pregnancy travel halfway around the world to deliver a child in a developing country and then bring him back home, even though he wouldn’t have had a passport? How would she get him into the United States unless someone at the border was in cahoots? “You couldn’t sell this script in Hollywood,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, told reporters last week.

Why does this story stay alive? Some, like me, didn’t understand the Hawaiian intricacies at first: we thought there was a single long-form certificate that could resolve the question. But, as FactCheck notes: “The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department.” So Obama did all he could to make this go away.

Yet the conspiracists have only become more adamant. A slew of radio show hosts have fixated on the question; Lou Dobbs, CNN’s resident crank, broadcast several segments expressing doubt about Obama’s birthplace. Sean Hannity, a Fox News pundit, ran two reports on a soldier who refused to follow orders from Obama because he doubted his eligibility to be president. When Major Stefan Cook’s orders to deploy to Afghanistan were revoked, he and his lawyer took it as an admission on the part of the military that the president is not, in fact, a legitimate citizen by birth.

On cue, as Obama turned 48 last week, a Kenyan birth certificate popped up on the web. It was immediately exposed as a forgery based on a 1959 Australian birth certificate, but the pressure hasn’t let up. Obama’s legitimacy as president has been challenged in five lawsuits, all dismissed.

WorldNetDaily, the far-right website, has run countless editorials, letter-writing campaigns and billboard advertisements on the question. WND is a fringe web publication — but its fringe has, by some estimates, about 2m visitors a month.

Rush Limbaugh, the mega-chat show host, has raised the issue and Michael Savage, the rabid rightist, has said: “We’re getting ready for the communist takeover of America with a non-citizen at the helm.” Other, calmer Republican activists have denounced the so-called “birthers”. The cannier ones have argued that this issue has been drummed up by Democrats to discredit the Good Old Party (and it has). But it’s hard to accept that explains everything.

The bolder rightwingers have condemned the whole thing: radio star Michael Medved has called the birthers “crazy, nutburger, demagogue, money-hungry, exploitative, irresponsible, filthy conservative imposters”. But leading Republican politicians, aware of how powerful the conspiracy theory is among their supporters, have tried to avoid the issue. The Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, for example, told a town hall meeting last February: “Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii but I haven’t seen any birth certificate”, even though a resolution on July 27 — issued on the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood — declared Obama a citizen unanimously (with some Republican abstentions).

This is the silly season. But this silly story seems to me an indication of something more ominous. The demographics tell the basic story: a black man is president and a large majority of white southerners cannot accept that, even in 2009. They grasp conspiracy theories to wish Obama — and the America he represents — away.

Since white southerners comprise an increasing proportion of the 22% of Americans who still describe themselves as Republican, the GOP can neither dismiss the crankery nor move past it. The fringe defines what’s left of the Republican center.

The chilling implication is that a large number of Americans believe the president has no right to be in office and has fraudulently maneuvered himself there.

I hope the secret service is on alert. If we thought racial panic had ended with Obama’s election, the resilience of this story in key parts of the country is a helpful wake-up call.

Historic

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release June 1, 2009
LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2009

- - - - - - -

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.

Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.

LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. LGBT Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country's response to the HIV pandemic.

Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration -- in both the White House and the Federal agencies -- openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.

The LGBT rights movement has achieved great progress, but there is more work to be done. LGBT youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment, and LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect.

My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States.

These issues affect not only the LGBT community, but also our entire Nation. As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit. During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA

Confronting the Beast,,of Dogma

No wonder the agents of intolerance and keepers of the flames of rigid religiosity despise Barack Obama. His appearance at Notre Dame was a tour de force and a ritual slaying of the beast(Ignorance)!
Yes the man IS the Antichrist! All hail!


The Notre Dame Postmortem
By Sonia Tsuruoka • on May 18, 2009

After treading treacherous waters for weeks, President Obama averted the jaws of political pitfall and successfully defused much of the faith-charged controversy surrounding Notre Dame’s Sunday Commencement.

Then again, maybe “averted” isn’t the right word. No, put it this way: with rhetorical machismo that would make a Spartan shake in his cleats, Obama leapt off the parapet, confronted the beast, and served its twitching head on a platter to every off-campus rabble-rouser that dared litter the scene with “hate-baiting” and hyperbole.

Which, of course, leads us to the most important question of the evening:

Would Alan Keyes like some ice for that third degree…burn?

As always, Obama settled the match without a drop of blood spilt. His strategy was subliminal: to subdue extremist beliefs on both sides of the fence by his advocacy of “middle-ground” politics and refusal to “shy away from things that are uncomfortable.”

As Winston Churchill once said, “A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.” And seize the opportunity Obama did, delivering a remarkable, no-holds barred address that discretely confronted – and conquered – the controversy surrounding the afternoon Commencement.

Yet the sensitivity with which Obama met his most recent ideological hurdle is largely representative of his own persona. He was clever, calculated and courageous, with an undeniable political swag that engaged Notre Dame students and faculty members on common religious ground.

To the probable chagrin of his right-wing counterparts, Obama emphasized the fact that all pro-lifers were not “ideologues” deserving of political dismissal. And it is here the President was careful to draw a clear distinction between the coherent on-campus protests of Notre Dame students (sans fetal pictures), and the demagoguery of far-right extremists in the media.

Watching the address brought me back to the primaries, where “Change you can believe in”, seemed like little more than hogwash poetry. But to media’s most seasoned political analysts, Obama’s uplifting slogan was nothing short of a political coup d’état, a declaration that shook — and eventually toppled – the crudest aspects of Cheney and Rove’s neo-con establishment.

Similarly, Obama’s call for “Open hearts, open minds, [and] fair-minded words,” challenged the tactics of people like Randall Terry who believe Obama’s stances on abortion make him “the adversary…of the global common good,” and Alan Keyes, who believes that the honorary degree being given to Barack Obama “not only honors evil [but] exalts and worships it.”

To that end, I disagree with the premise of many off-campus protests.

Take, for instance, the controversy surrounding Notre Dame’s decision to award Obama an honorary degree. Bill Donahue, President of the Catholic League, recently opined that Notre Dame giving Obama an honorary degree “would be like Howard University giving David Duke a degree in racial politics.”

