President Barack Obama was left in no doubt as to the strength of ill-feeling among his most loyal supporters last night when he was openly attacked at a town hall meeting - with one woman telling him: "I’m exhausted defending you".
Staring intently at Mr Obama, Velma Hart told him she was ‘deeply disappointed’ and was losing patience waiting for him to deliver the change he promised.
In an impassioned rebuke the mother-of-two said she fears returning to the ‘hot dogs-and-beans era’ of her life because he is not helping the financially strapped middle class.
‘I'm a mother. I'm a wife. I'm an American veteran, and I'm one of your middle-class Americans. ‘And, quite frankly, "I'm exhausted", she said.
‘I'm exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now.’
Her admonishment of the president came as new poll revealed 35% of voters would prefer to have George W Bush in the White House instead of Mr Obama, in spite of his chequered record in office.
Mr Obama has faced falling popularity and rising disgruntlement as his presidency stalls amid the economic crisis and what some see as indecisive leadership.
In a series of televised town hall meetings with voters, he is attempting to reconnect with the public but during one such event in Washington, he was ambushed by the audience.
Mrs Hart, who has two teenage daughters, laid into him for failing to do enough for people like her.
‘I have two children in private school. The financial recession has taken an enormous toll on my family,’ she said.
‘My husband and I have joked for years that we thought we were well beyond the hot dogs-and-beans era of our lives. But, quite frankly, it is starting to knock on our door and ring true that that might be where we are headed again.’
Mr Obama told Mrs Hart, the chief financial officer for a war veterans group, that people like her were the ‘bedrock of America’ and they should be supported.
‘I understand your frustration,’ he said. ‘My goal is not to convince you that everything is where it ought to be. It's not.’
Mr Obama also came under attack from audience member Ted Brassfield, 30, a recent law graduate, who said the optimism of the 2008 election was ‘dying away’.
‘There aren't jobs out there right now,’ he said and asked: ‘Is the American dream dead for me?’ ‘Absolutely not,’ Mr Obama replied.
The clashes came as former US president Bill Clinton admitted that voters were angry with Mr Obama but urged them not to give up hope.
‘I would say, ‘I know a lot of people are mad, and a lot of people are tired. Apathetic. And I respect that. Because we're not yet out of the hole we've got in,’’ he said.
Referring to the forthcoming mid-term elections, in which the Democrats could lose control of Congress, he added: ‘Give us two more years. Don't go back to the policies that dug the hole…If we don't do better, you can vote against us all...Vote against us all if it's not better.’
The ABC News poll did find that 35% of voters want Mr Bush back but 52% said they would rather have Mr Obama in charge.
The president still has some way to go before he becomes unpopular as Mr Bush whose approval ratings fell as low as 23% en route to thelowest average second-term ratings in modern polling history.
Capping an epic struggle, congressional Democrats put the final touches Thursday to historic legislation enshrining health care as the right of every citizen. Republicans vowed to campaign for repeal in the fall election season, drawing a quick retort from President Barack Obama: "I welcome that fight."
The president spoke in Iowa as the Senate voted 56-43 for legislation making changes, including better benefits for seniors and low-income and middle-class families, to the bill he signed into law with a flourish at the White House on Tuesday.
The House added its approval a few hours later, 220-207, clearing the way for Obama's signature on the second of two bills that marked the culmination of what the president called "a year of debate and a century of trying" to ensure coverage for nearly all in a nation where millions lack it. Obama is expected to sign the legislation early next week.
Taken together, the two bills also aim to crack down on insurance industry abuses and to reduce federal deficits by an estimated $143 billion over a decade. Most Americans would be required to buy insurance for the first time, and face penalties if they refused.
The second of the two bills also presented Obama with another victory, stripping banks and other private lenders of their ability to originate student loans in favor of a system of direct government lending.
After a monthslong battle in Congress, the political struggle was morphing into a new phase, where public debate was tinged with violence — and politicians accused one another of seeking to exploit it for their own advantage.
Triumph for Obama
Apart from their impact on nearly every American and an estimated one-sixth of the American economy, the week's events marked Obama's biggest political triumphs since he took office more than a year ago. A pending arms control agreement with Russia, announced on Wednesday, added to his resume, and White House officials said they hoped the momentum would translate into further political successes in the run-up to the midterm elections.
More than 10 lawmakers in the House said they had received threats or worse as a consequence of the health care debate, most of them Democrats who voted in favor of the legislation. There were reports of bricks through windows, a cut propane line to a grill and numerous obscene and threatening phone calls and faxes. An undisclosed number of lawmakers were under increased police protection.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and the GOP leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, both denounced the threats and incidents of violence. But Democrats said Republicans had been too slow to respond, drawing an outraged response in return.
"By ratcheting up the rhetoric, some will only inflame these situations to dangerous levels," said Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia. "Enough is enough. It has to stop."
An aide to Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, head of the Democratic 2010 campaign effort, responded: "This is straight out of the Republicans' political playbook of deflecting responsibility and distracting attention away from a serious issue."
"Repeal and replace" was the new slogan for Republicans as they pivoted away from earlier attempts to kill the health care legislation. Officials said it was meant to appeal to tea party activists — who staged an occasionally unruly demonstration outside the Capitol over the weekend — as well as to independent voters eager for changes in the health care system but fearful the Democrats went too far.
