People often ask me what advice I would give the White House about various things. Today I was mulling over election results from New York and Nevada while thinking about that very question. What should the White House do now? One word came to mind: Panic.
We are far past sending out talking points. Do not attempt to dumb it down. We cannot stand any more explanations. Have you talked to any Democratic senators lately? I have. It's pretty damn clear they are not happy campers.
This is what I would say to President Barack Obama: The time has come to demand a plan of action that requires a complete change from the direction you are headed.
I don't know how else to break this down. Simply put:
1.) Fire somebody. No -- fire a lot of people. This may be news to you but this is not going well. For precedent, see Russian Army 64th division at Stalingrad. There were enough deaths at Stalingrad to make the entire tea party collectively orgasm.
Mr. President, your hinge of fate must turn. Bill Clinton fired many people in 1994 and took a lot of heat for it. Reagan fired most of his campaign staff in 1980. Republicans historically fired their own speaker, Newt Gingrich. Bush fired Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. For God's sake, why are we still looking at the same political and economic advisers that got us into this mess? It's not working.
Furthermore, it's not going to work with the same team, the same strategy and the same excuses. I know economic analysts are smart -- some work 17-hour days. It's time to show them the exit. Wake up -- show us you are doing something.
2.) Indict people. There are certain people in American finance who haven't been held responsible for utterly ruining the economic fabric of our country. Demand from the attorney general a clear status of the state of investigation concerning these extraordinary injustices imposed upon the American people. I know Attorney General Eric Holder is a close friend of yours, but if his explanations aren't good, fire him too. Demand answers to why no one has been indicted.
Mr. President, people are livid. Tell people that you, too, are angry and sickened by the irresponsible actions on Wall Street that caused so much suffering. Do not accept excuses. Demand action now.
3.) Make a case like a Democrat. While we are going along with the Republican austerity garbage, who is making the case against it? It's not the Democrats!
We are allowing the over-educated, over-explanatory bureaucrat by the name of (Congresssional Budget Office director Douglas) Elmendorf do all the talking. Do not let him make your case. Let us make your case. Is it any wonder that we were doing better in the middle of the stimulus-spending period than we are doing with the austerity program?
4.) Hold fast to an explanation. Stick to your rationale for what has happened and what is going to happen under your leadership. You must carry this through until the election (never say that things are improving because evidently they are not).
As I watch the Republican debates, I realize that we are on the brink of a crazy person running our nation. I sit in front of the television and shudder at the thought of one of these creationism-loving, global-warming-denying, immigration-bashing, Social-Security-cutting, clean-air-hating, mortality-fascinated, Wall-Street-protecting Republicans running my country.
The course we are on is not working. The hour is late, and the need is great. Fire. Indict. Fight.
With these sorts of gains with white voters old and young, high unemployment, and continued Republican obstructionism designed to prevent President Obama from enacting policy that would surely boost his image, there are growing concerns about his chances of re-election.
And naturally, conspiracies abound as to why Obama is losing support among white voters. Leah Christian, a senior researcher at the Pew Center told Reuters that researchers had not detected evidence that Obama's race had anything to do with Republicans picking up more support among white voters.
It's unrealistic to believe that the bulk of white voters have magically shifted their party affiliation over President Obama's long known racial identity. That belief is as insulting to white voters collectively as it is to all of our better senses. That sort of surface level thinking deviates from what is a truth for voters black, white, and Oscar the Grouch green: President Obama has disappointed a lot of people.
I know, I know: I read his lengthy list of first year accomplishments. I'm well aware of the fact that even when he did have a Democratic majority in Congress, there were a couple of useless Blue Dog Democrats impeding domestic policies more advantageous to the country. At the same time, though, I also know there is a stark contrast between the ways Obama campaigned and the way he governs.
President Obama is a savvy legislator, pragmatic in thought and typically eager to utter the word "compromise" -- perhaps sometimes too much. While the reality may be that compromise is a necessary evil, it tends to sometimes make Obama appear as a weak negotiator because he does so quite often. Or a Paul Krugman recently referred to him as,
His perception problem combined with a 9.2 percent unemployment rate have bred frustration and apathy among voters, hence President Obama's approval rating floundering at 43 percent for the week of July 18-24, tying the lowest weekly average of his administration.
Fortunately, Obama has begun to become more forceful in his rhetoric and negotiation techniques. He will need to continue this for 2012 because his fate won't rest on race but the economy, stupid -- and how the public feels he responded to it.
As The 2012 Elections Approach Us, Once Again Pres. Obama Looks To His "Chicago Political Machine" For Another Victorious Ride.
Here's Why This Strategy May Or May NOT Work This Time..
Upon Pres. Obama's Election In 2008 He Felt Obligated To Bring Along Most Of The Members From His "Chicago Political Machine" To Help Govern In The White House.
What Was Wrong With This Plan?
Chicago Style Politics Don't Work Well On Capitol Hill.
For Example: Valerie Jarrett Was NOT The Right Person To Work With Business Leaders From D.C. & Wall Street.
Why?
Did Pres. Obama Really Think A Black Woman From Chicago Would Be Totally Respected & Accepted By White, Extremely Wealthy CEO's From Wall Street & The American Business Community?
NO!!!!
Please Don't Get It Twisted.
As A Black Woman I'm All For Diversity But Come On Pres. Obama!
Although Valerie Jarrett Is Well-Educated, It Doesn't Mean She Was The Right Individual For That Particular Position.
You See Diversity On Such A High Level Takes Time.