But according to Larry Marsh, a former Notre Dame faculty member, that simply isn’t true. In his involvement with the Notre Dame Honorary Degree Committee, Marsh cites the body was glad to recommend (and eventually award) a Jewish scholar with an honorary degree.

In Marsh’s own words,“How can it be ok to award an honorary degree to a person who does not recognize the divinity of Christ, but not ok to award one to someone who might have a different conception about conception? Why should Christ’s divinity have to take a back seat to the disagreement over when a fetus becomes a child?”

Second, it’s important to emphasize that the President has no direct jurisdiction over a woman’s right to choice – this issue is a judicial precedent under the control of the Supreme Court, that, in the following years, will evaluate its constitutional legitimacy independently from the Oval Office.

Of course, the logical argument used by Catholic protesters on Notre Dame’s campus — and pretty much all pro-lifers — is that the President can influence Supreme Court decisions through new court appointments, should a replacement be necessary. That’s true. Of course, it’s also true that their argument is pretty much identical to the one used by disgruntled pro-choice advocates during the Bush Presidency, all of whom took to hysterics at the notion of a conservative court appointment.

Interestingly enough, the nightmare of many pro-choicers was soon realized in the appointment of Chief Justice Roberts — and as liberals know full well, utter chaos ensued. A day after the seasoned justice was sworn into office, Roe v. Wade was reversed, millions of teenagers became underage parents, America degenerated into violence, and locusts rained down from the sky into the streets of Washington. Then, seven Orc-like horsemen stormed the Capitol and delivered the Apocalypse. The end.

We all know this series of events never transpired. In fact, even the reversal of Roe V. Wade didn’t come close to becoming a reality under the watch of a conservative Chief Justice appointment. And therein lies two harsh truths:

For one, it will take more than a new Supreme Court appointment to challenge judicial precedent, regardless of his/her ideological slant. Since the landmark 1973 decision, conservative Presidents have only halfheartedly suggested that the Court “reconsider” the case, if at all.

Similarly, conservative Justices seated on the Supreme Court have been wary about any reversal; Chief Justice Roberts, though personally pro-life, has been careful to exercise judicial minimalism — the emphasis of legal precedent and decline of judicial activism — in order to preserve the status quo. Even if Obama were to suddenly cast off his liberal leanings, adopt a pro-life platform, and, like Bush Jr., appoint a conservative Justice to the Court, there would be no indication that any reversal of judicial precedent would take place at all.

And why?

Because regardless of what pro-lifers and feminists have come to believe, abortion is, in large part, a wedge issue; comparatively speaking, it has little to no sweeping national consequences. To that end, I have always been indiscriminate; any one-issue voter who concerns themselves solely with the matter of abortion — whichever end of the spectrum they occupy — will likely irritate me, regardless of my own political and religious inclinations.

With the US embroiled in two critical overseas wars and the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, it baffles (and vexes me) that anyone would preoccupy themselves with an issue so comparatively inconsequential. Sure, it’s possible to cook up an impassioned argument against “moral decay” but these qualms should not, in any instance, supersede government’s primary concerns : the economy and state of US foreign affairs.

In short, I applaud Obama’s fearless political dialogue regarding a subject that has proved untouchable for dozens of Democratic politicians. Well played, Mr. President, well played.

Source Scoop 44

Bishop John D'Arcy not a fan..

GOP Spurns the Young

"locked in the dogmas of their quiet past, unable to think and therefore act anew."

Excellent article from this mornings Los Angeles Times sure to be ignored by Republican Politicos, unthinking,uncomprehending and on the path to Partycide.








The Republican Party ignores young 'millennials' at its peril

The new generation of voters is unified, committed and, for the foreseeable future, overwhelmingly Democratic.
By Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais
May 10, 2009

If the Republican Party thinks it has problems now, just wait. The party's incredibly poor performance among young voters in the 2008 election raises questions about the long-term competitiveness of the GOP.

The "millennials" -- the generation of Americans born between 1982 and 2003 -- now identify as Democrats by a ratio of 2 to 1. They are the first in four generations to contain more self-perceived liberals than conservatives.

And a recent Daily Kos tracking poll should send shudders down the spine of any Republican who understands how powerful a voting bloc this generation could become over the next decade.

Only 9% of millennials polled expressed a favorable opinion of the Republican Party. Only 7% were positive about the GOP's congressional leaders. By contrast, 65% of millennials had a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party, and a majority also approved of congressional Democrats. Though many people question the political sophistication of the millennials, they have been instilled with egalitarian and participatory values by their parents since birth.

This child-rearing produced a generation that was wide open to the personal appeal and message of Barack Obama and his party. Moving forward, the initial preference of millennials for President Obama and the Democrats will remain in place for a lifetime unless Republicans can quickly adapt their message and find a messenger who can speak to this powerful new force in American politics.

Only 41% of all millennials were eligible to vote in 2008, yet their overwhelming support for Obama transformed his win from what would have been a squeaker into a solid victory. Obama's popular-vote margin over John McCain was about 9.5 million nationally; millennials accounted for nearly 7.6 million of those votes.

In the 2010 off-year election, half of millennials will be eligible to vote, representing about a fifth of the overall electorate. By 2012, 60% will be eligible to vote, and they could make up about a quarter of the American electorate when Obama runs for reelection. By 2020, when virtually all millennials will be over 18, they will represent 36% of the electorate and will completely dominate elections and the political agenda of America.

And it seems likely that this civic generation, like its "Greatest Generation" great-grandparents, will vote in big numbers. Turnout among voters under 30 has been rising steadily since millennials began to replace the alienated and more cynical Gen-Xers in this age group. From a low of 37% in 1996, turnout increased to 53% of all eligible millennials, and 59% in the key battleground states in 2008.

Their unity of opinion and their numbers will make millennials' preferences for economic activism, a non-intrusive approach to social issues by government at any level and a multilateral interventionism by America in foreign affairs the policy paths to political success during the next decade.

It is simply inconceivable that the Republican Party can craft a winning strategy between now and then that doesn't accommodate these ideas.

But so far, Republicans appear to be tone-deaf on the issues that millennials care about.

