Bringing Home A Winner

It's hard to believe that Obama might have accomplished two things this weekend he set out to do, albeit far below his hopes:

The great German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said "from chaos comes order".

It is difficult to foresee the order that may result from the chaos of the Copenhagen climate change conference (COP15), but as the dust settles, traces of a path forward are becoming visible.

It's true. This is not the deal liberals have waited for ever since Kyoto was smacked down by the Senate way back in the 1990s. It's not even the agreement we need to see. But it's a start.

Think about it: there has never been a meeting like this. Included in the accord are both developing and developed nations. The meeting showed that everyone, including China, India and the US, are on board with global climate change and how to correct it. Green economies will now be implemented worldwide.

No, no targets were established. There are no steps to verify that a nation is complying. But still, it's a beginning.

Just as the other victory, hollow as it may be, is:

"This country, the greatest and richest the world has ever seen, is the only advanced nation on earth where dying for a lack of health insurance is even possible," [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid said. "

The bill would extend health insurance coverage to 30 million Americans who now lack it, and bar insurance companies from practices such as denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Most Americans would be required to purchase health insurance for the first time, with subsidies provided to those who cannot afford it.

It's not perfect. It may not even be particularly good. But it's a start, and now we can hammer out the final bill in conference.

It is embarassing that the bill includes no provision for a public option (unlike the House bill, to which it will have to be reconciled) and that much of this is about political theatre as opposed to passing a real bill.

But here's the thing: in over one hundred years, four attempts have been made to bring the United States into the 20th Century in terms of healthcare for its citizenry.

It may be from the dark ages of the early 20th Century, but this bill finally does that, and it cracks open a door that cannot be shut again.

For that, we should be grateful.

Good Riddance!

You think Barack Obama is glad to see 2009 end?

1) Climate Change Conference Stalled

2) Democrats Squabble Over Healthcare Reform

3) Whiny Republicans Throw A Temper Tantrum

4) First Time Jobless Claims Are Surprisingly Higher

5) Obama's Support Is Winnowing Away

This closely mirrors the first Bush year, when he could get nothing done and was falling apart, until one fateful day in September of 2001.

We hope Obama will not resort to allowing a tragedy on his watch, but one never knows for sure.

I wouldn't say he desperately needs good news, but it's certainly looking as though he could stand a bit of picking up and the clock is running, after all. He needs something in the first half of 2010 in order to consolidate the gains Democrats have made over the past six years in Congress.

Curiously, it's the attacking from the left that flummoxes me. I get that an awful lot of hope (pun intended) was placed on Obama's shoulders, but come on! The economy this year, the worst since the Great Depression, has hampered any effective legislation he could possibly have been expected to pass, AND he's had to herd cats from his left and his right in order to do what he has been able to accomplish.

And it's most assuredly NOT helping that the moronic leadership in Congress has been nipping at his heels instead of assisting his agenda.

Hell, you'd almost be tempted to blame Bush/Cheney for sabotaging the nation, poisoning the well ahead of Obama's takeover, in order to give one final bird to the people of the United States.

If liberals, and I count myself a liberal, albeit one with a mind, are going to blame anyone, then let's shift the focus to where the blame truly belongs. If Republicans could blame Clinton (or worse, Jimmy Carter) for Bush's failings eight years out, certainly we can be sporting enough to blame Bush for failing to live up to his fiduciary duty to protect the nation and its citzenry, just one year down the road.

Perhaps what we need to do is to take all the naysayers, left and right, stick 'em on a rocketship and send it off to Earth Two.

We could call it the "B-Ark"

Awkward Moments

So how does one accept an award for peace while waging war?

With aplomb and humility, apparently:

OSLO — President Obama, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize here on Thursday, acknowledged the age-old tensions between war and peace but argued that his recent decision to escalate the conflict in Afghanistan was justified to protect the world from terrorism and extremism.

“We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth,” Mr. Obama said. “We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

[...]“I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage,” Mr. Obama said. “Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize — Schweitzer and King, Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight.”

This was your basic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" moment: Obama could not possibly have said anything that would have satisfied his critics.

From the left:

"Obama refused to renounce war for his nation or under his leadership, saying defiantly that 'I face the world as it is' and that he is obliged to protect and defend the United States,"

From the insane asylum right:

"They wounded two doves with one stone. No matter how much you like Obama and his foreign policy, it is patently ridiculous that a man who's served less than nine months as President should earn a prize that eluded even Mahatma Gandhi."

Nevermind, shithead, that non-northern hemisphereans were ROUTINELY denied the Peace Prize by your forefathers in feigned enlightenment! No! But a black man wins in America and suddenly you find the cojones to stand up for Gandhi, someone you've probably mocked as wearing a really bad toga.

My take on it is this:
Matt. 10:13: "And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you."

We are human. Barack Obama is human, but he stands for more to the rest of the world as well as to this great nation. His symbolism is profound. His election is a demonstration that, despite the hatred from the bigots and ignorant of the right, the country is healing from the terrible shame of slavery and discrimination. We have far to go, and so we cannot make it to Dr. King's Promised Land in one stride, but we must continue to take the steps, small and large, halting and fluid, until we do get there.

Likewise, the Promised Land of Peace beckons us on. Some would criticize this award as undue, as a down payment on a promise.

So? IF ONLY FOR THE HEALING HIS ELECTION BROUGHT TO THE SHAME OF AMERICAN HISTORY, he has earned the prize. He accepts it on behalf of us all, black and white, who voted for him and against him, for bringing the United States finally into the latter 20th Century. And if there is more to come, if indeed he can make inroads in the Middle East conundrum, or calm the waters in Pakistan and Afghanistan, if he can persuade Iran and North Korea to use atoms for peace, if he only brings China into the fold of fighting global warming, he will have accomplished more for peace than the sum total of every President up to this point.

Of course, there's no rule that says he can't win a second one...

A Strategic Bully

I'm very angry about the current state of healthcare reform.

Yes, the House passed, barely, a bill that includes a public option, but at the price of for all intents and purposes banning abortions for the weakest women among us.

