Will We See a New, Far Tougher Obama?

Today is Inauguration Day in Washington, D.C., and as Barack Obama begins his next four year term there is much speculation as to whether or not we will see a tougher Obama than during his first term where ridiculous efforts at bipartisanship proved just as futile as many of us could have predicted.  And then there was the maddening display of Obama punting his leadership role and waiting for Congressional Democrats to lead the way.  It was enough to make me want to pull my hair out and this blog certainly took Obama to task on may occasions.  Will we see a more reality based leadership this go around and will Obama face the reality that many in the GOP controlled House of Representatives would as soon give him a cup of coffee laced with cyanide as they would compromise and reach an agreement that would benefit the country even if it upset the Christofascist/Tea Party base of the GOP.  A piece in Huffington Post looks at this question.  Here are highlights:

As President Barack Obama enters his second term, his aides have concluded he likely will fall short on one of his signature promises. Barring some collectively cathartic Beltway experience, the Obama administration will not usher in an era of post-partisanship. The forces of gridlock continue to have the upper hand, and they will have a tangible impact on the president's tactics and ambitions.

Obama and his aides are neither fretting nor apologizing. Rather, while expressing a continued preference for politics by consensus, they are embracing the need for a more aggressive, even confrontational approach. The president signaled as much by vowing simply to not negotiate with Republicans over raising the debt ceiling. He upped the ante with the introduction of his gun policy reforms, which were more comprehensive than expected.

The message was solidified this past week with the announcement that Obama for America -- the organization that lifted the president to two election victories -- would be converted to a non-profit entity for the express purpose of pushing the White House's agenda in Obama's second term. One senior administration official was practically giddy about the prospect of using the organization's massive email list for policy purposes, admitting the campaign group had failed to do so effectively during the president's first term.

The White House has made similar boasts before, so skeptics have their reasons. But this time, a dysfunctional Washington and a weakened but more dogmatic Republican Party make a combative strategy the best option.

As for the next term, "I think a lot of it will end up having to do with how the Republican Party sees the future," Axelrod added. "Survival is a strong instinct. If Republicans think there is a political advantage to them personally to continue this Manichean struggle, then that doesn't bode well."

During Obama's first term, Republicans rebuffed the president time and again. Eventually, the president's aides concluded that more could be done working around or against Congress, rather than with it.  The seeds of that approach -- which involve barnstorming outside the Beltway, urging voters to pressure elected officials, and taking harder lines for negotiations -- were planted during the payroll tax cut fight in early 2012 and bloomed during the fiscal cliff standoff at year's end.

Inside the White House, she added, "there is a recognition that there are only so many hours that you can spend sitting around the table talking to or at people who have no interest in helping you." 

Those who know Obama best insist that he isn't giving up on the notion of post-partisanship. Pressing the idea is a useful public relations tactic, they argued, portraying opponents as hopelessly intractable if they don't bend. Moreover, the public still wants him to try. According to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll, 39 percent of respondents want the president to cooperate more with Republicans. Only 22 percent want him to cooperate less; 16 percent think he cooperates too much and 38 percent think he doesn't cooperate enough. 

Frankly, I'm in the 16% that thinks Obama cooperates far too much.

Romney’s Failure on Immigration

As one Congressman illustrated in a display in the House floor where he showed photos of Hispanic looking celebrities and notables who were U.S. citizens in contrast to others who were "white" looking immigrants and/or not citizens, picking who is the immigrant and possibly illegally in the country is often little more than racial profiling.  And candidly, Arizona's immigration statute was all about racism at its base.  Thus, a bold response condemning racist immigration policy was needed.  Yet Mitt Romney failed the test.  Most likely because his party's base is increasingly made up of racists and bigots.  In the Washington Post, Michael Gerson - a conservative - slams Romney's failed leadership and boldness on the immigration issue that simply is not going to go away and which as the nation's demographics change will increasingly hurt the GOP's electoral chances.  Here are highlights: 

[T]he [Supreme] court’s immigration decision — and Mitt Romney’s positioning on the issue — that throws the brightest light on the presidential race. And the glare is not kind to the challenger.

Romney is being careful and reasonable on immigration in the midst of a five-alarm political fire. Latino support for Republicans has been dropping since conservatives blocked President George W. Bush’s attempt at comprehensive immigration reform. Romney accelerated the descent by pledging to veto the Dream Act as president. His polling among Hispanics now bumps along at about 25 percent — a level that seems inconsistent with winning Colorado, Nevada or perhaps even Florida. 