Such A Bold Move Has To Be Made Gradually NOT Forced In The Faces Of Wall Street CEOs!
Especially NOT New Yorkers!
Dealing With New Yorkers Vs. Mid-Westerners Is Like Oil & Water!
In Addition I Don't Think Ms. Jarrett Cared Two Cents About Middle Class & Lower Income Blacks & Hispanics Constituents.
Just As Most Chicago Politicians Don't Give A Darn About Middle Class & Lower Income Blacks & Hispanics Voters There Either.
Another Example Is Bill Daley.
Daley Was NOT The Right Person To Become Obama's NEW Chief Of Staff.
Why?
The Daley Family's Relationship With Blacks & Hispanics In Chicago Has NOT Been A Successful One. NOT EVER!
Including How Poorly Old Man Daley Treated Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Years Ago.
Thus After Hiring Bill Daley Obama Lost Respect From Many Black Voters.
Black Voters Are NOT Stupid!
We Still Support Pres. Obama But We Do NOT Respect Bill Daley Because We Remember How The Daley Family Has Treated Blacks In Chicago For Decades.
Newly Elected Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel Appeared To Be Effective In His Former Role As White House Chief Of Staff.
But Rahm's Harsh Language (Profanity) & Bull Dozer Personality Wasn't Well Received By Many Congressional Members Who Were STILL Experiencing Culture Shock By The Election Of A BLACK President!
There's Nothing Wrong With Being Tough, Especially When Dealing With Some Of Those Hard-Nosed, Racist GOP Leaders On Capitol Hill.
However There Is A Time To Be Tough & A Time To Just Out Think Your Opponents Via Practicing Reverse Psychology.
To Avoid Appearing Like A Weak Coward Among One's Peers, Actually A Combination Of Both People Skill Sets Are Preferable.
I Now Firmly Believe That Had Pres. Obama NOT Placed So Much Trust In His Chicago Buddies & NOT Hired So Many Of His Chicago Buddies To Become Senior Advisers, His Presidency Would Have Been Much More Successful.
So Going Forward It May Be Alright For Pres. Obama To Seek Advice From His "Chicago Political Machine" For Re-Election, However AFTER Being Re-elected He Should NOT Hire Those Same People To Help Him Govern.
President Barack Obama's relationship with his hometown may be best described as a long-distance love affair. He lavishes attention on it from afar and proud Chicago pines for its hometown hero, though the two rarely see each other.
That looks like it's about to change.
Obama is returning to his roots as he embarks on his re-election race for 2012. He's setting up his campaign headquarters in a downtown high-rise near Grant Park, the site of his victory celebration on election night in November 2008.
He's coming back Thursday to raise money, a week after launching his second White House bid with an understated email and online video.
The president is putting Chicago in the spotlight again as he tries to recreate the grass-roots, start-up flavor of his first campaign and do what no incumbent president has done in decades: try to win re-election from a location outside Washington.
A Chicago base also could reinforce a connection to a city that aides say keeps Obama grounded while he lives in the nation's capital.
"Nobody is more eager to be out and nobody is more eager to be here than him," said David Axelrod, Obama's chief political strategist who left the White House this year to return to Chicago to work on the re-election and be closer to his Chicago-based family. "The conversation in Washington is completely different than the conversation you hear out here."
Obama's advisers hope a Chicago location could insulate his campaign from some of the Washington chatter and news leaks that often plague campaigns. A beyond-the-Beltway headquarters could allow them to offset the notion that Obama, who campaigned as an outsider above the partisan fray and promised a new approach to politics, has become the ultimate political insider.
"Basing it in Chicago says, 'I'm not of Washington,' but if he doesn't spend time in Chicago, he is of Washington," said Paul Light, a public service professor at New York University.
Obama's relationship with his town has evolved over the years.
He was a community organizer, worked on a major voter drive and practiced law in his early days in the city. When he entered politics, he focused on the state capital of Springfield, and cast himself as above the brass-knuckled nature of Chicago politics, whose history is pockmarked with corruption and scandal.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama was a fixture in Chicago when he wasn't crisscrossing the country for votes. He took his wife, Michelle, around town to dinner at some of the city's best restaurants. He hung out with his daughters. He worked out at the gym. He played basketball with his buddies. He attended meetings at his campaign office, all under the watchful eye of reporters and Secret Service agents. His family, friends and neighbors talked openly about the candidate and his lifestyle.
As president, Obama has made only about a half a dozen visits to Chicago, often to raise money for candidates. He's made only a few overnight trips to his South Side house.
His neighbors don't seem to hold it against him.
"He's got a whole world to deal with," says Hosea McKay, a 73-year-old retired substance abuse counselor, who lives several blocks away. "Chicago . we can't be so egotistical that we think he's supposed to pop in every three or four months and hang out with us."
The area around Obama's house looks much like it did during the last campaign when extra security measures were added. Even when Obama isn't there, guards and barriers – both metal and concrete – restrict access to his street. His house can be seen through some trees from a nearby busy thoroughfare.
But the neighborhood has changed somewhat since the Obamas left. They're getting new neighbors because the home next door to theirs was sold last year.
While sharing a neighborhood with the president has its share of hassles, Prince Ella Murphy, who lives about a block away, doesn't mind, especially when it comes to the security that increases when Obama is in town.
"I love it. I feel protected because, I mean, they have police everywhere," said Murphy, a 61-year-old retired hotel worker.
Over the past two years, the Obamas have devised ways not to be homesick. They've brought Chicago to them in Washington.