As Jesus put it, "As you treat the weakest among you, that is how you are treating me."

And now, here's Joe Lieberman (I-Dickheadton) wailing that even this watered-down version of helping people stay healthy is too hard to deal with, will cost too much.

He's not alone in his handwringing.

The gloves have to come off, and here's what I propose: this legislation is so important to America, that President Obama, through his channels, ought to send the following message to Sen. Lieberman:

You're right. We can't afford meaningless gestures and foolish money spent. Therefore, I am authorizing that a new bill be proposed in Congress, the "Lieberman De-Fund Israel's Defense" bill. We can't afford it any longer.

Wanna bet that not only he, but all the other fence-sitting corporatists suddenly come to God?

After all, it was with Obama's help that Lieberman even has a seat at the table. Joe ought to be reminded of that, now. He's abused that courtesy countless numbers of times this past year.

If Obama would merely show the stones that he showed back in 2006, when nearly everyone wanted to see this abortive embarassment to the Democratic party ousted in a blizzard of contempt, we can have healthcare reform.

He's taken a million bucks in insurance contributions. It's about time he screwed them, then called it a night. His presence in the Senate is amongst the most odious in history, and that includes some God-awful Senators, like Joe McCarthy. He can make this one last gesture and indeed go out a hero to Americans.

He'd get the ego boost he's been craving ever since the Democrats took control back in 2006, in other words.

It would also serve as notice that the White House will play hardball on a bill it deems to be the centerpiece of the Obama legacy. It will drive the Lincolns and Nelsons right into the camp and may even drag a couple of weak Republican candidates...you listening, Olympia?...right into the arms of Obama.

They don't call it the "bully pulpit" for no reason, Mr President.

UPDATE: Paul Krugman gave me a new idea. Just roll Holy Joe the videotape of the people he's genuflecting to.

Not A Bad Day At All

What to make of the off-year elections that people were focusing on?

Well, on balance, while not a stellar performance, one has to believe Obama actually gained a little ground yesterday.

Huh? Wha?

You heard me. Here's why:

1) Governor of Virginia - Virginia went 53-46 for Obama last year. However, of the last five elected governors (including McDonnell now) three were Republicans, all elected with a Democrat in the White House. Add to that fact that Creigh Deeds was a nearly unknown state senator and ran a campaign so egregiously bad that even the White House wrote him off weeks before the election, a landslide was all but inevitable.

2) Governor of New Jersey - Chris Christie barely held onto a lead going into the voting booth, and many polls had this as a toss-up. Over the past thirty years, there have been six elected governors: three Republicans, three Democrats. To call New Jersey a Democratic stronghold at the state-wide level is ludicrous. Now, Obama did put in some energy into campaigning for Corzine, but the billionaire lost to the multimillionaire largely because of outside assistance from the right wing of the Republican party.

This was no slam dunk election that was Corzine's to lose, in other words. The entrance of Chris Dagget probably hurt Corzine more than Christie, altho his vote total probably would not have changed the outcome.

IN NEITHER OF THESE TWO ELECTIONS WAS OBAMA A FACTOR! Voters chose based almost strictly on local and statewide issues, not the national scene and in no way should either of these elections be considered as part of a larger "Republican Rescusitation"

3) The key race for Obama's fortunes, however, was NY State's 23rd. There, in a stunning reversal of Republican fortunes, Democrat Bill Owens stunned the right wing of America by kicking the ass of Neoconservative darling, Doug Hoffman.

Hoffman held a significant four point lead in polling over the weekend, so he lost seven points in support in the blink of an eye.

Hoffman was heavily touted by Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Fucking Republican Loons. This has to strike terror into Sarah Palin's heart, because she so closely tied her Presidential fortunes to the outcome here. It makes her look like a loser who can't even get a Congressman elected in a heavily Republican, very conservative district that is filled with military types!

Pawlenty at least had the smarts to be a little on the QT when he endorsed Hoffman! But Palin?

Ooo-la-la! She shot her chances in the foot with this boo-boo! She pissed off the Republican leadership and still lost the fucking election!

Too bad, so sad, it's ours, Mooseburger...

Roll The Dice

Tomorrow could conceivably be the biggest off-year election for the next decade, at least.

It is in this spirit that I believe Barack Obama needs to roll the dice or go all-in:

Democrats and Republicans in three states entered their final full day of campaigning ahead of Tuesday's elections, with the White House carefully targeting its resources in a bid to head off Republican victories.

Vice President Biden plans to join Democratic candidate Bill Owens, who is running against a third-party conservative candidate in an upstate New York congressional election, at a rally Monday morning.

Owens is fighting head-to-head against Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, after GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava dropped out over the weekend. Scozzafava, who was criticized as too moderate by members of her own party, endorsed Owens on Sunday. But it's unclear how much of an impact that endorsement will have, as many of her supporters are expected to drift toward Hoffman's candidacy.

Meanwhile, President Obama headlined two rallies for New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine Sunday, pushing to drive up turnout as Republican challenger Chris Christie did the same.

Having written off the incompetent campaign of Creigh Deeds in Virginia, Obama has put a lot of effort into Corzine's campaign in New Jersey.

The most recent non-partisan polls, like Quinnipiac College, show Corzine with a small lead, but within the margin of error. Obama has made two visits to the state in the past week, with another set for today.

While he's there, however, he might want to consider shoring up White House support in New York's 23rd District.

Yes, Joe Biden will appear there, and yes, that's a high profile appearance, but neither Governor's race will reflect as much on Obama's administration as a race to replace his Secretary of the Army, Republican John McHugh.

As I mentioned in the earlier post I linked to, McHugh's seat is a long-time moderate Republican stronghold, but there's been a twist: the Republican moderate has dropped out of the race...and thrown her support to the Democrat against a conservative insurgent candidate!

This is a situation that cries out for Obama's special attention and a last minute surprise appearance could make that endorsement of Scozzafava not only brilliant, but pave the way for her advancement in politics.

In other words, the New York State Republican party would owe Obama a favor, albeit a minor one, and one he might parlay into something useful to both himself and the nation at large.