Millennials have been reared with a desire to serve their community, and the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act provides them an opportunity to do just that, while at the same time dealing with their single biggest financial worry -- the high cost of a college education. Unfortunately, all but 25 House Republicans voted against the bill, despite its co-sponsorship by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

Millennials also are experiencing higher levels of unemployment than any other generation. They expect the federal government to take an active role in fixing that problem and support redistributing income if necessary. But the almost-unanimous Republican opposition to the "recovery" act helped convince millennials that only one party actually understood their problems and was prepared to act in accordance with their beliefs.

Polls consistently show millennials are more committed to environmental protection than any generation in American history, willing to sacrifice economic growth or endure higher prices in order to save the planet. Given the millennials' overwhelming concern with the environment, House Minority Leader John Boehner's comments recently that carbon dioxide isn't a real threat because "we all breathe it out" and, besides, "cows give out a lot of gas too," went beyond inanity into the realm of political suicide.

The only tentative Republican gesture to millennial power to date is the GOP's sudden fascination with a new social network platform, Twitter. By choosing Twitter -- with its limitations on content -- to connect to millennials, Republicans are actually demonstrating how little they know about this generation's commitment to engaging in the content-rich challenges of rebuilding the nation's civic institutions and national unification.

Republicans will need to find a new message and much better messengers than their last presidential ticket or their current congressional leaders if they want to truly connect with today's young voters. Failure to do so will leave Republicans, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, "locked in the dogmas of their quiet past, unable to think and therefore act anew."
Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are fellows of the think tanks NDN and the New Policy Institute and the coauthors of "Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics."








Former GOP Congressman Micky Edwards has almost the same point of view as the above article, and explains why McCain and the GOP's debacle in November was far worse and more damaging than Barry Goldwater's 1964 rout. DH

The Nation NEEDS a Better GOP!
or a new party of the opposition.

Republicans have to put a leash on attack-dog tactics and engage in a constructive manner to deal with serious problems facing the country.

By Mickey Edwards
May 10, 2009

There are optimists within the Republican Party. They look at the wreckage left behind after last year's elections, and recall 1964. That was the year that Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee for president, was so badly trounced that pundits proclaimed the GOP dead. But it was also the year that a new breed of conservative activists, myself among them, brought a new energy to the party that eventually reshaped it and led to years of Republican domination of the executive branch.

The whistle-past-the-graveyard crowd imagines that this year's doomsayers have simply forgotten history: Four years after the 1964 disaster, they remind us, Republicans won the presidency. We'll just do it again, they say. But the Republicans' defeat last year was far different from their 1964 loss -- and it will be a lot harder to come back from.

In 1964, Goldwater was seen as an anomaly. He was not representative of his own party, and, to a large extent, was rejected by it. The conservatives voters so soundly rejected in 2008 are seen not as anomalous but as representative of the larger party.

The Richard Nixon who won the presidency in 1968 had been vice president under Dwight Eisenhower, who left the White House with his popularity intact. The GOP candidate in 2012 will have to overcome the nation's memory of the previous Republican in that office, George W. Bush, who was less popular in most of America than the New York Yankees are in Boston. There will be no "glorious days of Republican leadership" to hark back to unless the party's candidates continue to dredge up memories of Ronald Reagan, who left Washington two decades ago, before a good many younger voters were born.

When Republicans rebounded in 1968, they were a national party, helped to victory by strong support in areas where, today, the party wanders in a political wilderness.

There are now large chunks of the country almost without a Republican presence. Draw a map of the east side of the U.S., from the tip of Florida to the Canadian border, and see how many Republican senators or governors you find. In 1969, by contrast, the GOP held both Senate seats in New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania and Vermont; there were Republican senators from New Jersey, Michigan, Maryland, even Massachusetts. In the House, Republicans held three of the six Connecticut seats, five of 12 in Massachusetts, both in New Hampshire, 15 in New York, seven of 10 in Wisconsin. You get the idea.

What can you say about the Republican Party in 2009? That it has Alabama locked up? Well, that's not even true: Democrats are far more competitive in the South than Republicans are in much of the country.

It's certainly true that to some degree Arlen Specter's defection from the Republican Party was opportunism. Specter, after all, became a Republican in the first place not because of any particular political point of view but because, in 1966, when both Republicans and Democrats were trying to recruit him to run for district attorney in Philadelphia, the GOP promised more support. Specter himself has said that he's now a Democrat because that's the best way to get elected again. To Specter, party has never mattered much.

But there's more to the story. While Specter will not march in lock step with Democrats any more than he did with Republicans, he will vote with them on many procedural issues, and in the Senate, that's no small matter. So the loss matters. And that's why Republicans need to take seriously the fact that Specter was not so much seduced by Democrats as driven away by a GOP that has become increasingly intolerant of disagreement within its ranks and seemingly incapable of putting forth an appealing platform.

At one point, Republicans put forth a coherent, idealistic vision of America, one that summoned it to greatness. There was a profound belief in the dignity of the individual, a reverence for the Constitution and the founders who proposed it, a belief in doing whatever it took (including spending tax dollars to build a military second to none) to preserve the peace. Republican platforms preached prudence and the virtues of small business.

Today, the Republican belief system has degenerated into an embarrassing hodgepodge that worships political victory more than ideas; supports massive deficits; plunges the nation into "just-in-case" wars without adequate troops, supplies or armor; dismisses constitutional strictures; and campaigns on a platform of turning national problem-solving over to "Joe the Plumber." It's hard to see how all that points the way to a reawakening of voters to trust in the GOP.

This may suggest, of course, that the party should just toss in the towel, accept its designated role as the Whigs of the 21st century and leave governance to its betters. But American freedom depends on power checking power. If Democrats control the legislative and executive branches without meaningful opposition, the country will be the weaker for it. Some of President Obama's initiatives would dramatically shift the boundaries between public and private, reshape the relationship between citizens and government and alter the lens through which America views its international commitments. These are serious matters and deserve serious, and constructive, engagement.

Merely attacking administration proposals and labeling Obama a "socialist" will only ensure that instead of rebounding, as the GOP did in 1968, the party will slip even further into irrelevance. And that will not be good for America.

Mickey Edwards is a former U.S. congressman, a lecturer at Princeton University and the author of "Reclaiming Conservatism."

The GOP Defends Torture

On a day when Sen Arlen Spector abandons a flailing GOP former VP Cheney wont shut up about his love of Torture. Who knew ole Dick Cheney was a Masochist? Or Sado-Masochist with the duress he is inflicting on the Republican Party!