"Republicans fought on behalf of the American people this week and will continue to fight until this bill is repealed and replaced with commonsense ideas that solve our problems without dismantling the health care system we have and without burying the American dream under a mountain of debt," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Repeal was far-fetched in the extreme since Republicans are now deep in the minority in both houses and would need a two-thirds majority to overcome a certain veto by Obama.
But Republicans circulated polls showing public backing for the overhaul at no better than 40 percent, despite months of Democratic efforts to rally support. Attacking the bill as a government takeover of health care paid for in higher taxes and Medicare cuts, they taunted House Democrats who voted for it, saying those lawmakers had cleared the way for their own defeat this fall.
Democrats said any unease was the result of months of Republican distractions — as far back as last summer's debunked charges of "death panels" — and predicted the public would warm to the new law once its first benefits take effect.
That was Obama's pitch in Iowa, where he trumpeted a "set of reforms" that will take effect before the elections.
He said small businesses would be eligible for tax credits to help them cover the cost of insurance for employees, including a $250 rebate from the government for seniors with high prescription drug costs.
"This year, insurance companies will no longer be able to drop people's coverage when they get sick, or place lifetime limits or restrictive annual limits on the amount of care they can receive," he said.
"This is the reform that some folks in Washington are still hollering about. And now that it's passed, they're already promising to repeal it. ... Well, I say go for it," he said.
Party Line Vote
Senate passage of the follow-up measure was nearly along party lines. Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska joined 39 Republicans in opposing the legislation. Republican Johnny Isakson of Georgia, who is hospitalized, did not vote.
The House vote followed the same pattern, with 32 Democrats joining 175 Republicans in opposition.
Democrats had hoped the Senate's vote would end their yearlong campaign to overhaul the health care system. But Republicans forced the deletion of two minor student loan-related provisions, and that required a revote in the House.
The day's events marked the final stages of a rescue mission that Obama and Democratic leaders mounted more than two months ago, after Republicans unexpectedly won a Massachusetts Senate seat and with it, the ability to slow final action on health care legislation.
Under a revised strategy, the House agreed to approve a Senate-passed bill despite numerous objections, on the condition that both houses would follow quickly with a fix-it measure. The one finally brought to a vote on Thursday added more than $20 billion to subsidies for lower- and middle-income individuals and families who will be required to purchase insurance and about $8 billion over a decade for states that already provide more generous than average Medicaid benefits.
The Senate vote took place with Vice President Joe Biden presiding, a symbolic gesture since his vote was not needed.
Moments before approving the legislation, the Senate paused for a moment of silence in memory of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who died last year after a career of more than 45 years in which he relentlessly pursued legislation to enact national health care.
Congratulations on the recent passage of your Health Care Reform bill.
I'm a Voter, Blogger and a former ardent supporter you lost during the Health Care Reform debate.
Before I proceed its imperative you know I do not agree with all of the provisions listed in the HC Reform bill (now law).
However since Health Care reform was so desperately needed in our country, at least your law could be considered the framework for a future system that will work well for all legal citizens.
Mr. President in your quest for Bi-Partisanship support, it appears you procrastinated too long during the Health Care Reform bill drafting process.
This procrastination hindered your administration from focusing on Jobs and Education.
Why did you allow this to occur?
When it was evident Republicans were NOT going to support HC Reform, why didn't your administration and other Dems just pass the bill anyway? After all didn't Democrats have the majority?
Why did you wait until Scott Brown won to finally take charge?
While I do agree that having Bi-Partisan support on major legislation is of vital importance, both parties must fully cooperate and/or compromise to achieve Bi-Partisan success.
Because you allowed the GOP to kill your Health Care message, even I became Angry and began attacking your administration's weakness, or what appeared to be weakness on my Blog.
Today I wish to offer my deepest apologies but I hope while your still in office you never, ever allow such complacency on important issues to occur again.
You are our President! We believed in you! We voted for you!
Effective Leaders don't second guess themselves, over analyze situations, procrastinate, they're NOT afraid to take risks and they aren't satisfied with being in second place.
Real Health Care Reform, Education Reform, Financial Reform are the CHANGEs we voted for and are still seeking.
Again I apologize but how can you win back millions of American Voters and former supporters like myself?
How can you help make us believe in the substance of your administration's agenda and efforts again?
I live in North Carolina where Public Schools are being Re-Segregated across the board. (Wake County & Charlotte-Mecklenburg, etc.,)
NC BCBS increased their rates but decreased Patient Care & Quality of Care for their members.
(NC Blue Cross, Blue Shield (North Carolina's Health Care Insurance monopoly) increased their rates again prior to the passing of your health care reform bill.)
Will your administration just sit back and allow these injustices to continue or will you as our nation's Leader take charge?
I represent average Americans and we need help!
Please no more procrastination or political games. Please.
As a current resident of Charlotte, North Carolina I've seen enough Corrupt, Slack Leadership to last a lifetime. Now I'm ready for CHANGE.
On health-care reform, the strategy of President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders is psychologically understandable -- as well as delusional.
It is easy to imagine the internal dialogue: "Well, they voted for me, overwhelmingly. I didn't hide my views on this issue; I highlighted them. If they actually knew what was in the plan, they'd support it. If I don't believe in this, I don't believe in anything. Sometimes you just have to lead." But there is a problem with this reasoning: After a year of debate, Democratic leaders -- given every communications advantage and decisive control of every elected branch of government -- have not only lost legislative momentum, they have lost a national argument. Americans have taken every opportunity -- the town hall revolt, increasingly lopsided polling, a series of upset elections culminating in Massachusetts -- to shout their second thoughts. At this point, for Democratic leaders to insist on their current approach is to insist that Americans are not only misinformed but also dimwitted.