Like, perhaps, passing a bill that allows NYS to be a testing ground for a public healthcare option. This would not be inconsistent with former Governor George Pataki's expansion of the Child Health Plus program to cover families, and would be a shot in the arm to retaining businesses in the state.

Win-win, as it were.

Imagine Joe Biden, standing there at the rally in Watertown. Thousands of curious upstaters come out, cheering, and suddenly Joe Biden announces Barack Obama.

Talk about a breaking news story! Talk about a game-changing appearance!

It could happen. It should happen. I hope it does.

UPDATE Looks like I'm in some good company about getting on the President's back.

Obama Does The Right Thing

Here we have a President who paid attention these past eight years:

President Obama traveled to Dover Air Force Base early Thursday morning, where he met with family members and paid his respects as the bodies of 18 Americans killed this week in Afghanistan were returned to the United States.

It was the president’s first trip to the Delaware air base, the main point of entry for the nation’s war dead to return home. The trip was a symbolic one for Mr. Obama — intended to convey the gravity of his decision as he moves closer to announcing whether he will send more troops to Afghanistan.

The overnight trip was not announced in advance. The president, wearing a dark suit and long overcoat, left the White House at 11:44 p.m. A small contingent of reporters and photographers accompanied Mr. Obama to Dover, where he arrived at 12:34 a.m. aboard Marine One. He returned to the South Lawn of the White House at 4:45 a.m.

(emphasis added, for reasons shortly to be clear)
A simple, dignified, and low-key acknowledgement of one of the most terrible days to befall US combat troops since Vietnam.

You'd think the entire nation, as one, would stand beside Obama for this one moment and acknowledge he did the right thing.

Um, well, you'd be wrong.

Nevermind "support the troops". Nevermind the quiet dignity afforded a group of courageous men and women who lay their lives on the line in defense of this great nation. Nevermind that, in symbolism, we see the toll these wars are taking upon us all.

(Side note: I wonder how bad this economic downturn would have been had we not spent ourselves silly fighting, as Vizzini put it, "involved in a land war in Asia"? Just a thought to chew on.)

It's not enough. There's some dark mystery, a hidden meaning, a shade lingering, over each and every action of President Barack Hussein Obama.

A "black shadow" administration, as it were.

Now, it's true: every President has to be conscious of the impact and meaning of his gestures. Presidents are, like it or not, role models and trendsetters.

Imagine, if you will, George W Bush actually successfully riding the Segway. Undoubtedly, it would have been given a marketing boost (and no doubt, Segway had hopes for that).

Unfortunately he fell off, thus propagating the myth that the Segway is difficult to master and putting a crimp in its acceptance and certainly losing the chance to market is as "so simple a moron can use it".

Presidents acknowledging the loss of soldiers, however, is hardly a political novelty, and is often accompanied by frills and ceremony when he does it (as in laying the wreaths on Memorial Day in Arlington).

One has to question the...patriotism...of those who question this gesture.

Surviving And Thriving

Not that I thought there was any danger in the brush, but...

It's increasingly possible that we will look back and see that August 2009 was this election cycle's height of Republicans' optimism over their political fortunes, and the depth of Democrats' despair.

By the time the midterm elections reach a fever pitch next year, President Obama may well have passed health-care reform, his signature domestic initiative, if not with overwhelming public support then at least with the backing of a solid majority of voters. The now common criticism that he hasn't accomplished anything will have been blunted. And while a high joblessness rate may persist, the narrative will have taken hold that the economy has either recovered or is well on its way.

The scenario above represents Democrats' best-case scenario, and no element of it is assured. But the new Washington Post-ABC News poll makes it appear a bit more likely. The survey found "that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public." While ratings for Obama's handling of health care and the overall reform plans remained roughly the same, the president has regained the support of some Independents. The Fix points out that the poll also contained bad news for Republicans, giving the party low marks for its ability to make good decisions and handing Democrats a 12-point lead on the generic Congressional ballot.

And thus the curious silence of the Obama administration in August makes itself apparent.

He figured to ride out the storm as no one was paying attention, with only the lasting echoes being the outrageous behavior of teabaggers at the "town halls" Congresscritters held.

Once September came along, with its swine flu warnings and seasonal flu warnings and just, well, cold weather forcing people inside to watch the news, Obama and his staff could take to the airwaves to promote the sensible options with respect to healthcare reform.

Let the anger flow, the thinking was. It will peter out and exhaust itself long before anything comes to a vote.

Precisely the right course to take, once it became apparent that Democrats needed time to absorb the astroturfed outcry and realize it wasn't going to translate into votes.

By not doing anything, in other words, Obama won the fight. Sort of. It's not perfect, healthcare reform, but its a start.

Likewise on Afghanistan: now that Karzai has been forced to admit that the election was, well, not on the level, Obama has been given a bit of political cover for his Hamlet-like stance on troop increases. If you can't be sure of the palyers going forward, you can afford to wait the play out until the conscience of the king is known.

Indeed, Karzai's admission opens the door to a more palatable environment into which Obama may introduce more troops than many would like to see there. One wonders how much pressure ol' Hamid there was under from State.

There are other obstacles on the horizon, like the banksta bonuses that are about to be announced from banks and investment houses that just ten months ago were hat-in-hand at Obama's door, asking for a bailout. That one could turn ugly, but the sense I get is that people understand how important it was to bail the banks out and oh, yeah...they won't be angry at Obama, but I'm not sure I'd go out and buy a new car if I was president of JP Morgan Chase right now. it might get keyed pretty badly in the parking lot of the "Stop n Shop".

In addition, through the entire summer, the Republicans reveled in the label "The Party of No," taking to it like a drunk frat brother to a keg.

And now that's coming back to haunt them, as people want...no, need...answers to the economy, to jobs, to healthcare, and to their future.

They called Reagan the Teflon Don President. We need to come up with a moniker that covers a guy who slips in shit and comes up smelling like a rose.

Respectfully, I Disagree...

Anyone who has known me for any length of time ought to know two things about me:

1) I oppose nearly every war in all its facets, and

2) I am a lifelong liberal Democrat, but I do not take marching orders.