Well you know what they say the party that plays well together stays together,, to the bitter end!

Cheney demands a Torture Commission
by Robert M Shum Tuesday, April 28, 2009

The Republicans finally think they’ve found an issue: They’re in favor of torture. Republican House Leader John Boehner channeled the party’s will when he spoke up for the torturers’ cause at a White House meeting with President Obama. But his voice was drowned out (metaphorically) by someone who had previously left the White House for an undisclosed location in suburban Virginia.

Dick Cheney, the avatar of the nonexistent threat of weapons of mass destruction, hastened onto the public stage to blast the President for endangering the national security. Obama’s crime? Releasing memos depicting waterboarding and other techniques borrowed from enemies like the Communist Chinese. It wasn’t Cheney’s first assault on Obama, but it captured singular attention because Cheney plainly was the Bush Administration’s driving force in this wholesale violation of national and international law.

From a Democratic perspective, the emergence of Cheney as the face of the Republican Party is a consummation devoutly to be wished. GOP strategists generally yearn to see Cheney just go away; the last thing they want is for Americans to see the former Vice-President, an antonym for public appeal, become a synonym for their party.

On the merits, Cheney doesn’t even argue half the case—whether torture is wrong in principle, wrong legally, or wrong for American foreign policy. Instead he insists that it worked to some unspecified extent. Secretary of State Clinton pungently understated the obvious when she dismissed him as not “a particularly reliable source.” In fact, last year FBI Director Robert Mueller, a Bush holdover, was asked by an interviewer whether any attacks had been foiled by what Cheney and his acolytes whitewashed as “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Mueller was “reluctant to answer,” but then conceded: “I don’t believe that has been the case.” As early as 2002, a Pentagon study warned that torture would elicit “unreliable information.”

So what can torture’s apologists claim? For a while, their prime example was a plot to crash a plane into the tallest building in downtown Los Angeles. They pointed to information supposedly coerced from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a top al Qaida operative, who we now know was waterboarded 183 times. It’s a scenario right out of the television show “24”; appropriately it’s also fictional. The plot was derailed in 2002; KSM, as government memos refer to the Sheikh, wasn’t even captured until 2003.

Cheney, seldom daunted by the inconvenient truth, is now demanding the selective declassification of two documents allegedly “proving” the effectiveness of torture—although, of course, he refuses to call it that. (Imagine hoping to be remembered in history as the “waterboarding Vice-President.”) The difficulty, as Bush State Department Counselor Philip Zelikow points out, is that the release of these documents “would only raise questions that would have to be answered with still more disclosures.”

In other words, Cheney hasn’t thought it through—perhaps no surprise from the official who propelled us into the folly of the Iraq War—but in effect he is demanding a Torture Commission to review all the documents and decisions on the dark engine he fired up. That would be the only way to make a definitive judgment on his claims.

The President has resisted the creation of such a commission, to the consternation of many of his own supporters. It’s ironic, to say the least, that Cheney has stumbled into agreement with them by insisting that “the American people [should] have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was.” But how can they do that without a through and independent inquiry?

I doubt Obama will take Cheney’s advice. The President has sought to navigate a fine line on this issue. Those who disagree with his decision to rule out the prosecution of CIA agents who engaged in torture have a point. Do we really want to validate a defense that pleads: “I was only following the memos”? At least why not prosecute the officials who authorized torture and the lawyers who rationalized it? Leave aside the reality that it would be difficult to convict them; the government would have to prove that the legal advice was intentionally and knowingly flawed (as opposed to merely adhering to the Bush norm of gross incompetence). The President’s real reason for resisting criminal cases—or a commission—is a belief that America can’t afford a wave of recrimination and bitter division about the past when we should be concentrating on the urgent business of saving our future.

Obama’s fine line also seems to me to be finely calculated. I think he recognizes that history, too, has its claims, and that the truth will out over time, as it did with Richard Nixon and Watergate. In releasing the memos, he’s sent a clear message of deterrence—that American operatives in the future can’t rely on legal camouflage to justify torture. Indeed what has been too little noted is how the FBI and the Pentagon refused to participate in the Bush-Cheney reign of torture.

The line Obama has drawn is likely to endure. There’s no guarantee, but there wouldn’t be even if the culprits found themselves in court or under inquisitorial klieg lights. And I doubt any subsequent administration would risk a repeat of this dark chapter in our history.

And that’s where Cheney will be left—to history—unless, that is, he inadvertently aids and abets the creation of a Torture Commission. That would only seal his ultimate disgrace; we might even discover, as some allege, that the real object of waterboarding was to extract false confessions endorsing Cheney’s concocted connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaida.

In the meantime, as we end the First 100 Days, which have marked not just an historic success for Obama but an ideological and political dead end for the Republicans, maybe the GOP will at last disclaim their former Vice-President. They’re already dumping on George W. Bush for the bailouts and “big spending.” Isn’t the betrayal of our laws, our reputation and our core values a graver offense? But if instead the party of “No” lets itself become the party of Cheney, well, in that case they’ll just keep torturing themselves.

source The Week.com
- ROBERT M. SHRUM has been a senior adviser to the Gore 2000 presidential campaign, the campaign of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and the British Labour Party. In addition to being the chief strategist for the 2004 Kerry-Edwards campaign, Shrum has advised thirty winning U.S. Senate campaigns; eight winning campaigns for governor; mayors of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, and other major cities; and the Democratic Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives. Shrum's writing has appeared in the Los Angeles Times , The New York Times , The New Republic , Slate , and other publications. The author of No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner (Simon and Schuster), he is currently a Senior Fellow at New York University's Wagner School of Public Service.

Vermont Gay Marriage

Yesterday, 7 April, 2009 the Vermont House of Representatives, by one vote, overrode Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto of a bill allowing gay couples to marry. By only one vote but that is all that was needed. Vermont is the first state to allow same-sex marriage through legislative action instead of a court ruling. This I support.

In 2000, Vermont became the first state to adopt civil unions for gay couples. It is now the fourth state to allow same-sex marriage. In addition to Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Also yesterday, the District of Columbia gave initial approval to a plan to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of the District. That could open this to a Federal case because of Congressional oversight of the District. In 1996 Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act. Bill Clinton signed that bill. As a result of that act the federal government may not recognize same-sex marriage, no social security survivors benefits etc.