They tapped into their network of hometown connections when they moved into the White House. Among those who relocated to Washington with the Obamas were friend Valerie Jarrett, now a White House adviser, and the family's personal chef. Obama's Chicago buddies, Eric Whitaker and Marty Nesbitt, are constant vacation companions. Countless Chicagoans have visited the White House over the past two years.
The president hosted the 2010 Stanley Cup winners, the Chicago Blackhawks at the White House, last month and put the city's other professional teams on notice. He said: "Let me just say to all the Bears fans, Bulls fans, White Sox fans, and Cubs fans, I want to see all of you sometime soon, as well."
In another nod to their hometown, the Obamas dyed the water in the White House fountains green to celebrate their first St. Patrick's Day in the White House. The city colors the Chicago River that cuts through downtown to celebrate the holiday.
He also swapped one chief of staff from Chicago for another. Rahm Emanuel is Chicago's mayor-elect, while Bill Daley, the current mayor's brother, joined the White House as part of a staff reshuffling aimed at getting ready for the campaign.
While Axelrod said more presidential visits are likely, given that the campaign headquarters is in Chicago, just how much time Obama and his family will spend in Chicago this time is unclear. The duties of the presidency don't lend themselves to much down time.
His team is setting up shop in a downtown high-rise not far from offices the Obama operation used in 2008. Campaign manager Jim Messina, a former White House deputy chief of staff, is directing the effort, and Axelrod is certain to be a constant presence.
"It's nascent group and it's going to grow," said Axelrod, who stopped by the offices recently. "You could sense, you could feel some of that old excitement coming back and you know people are really eager to get going."
Some are hoping to see Obama, himself, more.
Says Freddie Fitch, 53, who lives just a few blocks from the Obamas, "We love him here."
Democrat Barack Obama piled on the praise last month as he stood beside Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and embraced the mayor's bid for a sixth term.
"I don't think there's a city in America that has blossomed as much over the last couple of decades than Chicago, and a lot of that has to do with our mayor," Obama said, supporting Daley ahead of Tuesday's city election.
It was a switch from a year earlier, when the Illinois senator brushed off questions about endorsing Daley and said reported corruption at Chicago's City Hall gave him "huge pause."
What happened in the meantime? Obama decided to run for president.
The endorsement is one example of the sometimes complicated relationship between Obama _ who offers himself as an untainted, non-traditional alternative _ and Illinois' sometimes tarnished political establishment.
While Obama prides himself as an independent-minded Democrat, he's maintained relations with important parts of the establishment, from remnants of the legendary Chicago Democratic machine to the city's leading black politicians.
Yet as an outsider who came to the city as an adult, he doesn't owe his political fortunes to ward bosses and can claim distance from the political corruption for which the city is famous. He's ruffled feathers in the past by taking on incumbents or bucking his party's anointed candidate in a statewide race, but he has also mended fences and now has Illinois' most important politicians lined up to support his run for president.
"He understands ... about politics and how you make friends in politics," said Rep. Bobby Rush, who Obama unsuccessfully challenged in 2000 for his seat in Congress.
Rush said Daley, for one, can be helpful to Obama because of his national reputation. Daley's brother, William, who headed Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000, has already signed on as an Obama adviser.
Rush is also backing Obama's bid for the White House.
Growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia, Obama didn't come up through the ranks of traditional Chicago Democratic politics.
Obama writes in his book "The Audacity of Hope" that he got into his successful first race for the Illinois Senate at the encouragement of friends who thought his work as a civil rights lawyer and experience as a community organizer made him a good candidate.
That 1996 election put him in conflict with the incumbent, Alice Palmer. She planned to run for Congress and endorsed Obama as her successor. But when Palmer lost the congressional primary, Obama would not step aside so she could keep her state Senate seat.
Once he got to the state Senate, Obama was no radical. He became a political protege of current Senate President Emil Jones, a 35-year veteran of the legislature and one of the state's most influential black lawmakers.
Obama was in the Illinois Senate just a few years when he went after the congressional seat held by Rush.
In his book, Obama calls it an "ill-considered race," and he and another state senator who challenged Rush were trounced in the primary. Rush had the support of the powerful Cook County Board president and widespread support in his district.
Obama also was viewed as a long shot in his 2004 bid for the U.S. Senate. He decided to run even though most party leaders were backing the state comptroller, who was the son of a powerful Democratic leader. Other candidates included Mayor Daley's former chief of staff and a millionaire who had helped elect the Democratic governor. Obama's candidacy gained momentum when the millionaire businessman, who had once led in the polls, acknowledged striking his ex-wife and calling her names.
Once Obama's fortunes started rising with his starmaking address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and his Senate win, he found almost uniform support from Illinois Democrats.
Yet Obama still didn't always stick to the party line, most notably last year when he rejected the party-backed candidate for state treasurer to support a political newcomer, putting him at odds with the state Democratic chairman, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan of Chicago.
Over the summer, Madigan derisively referred to Obama as "the messiah" in a published report. But by early this year, Madigan was proposing moving up the state's 2008 primary from March 18 to Feb. 5 to give Obama more momentum early in the presidential race.
For his part, Obama has lined up with party leaders in some recent local races. He supported the party's choice to become the new Cook County board president, despite allegations of political nepotism surrounding the man, who was the son of the previous board president.
Obama also endorsed Daley, saying he was still concerned about City Hall corruption but thought Daley had taken steps to clean it up. And he supported the November re-election of Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whose administration is under federal investigation for hiring fraud.