In fact, my favorite T-shirt says "I Don't Fetch And I Don't Beg".

That said, today I read a troubling piece from one of the limelight A-list bloggers for the Progressive movement, Arianna Huffington. I distrust Ms Huffington, who was stridently conservative before she was stridently liberal (as was David Brock, among others). I find that over the past five years or so she has become more trustworthy, but being paranoid like I am, I still take her with a grain of salt.

But I digress....sort of.

Here's what she had to say today:

Joe Biden met with CENTCOM chief Gen. David Petraeus this morning to talk about Afghanistan -- an issue that has pushed the vice president into the spotlight, landing him on the cover of the latest Newsweek.

I have an idea for how he can capitalize on all the attention, and do what generations to come will always be grateful for: resign.

[...]It's been known for a while that Biden has been on the other side of McChrystal's desire for a big escalation of our forces there -- the New York Times reported last month that he has "deep reservations" about it. So if the president does decide to escalate, Biden, for the good of the country, should escalate his willingness to act on those reservations.

What he must not do is follow the same weak and worn-out pattern of "opposition" we've become all-too-accustomed to, first with Vietnam and then with Iraq. You know the drill: after the dust settles, and the country begins to look back and not-so-charitably wonder, "what were they thinking?" the mea-culpa-laden books start to come out. On page after regret-filled page, we suddenly hear how forceful this or that official was behind closed doors, arguing against the war, taking a principled stand, expressing "strong concern" and, yes, "deep reservations" to the president, and then going home each night distraught at the unnecessary loss of life.

This is a fair position to take, like Colin Powell's, of leaving a group who clearly hold strong opinions in opposition to yours.

The unfortunate thing is, Biden is right. Further, he's not being furtive in his opposition, as the Newsweek article makes clear.

Undoubtedly, this article was sanctioned by the Oval Office, and so Biden's opinion being on display for all to see is both comforting to me as a liberal Libertarian and as a fan of good government.

Here's Biden's position, as noted in Newsweek and quoted by Ms Huffington:

"Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?" Someone provided the figure: $65 billion. "And how much will we spend on Pakistan?" Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion. "Well, by my calculations that's a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?" The White House Situation Room fell silent.

Indeed, why are we wasting our time in Afghanistan if we are fighting Al Qaeda? Now, there may be plenty of other reasons to engage the Taliban and its ally Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

A show of faith in the battle waged by the Pakistani government springs to mind, and that the Taliban, recently the focused of renewed energy by the Obama administration (I'll get to that in a second) is less influential in Pakistan than in Afghanistan also must be considered.

What Biden is pointing out is the thuddingly simple rationale that any average American can understand. Al Qaeda cross the Afghan-Pakistan border with impunity, and the way we are battling them is kind of like duct taping one side of a leak in a boat. It'll work, sort of, but eventually you're going to sink.

This is good. This is the sort of advice a President needs to hear. Cogent, simple, and not lock-step voicing of conventional wisdom.

Ms Huffington, THAT'S what got us into this mess in the first place! By forcing Colin Powell (or any number of military advisers)and the "Pottery Barn" doctrine out, the Bush administration guaranteed themselves insulation from bad news. Insulation from bad news guarantees bad results.

By raising this issue, it appears Biden has already forced the administration to alter course, even if a little: by repurposing the efforts in Afghanistan (and justifying the increase in troops) as a fight against the Taliban. This does provide some political cover to pressure Pakistan to accept US help.

That Biden is whispering in Obama's ear "Sic Transit Gloria" is a good thing, Ms Huffington.

The Bully Pulpit

Interesting poll was put out yesterday by the Associated Press, one that warms my heart a little that maybe this nation is paying attention after all:

NEW YORK (AP) -- Most people still think the country is headed in the wrong direction but a new poll says there are more optimists than before and President Barack Obama's numbers are also on the upswing.

An Associated Press-GfK poll says 56 percent of those surveyed in the past week approve of Obama's job performance, up from 50 percent in September. It's the first time since he took office in January that his rating has gone up.

And those who disapprove of Obama are down to 39 percent, down from 49 percent last month.

While a majority of those surveyed remain pessimistic about the direction of the country, the poll found 41 percent now believe the U.S. is headed in the right direction, compared with 37 percent in September.

Of course, that being a FOX affiliate, you still haven't read the good news:

The latest Associated Press-GfK poll has found that opposition to Obama’s health care remake dropped dramatically in just a matter of weeks. Still, Americans remain divided over complex legislation that Democrats are advancing in Congress.

The public is split 40-40 on supporting or opposing the health care legislation, the poll found. An even split is welcome news for Democrats, a sharp improvement from September, when 49 percent of Americans said they opposed the congressional proposals and just 34 percent supported them.

Anger about health care boiled over during August. Lawmakers returning home for town hall meetings faced outcries that the government was trying to take over the system, ushering in higher costs, lower quality — even rationing and euthanasia.

The key, of course, is that last paragraph.

During the month of August and early September, the astroturfed "Tea Bagger Party" movement made significant inroads in the public dialogue about healthcare by making asses of themselves publicly.

Utilizing the rusty saw "the squeaky wheel gets the grease," these whiny cogs stalked and harassed public officials and raped the public dialogue.

This created an atmosphere where people were not only afraid to speak out in opposition to this brutal patriarchal behavior, but to even agree to abide with it, much like a kidnap victim eventually admires her captors.

No longer, and while I suspected this might turn around, the fact is, it happened so suddenly and with so little reaction from the Obama administration that I began to be concerned if in fact he was getting the point.

I guess he did. Strategically, he must have felt that no one was going to pay attention to him when they were going to the beach or the mountains, but that once he could command a prime time fall television audience, he'd begin to win back the folks who in their hearts want to see the country do better by doing good.

The key to this turnaround has been a full-court press to persuade older Americans that Medicare will not be endangered, and that an extension of Medicare-like coverage to all Americans would not be a bad thing.

Amen.

Too, there's an energy aspect to this strategy: rage usually burns out quickly, leaving a deep-seated sense of embarrassment. Here, I think, is the underpinning to the turnaround in Obama's polling numbers, which sunk as low as Bush's in August 2001.