Last week the Iowa Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages. That is not the job of any court. Courts are not qualified to make laws. The judiciary of that state is out of line and it needs to be corrected as California voters did to its Supreme Court.

The founding fathers concept of separation of powers is more important to my mind than government recognition of gay marriage. My representative and senator speak for me and write the laws. The judiciary makes decisions based on the Constitution and those laws. The executive branch enforces those laws. Simple. (Then there are the separate states. As a Texan, I like that too.)

In California, Proposition 8 was approved by the voters. That act amended the state’s Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. This was in response to the abuse of power by the state Supreme Court which decided that a handful of lawyers dressed like Catholic Priests could change the will of a few million fellow citizens. They were wrong and the people told them so.

Now the California GLBT ‘community’ has an even greater hurdle to climb. It will take more that a few years to correct. 26 States have existing bans on same sex marriage. Some of those are constitutional bans I guess that is one critical vote to the negative if you are thinking of a U.S. Constitutional Amendment. In other words, it will not happen any time soon.

My point here is that to make a law; more specifically to change a law for same sex marriage, it must be done right. Through the law making bodies. Stop trying to back door this through the courts or executive decree. Be up front and honest.
Gays are quite literally asking straights to help. To grant recognition as equals. If they ask right, it might happen.

Californian faggots dressed in white face and French clown suits went into a Catholic Cathedral in San Francisco and took communion from the Arch-Bishop. These faggots don’t have the courage to show their real face or name. They then walked back down the isle sticking their tongue out at old ladies and young children with the communion host still on their tongue. This was clearly to help convince Christians on which way to vote for Gay rights. It worked like a charm. Prop 8 passed. Gay marriage is unconstitutional in California. Then gay people walked around with ‘H8 and Hate’ signs to show their appreciation. That pretty much secured the law for a generation or more.

As a Roman Catholic, conservative, expert marksman, disease free, father of four sons, TEXAN, I am proud to be the partner of this blogs owner. This is my first independent post here. I hope my position is clear.
Gay rights will happen. Get the idiots out of the spotlight. Maybe carry signs saying “I Love too!”, “I love You!”, stuff like that, no hate. It will happen faster. This ’in your face’ drag queen style crap will send exactly the message California voters sent back in the State Constitution. “NO.”

I applaud the Vermont House of representatives for it’s override of the governors veto. My partner, DeWayne and I look forward to this happening in more states.

Albert in Texas

Bipartisanship? Hell No!

Franklin Roosevelt didn't get it or want it! Then as now Republican obstructionists and zealots were willing to sacrifice the middle class to serve their corporatist masters. President Obama needs to learn to use his power and that of a Democratic Congress to enact his mandate.

If George Bush could impose a 6 year one party Dictatorship of the plutocracy despite failing to win the popular vote in 2000, Barrack Obama can certainly claim MANDATE and tell the Republicans,,
Go away and eat your young its ALL YOUR GOOD FOR!
DH

Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes

From the Intrepid Liberal Journal
14 Feb 2009 12:05 PM CST

In the grown up world, honorable and reasonable people may initially disagree but eventually compromise upon a collective review of empirical evidence. It was in this spirit, that the nascent Obama administration reached out to Republicans with respect to their proposed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which finally passed both houses of congress yesterday.

Unfortunately, most Republican politicians are neither honorable nor reasonable. Instead, most Republican politicians are predatory conservatives dedicated to establishing a permanent corporate theocratic plutocracy. As far as they’re concerned, the 2008 election is merely a temporary setback and attempting bipartisanship with this crowd resulted in legislation far less bold than most economists hoped for.

Hence, it is in the spirit of admiration and support that I urge this new administration to absorb the following lesson: Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes. President Obama is a quick study and has likely absorbed this lesson for himself. Indeed, I recall him often using the phrase “working majority” during the campaign. Nonetheless, it is instructive for both liberal activists as well his administration to always keep this simple phrase on the front lobes of our brains. Repeat after me: Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes.

This phrase is especially pertinent to the United States Senate. Senators are divas with parochial interests, outsized ambitions and a Constitution that empowers their narcissism. Hence, the only language these people truly understand is leverage with a proper dosage of ego massage. They know that any one of them has the power to hold any piece of proposed legislation hostage to their whims.

Indeed, senators sometimes behave as if they have the power of little Anthony Freemont in the classic Twilight Zone episode “It’s A Good Life.” Like that little boy, one can just imagine Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell, fantasizing about wishing supporters of universal healthcare into a cornfield never to be seen or heard from again. That is the mentality we’re dealing with.

The upside however is there will always be enough politicians prepared to bargain in order to elevate their own importance, demonstrate independence and serve the interests of their constituents. With respect to the stimulus legislation the three so-called Republican moderate senators were Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter and Maine’s Olympia Snow and Susan Collins. Connecticut’s “Independent” Republican patsy Joe Lieberman and conservative Nebraska Democrat, Ben Nelson, also joined those three in bargaining with the Obama administration, the Senate majority and the House of Representatives.

Had President Obama initially proposed legislation far bolder they still would have bargained, a filibuster majority still would have been achieved and the end result would have been far superior to the legislation that ultimately passed. Next time around it may be a different group of Republican senators and recalcitrant Democrats doing the bargaining, perhaps related to geographic interests. As long as President Obama’s political standing remains high, it will always be possible to cut deals on favorable terms with a rotating group of senators because their relevance depends upon it.

Hence, a working majority will always be ripe for plucking even without a filibuster proof majority. And even if we had sixty Democratic senators a few of them would threaten denying a filibuster proof majority to promote their independence and get what they want. At the end of the day, bipartisanship has nothing to with it. Leverage, enlightened self-interest, service to constituents or contributors and political survival are everything. There is no love in politics. Only leverage, respect and fear.

The appropriate posture is to treat reluctant politicians with symbolic respect, bargain hard for every penny and compromise from a position of strength. That is the best way to maximize potential of a working majority going forward while simultaneously maintaining broad public support. Sometimes, operating a working majority will require President Obama to demonstrate toughness, walk away and threaten vetoes if a few senators opt to behave like Anthony Freemont in the name of bipartisanship.