Attorney Gery Chico, the Daley former chief of staff who lost to Obama in the 2004 Senate primary, said Obama has been under increasing pressure to play a role in local races and it's smart for him to get in the mix.
"You don't want to go the route of Al Gore," Chico said. Gore famously didn't win his home state of Tennessee in his failed bid for president in 2000.
But the Daley endorsement in particular _ featured in one of the mayor's campaign mailers _ isn't sitting right with some people in this city known for its legendary political machine.
Daley's father, the late Mayor Richard J. Daley, built the once-mighty machine that doled out jobs and favors in exchange for support for Democrats on Election Day. The courts have mostly dismantled the machine by outlawing political patronage, but the city's powerful Democrats _ like Daley _ can still turn out the vote.
Obama's decision to support Daley turned off voter Alan Dobry, who's part of a Chicago independent-voters group.
"He's trying to play with the machine," Dobry said. "I'm very unhappy about it."
Once Again Pres. Obama Is Begging Congress To Behave In A "Bi-Partisan" Manner.
How Many Of You Are Tired Of This "Kumbaya" Stuff??
Here's What I Suggest:
If Pres. Obama Stops Listening To Bill Daley, Stops Begging Congress For "Bi-Partisanship" & Quits Bowing Down To GOP Leaders Then Perhaps He Can Get Something Constructive Done For This Country!
Ex: Job Growth From The Private Sector & Sealing A Debt Ceiling Deal Before The August 2nd Deadline!
Congress Doesn't Respect Him Because He Refuses To Govern W/out Begging The GOP To Work With Him.
Who Cares If GOP Leaders Don't Like Pres. Obama!
Who Cares?
Does Someone HAVE To Like You To Respect Your Position Or To Work With You?
I'm Sure It Wouldn't Hurt, However It Isn't A Prerequisite.
People Want To See Strong Leadership! NOT A President Begging For Bi-Partisanship!
The American People (VOTERS) Want Results!
Am I Right?
Think For Yourself Pres. Obama! STOP BEGGING & Do Something! Get It Together!
Sir If You Still Want My Support In 2012 Please Get It Together!
With the deadline for the debt ceiling negotiations rapidly approaching, President Barack Obama called on Democrats and Republicans to work together to find “a balanced approach” to solving the nation’s debt crisis.
“Right now, we have an extraordinary – and extraordinarily rare – opportunity to move forward in a way that makes sure our government lives within its means,” Obama said in his weekly address. “And I’m hopeful that we will rise to the moment, and seize this opportunity, on behalf of all Americans, and the future we hold in common.”
The Treasury Department has warned that failure to raise the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by August 2 could lead to a possible default, which could provoke skyrocketing interest rates and cause the dollar to plummet.
But both parties have thus far been unable reconcile their radically convergent strategies to solve the nation’s economic crisis, as Republicans refuse to raise taxes in a weak economy and Democrats denounce proposed cuts to entitlement programs as draconian and unacceptable.
In the GOP weekly address, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, said, “There can be no increase in the national debt limit unless it is accompanied by serious spending cuts and reforms.” McMorris Rodgers, the House Republican Conference vice-chair, blasted the Democratic-led Senate for failing to consider any of the job creation bills proposed by the House.
In his address, Obama conceded that the two sides still have “real differences in approach,” but said there is agreement on “some of the big things.”
“We agree that after a decade of racking up deficits and debt, we finally need to get our fiscal house in order. We agree that to do that, both sides are going to have to step outside their comfort zones and make some political sacrifices,” Obama said.
A bipartisan group of eight congressional leaders met behind closed doors with Obama at the White House Thursday to try to hammer out an agreement to raise the limit, but no deal was reached. The group said it will meet again on Sunday afternoon.
In his address, Obama also argued that an agreement is necessary for reducing the nation’s high unemployment rate, which was thrust back into the spotlight Friday after a disappointing jobs report showed that the economy added only 18,000 jobs in June.
“By getting our fiscal house in order, Congress will be in a stronger position to focus on some of the job-creating measures I’ve already proposed,” Obama said.
But Republicans blamed the low job creation numbers on Obama’s fiscal policies and used the dismal report to blast Democrat’s push for tax increases in the debt negotiations. “If we’ve learned anything, it’s that we cannot spend, tax, or borrow our way to prosperity. To create jobs and set our country on a sound fiscal course, we must stop spending money we don’t have,” McMorris Rodgers said in her address.
“From the look of things, the Democrats who run Washington don’t have a jobs plan; they have a spending agenda. They’re proposing a rehash of what’s already been tried: more spending, more taxes, and bigger government,” she said.
But while there was little agreement in the dueling addresses, both Obama and McMorris Rodgers concurred on one point: both sides need to work together.
“Mr. President, Americans are asking you, ‘Where are the jobs?’ We invite you to change course and work with us to empower, not burden, our nation’s small businesses, families, and entrepreneurs. We can do this if we work together,” McMorris Rodgers said. Obama, too, called on a unified approach. “We can meet our fiscal challenge,” Obama said. “That’s what the American people sent us here to do. …They sent us here to work together. They sent us here to get things done.”
You See Folks This Is The Main Reason Why I Lost Confidence In Pres. Obama Last Year.
Now That I've Forgiven Him & Decided To Begin Supporting Him Again, There He Goes Kicking Middle Class, Seniors, Veterans, College Students, Children & Low Income Voters Under The Bus Just As He Did In 2010!
Deja Vu!!
Can Someone Please Explain To Me Why Pres. Obama Continues To Allow GOP Leaders To Distract Him Via Scare Tactics From Being A Really Effective Leader?