And the proposed form of this insistence -- enacting health reform through the quick, dirty shove of the reconciliation process -- would add coercion to arrogance. Majority Leader Harry Reid has declared that "everything is on the table" -- as though Senate Republicans and Democratic moderates were the domestic equivalents of Iran. This is the political context that Democratic leaders have set for their historically "transparent" health summit -- a threat as transparent as a horse's head in a senator's bed.
Obama now approaches the Rubicon. The Senate is in disarray. Its procedures frustrate his purposes. Before crossing the river with his army, Julius Caesar is reported to have said, "Let the dice fly high!" For what stakes does Obama gamble?
First, the imposition of a House-Senate health-reform hybrid would confirm the worst modern image of the Democratic Party, that of intellectual arrogance. Parties hurt themselves most when they confirm a destructive public judgment. In this case, Americans would see Democrats pushing a high-handed statism. It is amazing how both parties, when given power, seem compelled to inhabit their own caricatures.
Second, this approach would almost certainly maintain conservative and Republican intensity through the November elections. In midterm elections, it is intensity that turns a trend into a rout. It is one thing to pour gasoline on a populist bonfire. It is another thing to pour gasoline on a populist bonfire while one is already being roasted.
Third, this action would undermine Obama's own State of the Union strategy, which seemed like a shift toward the economy and away from health-care reform. The White House finds it impossible to settle on a strategy and stick with it. Democrats keep being drawn back into debates -- Reid is now proposing the return of the "public option" -- they have lost decisively, as if one more spin of the roulette wheel will recover their losses.
Fourth, a reconciliation strategy would both insult House and Senate Republicans and motivate them for future fights. The minority would not only be defeated on health reform but its rights would be permanently diminished -- a development that would certainly be turned against Democrats when they lose their majority. Each side would have an excuse for decades of bitterness, creating a kind of political karma in which angry spirits are reincarnated again and again, to fight the same battles and suffer the same wounds.
Fifth, Obama would manage to betray many politically vulnerable members of his own party, proving himself a party leader of exceptional selfishness. Because the legacy of his presidency is at stake, or because of his pride, or because he is ideologically committed to an expanded public role in health care, Obama is pressuring Democratic members to join a suicide pact. When a president doesn't care about his party, his party eventually ceases to care about him.
Democratic leaders respond: Since we have already taken the damage for proposing health reform, we might as well get the benefit for passing something. But there is always more damage to be taken on a self-destructive political path. And, in this case, there is a respectable alternative: approve and take credit for incremental reforms while blaming Republicans for blocking broader changes.
Obama's decision on the use of reconciliation will define his presidency. If he trusts in his charmed political fortunes and lets the dice fly, it will raise the deepest questions about his judgment.
Whither the youth vote? A year after backing Barack Obama by an overwhelming 2-to-1 ratio, young adults are quickly cooling toward Democrats amid dissatisfaction over the lack of change in Washington and an escalating war in Afghanistan.
A study by the Pew Research Center, being released Wednesday, highlights the eroding support from 18-to-29 year olds whose strong turnout in November 2008 was touted by some demographers as the start of a new Democratic movement.
The findings are significant because they offer further proof that the diverse coalition of voters Obama cobbled together in 2008 – including high numbers of first-timers, minorities and youths – are not Democratic Party voters who can necessarily be counted on.
While young adults remain decidedly more liberal, the survey found the Democratic advantage among 18-to-29 year olds has substantially narrowed – from a record 62 percent identifying as Democrat vs. 30 percent for the GOP in 2008, down to 54 percent vs. 40 percent last December. It was the largest percentage point jump in those who identified or leaned Republican among all the voting age groups.
Young adults' voting enthusiasm also crumbled.
During the presidential election, turnout among 18-to-29 year olds was the highest in years, making up roughly 20 percent of the voters in many states including Virginia and New Jersey, due in part to high participation from young blacks and Hispanics.
That percentage, however, dropped by half for the gubernatorial races in those states last November where Republicans celebrated wins as black groups pushed Obama to do more to soften the economic blow from mortgage foreclosures and Latinos saw little progress on immigration reform. Young adults were also the least likely of any age group to identify themselves as regular voters.
"This is a generation of young adults who made a big splash politically in 2008," said Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center and co-author of the report. "But a year and a half later, they show signs of disillusionment with the president – and, perhaps, with politics itself."
Democrats saw evidence of this last November, when Republicans toppled Democrats from power in governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia. Young, minority and new voters who Obama pulled into the fold in 2008 didn't turn out at the same levels for the two Democratic candidates. The same thing happened in the Massachusetts Senate race last month.
The lesson: Neither party has a hold on 18-to-29 year olds. They tend to vote far less than other age groups, yet they have proven to be a powerful constituency if they are persuaded to vote. And that means the race is on by both Republicans and Democrats to make inroads into the next generation of voters.
Analysts say the findings reflect the fast pace at which young voters live their lives, and both parties should take note of their fickleness.
"If you don't respond to their needs, hopes or dreams quickly, they're gone," said Matthew Dowd, an independent political analyst who was a strategist in former President George W. Bush's 2004 re-election campaign. "They'll leave the playing field or switch their allegiance."