On immigration, President Obama’s boldness of late has been Napoleonic. The French emperor is hardly a model for a democratic statesman, given the coup of 18 Brumaire and all that. But he knew how to throw his strength at an opponent’s weak point at a decisive moment — which Obama did with his mini-Dream Act. It was a questionable use of executive power. But after weeks of political stumbles, Obama proved capable of an audacious stroke. And it is not likely to be his last. A campaign proud of its micro-targeting has plenty of demographic groups left to motivate.

The contrast is instructive. The Obama campaign is often tactically weak — an exercise in endless speeches, overmatched spokesmen, blame-shifting and expectations-lowering. But the president is capable of ambitious repositioning.

[I]t should concern Republicans that the Romney campaign has shown little appetite for strategic boldness — the ability to shift an argument, exploit a weakness or appeal to an unexpected audience. Immigration is the most urgent example, but there are others. What innovative policy has Romney announced to reassure suburban women? Or to drive home his appeal to Catholic voters, whom Obama seems intent on alienating? Or to persuade working-class voters that he is committed not just to economic freedom but also to upward mobility?

This absence of strategic ambition may reflect a strategy — that the election should be only a referendum on the Obama economy. If so, it is a serious mistake. Very few coast to the presidency based on the failures of others.

Admittedly, Romney's problem is the extremism of today's GOP.  In order to win other voters, Romney will have to take positions that are anathema to the prejudice and bigotry filled GOP base.  So far, Romney has pandered to that base rather than expand his appeal.  Hopefully, it will be a fatal mistake.

Andrew Cuomo Calls for Same Sex Marriage in All States

Andrew Cuomo in his successful effort to bring full marriage equality to New York State has shown the example of how Barack Obama might have made a push for same sex marriage across the country - or at least bravely lead the charge for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"). Such action, of course, would involve leadership and courage, two thinks starkly lacking in the White House at present. In all likelihood, those who oppose marriage equality won't vote for Obama in any event, so the net loss of being on the right side of history would likely be negligible. But back to Cuomo. Last night Cuomo was feted at the Empire State Pride Agenda where, for the first time, he made the case for marriage equality across America. The New York Times looks at Cuomo's comments. Here are highlights:

Mr. Cuomo, who choreographed the successful push this year to win legalization of same-sex marriage, received a standing ovation that lasted for more than a minute from supporters of the group, the Empire State Pride Agenda.

Shifting his sights beyond New York in a way he has not done before, Mr. Cuomo demanded that the federal Defense of Marriage Act be repealed. His voice rising in intensity as he spoke, he also called for federal legislation that would bar discrimination against gay men and lesbians in housing and employment.

And in his most forceful terms to date, Mr. Cuomo called for his counterparts across the country to embrace what he framed as an issue of equal rights and to push for the legalization of same-sex marriage in their own statehouses.

“We need marriage equality in every state in this nation,” Mr. Cuomo said. “Otherwise, no state really has marriage equality, and we will not rest until it is a reality.”

In his speech, he praised gay rights advocates for their hard work and also thanked many elected officials, including his predecessor, Gov. David A. Paterson, and the four Republican state senators who provided the critical votes to pass the marriage bill and whom Mr. Cuomo named one by one to some of the loudest applause of the evening.

Imagine an America where all citizens are treated equally under the law regardless of their sexual orientation and where anti-gay Christians are not afforded special rights. I often wonder if I will long enough to see that day.

Is Obama's New Combative Game Too Little Too Late?

With the 2012 election still 13 months away, it seems like Barack Obama is finally waking up and starting to act like he should have been doing from day one of his presidency or at least soon after the GOP members of Congress made it clear they were not going to play ball with him. In the meantime, rank and file Democrats have become largely demoralized and convinced in many cases that Obama and the Democrats are incompetent in countering the GOP propaganda machine and never ending Christianist/Tea Party lies. With control of the Virginia Senate - the sole bulwark against the worse policies of the GOP - up for grabs a month from now, the Democrat apathy is frighteningly similar to that in 2009 which allowed Taliban Bob McDonnell and Ken Kookinelli to win their state wide offices. It's hard to be enthused when you don't even feel the Democrats are out there fighting the forces of ignorance and evil in the GOP. The result? According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, only 58 percent of Democrats in believe that Obama will be reelected. What's sad, it's largely because of Obama's self inflicted wounds. The Washington Post looks at Obama's belated more confrontational behavior. Here are excerpts:

There is a noticeably more aggressive, confrontational President Obama roaming the country these days, selling his jobs plan and attacking Republicans for standing in the way of progress by standing up only for the rich.