Ex: Debt Ceiling Deals, Bush Tax Cuts Extensions, Job Numbers Reports, 2010 November Election Results, etc.,
Now It Appears As If He's Throwing Middle Class & Low Income Citizens Under The Bus Again!
Why? Just To Appease The GOP & Wall Street!
What's Up With That Pres. Obama?
Offering Up Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security Is Nothing More Than A 2012 GOP Trap To Get You Out Of Office!
Is This What Bill Daley Is Advising You To Do?
Instead Of Listening To Bill Daley's Weak Advice, Why Not Take Former President Bill Clinton's Position By Choosing NOT To "Blink" As It Relates To Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security & Education??
COMPROMISE AWAY ALL THE PROGRAMS WHICH HELPS Middle Class, Seniors, Veterans, College Students, & Low Income VOTERS???
Why Do You Keep Bowing Down To The GOP?
How Do You Expect Your Base & Supporters To Vote For You Again In 2012 If You Keep Throwing Us UNDER THE BUS??
How Do You Expect Voters To Realize Your Potentially Great Leadership Abilities If You Continue "Negotiating" Away Gold Nuggets For Crumbs?
Top congressional Republicans on Friday used the new dismal jobs report to blast Democrats' push for more tax revenue in the ongoing debt ceiling negotiations, arguing that such a move would derail an already shaky economic recovery.
Federal officials reported Friday that the economy added only 18,000 jobs in June -- far below the number predicted by most economists. Unemployment inched up another tenth of a point to 9.2%.
"Today's report is more evidence that the misguided 'stimulus' spending binge, excessive regulations, and an overwhelming national debt continue to hold back private-sector job creation in our country," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "A debt limit increase that raises taxes or fails to make serious spending cuts won't pass the House."
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, said the jobs figures "serve as a warning that as we address the debt limit increase we shouldn't do so in a way that raises taxes and impedes the ability of small businesses to create jobs and get people back to work. ... Let me be clear: Republicans will not agree to tax increases. Period."
President Obama didn't respond to the Republicans, but reiterated his call for a rapid conclusion to the debt ceiling talks.
The employment report "confirms what most Americans already know," the president said at the White House. "We still have a long way to go and a lot of work to do."
"The sooner we get" an agreement raising the debt ceiling, the sooner businesses will have "the certainty that they will need in order to make additional investments to grow and hire," he said.
Boehner, however, dismissed speculation that a deal may be imminent.
There is no agreement "in private or in public," he told reporters. There are still serious disagreements" between Democrats and Republicans. "This is a Rubik's Cube that we haven't quite worked out yet."
Boehner and Cantor were part of a group of eight congressional leaders from both parties that met behind closed doors with Obama at the White House Thursday to help hammer out an agreement to raise the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. Treasury Department officials have warned that a failure to raise the limit by August 2 could led to a possible default with catastrophic economic fallout, including skyrocketing interest rates and a plummeting dollar.
The group is scheduled to meet again on Sunday. Obama said Thursday his expectation is, by that point, "the parties will at least know where each other's bottom lines are, and will hopefully be in a position to then start engaging in the hard bargaining that's necessary to get a deal done."
The "parties are still far apart," he conceded. There will be "pain involved politically on all sides" in any agreement.
Obama said in Thursday's meeting that he will not sign any agreement that fails to raise the debt ceiling beyond the 2012 election, according to two congressional sources with knowledge of the talks.
The president has signaled a willingness to include reforms to popular entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare as part of a broad agreement for between $3 trillion and $4 trillion in deficit cuts over the next decade, said Democratic officials familiar with the negotiations.
Defense spending and tax reform are also on the table, the officials told CNN.
"Nobody's plan is going to be the plan that emerges," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said. "Comprehensiveness and balance are our targets."
Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, are wrestling with rising anger among liberal House members in the wake of news that the president might agree to entitlement cuts.
A group of progressive House Democrats said Thursday morning they are collecting signatures for a letter to Obama opposing any reductions in Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. The members warned that they would oppose any deal that cuts entitlement programs or fails to raise taxes on the wealthy.
"We feel that the discussions have been skewed up to this point," said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona. We need to protect "programs that are essential to working folks and the middle class."
"The debt must be addressed, but it should be done in a way that is fair to all," said Rep. Judy Chu, D-California.
The politically influential AARP, formerly the American Association of Retired Persons, also weighed in, warning it would oppose any deal cutting Social Security.
"AARP urges all lawmakers to reject any proposals that would cut the benefits seniors have earned through a lifetime of hard work," said Barry Rand, the organization's CEO.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, who met with Obama Friday, told reporters she wants the president to "have the room" to reach a deal, and offered her "full cooperation to do that."
However, she said, House Democrats "do not support cuts in benefits for Social Security or Medicare," and negotiations on specific reforms to those programs should be separate from a broader deficit reduction deal.
Pelosi linked entitlement reforms to Democratic calls for eliminating Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy Americans by restoring higher tax rates for families earning more than $250,000 a year.
"Do not consider Social Security a piggy bank for giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country," she said.
CNN has learned negotiators are considering the possibility of raising the Social Security retirement age and trimming benefit levels for older Americans with incomes over $60,000.
Cuts in the range of $500 billion are being considered for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, a congressional aide close to the negotiations said. Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, have long rejected such cuts.
The House returned to work Wednesday from its Fourth of July break, a day after the Senate cut short its recess to come back to Washington. The aide, however, insisted the only real talks going on are between Obama and Boehner, who are holding discussions "in good faith." The two men met last weekend, a Republican official told CNN.