Barack Obama is an impressive human being with many admirable qualities. Indeed, Obama represents an ennobling change of pace after George W. Bush’s insipid indecency. He is learning however that governing is delicate balance requiring the dual personalities of Mahtatma Ghandi and Don Vito Corleone. If anyone can achieve that delicate balance it’s this president. Nonetheless, we must remain vigilant and toughen his hide.

Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes.

Repost from Robert Ellman

Obama's Vindication of Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine is the unsung hero of the American Revolution, the man who first inspired the total break with the Untied Kingdom in his pamphlet Common Sense. He gave voice to what heretofore had been unmentionable, a clean and irrevocable independence from England.

Yet Paine would be ostracized and shunned later in life for his strong advocacy of real liberty and freedom for all Citizens of the New Republic. Soon as in most Revolutions one group, Southern Men of Property, the Dixie Aristocracy co-opted and hijacked the American Revolution.

No surprise then that today in 2009 Barrack Obama would borrow so heavily from Americas most famous Radical of the Revolution, the man who so horrified those who would declare a black man sub human fit only to be counted as three-fifths of a human being, and only for the purpose of granting the Southern Counter revolutionaries a greater share of the seats in Congress.

Thomas Paines ideas have a definite place in President Obamas poltitics.

I wonder if he shares Paines Deist view of Religion. I sure hope that would be REAL CHANGE!

DeWayne H


"I stand here today as hopeful as ever that the United States of America will endure, that it will prevail, that the dream of our founders will live on in our time."

Barack Obama, 18 January 2009

by John Nichols on 01/20/2009

President Barack Obama swore on Tuesday to protect and defend a Constitution that was not written in anticipation of his presidency--that was not, in fact, written in anticipation of his citizenship.

And that is where we should begin to measure the historic turning that has taken place this day.

The American experiment began with its promise constricted by the narrow vision of Virginia plantation owners who saw an African-American as three-fifths of a human being--and that scant measure only for the purpose of granting the South a greater share of the seats in a Congress that would for the better part of a century be all white, all male and all of the propertied class.

America was founded on the original sins of human bondage and violent discrimination.

Barack Obama's inauguration does not erase that history. As W.E.B. Du Bois told us, "One is astonished in the study of history at the recurrence of the idea that evil must be forgotten, distorted, skimmed over...We must forget that George Washington was a slave owner... and simply remember the things we regard as creditable and inspiring. The difficulty, of course, with this philosophy is that history loses its value as an incentive and example; it paints perfect man and noble nations, but it does not tell the truth."

Obama's inauguration turns the tables on the founders.

Those who proposed and accepted the Constitution's initial compromises, have been put in their place--not dismissed, but confirmed, finally and unequivocally, as having possessed a vision insufficient for the America that would be.

That goes for Jefferson, Madison, even for Washington (Obama's "man who led a small band of farmers and shopkeepers in revolution against the army of an Empire")--all the "good guys" who were not good enough to reject the crude calculus that in the words of Du Bois "classed the black man and the ox together."

Yet Obama speaks, often and favorably, of the founders, describing them in Philadelphia just days before his inauguration as "that first band of patriots... who somehow believed that they had the power to make the world anew."

The reference to making the world anew was borrowed--imprecisely-- from one of founders. Thomas Paine called his comrades to the revolutionary cause with the cry: "We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months."

Obama quoted frequently from Paine, and particularly from Common Sense, during his campaign for the presidency. And he did so, again, on Tuesday, referencing Paine in a speech that spoke of a "return to these truths" of the American experiment.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: "Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

That line is from Paine's The Crisis, which George Washington did, in fact, have read to the troops in the most difficult days of the revolutionary struggle.

From that reference, on Tuesday, Obama continued:

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

It was right that Obama turned to Paine.

When the Pennsylvania Assembly considered the formal abolition of slavery in 1779, it was Paine who authored the preamble to the proposal.

Paine's fervent objections to slavery led to his exclusion from the inner circles of American power in the first years of the republic. He died a pauper. Only history restored the man--and his vision.

And on this day, this remarkable day, Thomas Paine is fully redeemed.

Paine, to a greater extent than any of his peers, was the founder who imagined a truly United States that might offer a son of Africa and of America not merely citizenship but its presidency.

Barack Obama is wise to associate himself with the better angels of our history, including the architects of our republic who, for all their imperfections, issued--as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. noted on another crowded day in Washington--"wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence" and in so doing "(signed) a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the 'unalienable Rights' of 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.' It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked 'insufficient funds.'"

"But," concluded King, "we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt."

The bank of justice, unlike those of Wall Street, has proven to be solvent.

Our new president--and we the people--do well to recognize those who signed the promissory note.

But that does not mean that we should presume that the founders were all equally wise, or equally good.

It was Paine, the most revolutionary of their number, who proved to be the wisest, and the best, of that band of patriots--for his time, and for this time.

Today belongs to Barack Obama.

But it also belongs to Thomas Paine.

When our new president says that his election proves "the dream of our founders is alive in our time," it is Paine's dream of which he speaks.

That dream may not be fully realized. But it is alive--more, indeed, today than at any time in the history of a land that might yet begin our world over again.

Presidential Inauguration

The Inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America.

In this Internet Age change comes to whitehouse.gov while he gives his inaugural address.

And yes the White House now has an Official Blog! If John Kennedy was the first Television President, Barack Obama is our first Web President!

A lot of commentary and analysis on the web I will post some of the most insightful and the best photos from this Historic Day.

The White House Blog

Tuesday, January 20th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

Change has come to WhiteHouse.gov

Welcome to the new WhiteHouse.gov. I'm Macon Phillips, the Director of New Media for the White House and one of the people who will be contributing to the blog.

A short time ago, Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States and his new administration officially came to life. One of the first changes is the White House's new website, which will serve as a place for the President and his administration to connect with the rest of the nation and the world.

Millions of Americans have powered President Obama's journey to the White House, many taking advantage of the internet to play a role in shaping our country's future. WhiteHouse.gov is just the beginning of the new administration's efforts to expand and deepen this online engagement.