People just got tired of being angry. Anger is fear and fear is exhausting, and people want Obama to do well (despite the reprehensible and disgraceful cheer that arose when Chicago was eliminated by the IOC).

Too, I think middle Americans watched Glenn Beck all but spew venom with respect to Obama, watched as Tea Baggers all but lynched Obama in effigy (haven't seen that yet, so some credit has to be given the racist contingent), and watched the silliness over Obama's slightest move to relax, and just remembered the Moron-In-Chief who preceded him and said, "Hmmmmm, this is not the side I want to be on."

Kudos, Mr. President. You've done well.

Obama's Defining Moment

While you should read the entire text for yourselves, I believe history will judge this paragraph as the time when America truly rejoined the world community as a leader and a beacon:

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

Leading up to this paragraph, President Obama spoke of how the continual Muslim violence towards not only westerners but fellow Muslims, has bred a suspicion and, indeed, terror among the partisan right wing of the western world.

After this paragraph, he acknowledges civilization's debt to the Muslim world and to Islam in particular: math, sciences, philosophy, commerce, art, even history...all these were advanced by Muslims when the rest of the world suffered the Dark Ages.

And then he challenged the Muslim world to change with the times. He invited them to view America differently, and if anyone could do that, if anyone could truthfully say those words and mean them in Egypt, it is Barack Obama: America's first African-American President. Indeed, the quintessence of change resides within him.

The intriguing bit came when he began to talk about Palestine. I expect he will get a large helping of grief over this part, where he seems to hint at a division of territory between Israel and the Palestinians (the "two state" solution he has talked about before).

But there's a surprise hinted at in the speech as well when he speaks about Al Qaeda:

And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths but, more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam.

The Holy Quran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as it if has killed all mankind.

And the Holy Quran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.

The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism; it is an important part of promoting peace.

I interpret this to mean he's offering the Muslim world a chance for a show of good faith: turn over Al Qaeda and other violent Islamist groups, turn over Osama bin Laden. Show us that you mean business.

Wow. I mean, wow. He invokes among the most holy of passages written in the Koran and challenges the Muslim world to live up to it.

Think about that for a moment: the President of the Great Satan has asked Muslims to turn their back on what amounts to the Religious Right of the Muslim world, the Jerry Falwells of Fatwas, and asked the entire Muslim world to join us in the 21st Century, to shun those who would take the world back to the Dark Ages.

And you know what? He's got a good chance of succeeding.

The Hypocrisy Clown Car

I do have to love right wing media. They are so consistently inconsistent:

Taxpayers footed the bill for the big night on the town, which included a total of at least $24,000 for the three aircraft used to ferry the Obamas, aides and reporters to New York and back. Dinner costs and orchestra seat tickets -- at $96.50 apiece -- were paid by the Obamas.

Obama's jet, a Gulfstream 500, served as a more modest Air Force One for the day in place of the customary presidential Boeing 747.

The White House declined to say how much the trip was costing taxpayers.

Do you think The Post ever bothered to ask George Bush what his vacations were costing the taxpayers? Let's see...

*crickets chirping*

Now several in the media, both mainstream and Blogtopia (© Skippy the Bush Kangaroo) have pointed out that Obama is as entitled to a night out as any President, that Bush took the full-scale Air Force One to his ranch (the flight alone cost the taxpayers more than $24,000), and that Bush spent something on the order of forty percent of his administration on vacation (that's 3.2 years out of eight).

All valid points.

I focused on something else. The Presidency has long been a...I don't know how to put this...role model factory? When JFK and Jackie O were in the White House, sales of Chanel suits skyrocketed. When they hosted artists and poets at dinners, sales of books about poetry jumped, and attendance at museums spiked.

And now that Obama has eaten at a restaurant in Greenwcih Village and seen the new August Wilson play, both of those are reporting record reservations and mobs outside.

So it's interesting that a man takes his wife on a date, modeling absolutely spot-on behavior for a married man (nevermind that he promised her this date) to be romantic, and the right wing, pro-family-- OK, Drudge is gay, but you get my point-- point people get their knickers in a twist over it!

You'd think maybe these guys might take a hint? I'm betting at least one wingnutcase has been forced to hear from his wife, "Honey, how come you never take me anywhere?" this week.

And maybe that's the point.

WIN FOR OBAMA!!!!!

It feels good to write that after hearing about how for eight years, Bush kept us safe from terrorists, and then having it turn out that, welllllll....it was police work that saved the day, even if the threat was hardly credible to begin with:

Four men were arrested Wednesday night in what the authorities said was a plot to bomb two synagogues in the Bronx and shoot down military planes at an Air National Guard base in Newburgh, N.Y.

The men, all of whom live in Newburgh, about 60 miles north of New York City, were arrested around 9 p.m. after planting what they believed to be bombs in cars outside the Riverdale Temple and the nearby Riverdale Jewish Center, officials said. But the men did not know the bombs, obtained with the help of an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, were fake.

The "informant" in question was a Sunni Muslim who was working with the FBI in exhcange.

I'm betting he was not tortured.

After the Sears Tower plot of 2006 was exposed, we were told time and time again about how effective the Bush administration had been in foiling terror attacks.

This time?

Around 9 p.m., a law enforcement official said an 18-wheel New York Police Department vehicle blocked the suspects’ black sport utility vehicle at 237th Street and Riverdale Avenue. Another armored vehicle arrived and officers from the department’s Emergency Service Unit took the men out of the truck and handcuffed them.

After the plot was broken up, the team of uniformed officers took the suspects away.

So it was good old fashioned police work...none of this military-industrial-covert espionage crap that Bush tried to ram down our throats. Identify a plot and work to uncover the breadth and depth of it, then shut it down and roll up the cells.

Reminds me of the good old safe days of the Clinton administration with Janet Reno!

And should serve as a reminder of the cynical gloating of the Bushies, who treated the most insignificant terror plot revelation as a two-year child who just took a dump would expose it to his mom.

"Lookit! Lookit what I did!"