If Obama and Boehner, R-Ohio, reach an agreement on such an ambitious package, they realize it will likely be met with stiff opposition from lawmakers in both parties, the aide said. Tea party-backed conservatives will oppose revenue hikes, and liberal Democrats will oppose entitlement cuts.
That said, the aide indicated, Obama and Boehner believe they can each gain politically from making attempt to cut a grand deal -- even if it is rejected -- because the public would see they tried to take bold steps to solve the problem. If it is rejected, the two can fall back on a $2.4 trillion deal put forth before the talks collapsed.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, will likely reject such a deal, in part because Republicans believe they have a better chance of winning back the Senate if a long-term deal fails, the aide said.
Democrats are confident Republicans will ultimately agree to some revenue changes -- such as a hike in some fees and the closing of some unpopular tax loopholes. But it will be much more challenging to get them to agree to significant and costly reforms like the capping of tax deductions for people earning more than $250,000 per year, the aide said.
If Republicans ultimately reject any revenue increases and Congress can't raise the debt limit, Democrats believe Republicans will be blamed for causing a default, according to the aide.
Publicly, both sides continue to rail against proposals by the other.
Obama said Wednesday he wants a deal with Congress in the next two weeks, but didn't rule out using a constitutional argument to increase how much money the government can borrow.
"I don't think we should even get to the constitutional issue," Obama said during a Twitter town hall at the White House in response to a tweeted question on whether he would rely on a clause in the 14th Amendment to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling.
The debt ceiling should not be "used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners," Obama said, calling for "a balanced approach where everything's on the table."
Mayor Daley on Saturday stood up for resigning White House social secretary Desiree Rogers, who is stepping down next month.
Daley called Rogers a “great friend of mine,” who did a “tremendous job” in a position she didn’t have to take.
And he asserted she bore no blame for the Nov. 24 White House security breach that had many calling for her resignation since.
“There’s only one group responsible for the security for the White House and the Presidency... the Secret Service,” Daley said, speaking at the opening of a new health center on the West Side.
“Let’s stop blaming her for anybody walking in there because no one can stop anyone with the exception of the Secret Service.”
Rogers, a friend of President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama, became a focus of controversy after the Obamas’ first state dinner was crashed by a publicity-seeking couple, Tareq and Michaele Salahi. Though the Secret Service claimed blame in the incident, Rogers was criticized for not posting staffers at the East Wing entry.
On another topic, Daley said he supports the state legislature’s efforts to limit free public transit rides to low-income seniors, as opposed to all seniors. Though it overwhelmingly passed the state house, Gov. Pat Quinn said he doesn’t think it will pass the senate, and Quinn hasn’t said whether he would sign it if it did.
The program started in 2008 by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich is “nice,” but expensive, said Daley.
“It’s nice to do but how do people pay for it?” Daley asked. “In the long run, you just can’t do things like that. It’s really irresponsible.”
The RTA has said limiting free rides to low-income seniors, while having other seniors pay half fare, would bring an additional $37 million a year to CTA, Metra and Pace.
Daley and other officials were celebrating opening of the new Austin Family Health Center, a $5.4 million facility providing primary health care and dental services.
Developed by Oak Park-based PCC Community Wellness Center, land for the clinic was provided by the city for $1, and the building was partially funded by a federal capital grant. PCC has nine centers citywide offering services to anyone in a community regardless of ability to pay.
Soon after Arne Duncan left his job as schools chief here to become one of the most powerful U.S. education secretaries ever, his former students sat for federal achievement tests. This month, the mathematics report card was delivered: Chicago trailed several cities in performance and progress made over six years.
Miami, Houston and New York had higher scores than Chicago on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Boston, San Diego and Atlanta had bigger gains. Even fourth-graders in the much-maligned D.C. schools improved nearly twice as much since 2003.
The Federal readout is just one measure of Duncan's record as chief executive of the nation's third-largest system. Others show advances on various fronts. But the new math scores signal that Chicago is nowhere near the head of the pack in urban school improvement, even though Duncan often cites the successes of his tenure as he crusades to fix public education.
"Chicago is not the story of an education miracle," said Chester E. Finn Jr. of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education think tank in Washington. "It is, however, the story of a large urban system that has made some gains and has made some promising structural changes."
For more than seven years, starting in 2001, Duncan tried to rejuvenate his city's struggling schools: jettisoning staff, hiring turnaround specialists, shutting down those deemed beyond hope.
He pushed a back-to-basics curriculum, spawned dozens of charter schools and experimented with performance pay. State and federal test scores and graduation rates rose on his watch, and Chicago became a laboratory for innovation. As a result, the reputation of its schools has improved markedly since 1987, when an earlier education secretary, William Bennett, called them the worst in the country.
Focused on outcomes
Yet questions have arisen this year about the magnitude of Duncan's accomplishments. The Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago, which represents business, professional, education and cultural leaders, concluded in June that gains on state test scores were inflated when Illinois relaxed passing standards and that too many students still drop out of high school or graduate unprepared for college.
The Consortium on Chicago School Research, a nonpartisan group at the University of Chicago, reported in October that Duncan's closure of low-performing schools often shuffled students into comparable schools, yielding little or no academic benefit.
"Obviously, you always want to get better faster," Duncan said in an interview when asked about the federal math scores. "I was focused on outcomes -- improving graduation rates, making sure that students who graduated had a chance to pursue higher ed. You can have the best test scores in the world, but if kids aren't going that next step, you're not changing their lives."