Just like your new government, WhiteHouse.gov and the rest of the Administration's online programs will put citizens first. Our initial new media efforts will center around three priorities:

Communication -- Americans are eager for information about the state of the economy, national security and a host of other issues. This site will feature timely and in-depth content meant to keep everyone up-to-date and educated. Check out the briefing room, keep tabs on the blog (RSS feed) and take a moment to sign up for e-mail updates from the President and his administration so you can be sure to know about major announcements and decisions.

Transparency -- President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history, and WhiteHouse.gov will play a major role in delivering on that promise. The President's executive orders and proclamations will be published for everyone to review, and that’s just the beginning of our efforts to provide a window for all Americans into the business of the government. You can also learn about some of the senior leadership in the new administration and about the President’s policy priorities.

Participation -- President Obama started his career as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, where he saw firsthand what people can do when they come together for a common cause. Citizen participation will be a priority for the Administration, and the internet will play an important role in that. One significant addition to WhiteHouse.gov reflects a campaign promise from the President: we will publish all non-emergency legislation to the website for five days, and allow the public to review and comment before the President signs it.

We'd also like to hear from you -- what sort of things would you find valuable from WhiteHouse.gov? If you have an idea, use this form to let us know. Like the transition website and the campaign's before that, this online community will continue to be a work in progress as we develop new features and content for you. So thanks in advance for your patience and for your feedback.

Later today, we’ll put up the video and the full text of President Obama’s Inaugural Address. There will also be slideshows of the Inaugural events, the Obamas’ move into the White House, and President Obama’s first days in office.



WASHINGTON (CNN) – Could an African-American President be the one who finally ends the cultural civil war that has been roiling American politics since the 1960s: liberal versus conservative, red versus blue, Democrat versus Republican? Both Bill Clinton and George Bush set out to end it. Clinton was "new Democrat." Bush was the compassionate conservative and the uniter. Both got trapped in the culture wars and ended up leaving the country more divided than ever. Clinton and Bush were the bookend Presidents of the Baby Boom generation.

Obama is technically a Baby Boomer – he was born near the tail end of the Baby Boom. But his approach and philosophy look beyond the Baby Boomers’ experience. He wrote in "The Audacity of Hope" about his desire to move beyond "the psychodrama of the Baby Boom generation –- a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago."



Big goals, and a clear departure from the past

Posted: 12:27 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The call to unity is very much Obama’s trademark –- reaching across barriers, ending "the recriminations and worn-out dogmas." That’s what he means by changing politics in Washington. And right away, he addresses some clear departures from the Bush approach.

The choice between safety and ideals is false, he says. Without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. There's a clear acknowledgment of the global warming crisis ("the way we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.")

He's one of the few modern Presidents who has reached out to "non-believers" as well as Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus.

"The world has changed, and we must change with it." His theme of "change" carried him through the campaign. Voters saw it as change from Bush. Now he is using it to call for big policy changes, calling this "a moment that will define a generation" — very much like Kennedy in 1961.

"Remaking America" — no small ambition, starting with the literal reconstruction of our infrastructure. He has "big plans" –- and a big crisis that can help him carry them through.

But still, there's an overriding realism. His answer to the old partisan debate: "The question is not whether our government is too big or small, but whether it works." It’s the pragmatist’s answer. Does it work?

Dr King said it might take 40 years. It's been 45 years, I can wait another hour

Ronald Brisbon
Washington resident

Obama: Challenges will be met
From The Daily Scotsman;


President Barack Obama warned of "gathering clouds and raging storms" today.

But he also delivered a message of hope as he was inaugurated as the first black President of the United States.

He said: "Every so often the oath (of office) is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms".

At such times America had to remand true to our founding document", he said.

And he added: "Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real.
"They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America – they will be met."

Describing the challenges ahead, he said: "That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood.

"Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.

"Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.

"Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet."

But he said people had chosen "hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord".

President Obama said: "On this day we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."

Evoking the pioneering spirit of America, Mr Obama said that it was the "risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things" that had carried America "up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom".
He said: "Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might have a better life."

He went on: "Starting today we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of America."

The economy, he said, needed "bold and swift" action to create jobs and stimulate growth.

He also called for a need to restore "the vital trust between a people and their government".

In a bid to rebuild America's standing oversees, Mr Obama said: "To all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born, know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more."

He added that earlier generations of Americans had faced down fascism and communism "not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions".

He said: "Power alone cannot protect us."

The US would "begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan".

President Obama said his country would work to lessen the nuclear threat and "roll back the spectre of a warming planet".

As a country "shaped by every language and culture" the President vowed to "play its role in ushering a new era of peace".

Mr Obama continued: "Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends – hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism – these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history."

As such, he called for a "return to these truths".

Obama sworn in as 44th U.S. president

The Los Angeles Times

The capital is crowded with color and celebration as the nation's first black president takes office. Despite the challenges of wars and a foundering economy, he rides a wave of optimism.

By Cathleen Decker
9:06 AM PST, January 20, 2009

Reporting from Los Angeles -- Barack Hussein Obama was sworn into office as the nation's 44th president today, assuming leadership of a nation riven by war and economic despair but embracing the improbable ascension of a first-term Illinois senator as the nation's first black chief executive.

With his hand on a Bible used by Abraham Lincoln more than a century ago, Obama repeated the 35-word oath before a rapturous and massive crowd, supplemented across the country with separate, if just as boisterous, celebrations. Minutes before Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. ushered Obama into office, former Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden became the nation's new vice president with the assistance of Associate Justice John Paul Stevens.

The day unfolded with the nation invoking the familiar rituals of a peaceful change in power, although history hung in the air. On the stand as Obama took the oath were members of the Supreme Court, Congress and family and friends of the incoming leaders.

After formally becoming president, Obama was due to deliver an inaugural address that will warn Americans of difficult days ahead and call for a new spirit of bipartisan sacrifice to solve the varied problems facing the country -- themes familiar from Obama's long trek to the White House.

Obama and his wife, Michelle, and Biden and his wife, Jill, began their day by attending services at St. John's Episcopal Church, the traditional destination for an incoming president, located across Lafayette Park from the White House.

Then they traveled to the president's residence for coffee with outgoing President Bush and Vice President Cheney, along with House and Senate leaders. Bush and his wife, Laura, met the Obamas at the north portico, where they embraced and exchanged greetings. The group later caravaned to the Capitol for the swearing-in ceremony, charting a reversal of the path that Obama's inaugural parade will take as it kicks off later today.