"They haven't become Republicans and they aren't solid Democrats. They're just looking for leaders who are where they are and will deliver," Dowd said. "Both parties have to be cognizant of the volatility of that group."
According to the Pew survey, large numbers of young adults said they personally liked the president but were dissatisfied with his rate of progress in changing Washington, such as improving the economy and fixing health care. Just 46 percent of 18-to-29 year olds said they believed Obama had changed Washington, compared to 48 percent who said he had not. Only baby boomers were more cynical, with 52 percent saying Obama had not changed the way things work in Washington.
The young adults also were the only age group in which more disapproved than approved of Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan. Only 34 percent supported his decision in December to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to the region, while 50 percent disapproved.
Still, when asked why Obama hadn't done more to bring change, young adults were somewhat forgiving, with about 56 percent blaming the president's opponents and special interests; only 30 percent said Obama was the one at fault for not trying hard enough.
The findings are part of Pew's broad portrait of the so-called millennial generation, the children of baby boomers who came of age in the new millennium. Demographers believe this generation can reshape U.S. culture and politics because of their demographic size and political outlook.
Making up nearly one-fourth of U.S. voters, 18-to-29 year olds are less religious, more racially diverse and liberal on social issues such as gay rights. They are steeped in digital technology and social media, and are strong believers in the view that the government should do more to solve problems.
For example:
_Nearly two-thirds admit to texting while driving, and more than 8 in 10 sleep with their cell phones by their bed.
_Nearly 4 in 10 have at least one tattoo; about half of those people have two to five tattoos. Roughly 1 in 4 have a body piercing in a place other than an earlobe – six times the share of older adults.
_About 37 percent of young adults are unemployed or out of the workforce, the highest share among this age group in more than three decades. A record share – 39.6 percent – was enrolled in college, and one in 8 millennials ages 22 and older say they had "boomeranged" back into their parents' home because of the recession.
The Pew Survey is based on interviews with 2,020 adults by cell phone or landline from Jan. 14 to 27. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for all respondents, higher for subgroups.
"They’re not Independents, they’re not fake, they’re not all nuts."
Has anyone notice that as the Tea Party Movement gains momentum, it is igniting a grassroots political fire akin to than Senator Barack Obama's "CHANGE"/ "Yes We Can" movement which took root during his 2008 Presidential campaign?
Ironic isn't it?
Tea Party Protesters borrowed Pres. Obama's "CHANGE" movement theme and flipped it to run him out of office.
Those Tea Party protesters are angry for a reason.
Its not Racism or Foolishness!
Those people are hurting and afraid.
While Pres. Obama's"Chicago Politics" team sat back celebrating his victory for an entire year, millions of people lost their homes and jobs.
It doesn't matter what he inherited! (Everyone is sick of that tired "Bush blame game" anyway.)
As of January 20, 2009 he became America's 44Th President and the Economy was placed in his hands.
However instead of helping the little guys first or even a little bit during this terrible Recession, Pres. Obama propped up Wall Street, passed a half-ass Stimulus Package and allowed Governors to use Stimulus Funds to lie about Job Growth.
Instead of creating Jobs most Governors used Stimulus Funds to help balance state Budget Deficits.
For example in North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue (Dem) used $8.1 Billion in Stimulus Funds to balance a $4 Billion Budget Deficit which was created by NC Democrat Lawmakers who previously wasted or foolishly spent Federal money.
They lied about the number of jobs lost and the number of jobs actually saved.
Health Care....
As it relates to Health Care Legislation the bill was a complete failure because Democrats tried to secretly slip Omnibus legislation loaded with goodies for Health Care companies through congress.
What did this secret legislation include: High Taxes, Mandates, No Portability and No Reform!
It also included allowing Health Care companies to keep their Anti-Trust exemption status and to continue Price Fixing.
Pres. Obama's Admin did nothing to address America's Failing, Segregated Public Schools nor help College Students, especially Low Income & Middle Class Students pay for college.
He also did nothing to address Employment Discrimination but sign the Lilly Ledbetter bill into law.
A law that will protect White Women in the Workplace while hundreds of thousands of African-Americans continue to be fired first and hired last, if hired at all.
Pres. Obama promised to help Small Businesses however thousands of Small Businesses closed in 2009 due to lost capital because Big Banks refused to lend or expand credit.
He claims his administration stopped banks from receiving kickbacks for Student Loans, NOT true!
Companies like Discover, Wells Fargo, BOFA, etc. are still handling Student Loans and charging high interest rates.
In addition many Private Colleges are receiving kickbacks or secret deals from those companies for referring Students to them.
Pres. Obama's Admin did almost nothing to help Homeowners except put together his ineffective, poorly managed HAMP program (Foreclosure Prevention).
The result? Millions of people lost their homes in 2009.
He did nothing to address state-to-state Unfair Taxation which hurts millions of citizens. Especially citizens who live in North Carolina.
Now he wants to give Stimulus Funds to Mayors so that Mayors can lie about Job Growth like Governors did in 2009.
In essence Pres. Obama is cultivating, encouraging "Chicago Politics" Corruption to fester and take over our entire nation.
You see in Chicago Wealthy citizens reign by stepping on the Middle Class and Low Income, keeping them immobilized with Corruption.
Obama promised "CHANGE" yet Wall Street Bankers experienced their most profitable year in 2009.
He promised "HOPE" but instead turned our nation into a Socratic Think Tank.
In other words Barack Obama is the Professor and regular Voters are the Students.