Duncan also said he had adjusted his school closure policy a few years ago to ensure better opportunities for students. He said that he was unhappy that the state had relaxed passing standards and that graduation rates remain unacceptable. About half of Chicago students fail to graduate on time with their peers.
In January, Duncan said at his Senate confirmation hearing: "We're proud to have made significant progress . . . and to really be a model of national reform. But again, hard work is going to continue there and is far from done."
In the interview, Duncan said he is careful not to exaggerate his record. Critics, however, say his legacy is routinely overblown.
"There's been this rhetoric about dramatic gains, dramatic success, that we have to replicate this model because of its dramatic success," said Julie Woestehoff of the advocacy group Parents United for Responsible Education. "And here in Chicago, we're looking at these schools and going, 'Uh . . . ' "
In 2003, President George W. Bush's education secretary, Rod Paige, faced similar, perhaps stronger, criticism when his much-highlighted record as leader of Houston's schools in the 1990s came under scrutiny. Questions were raised that year about the reliability of Houston's reported dropout rates.
Duncan's record is of more than historical interest. He wields considerable power through the combination of his Chicago connections, shared with President Obama, and his oversight of billions of dollars in reform funding. The Education Department is dangling an unprecedented $3.5 billion in grants for school systems to turn around weak schools and $4 billion for states to pursue innovation.
Huge challenges
With 418,000 students in 675 schools, Chicago faces challenges on a scale exceeded only in Los Angeles and New York. Eighty-five percent of students come from poor families, and 12 percent have limited English skills.
Tours in a handful of Chicago schools this month found educators pushing against formidable obstacles to establish a climate of learning. For some, simply asserting control over a campus represents a big victory.
In the North Lawndale neighborhood west of downtown, dotted by decaying rowhouses and apartments, Johnson Elementary School was given a new staff this year and renamed the Johnson School of Excellence.
Duncan, in one of his last actions before leaving Chicago, proposed the restart in January because of the school's perennially low test scores. The nonprofit Academy for Urban School Leadership, which pairs master's degree candidates with teaching mentors in a residency program, runs the school and 13 others under contract. Johnson serves 300 students from pre-K through grade 8.
In the last school year, officials said, police were called to the campus nearly every day to deal with angry parents or disruptive students.
"It was a war scene," said Jennifer Earthley, mother of a fourth-grader and a fan of the new regime. "The administrators were afraid of the children. The children did what they wanted to do. We have been on the low end for a long time. All we have been looking for is a passionate group of people who care."
Now, attendance is up and fights are down. Students are drilled on respect, manners and lining up in the halls. In one fourth-grade classroom, teacher Katelyn Funderburk counted "5-4-3-2-1" after asking students to pull out their textbooks. "Steven Earthley got it opened fast and folded his hands," she said. "Thank you."
Hitting the reset button
At William R. Harper High School in West Englewood, loudspeakers blared the theme to "Beverly Hills Cop" one afternoon and students swirled in the hallways as the principal shooed stragglers to class. "Let's go! Let's go!" Kenyatta Stansberry called out. "Y'all are going to be late. Let's go, baby! You need to run!"
The 700-student school, in an area blighted with crime and boarded-up houses, had fallen on hard times when Stansberry took over in 2007. She said she spent much of her first year dashing to altercations -- the intercom alert "10-10 on 2," for example, would mean a fight on the second floor -- and extracting the campus from the Crash Town gang's grip.
Then Duncan hit the reset button (another purge a decade earlier had failed to yield much improvement). Stansberry stayed, although most of the staff was let go. She was given extra resources, including three deans to help manage students, money for gifts and incentives, and a reading catch-up program. Misconduct fell, attendance rose and test scores edged up a bit. More ninth-graders were rated on track to receive a diploma.
Neighborhood troubles remain a deep concern. Stansberry said four of her students died violently off campus in the last school year. Such killings became a national issue this fall after a student, Derrion Albert, was beaten to death near Christian Fenger Academy High School on the city's South Side. Duncan returned to Chicago in October with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to pledge a campaign against youth violence.
As if in solidarity with that goal, posters of Gandhi and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. flank the whiteboard in English teacher Fadia Afaneh's room at Harper. She high-fived her ninth-graders as they placed commas correctly in sentences, transforming street lingo into standard English. Much of what she teaches is remedial, Afaneh said, but she is determined to help students advance. First, she teaches them to write a complete sentence. Then, a paragraph.
"Basically, all kids deserve an excellent education," she said, "and that doesn't always happen in this country. I know."
The announcement by Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith that he is switching to the Republican Party is just the latest warning sign that the Democratic Party -- my lifelong political home -- has a critical decision to make: Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.
Rep. Griffith's decision makes him the fifth centrist Democrat to either switch parties or announce plans to retire rather than stand for reelection in 2010. These announcements are a sharp reversal from the progress the Democratic Party made starting in 2006 and continuing in 2008, when it reestablished itself as the nation's majority party for the first time in more than a decade. That success happened for one major reason: Democrats made inroads in geographies and constituencies that had trended Republican since the 1960s. In these two elections, a majority of independents and a sizable number of moderate Republicans joined the traditional Democratic base to sweep Democrats to commanding majorities in Congress and to bring Barack Obama to the White House.
These independents and Republicans supported Democrats based on a message indicating that the party would be a true Big Tent -- that we would welcome a diversity of views even on tough issues such as abortion, gun rights and the role of government in the economy.
This call was answered not just by voters but by a surge of smart, talented candidates who came forward to run and win under the Democratic banner in districts dominated by Republicans for a generation. These centrists swelled the party's ranks in Congress and contributed to Obama's victories in states such as Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado and other Republican bastions.