In Texas on Tuesday, the president went after a leading Republican by name: “Yesterday the Republican majority leader in Congress, Eric Cantor, said that right now he won’t even let this jobs bill have a vote in the House of Representatives,” Obama said. “I would like Mr. Cantor to come here to Dallas and explain what exactly in this jobs bill does he not believe in, what exactly he is opposed to. Does he not believe in rebuilding America’s roads and bridges? Does he not believe in tax breaks for small businesses or efforts to help our veterans?”

The emergence of this more pugnacious Obama has heartened Democrats, especially the most liberal ones, who spent the past few months dejected by what they saw as the president’s unwillingness to engage his opponents in political combat.

The president’s problems, even within his own party, remain formidable; only 58 percent of Democrats in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll believe that he will be reelected. Many supporters remain skeptical of his tendency to seek compromise with Republicans, and recently he angered some black supporters by urging them to stop complaining. Still, in recent weeks, Obama has begun to blunt some of the criticism among Democrats that he is not up for the fight.

[T]he only good news for Obama relates to his jobs plan and his Republican opposition. An even higher percentage of poll respondents, about 76 percent, say they disapprove of the way Republicans in Congress are handling the economy. Given that dubious advantage, the president may have few options other than to attack.

The president’s jobs plan is one remaining bright spot for him. A narrow majority in the poll supports the package. Nearly six in 10 say Obama’s plan would help improve the unemployment situation.

Obama has begun to frame the 2012 contest as a referendum on values. . . . The president also has drawn a values contrast with Republicans over how to pay for his jobs plan, which features a “Buffett rule” that would eliminate some tax loopholes for people earning more than $200,000 a year. Republicans have labeled Obama’s approach “class warfare,” a term the president has embraced — with a twist.

“You’re already hearing the Republicans in Congress dusting off the old talking points,” Obama told New York donors two weeks ago. “You know what? If asking a billionaire to pay the same rate as a plumber or a teacher makes me a warrior for the middle class, I wear that charge as a badge of honor.”


Neera Tanden, a former Obama administration official, said the president tried to position himself as the “adult in the room” during the debt fight, remaining above the partisan fray in hopes of striking a “grand bargain.” The strategy collapsed after House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) balked under pressure from the tea party and the White House agreed to cut spending by $900 billion without raising taxes.

Jon Huntsman - He's No Moderate, But He's Not Crazy

Watching the current line up of GOP presidential contenders is dismaying for anyone who places value on intellect and reasoned thought. Romney is try to "out Gore" Al Gore's disastrous campaign in 2000 where Gore seemed to be someone different at every event as he tried to please everyone all of the time and ended up looking like he believed in nothing. Meanwhile, Perry, Bachmann and Santorum are clinically insane in my view. That leaves Jon Huntsman as the lone non-crazy person who may actually have some central beliefs. His sanity inaccurately makes him look moderate compared to the fire breathing Bible beaters - something that makes him unacceptable to the untethered elements that now dominate the GOP party base. A piece in American Conservative has an interesting profile of Huntsman that underscores his strong conservatism, but also underscores his rational approach to issues. In particular, he seems to understand the changing global economy and the fact that the USA must change its game plan to remain a leading word power. Retreating into a quasi-Medieval mindset which rejects science as espoused by Perry and Bachmann is not the solution. Here are some article highlights (I recommend reading the whole lengthy article):

HANOVER, NH—Jon Huntsman walked out of the rear door of a Dartmouth auditorium. His head swiveled as he looked for the black SUV that will take him to his next stop. He had just given a speech emphasizing his claim that the future of America will not be decided on a battlefield in remotest Afghanistan but along the trade routes of the Pacific. The applause had barely died down in the hall as Huntsman exited into the quiet streets of Hanover. He took one second to sigh. He had just launched “Phase Two” of his campaign, and it was a success.

The reboot couldn’t come fast enough. Huntsman had made no dent in the polls since his launch in June. Instead, the avalanche of prestige media mash-notes to his campaign had the effect of raising expectations ridiculously high and smothering him with the labels “soft” and “moderate” in an era when Tea-caffeinated primary voters are looking for “hard” and “right.”

Huntsman may be uncomfortable in the ideological sweathouse that is the conservative movement. He may be diplomatic when the right is dyspeptic. But his candidacy offers conservatives two very tantalizing possibilities: a break with the Bush legacy on foreign policy and the chance to move their policy prescriptions off the Tea Party’s placards and into the center of our political debate. Huntsman’s record shows that conservative politics can triumph not just through conflict but also by concord.