Now he wants to tamper with the U.S. Military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy (to win back Gay Voters) while Pentagon officials are focused on fighting two Wars and play political games with a Terrorist (Umar Mutallab).
In 2008 I too was fooled but now I've seen the light.
Barack Obama cares about nothing more than his Political Career.
Nothing else matters!
This is why Tea Party participants are angry and afraid.
This is why the Democrats are going to lose big time in 2010 during Mid-term elections.
This is why despite biased, partisan reporting from MSNBC or CNN, etc., Republican Candidates will most likely win back the White House in 2012.
They are being viewed as the party in Congress who listens to average Voters versus being Arrogant or Tone Deaf like Democrats.
As for Barack Obama's legacy, he will be known as the President who allowed his slick "Chicago Politics" Mentality and Arrogant "Chicago Politics" White House team to destroy the Democratic Party.
Just think the same people Pres. Barack Obama looked down upon (Conservatives, Uneducated, Middle Class, Low Income, Senior Citizens) will be the same people voting him out of office.
One year ago, the first Tea Party Protest hadn't even been held yet and the phrase remained safely ensconced in American history textbooks. This weekend, the first national Tea Party Convention will be held in Nashville, and the fractious movement has secured a place in the history of the Obama administration. But for all the attention it has earned, misconceptions abound. Here are the top five:
1.) Tea Partiers = Independents:
Independents are the largest and fastest-growing voter segment—a new CNN poll puts independents at 42 percent of the American electorate. Given the Tea Partiers' anger at overspending under Bush as well as Obama, it's been tempting to equate them with independent voters—but there are fundamental differences. Polls of independents' policy positions consistently place them in between Republicans and Democrats—closer to the GOP on economic issues and closer to the Democrats on social issues.
But the Tea Partiers tend to be to the right of the Republican Party on both fiscal and social issues. Their opposition to the Obama administration is overheated and absolute. Independents are angry at the polarization of the two parties; Tea Partiers want more polarization between the two parties. Independents tend to be centrists; Tea Partiers attack centrist Republicans as Republicans in Name Only, or RINOs. Tea Partiers are conservative populists.
2.) Tea Partiers Are All Wingnuts:
The guys with the Obama-as-Hitler signs get all the attention, for obvious reasons, but the reality is that the Tea Parties began as a fiscal conservative protest in response to the $787 billion stimulus amid bailout backlash. Their ranks are full of folks who've never attended a protest before, small businesses owners who were angry at the way they were struggling to pay their bills while big business and big government could rack up debts and pass the buck onto taxpayers in backroom deals.
There is common-sense anger at unsustainable deficits that are seen as generational theft. Reagan's rhetoric won Americans' hearts and minds when it came to Keynesian spending. Unified Democratic control of Congress and the White House also provokes in many a distrust that is consistent with a Madisonian desire for checks and balances. Extremists are always ultimately their own side's worst enemy, and I've seen plenty of people with ugly cases of Obama Derangement Syndrome at Tea Party protests. But it is by no means the whole crowd.
3.) Tea Partiers Are "Astroturf":
On Tax Day 2009, Tea Party protests were held in 346 towns and cities, drawing an estimated 300,000 people, according to the dependable fivethirtyeight.com. At the time, liberal columnists joined with Nancy Pelosi in trying to downplay the events, dismissing them as artificial "astroturf" protests rather than a genuine grassroots movement. True, groups like Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks helped fund organizational costs while Fox News helped make the protests a national conservative happening by airing more than 100 commercial promotions for the protests in the ten days before Tax Day.
But these were the equivalent of conservative public service announcements. For all the "astroturf" asides, the crowds were homegrown. They may have been pumped up by partisan interests, but they were not purchased. There is real grassroots anger going on, based in deep policy debates over the proper role of government as well as shallow partisan politics.
4.) Tea Partiers Are All Libertarians:
This is the opening pitch to any young Tea Party attendee, a revealing attempt at finding common ground. The libertarian label accounts for the anger at overspending under the Bush administration and gives the movement a modern-sounding spin, recasting the Obama opposition into a clear-cut fight between individualism and collectivism. By contrast, social conservatism has an ideologically inconvenient collectivist streak embedded in it, particularly an intrusion of the government into questions of sexual and reproductive freedom.
Past icons, like libertarian Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, couldn't have passed the party purity measures pushed by some conservatives. And current Tea Party icons like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh enforce the social and fiscal conservative straightjacket—they embrace the idea that there are no enemies on the right and RINOs on the left. Accordingly, they are hugely popular with conservatives but kryptonite to independents and centrists. Libertarians are given plenty of lip service, but they are not trusted with leadership roles in the conservative populist movement to date.
5.) Tea Partiers Will Take Over the GOP:
Rep. Michele Bachmann has said she wants the Tea Partiers to take over the GOP. Sarah Palin's hopes are more modest—a "merger" of the two forces. There's no question that conservatives are trying to surf the Tea Party wave into increased influence while also trying to purge RINOs from the GOP. But if you take a close look at what's happening in key campaigns, a different story emerges. The greatest symbol of the Republican resurgence to date is the election of Scott Brown to succeed Ted Kennedy in the Senate.