But now they face a grim political fate. On the one hand, centrist Democrats are being vilified by left-wing bloggers, pundits and partisan news outlets for not being sufficiently liberal, "true" Democrats. On the other, Republicans are pounding them for their association with a party that seems to be advancing an agenda far to the left of most voters.
The political dangers of this situation could not be clearer.
Witness the losses in New Jersey and Virginia in this year's off-year elections. In those gubernatorial contests, the margin of victory was provided to Republicans by independents -- many of whom had voted for Obama. Just one year later, they had crossed back to the Republicans by 2-to-1 margins.
Witness the drumbeat of ominous poll results. Obama's approval rating has fallen below 49 percent overall and is even lower -- 41 percent -- among independents. On the question of which party is best suited to manage the economy, there has been a 30-point swing toward Republicans since November 2008, according to Ipsos. Gallup's generic congressional ballot shows Republicans leading Democrats. There is not a hint of silver lining in these numbers. They are the quantitative expression of the swing bloc of American politics slipping away.
And, of course, witness the loss of Rep. Griffith and his fellow moderate Democrats who will retire. They are perhaps the truest canaries in the coal mine.
Despite this raft of bad news, Democrats are not doomed to return to the wilderness. The question is whether the party is prepared to listen carefully to what the American public is saying. Voters are not re-embracing conservative ideology, nor are they falling back in love with the Republican brand. If anything, the Democrats' salvation may lie in the fact that Republicans seem even more hell-bent on allowing their radical wing to drag the party away from the center.
All that is required for the Democratic Party to recover its political footing is to acknowledge that the agenda of the party's most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans -- and, based on that recognition, to steer a more moderate course on the key issues of the day, from health care to the economy to the environment to Afghanistan.
For liberals to accept that inescapable reality is not to concede permanent defeat. Rather, let them take it as a sign that they must continue the hard work of slowly and steadily persuading their fellow citizens to embrace their perspective. In the meantime, liberals -- and, indeed, all of us -- should have the humility to recognize that there is no monopoly on good ideas, as well as the long-term perspective to know that intraparty warfare will only relegate the Democrats to minority status, which would be disastrous for the very constituents they seek to represent.
The party's moment of choosing is drawing close. While it may be too late to avoid some losses in 2010, it is not too late to avoid the kind of rout that redraws the political map. The leaders of the Democratic Party need to move back toward the center -- and in doing so, set the stage for the many years' worth of leadership necessary to produce the sort of pragmatic change the American people actually want.
On the day before Christmas, President Obama found two presents under his tree. One was the health-care reform bill passed that morning by the Senate, a historic measure so freighted with promise and problems that it could blow up.
The other was an op-ed in The Post by William Daley, his fellow Chicagoan and one of the canniest Democrats I know, warning Obama that he is on the verge of losing his hold on the vital center of politics.
Daley, a former commerce secretary who shares with his brother, Mayor Richard M. Daley, and their late father an iron grip on reality, cited all the signs of defection among swing voters whose support in 2006 and 2008 swelled Democratic ranks in Congress and elected Obama.
He ticked off the losses Democrats suffered in the only two gubernatorial elections of 2009, in New Jersey and Virginia; the polls showing independents rejecting Democrats (and such handiwork as the health-care bill); a wave of early retirements by marginal House members; and, last week, the party switch by Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith from Democratic to Republican.
To be sure, there are counter-indicators not mentioned by Daley, including a string of special election congressional victories for the Democrats, culminating in New York's 23rd District. The Republican civil war that enabled this upset is symptomatic of a growing GOP liability that could cripple the party's comeback hopes.
But this does not weaken the thrust of Daley's main argument. His target is the left of his party -- the grass-roots liberal activists who condemn the centrist Democrats sitting in marginal seats for blocking some provisions of health-care reform, for example, and the leaders of organized labor who threaten to retaliate by withholding their support from the moderates.
These groups put heavy pressure on Obama to move his agenda to the left -- even when a Congress with swollen Democratic majorities is balking at the measures that Obama already has endorsed.
The president is surrounded by people who share Daley's grasp on reality, none more important or better placed than Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff and a fellow Chicagoan. But the picture is not so clear on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's inner circle is made up of long-standing veterans of gerrymandered House districts, virtually immune from Election Day challenge, just as she is. The wants and needs of "the Democratic base" count heavily for them, and Daley's warnings may be resented or ignored.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's home-state party in Nevada is as closely tied to the unions as Michigan used to be in the days of Walter Reuther, and Reid views the world from that perspective.
As a loyal Democrat, Daley insisted in the closing paragraphs of his op-ed that his party is not doomed to ruin. It can still avoid anything more than a minimal setback in 2010, he said, if it will simply "acknowledge that the agenda of the party's most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans -- and, based on that recognition . . . steer a more moderate course on the key issues of the day, from health care to the economy to the environment to Afghanistan."
I am not so certain. It will be up to Obama to steer the Democrats in that direction. No one on Capitol Hill is likely to lead such a change. The first test will come with the revisions of health care in the House-Senate conference and whether the White House insists on strengthening the cost-saving measures in the bills.
The larger tests will lie in Obama's 2010 State of the Union and budget messages -- whether he fulfills his promise to start addressing the runaway budget deficits left in the wake of the recession. A presidential endorsement of the much-discussed commission empowered to slow the hemorrhage of red ink would signal to voters that Daley's message has been heard.
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)