Syncopation

The Twitterpated rabble on the right wing of this nation have suddenly decided that liberals are falling out of love with Barack Obama:

Barely four months into his presidency, Obama is confronting growing dissatisfaction among members of his liberal base, who feel spurned by a series of his early decisions on issues ranging from guns to torture to immigration to gay rights.

The list got longer last week as Obama reversed his earlier decision to release photos of detainees abused in U.S. military custody and announced plans to try some terror suspects before military commissions – though on the campaign trail he railed against earlier versions of the tribunals.

A few, like MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, have even hurled the left’s ultimate epithet – suggesting that Obama’s turning into George W. Bush.

Unlike, of course, conservatives who marched lockstep with Bush like lemmings until suddenly last November 5, they uncovered evidence that Bush was not really conservative and was in fact the pre-Obama Barack Obama.

We on the left are a cantankerous bunch, to be sure, which means, to periphrase Barnum, you can't fool all of the peoples all of the time. For the right, apparently you can not only fool all the of the peoples all of the time, but you can make them smile and ask for more.

After making a case that liberals will demand a "liberal Scalia" as payback for his backpedalling on issues like torture and troop withdrawal, Politico goes on to dump this load of shit on the blogosphere:

Brittain said such a [centrist] nominee would be confirmed – but liberal groups would probably be slow to respond to future calls for help from Obama. “When he went to press the button next time to rally up people, I think there would still be a lingering issue,” Brittain said.

Right. Because as we all know, liberal groups will shoot themselves to spite themselves.

If the past eight years have taught liberals, at least thinking liberals anything, it's that lockstep ideologues are unlikely to be satisfied with very much for very long and the Bush administration policy of appeasement might have won him a second term, but it did not win him a successful administration.

Obama himself said it best at Notre Dame, albeit it on a different topic:

“Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction,” he said. “But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”

Politico, please...stop characterizing us on the left. You think you know us, but you know nothing.

NEWS ALERT: Politician Tells The Truth

Oh President Obama...:

President Barack Obama on Wednesday told graduates at Arizona State University that he had not done enough in his life to automatically receive an honorary degree.

Here's how to fix that, sir.

Release the torture photos.

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Wednesday that he would fight to prevent the release of photographs documenting abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan by United States military personnel, reversing his position on the issue after commanders warned that the images could set off a deadly backlash against American troops.

The administration said last month that it would not oppose the release of the pictures, but Mr. Obama changed his mind after seeing the photographs and getting warnings from top Pentagon officials that the images, taken from the early years of the wars, would “further inflame anti-American opinion” and endanger troops in two war zones.

As if.

Look, Mr President, by diddling with this decision, you're allowing an opportunity for Al Qaaeda and other religious extremists (including the right-wing nutjobs in this country) to awfulize the photos, to give them mythic status and to talk to the un- and underinformed based solely on rumour and innuendo.

As for our troops in harm's way, well, most of them shouldn't even have been there in the first place, and I think it's incumbent on the people whose boots are on the ground to make amends. My understanding is, ever since the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, that's precisely what some troops have done. Those troops will not be in harm's way.

Neither will troops who have legitimate cause to be in country, such as the ones in Afghanistan who are actively hunting down Taliban and Al Qaeda forces who would re-enslave the people of that nation. Those folks will be grateful, and my suspicion is they'll have a more flexible empathy for the position American troops have been put in by your predecessor.

Yes, some troops WILL face more violence, of that you can be sure, but likely those inflamed tensions would have used any spark to light.

Meanwhile, our history shows that the American public is least served by the administration that hides and cowers behind the skirts of public opinion.

Courageous behavior, sir, is lacking in your administration. It's time you man up (maybe put Hillary in charge of this, if you don't have the stones) and take responsibility for what this nation has done to innocent civilians from other countries.

That's the American way.

And So It Begins

Nevermind the markets. Nevermind the jobs reports. If you want to understand how deep this country is mired in Depression, take a look at this:

March 9 (Bloomberg) -- McDonald’s Corp., the world’s largest restaurant company, said global sales rose 1.4 percent in February as diners sought cheaper food.

Sales at U.S. restaurants open at least 13 months climbed 2.8 percent, while European orders fell 0.2 percent, Oak Brook, Illinois-based McDonald’s said today in a statement. Sales in Asia, the Middle East and Africa gained 0.7 percent.

Value meals, chicken sandwiches and Egg McMuffins are lifting McDonald’s sales in the U.S., where unemployment reached 8.1 percent in February, the highest in more than 25 years. Slowing economies in the U.K., Russia, Australia and Japan are also spurring sales of snack-sized sandwiches and chicken wraps.

People are eating crappier food more often. That right there, in a nutshell, is all you really need to hear to understand how badly the economy has collapsed in the wake of horrendous Republican oversight.

While this has not always been the case, people tend to turn to McDonald's and other fast food restaurants when money gets tight. This is also why you see so many of these kinds of establishments in neighborhoods that have significant numbers of poor and lower-middle class families.

It's not that fast food is cheaper. It's not, at least no cheaper than buying the raw ingredients and cooking it up yourself.

It is, however, easier. Quicker. More convenient. And there's the rub. For any variety of reasons that have little to do with taste or cost, people are eating Mickey D's: because they can pick it up on the way home, they can munch a quick burger in between job interviews, they won't spend an hour in a sit-down restaurant while prices there still hover in the unreasonable range.

Call it the new comfort food for cash-strapped consumers.

"It's cheap and full of calories, and you know what you are getting," said Marion Nestle, author of Food Politics and chair of New York University's nutrition and food studies department.

And of course, this raises a host of other issues that will impact Americans for a long time to come, and put that much more pressure on the Obama administration.

I speak, of course, about the health issues. Things like obesity, high blood pressure, cholesterol, and diabetes, which tend to run parallel to communities where fast food consumption is its highest.

I'm not suggesting a causality, others have already done that, and McDonald's has done yeoman work to silence those critics.

But more than a coincidence, I think it's safe to say. And as more and more Americans slip deeper and deeper into poverty, we're looking at a potential epidemic.