The full 2010 trifecta would include taking Obama and Biden's Senate seats—and the once-implausible scenario now seems increasingly likely because of the centrist GOP nominees running. Illinois' Mark Kirk and Delaware's Mike Castle have been targeted as RINOs by grassroots conservative groups because they describe themselves as social moderates. Like Scott Brown, they are pro-choice. Like Brown, they are also fiscal conservatives and national security hawks. The secret behind the GOP's improved electoral chances is in fielding centrist candidates who can win over independent voters.
John Avlon's new book Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America is available now by Beast Books both on the web and in paperback. Advance orders can be placed here. He is also the author of Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics. Previously, he served as chief speechwriter for New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and was a columnist and associate editor for The New York Sun.
Moderate Democrats, coping with the electoral fallout of President Barack Obama’s grand and ground-down legislative ambitions, have a message for their leaders: Stop supersizing us.
If the first year of Obama’s term was dominated by the so-called Big Bang push for enormous, politically risky initiatives — the stimulus, cap and trade and health care — Year Two is fast shaping up to be year of small ball, retrenchment and backlash.
“I’ve always maintained that I thought that they were doing too much, too fast,” said Rep. Mike McMahon (D-N.Y.), an endangered freshman who represents a Staten Island district long occupied by Republicans.
“Without question, the biggest complaint I’m hearing from constituents is that there were too many things being tackled all at once, and they didn’t have time to understand and digest all of them,” he added.
The Big Bang, made famous by Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is giving way to a wary brand of incrementalism. It’s not the small-bore, Clintonian agenda of V-chips and school uniforms but an admission that expectations are diminished — not dashed — and a determination to attack the same huge problems in smaller, smarter ways.
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) believes Obama still has time to adjust, but he says he’s put moderate Democrats “in great jeopardy” because he hasn’t been able to match his aspirations with the same levels of toughness and legislative know-how possessed by Hill veterans like Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
“They were foolish to take all those big votes on cap and trade and the stimulus,” said Lott, now a lobbyist. “One of the lessons that Obama has not learned is that you can’t feed Congress too much at any one time — you can’t feed it more than they can consume, or it becomes engorged.”
The downsizing impulse has seized Democrats at all levels — with the possible exception of the president himself — but it’s strongest among those closest to the ground: endangered Democratic incumbents in conservative districts. Ironically, Emanuel himself recruited many of these members when he was head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Obama has reshuffled his political operation, emphasized his centrism and vowed to focus on jobs and the economy. But he has also refused to abandon his big-ticket aspirations, urging Democrats not to run for the hills and telling his party’s senators to steel themselves by ignoring the blogs and the cable-TV talking heads.
And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) argues that the bigger-is-better strategy wasn’t a choice — that the magnitude of the financial crisis dictated the size of the stimulus and that the complexity of health care reform required a massive bill with many interlocking pieces.
“Many of the things that work when you are doing comprehensive health care reform go hand in glove; you have to have them together,” she said. “All of these things are a heavy lift.”
Yet in the weeks between Scott Brown’s Senate victory in Massachusetts and his Thursday swearing-in, Hill moderates have been busily shrinking Obama’s agenda, chopping it up into politically digestible, palatable pieces.
A few weeks ago, the White House seemed on the cusp of finally passing comprehensive health care reform through both houses. But by Thursday, Pelosi was speaking with pride about the House’s intention of revoking the insurance industry’s antitrust exemption. That attempt, like almost every other House initiative, seems destined to die in the Senate.
She charted a similar course for a massive jobs bill — the centerpiece of this year’s legislative agenda, saying she was open to an approach that dices the measure into bite-size bills.
Pelosi’s determination to protect her incumbents is a welcome development for moderates, who blame the wholesale defection of the white independents from the party on Pelosi and other liberals.
Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln, a moderate facing a 27 percent home-state approval rating in an election year, took that argument directly to Obama during the Democratic Senate retreat Wednesday, urging the president to challenge the party’s “extremes.”
“Are we willing as Democrats to push back on our own party?” she asked.
“If the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression ... the result is going to be the same,” Obama shot back.
“I don’t know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policy that got us into this fix in the first place.”
That answer rankled many of the Democrats who witnessed the exchange in the Newseum, drawing only moderate applause from a group that greeted him as a rock star a year earlier.
“It was a bit too much,” said one Democratic staffer in attendance. “But we can’t really challenge him publicly too much because we need to get his [approval] numbers up before we can get everybody else’s numbers up.”
Yet for all the frustration of Lincoln and other Senate Democrats, it’s less than that expressed by many House Democrats, who have been forced to take tough votes against the unified opposition of Republicans.
California Rep. Dennis Cardoza, one of the founders of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, says he’s been counseling a slowdown approach for months, to no avail, in conversations with administration officials, including Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag.
“I don’t think the [Big Bang] strategy was very useful,” said Cardoza. “I told him I thought this schizophrenic thing — it’s like a child with [attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder], every day a new initiative, a new announcement,” Cardoza told POLITICO.
“Everyone was talking about spending capital — now I think we wish we had some of that capital back. You build confidence by passing legislation that people understand and work that way. I still believe in the president, but you can’t be everything to all folks.”
Superintendent Peter Gorman is preparing three scenarios for the 2010-11 budget, ranging from no change to this year's $1 billion-plus bottom line to a 5 percent cut.
The worst-case scenario will require planning for layoffs, officials and a consultant said at a budget meeting Monday. Cutting 5 percent would mean eliminating $31 million to $33 million, Chief Financial Officer Sheila Shirley said.
"The only place to find real money is with people," school board member Joe White said. "That's sad and that's unfortunate."