But for now he has to win by making contrasts. At Dartmouth he had two objectives: define his mission and define his opponents, all while maintaining his genial image. “I’m driven to run for president… because I can’t stand the thought that we’re about ready to hand down the greatest nation that ever was to your generation less good, less competitive, saddled with debt, less hopeful than the country I got,” he said to the crowd. Mission one accomplished.

Huntsman can’t check the whole list, it’s true. He has Barack Obama’s 2008 position on gay rights: he is for same-sex civil unions but not marriage. He has John McCain’s latest position on immigration: he supports comprehensive reform and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens—conservatives call this amnesty—but he demands that the border be secured first. Yet the means to do that don’t excite him. He told a town-hall audience recently, “I mean, for me, as an American, the thought of a fence to some extent repulses me, because it is not consistent with … the image that we projected from the very beginning to the rest of the world.”
Huntsman also riled conservatives on some environmental issues. He has praised Nixon’s creation of the EPA.

Huntsman has reason to think his record compares favorably with those of his rivals. Unlike Romney, Huntsman’s state healthcare reform achieved more insurance coverage for residents without resorting to an individual mandate. Huntsman has never argued that he was more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy, as Romney did in his 1994 Senate race. And while Rick Perry’s Texas has 38 percent of all new American jobs created during the anemic recovery, the unemployment rate in Lone Star State has actually gone up. Because so many of the new jobs are low-wage, Texas’s debt has actually doubled under Perry. Huntsman’s Utah attracted larger companies and higher-paying jobs that helped the state recover from the recession more quickly than almost any other. The suspected RINO Huntsman passed Utah’s largest ever tax cut. Perry, who is casting himself as the beau ideal of the right, voted for Texas’s largest ever tax hike in the 1980s when he was an elected Democrat.

But where Huntsman really contrasts with his opponents is on foreign policy. . . . Huntsman isn’t about withdrawing from the world stage but reorienting our policy: “Why do we have so many military bases in Japan, we’re half a century after World War II? Why so many in Germany? Does it make sense for America to remain in these places?” Huntsman believes that other candidates are kidding themselves if they think defense budgets should be off the table when discussing the nation’s overspending.

Huntsman is most anxious about changing the mission in Afghanistan, America’s longest war. In a recent speech he leveled with the crowd: “It’s time to recognize the reality of what we’re up against in Afghanistan. It isn’t a nation-building exercise, it’s counter-terror [that we need],” he said, “You don’t need 100,000 boots on the ground and the expenses that it carries. You need intelligence-gathering capability, a special-forces presence, and help training the Afghan-national troops.”

When Huntsman brings back the subject of China, he finds his ground quickly. Does the Chinese government—which unlike the Soviet Union has been able to combine central planning with explosive growth—represent an ideological rival to the United States? “No,” he says, “If you disaggregate their current system you’d be hard pressed to say there is a driving ideology besides growth and success.” China believes it has a model that works for China and may work for other emerging countries, he says, but not for us.

He also contends that social and economic trends in China are coming to an extremely delicate moment. 500 million Internet users are online there, inflation rises, and at the next Party Congress nearly 65 percent of its 200 leaders are turning over. “It’s potentially incendiary,” Huntsman says. His campaign people constantly stress the importance of getting American policy in China right. “In last century you wanted a president who really understood Europe and Soviet Union,” says Ayres, “Now we need someone who understands China, India, Asia.”

But the challenge for Huntsman is whether the electorate can abide self-reflection and self-criticism. There is something deeper that undergirds Huntsman’s campaign rhetoric. It’s hinted at when he says that empires fall due to a “diminution in values at home,” or when he says he is running for president in part because his generation is about to hand over a country that is “less good” than the one they inherited. These are the words of a man who believes his country has grown decadent and soft. Without the rest of the stump speech to cushion them, they are startling to hear from a presidential candidate.

For Huntsman, the factionalism of our politics isn’t the sign of zealous conviction, but of insecurity. Promiscuous intervention abroad isn’t a sign of strength, but of national aimlessness and weakness. Perhaps the hard truth is that America’s deformed policies are a reflection of a deformed character.

Of course, the unspoken converse is that good leadership and good policy would have an invigorating effect on the national soul, and that is where Huntsman hopes to make his appeal. He couldn’t help but touch on these themes in his address to the College Republicans in Washington. “I don’t want you to become disillusioned,” he said, “I want you to believe in the system. Your generation is going to be part of the fix.”