As part of Obama's energy policy, I would really like to see a stress on local production of food, and the use of local vegetables and meat sources in restaurants and supermarkets.

For one thing, it would diversify our diets, for another, it would mark an end to the homogenization of eating that sees Americans in China stop in the McDonald's near Tiananmen Square, as opposed to grabbing an authentic Chinese meal in any of a number of restaurants right there on the block, nevermind Chicagoans eating at McDonald's in Times Square.

This would, as Martha Stewart might say, be a good thing.

On The Clock

Each morning, I sit and read my e-mail in the bathroom.

This morning, at precisely six, ThumbPer meowed. He meowed the meow of a cat who was patiently waiting his turn. It was time to go meditate with a cup of coffee and a cat.

At precisely six. I wondered how he knew, what biological mechanism made his clock tick at that exact moment? Can he read a clock? Does he own a watch?

Then I began to think about the world. We're all run on clocks and calendars. Most people in this country, and many more in the world outside it, have to live by a clock. We log into work, we run to catch a train, our TV shows are on at a specific time.

And then I thought about my job, and something odd occured to me: the people who own the company, they aren't really beholden to clocks. Things get done when they want them to get done, on their schedule. Yes, to a degree, where necessary they have to genuflect to time.

But not as often as you might think.

All this leads me to some thoughts about Barack Obama's address last night:

[W]e have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election. A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.

Well, that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here.

He's right, you know, and he didn't single out anybody, didn't exempt you or me, the rich or the poor, the bankers or the brokers (well, maybe the bankers a little), or Democrats or Republicans.

We've all lived as though time was a renewable resource. But it's not. Time is the avenger. Time is what happens when you've lived one way, always looking in the other direction. Time is the wall you run into.

The most curious struggle within life is to balance two things: now and then.

We should all plan for the future and make contingencies for what happens then.

We should all "live in the now," as we say in acting classes.

Funny thing is, we've failed miserably at both.

We've had a thirty year headstart on renewable energy, a fairly simple, logical, and healthier alternative to burning mushed dinosaur soup. We import more of that goo than ever before.

We've had twenty years of warnings with respect to the rising costs of healthcare, and the declining wages to pay for them. Yet here we are, watching an American go bankrupt every thirty seconds because he or she can't afford to pay for the God-given gift of a healthy life.

We've had decades of warnings with respect to global warming and the twin disaster of sudden ice ages (and conservatives? These are not conflicting ideas. The earth can warm up as a whole while we plunge into an ice age in the northern and southern temperate zones), yet our planet is getting hotter and the warmest ten years on record have been the past ten.

And we've sat on our asses and did nothing, except mock Al Gore, mock Jimmy Carter and mock Hillary Clinton.

(Hm. Those are all Democrats! But I digress...)

The Obama stimulus package/budget announcement tries to reconcile these two aspects of time. The stimulus package is for the now. The budget is for the then.

It is a bold and grand vision, to be sure, and the real test comes in a year or two, when the economy has (we hope) recovered and the deficit inches down at first. Can Congress be mature enough to sit on its hands and continue to tinker with the deficit or will the special interests begin to ratchet up the rhetoric, which actually began with Bobby Jindal's amateurish and childish (Fox's words, not mine!)response to Obama's speech last night?

Time waits for no one, and it is on this basis that we, the people, must take control of our country again. It is we who must keep our Congresscritters responsible and it is we who must keep Barack Obama responsible (admittedly, I sense this will be the easier task). And it is we who must keep our local politicians responsible for the funds they receive from the Feds and from our tax dollars.

We have to get off our asses and own our time on this planet. Own the now. Own the then.

If the farm subsidy to Big Agra is about to be snuck through a late night session by the critters from the cornfields, then it's up to us to rally up the rest of the nation to put a stop to it.

If the Defense Department is insistent on buying yet another legacy weapon for a war they fought twenty years ago, it's up to us to call them on the carpet.

It's our future, not our elected officials, who, like my bosses, have forgotten what a clock really is.

A marker in the river of our lives that delineates the now from the then. We live on the clock. We need to act like it.

On The Up Beat

Apropos of my column yesterday about denial and America comes this story:

President Obama's address Tuesday to a joint session of Congress will have a heavy emphasis on the economy and will try to strike an optimistic tone, aides said.

That's a sign Obama has heard the criticism, including from former President Clinton, that he needs to mix sober talk with an upbeat bottom line.

"He believes we will meet these challenges and lift ourselves out of this" recession, one top aide said. "He will say, 'The best days are ahead of us.' "

First, you'll note that this isn't being called a "State Of The Union" address. That will likely come later this year, once the stimulus package has begun to work its way through the economy (figure in May).

More important, comparisons have been drawn between Obama's recent doom-and-gloom speechifying and Jimmy Carter's, which has given a talking point to the mainstream media, beholden as it is to conservative talking points, owned as it is by conservative white men.

A President walks a difficult line, to be sure, which is why we will accept little white lies from him (or her). He can't appear too optimistic or too pessimistic.

Let's take Jimmy Carter as an example. Here was a man who truly was as honest as a President could afford to be. He spoke plainly about the need to conserve energy (the man was a visionary) and to analyze the country's mood, speaking to the general malaise we were suffering.

And got hammered for both.

In Obama's case, his emphasis on looking forward will be a tonic against the whining, mewling little children on the right wing, who talk about deficits and debt as if it was something they suddenly discovered after 8 years of Bush spending us into oblivion. After all, what's a trillion dollars to help your countrymen, when you spent at least that much on a nation 6,000 miles away that you will never visit populated by people who don't particularly like you much.

That's not to say that the deficit is nothing important...even if Dick Cheney said we could safely ignore it. It is, and Obama is correct to address the need to tighten belts.

There are, however, precious few places where one can cut spending much and have a measurable effect on the deficit as a whole. In 2008, entitlement spending, apart from Social Security and Medicare-- both of which are funded off-budget under their own trust funds, but which represent roughly 43% of tax revenues, about $1.3 trillion-- is roughly 27%, of which about 2/5 is mandatory. Interest on outstanding debt is another 10% (and rising).

Leaving defense spending of 21% (absent the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which have always been unbudgeted, until the Obama administration).