Gorman said the layoff planning will follow roughly the same timetable as last year, when he got the board's OK for teacher layoffs in March and teachers got pink slips in late May. Some other CMS employees got layoff notices as early as March 2009. When the state approved a tax hike during the summer,increasing its share of school funding, CMS rehired some of laid-off staff.
Jonathan Travers, a consultant with the nonprofit Education Resource Strategies, told the board they'll have to make tough choices: Are they willing to increase class sizes slightly to shift money to coaching, training and other programs that make teachers more effective? If they have to choose between spending for "core courses" such as math and English or paying higher per-pupil costs for optional classes, where will they cut?
"In a perfect world, we would like all of those things," Travers said. But because so much of CMS's budget is tied up in teacher salaries, he urged the district to begin planning for layoffs that are based on effectiveness rather than seniority, and that give schools some flexibility.
Simply cutting the newest hires isn't best for students, Travers said, and because new teachers are paid less, "you have to cut more of them to save the same dollar amount."
Board member Richard McElrath said he wouldn't support cutting vocational/career classes, which were identified as some of the most expensive, because most students don't go on to four-year college degrees. They need practical skills to earn a living, he said.
At Monday's meeting, board members got cost information about magnet programs, middle school sports, changes to busing and merging services with other local governments.
Specific proposals for cuts haven't come out yet. Board members will consult with Gorman as he prepares a budget plan to present March 9.
After board members work through that plan, they take a request to county commissioners, who provide about one-third of CMS's budget.
Information about state spending, which covers about 60 percent, usually comes even later. Gov. Bev Perdue asked the state Department of Public Instruction to prepare budget plans ranging from a 3 percent increase to a 7 percent cut, but Gorman said Monday he decided to focus on the scenarios in the middle of that range.
Among the cost items presented at board members' request:
Extra staff and supplies for magnet schools cost CMS $3.8 million a year. Gorman said after the meeting it would not be practical to cut magnets for 2010-11 because CMS is already taking magnet applications.
The district spends an average of $1,542 per student to bus kids to magnet schools, compared with an average of $413 per student for neighborhood-school busing.
Middle school sports will cost almost $1.4 million next year. During 2009 budget talks, Gorman mentioned eliminating middle school sports but board members rejected that.
To keep up with CMS, go to www.cms.k12.nc.us and click "Budget information" in the red box at the left of the page.
Americans are still looking for the answer, and if they don’t get it soon — or if they don’t like the answer — the president’s current political problems will look like a walk in the park.
Mr. Obama may be personally very appealing, but he has positioned himself all over the political map: the anti-Iraq war candidate who escalated the war in Afghanistan; the opponent of health insurance mandates who made a mandate to buy insurance the centerpiece of his plan; the president who stocked his administration with Wall Street insiders and went to the mat for the banks and big corporations, but who is now trying to present himself as a born-again populist.
Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won’t be able to close it.
Mr. Obama’s campaign mantra was “change” and most of his supporters took that to mean that he would change the way business was done in Washington and that he would reverse the disastrous economic policies that favored mega-corporations and the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor.
“Tonight, more Americans are out of work, and more are working harder for less,” said Mr. Obama in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008. “More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can’t afford to drive, credit card bills you can’t afford to pay, and tuition that’s beyond your reach.”
Voters watching the straight-arrow candidate delivering that speech, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Depression, would not logically have thought that an obsessive focus on health insurance would trump job creation as the top domestic priority of an Obama administration.
But that’s what happened. Moreover, questions were raised about Mr. Obama’s candor when he spoke about health care. In his acceptance speech, for example, candidate Obama took a verbal shot at John McCain, sharply criticizing him for offering “a health care plan that would actually tax people’s benefits.”
Now Mr. Obama favors a plan that would tax at least some people’s benefits. Mr. Obama also repeatedly said that policyholders who were pleased with their plans and happy with their doctors would be able to keep both under his reform proposals.
Well, that wasn’t necessarily so, as the president eventually acknowledged. There would undoubtedly be changes in some people’s coverage as a result of “reform,” and some of those changes would be substantial. At a forum sponsored by ABC News last summer, Mr. Obama backed off of his frequent promise that no changes would occur, saying only that “if you are happy with your plan, and if you are happy with your doctor, we don’t want you to have to change.”
These less-than-candid instances are emblematic of much bigger problems. Mr. Obama promised during the campaign that he would be a different kind of president, one who would preside over a more open, more high-minded administration that would be far more in touch with the economic needs of ordinary working Americans. But no sooner was he elected than he put together an economic team that would protect, above all, the interests of Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the health insurance companies, and so on.
How can you look out for the interests of working people with Tim Geithner whispering in one ear and Larry Summers in the other?
Now with his poll numbers down and the Democrats’ filibuster-proof margin in the Senate about to vanish, Mr. Obama is trying again to position himself as a champion of the middle class. Suddenly, with the public appalled at the scandalous way the health care legislation was put together, and with Democrats facing a possible debacle in the fall, Mr. Obama is back in campaign mode. Every other utterance is about “fighting” for the middle class, “fighting” for jobs, “fighting” against the big bad banks.
The president who has been aloof and remote and a pushover for the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, who has been locked in the troubling embrace of the Geithners and Summers and Ben Bernankes of the world, all of a sudden is a man of the people. But even as he is promising to fight for jobs, a very expensive proposition, he’s proposing a spending freeze that can only hurt job-creating efforts.