Obama woke this morning to a city overwhelmed with revelers. Suburban parking lots for the city's subway system were filled before dawn, and masses of people thronged on foot toward entrances to the National Mall. With hours to go before the ceremony, the Mall was packed from the Capitol west to the Washington Monument, and overflow crowds spilled onto the grounds of the Lincoln Memorial as well.

Yet concerns that the crush of people would prompt security crises, massive traffic tie-ups and cellphone network implosions were largely unrealized in the early hours. The crowds were docile, if cold, and temperatures were expected to top out in the 30s.

The day ushered out the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush, who came into office vowing to unite the country and led the nation through the tumult of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, only to founder over an ill-managed war in Iraq, lengthening battles in Afghanistan and a downward-spiraling economy.

But the bracing turnover was cultural as much as political, as the nation grasped the import of November's election again: After 220 years, for the first time it was not a white man taking the oath of office. The facts of Obama's parentage -- he is the son of a Kenyan father and a white Kansas-born mother -- rippled across the inauguration platform and the assembled crowd, both more diverse than at past inaugurations.

From black Americans who had lived through the civil-rights era and who had never presumed they would see such a day as this, to Americans whose experience of discrimination is limited to history books, Obama's journey has evoked strong emotions and echoes. He took the oath of office with a view westward toward the Lincoln Memorial and its great marble likeness of the president who freed America's slaves. The steps of the very same memorial welcomed, in 1939, black contralto Marian Anderson after she was refused entrance to Constitution Hall, and in 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. for his "I Have a Dream" speech. On Sunday, at the first of the inaugural festivities, a concert at the Lincoln Memorial, Obama sat there as president-elect, his dream realized.

Before the swearing-in, Nelson and Tina Daniel stood in the shoulder-to-shoulder crowd at the foot of the Washington Monument, halfway between the Lincoln Memorial and the Capitol. The Los Angeles residents had staked out their position at 5 a.m.

"This is big history," said Nelson Daniel, a 63-year-old African American. "Once-in-a-lifetime experience. My mother and grandparents dreamed of it. I have a chance to witness it for them."

Also in the crowd was Gloria Washington-Lewis Randall, an African American from Alabama who spent 2 1/2 weeks in jail for participating in a civil-rights demonstration in 1963. Now, at 62, she watched the ceremonies via one of the giant viewing screens set up on the Mall.

"I'm totally ecstatic," she said. "You don't really notice the cold out here. It's a warmness that's coming up. Because no more will we be called black or white. We'll be called Americans."

A counterpoint to the enthusiasm greeting Obama was the grim reality facing the new administration. Obama inherits the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, anti-American sentiment around the globe and, at home, the harshest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Much of his transition was spent trying to infuse optimism that his proposals will work, while simultaneously warning Americans that recovery will take years, not months.

Obama's improbable journey began less than two years ago when, with what even he acknowledged was "a certain presumptuousness," he announced his candidacy for president in a speech in Springfield, Ill., Lincoln's adopted hometown. At the time, Obama had served only two years in the United States Senate.

Few gave him strong odds at the beginning of his quest. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the front-runner and all-but-certain nominee, but as the pre-primary polling gave way to the sentiments of actual voters, her veneer of inevitability cracked. Obama's campaign was built on soaring rhetoric and substance -- his early opposition to the Iraq war contrasted sharply with Clinton's vote for it.

Less measurable early on -- but ultimately more potent -- was his emotional reach among voters who wanted to turn a page on the divisive politics that many felt Clinton personified. On their backs, and on the backs of young voters whose eventual turnout was suspect until election day, Obama built a stunning, tech-savvy organization. His campaign appearances in the general election regularly drew numbers unseen in past campaigns -- 100,000 in St. Louis, 90,000 in Manassas, Va., 75,000 in Kansas City, Mo.

Obama upended the race with a smashing victory in the first contest, the Iowa caucuses, but Clinton came back days later to win in New Hampshire, setting up a grinding primary contest that would last until she relented in June. Like Biden, himself a candidate in 2008, Clinton would find a place in the Obama Administration hierarchy, as the designated secretary of State.

The general election saw Obama trounce Arizona Sen. John McCain, who fought against a sweeping Democratic voter registration effort but ultimately fell under the weight of the economic downturn. McCain also suffered from the election's anti-Republican cast; the party lost seats in the House and Senate, and Bush leaves office for his Texas retirement with a positive approval rating at less than three in 10 Americans.

Obama, by contrast, has strengthened his hand since election day. Several polls have placed the percentage of Americans who say they feel optimistic about his tenure at more than seven in 10, well above his 53%-46% margin over McCain.

The inaugural festivities opened Sunday with the star-studded concert at the Lincoln Memorial, where Obama invoked an optimistic yet sober approach.

"There is no doubt that our road will be long," Obama said. "That our climb will be steep. But never forget that the true character of our nation is revealed not during times of comfort and ease, but by the right we do when the moment is hard. I ask you to help me reveal that character once more."

On Monday, Obama, Biden and their families took part in several community-service events to commemorate the King holiday. Obama toured a shelter for homeless teenagers, demonstrating his technique as he took up a roller to coat a wall with "Laguna blue" paint. At his next stop, where local service groups were working on projects to benefit American troops, Obama returned to the notion that all Americans will have to pitch in to restore the nation's momentum.

"I am making a commitment to you as the next president that we are going to make government work," he said. "But . . . government can only do so much. If we're waiting for someone else to do something, it never gets done."

Obama's last night before assuming the presidency was spent at three dinners meant to reinforce his message of bipartisanship. They honored McCain; former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican who had endorsed Obama before the election; and Biden.

"We'll see you tomorrow," Obama said to huge applause.

Today dawned, and the Mall swarmed not only with security forces -- seen and unseen -- but also those who seized on the inauguration as their personal ticket out of economic malaise. T-shirts, knit caps, key chains, pencils, coffee mugs, American flags, all decorated with Obama's face, were being vigorously hawked across the district. The chaotic display competed with the formal red-white-and-blue bunting that draped the graceful old Capitol, the stately backdrop for the drama.

cathleen.decker@latimes.com

Richard Simon in Washington contributed to this article.

New President, New Limousine