So factor in the defense budget of $626 billion, plus another $500 billion for the wars, and you see that defense spending rivals and might even exceed the budget for any other individual entitlement.

US defense spending is twice the combined defense spending of the rest of NATO. The US spends roughly 47% of the world's defense spending, meaning that if we avoid pissing the entire world off, we have more weapons than we could possibly need. Ever. Right now.

That's not to say that we should stop finding more and better means of defending ourselves. It just means that we can make do with what we have for a while, and do not need shiny new aircraft carriers every year or spanking new planes every quarter.

It means, in short, making Federal spending fall more into line with the actual revenues received from the various states. Fortunately, most of the governors who lined up against the stimulus package have been from states who net more in Federal spending than they contribute in taxes!

They don't want the money? Fine. No problem. We'll leave that money on the table, and cut defense spending, close bases and cancel contracts. I got no problem with that.

We are, quite literally, at a place where we can and must choose butter over guns. You can't eat a bullet, unless you intend, you know...

Service

Today, we celebrate the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King. Today, soon-to-be President Barack Obama has asked us to volunteer to serve our country, for this one day, for just a few hours.

Many will serve because Obama has asked. Many will serve because it is in their nature, Christian or otherwise. Many will not serve, and it is to them I address this post.

My countrymen are hurting. Many have or will lose their jobs. Many have or will lose their homes. Many are hungry. Many more will become hungry. Many have suffered, and many more will suffer before we see better days. Brother, don't you walk away.

My countrymen are hurting. We've sent them to a war that dishonors their final dedication to their nation, to have struggled, fought, died and consecrated the ground they fought on to preserve the American union. They have come back in pine boxes, but also in wheelchairs and on crutches, with injuries both visible and known only to their own hearts. Sister, don't you walk away.

My countrymen are hurting. They look back over these past years and worry what the future will hold. They've seen their life savings wiped out for the greed of men who would not last five minutes on a city street without a chauffeur. They are scared and angry, and need my hand and yours. Brother, don't you walk away.

For in these men and women and children, we see reflected our own faces. They are about our size and about our age, and down a different road might have been our friends and neighbors. But you never know how the road will bend. Sister, don't you walk away.

My brothers and sisters in Africa, in the Middle East, in Asia, all across this globe, are hurting. They suffer from famine and disease, and worse, war and government-sponsored murders. They wake up each morning not knowing if they will go to sleep that night. They wander the day not knowing whether they will have a home to go to, even if they do manage to slip past the daylight and into that good night. Brother, don't you walk away.

My country is hurting. She needs new ideas and new hopes and new dreams to sustain her after eight years of rapacious greed and cynical vampirism. She needs her people to rally around her, to lift her up on her shoulders as she has done countless times in the past for you and me and our fathers and mothers and grandfathers and grandmothers. Sister, don't you walk away.

My country is hurting. She inspires us in good times and comforts us in bad and right now, she needs to be comforted and then inspired once more to the promise and goodness that resides in all of us, the gift of freedom that she has given us that we must now wear more proudly than ever. Brother, don't you walk away.

My country is hurting, and in hurting, I hear the cries of the mother for her children, to help make one more life that much better. She sees the pain and suffering of her people, and the very land under our feet cries out for help. And we can give her that help. Sister, don't you walk away.

My world is hurting. She's scared and angry and rages at the folly of men who would wrest her might for their own selfish purposes. Her body is bruised by bombs and scarred by war, and she aches for her children, this Gaia.

Brother, don't you walk away.

How much difference can one man make? In the grand scheme of things, not much. In just one other life, a lot.

Please, don't walk away.

Honestly!

I'm really pissed about something: politicians lie.

OK, that's a man-bites-dog story if I've ever heard one but let me continue.

All politicians lie, it's true. Indeed, all politicians lie most of the time or at least hedge the truth with truthiness.

That doesn't bother me. I don't really want to know what's going on behind the scenes for most things until the public roll out happens. Too many details, too much information and then you'd have people arguing about how they didn't know, as opposed to why they didn't know.

Like I don't need to know wiring to appreciate electricity, I don't need to know the processes behind most legislation and administration.

Here's the thing, tho. We've just come out of eight years of the most egregious lying in the history of America, and that's pissing me off. Why? Because it makes Barack Obama look stupid, is why.

Bill Clinton lied. Indeed, he was the consummate liar of both stripes: the lies I can live with and the lies I hate. When Clinton was in his element, say with encouraging Congress to pass legislation, his lies were spot on, and again, I could live with not being told something was going on when indeed something was going on.

Clinton, when he was out of his element, like with the Lewinski scandal, was a horrible liar. He was out of his comfort zone. Rather than not revealing truths, he was forced to deny the truth. Those are the lies, I think, most people get offended by.

Bush et al, took this to a brand new level. Under the guise of hiding the truth, in reality, people like Cheney and Gonzalez, Libby and Rove ended up bald-faced lying to us. For eight years!

In the end, I think part of Bush's horrendous polling numbers was a direct function of this: there's only so much that Americans will put up with before screaming "ENOUGH!"

Now, to Barack Obama. I've read a little of his stimulus package. I know there's dissembling in there, of course. For one thing, it has to be based on last year's budget numbers and last year's budget numbers are not the whole truth, to be sure. In most places, it will be worse than the budget tells us. In some, better.

Here's the thing, though. The first lie, white or black, that Obama is caught up in will be magnified and turned into a major crisis of confidence. Just look at how the Richardson withdrawal played out in the MSM: Obama misstepped.

No, he didn't. He can't be blamed because Richardson flat out lied, except to the extent that his vetting team fell flat on its face. For that, he needs to take responsibility, but not to me. I don't care. I expected it, in fact.

No, I'm talking about the first lie in his numbers, which of course are inaccurate as I've just outlined. The hue and cry will be awful.

Bush lowered the bar for many things in the Presidency: accountability, humility, communication, bipartisanship (remember how he would work with Dems?).

But in this, in honesty, there might be the greatest tragedy of all his failures and flaws.

For that, he must never be forgotten or forgiven.