Mr. Obama will deliver his State of the Union address Wednesday night. The word is that he will offer some small bore assistance to the middle class. But more important than the content of this speech will be whether the president really means what he says. Americans want to know what he stands for, where his line in the sand is, what he’ll really fight for, and where he wants to lead this nation.
African-Americans are extremely supportive of President Obama, but their enthusiasm appears to have dramatically dropped from earlier this year, according to a new national poll.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, released Tuesday, also indicates that Obama's presidency appears to have made blacks more optimistic about race relations, but less than one in five believe the new president has ushered in a new era of race relations in the country.
More than nine in 10 blacks questioned in the poll approve of the job Obama's doing in the White House, far higher than 42 percent of whites who approve of his performance as president.
But when asked how they personally feel about Obama's presidency, only 42 percent of black respondents say they're thrilled, with nearly half of those questioned saying they are happy but not thrilled.
The 42 percent who are thrilled is down from 61 percent in January, when Obama was inaugurated.
"African-Americans are still big fans of the first black president in U.S. history, but the thrill is gone," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
According to the poll, 51 percent of African-Americans say Obama's presidency has brought some improvement in race relations in the U.S., but only 18 percent feel it's the start of a new era. Another 23 percent say they've seen a real change in race relations over the past 11 months and 7 percent say things have gotten worse.
The survey indicates that three-quarters of blacks believe race relations will improve eventually, which is up from 49 percent of blacks who felt that way a year before Obama was elected.
"Whites take a dimmer view of Obama's effect on race relations, with a third believing that the new presidency has not changed race relations in the country and 15 percent of whites saying that Obama has made race relations worse," Holland added. "Not surprisingly, whites are less supportive of Obama, although for a notable number of whites, their negative view of the president is due to the perception that he's not been liberal enough."
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted December 16-20, with 1,160 adult Americans, including 259 African-Americans and 786 whites, questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points and plus or minus 6 percentage points for the African-Americans sample.
During the campaign, Pres. Barack Obama invoked the words of Martin Luther King Jr. in calling for transformational change. "I am running because of what Dr. King called 'the fierce urgency of now,' " Obama said in South Carolina on Nov. 3, 2007. "I am running because I do believe there's such a thing as being too late. And that hour is almost here."
During his first five months as president, Obama has demonstrated how seriously he takes this commitment. Brushing aside criticism from Washington veterans that he is overloading the capital's political circuits, he is alarming both allies and adversaries with his push for change, the faster, the better.
His critics have a point. His challenge to the status quo may be causing too many powerful forces to line up against him, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, members of the medical establishment, the conservative power structure in Washington, and Rush Limbaugh and his cohorts in the punditocracy of the right. If Obama fails to overcome them, his credibility could be shattered, and his dreams of change could evaporate.
Obama has three main goals for 2009. He is pushing for an overhaul of the healthcare system, for passage of a far-reaching energy bill, and for a new regulatory structure for the financial industry. All will require congressional action. Tackling any one of those issues would be a huge undertaking. Tackling all three at once is herculean.
His first priority is fixing healthcare. "We can't not do healthcare reform, because healthcare costs are breaking families, businesses, and the federal government," says White House counselor David Axelrod. "So if we don't do significant healthcare reform, we're on a catastrophic course. What that means is that we have to put a lot of effort into not just expanding coverage but in reducing the costs of healthcare, taking out the sort of redundancies and waste and inside trading and so on that have contributed to this untenable inflation in healthcare costs for two decades."
At a town-hall meeting in Green Bay, Wis., June 11, Obama said the healthcare system costs so much and excludes so many that it has become a crisis. "We have reached a point where doing nothing about the cost of healthcare is no longer an option," Obama said. Obama is pushing Congress to pass healthcare legislation by late summer or early fall.
This week, the president added another initiative to the fast track: revamping the financial-services industry. Excesses in that sector are widely blamed for contributing to the financial meltdown of the past year, and Obama and his aides argue that, again, they have had no choice but to move quickly to mend the system. Among his proposals are authorizing the Federal Reserve to supervise "nonbank" financial institutions, setting up a "Council of Regulators" to coordinate the activities of a dozen separate regulatory agencies, and creating a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to shield everyday people from abuses. Obama hopes Congress will approve the massive regulatory bill by year's end.
In addition, Obama aims to win passage for energy and climate-change legislation this year, designed to move America away from overreliance on foreign oil and to encourage the use of alternative energy sources such as solar and wind power. These have been the policy goals of administrations going back to Jimmy Carter in the 1970s, but no one has found a way to persuade Congress to make the required alterations in Americans' lifestyles. It's unclear whether Obama will do much better, but he is intent on trying.
And don't forget Obama's goal of winning Senate confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor by early autumn, which will absorb much of the Senate's time when hearings start in July.
Of course, all of his domestic plans could be superseded by threats from abroad. That became clear this week when protests and riots dominated the headlines from Iran in the wake of that nation's disputed presidential election. And every recent president has had to deal with tensions between Israel and the Palestinians, the rogue regime in North Korea, and, of course, international terrorism.
Obama advisers see a central irony. "One reason there is so much urgency is that Washington has put off decisions on these issues for decades" during which the problems have been allowed to fester, says White House spokesman Josh Earnest. Now the bills are coming due. And Obama has staked his presidency on his belief that Americans will agree that there can be no more procrastination.
Sources: US News & World Report, Whitehouse.gov, Flickr
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