Huntsman’s goals are less lofty. He sets policy not from above the human pile but from across the same table. He promises not transcendence but consensus. This is a modest vision of politics that makes the words conservative and moderate seem fresh again—and compatible. Now it’s up to the professionals to sell that on a bumper sticker.

I worry about Huntsman on social issues, but on many issues, I suspect he's right. In many ways he makes more sense that anyone else, including the current occupant of the White House.

The Road t to Marriage Victory in New York

There's still plenty of analysis of how marriage equality was won in New York State. One thing that seems to have been key was a member of the executive branch who wasn't afraid to be a leader - .i.e., Governor Andrew Cuomo. To me, the contrast between Cuomo and Obama could not be more stark. Obama always follows - often unwillingly and kicking and screaming. Cuomo took charge of the issue head on and worked all the factions and brought the discipline to get the job done. Imagine what could be done if Washington if we had a head of the executive branch who wasn't afraid of his own shadow most of the time. There's already talk of Cuomo as a possible contender in 2016 and if he can continue to get things done and be a LEADER, the conjecturing could be on the mark. At present, one poll shows 59% of Republicans approving Cuomo's performance in office. Here are highlights from two New York Times stories - here and here - that look at the results achieved in New York State:
*
It sounded improbable: top Republican moneymen helping a Democratic rival [Cuomo] with one of his biggest legislative goals.
*
But the donors in the room — the billionaire Paul Singer, whose son is gay, joined by the hedge fund managers Cliff Asness and Daniel Loeb — had the influence and the money to insulate nervous senators from conservative backlash if they supported the marriage measure. And they were inclined to see the issue as one of personal freedom, consistent with their more libertarian views. Within days, the wealthy Republicans sent back word: They were on board.
*
The story of how same-sex marriage became legal in New York is about shifting public sentiment and individual lawmakers moved by emotional appeals from gay couples who wish to be wed. But, behind the scenes, it was really about a Republican Party reckoning with a profoundly changing power dynamic, where Wall Street donors and gay-rights advocates demonstrated more might and muscle than a Roman Catholic hierarchy and an ineffective opposition.
*
And it was about a Democratic governor, himself a Catholic, who used the force of his personality and relentlessly strategic mind to persuade conflicted lawmakers to take a historic leap.
*
Mr. Cuomo was diplomatic but candid with gay-rights advocates in early March when he summoned them to the Capitol’s Red Room, a ceremonial chamber with stained-glass windows and wood-paneled walls. . . . . . “You can either focus on the goal, or we can spend a lot of time competing and destroying ourselves,” the governor said. This time around, the lobbying had to be done the Cuomo way: with meticulous, top-down coordination. “I will be personally involved,” he said.
*
By the time a Catholic bishop from Brooklyn traveled to Albany last week to tell undecided senators that passing same-sex marriage “is not in keeping with the will of their people,” it was clear the church had been outmaneuvered by the highly organized same-sex marriage coalition, with its sprawling field team and, especially, its Wall Street donors. “In many ways,” acknowledged Dennis Poust, of the New York State Catholic Conference, “we were outgunned. That is a lot to overcome.”
*
Mr. Cuomo invited the Republicans to visit him at the governor’s residence, a 40-room Victorian mansion overlooking the Hudson River, just a few blocks from the Capitol.
*
There, in a speech the public would never hear, he offered his most direct and impassioned case for allowing gays to wed. Gay couples, he said, wanted recognition from the state that they were no different from the lawmakers in the room. “Their love is worth the same as your love,” Mr. Cuomo said, according to someone who heard him. “Their partnership is worth the same as your partnership. And they are equal in your eyes to you. That is the driving issue.” In the late hours of Friday night, 33 members of the State Senate agreed with him.
*
As for Cuomo's future? Here are more highlights:
*
The passage of a same-sex-marriage bill late Friday in New York drew considerable national coverage to the Empire State and was broadly touted as a major victory for first-term Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo.
*
It also has stoked talk that Cuomo is rapidly transforming himself into a first among equals when it comes to the jockeying for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.
*
“It’s not just that he delivered on a major civil rights issue for the Democratic base in a huge state, it’s how he did it — winning bipartisan support and sticking with it when it seemed it might fail,” Democratic consultant Jason Ralston said. “Combine that with his name and his focus on the middle class, and he is at the front of the pack for 2016.”
*
A Quinnipiac University poll conducted earlier this month showed that more than six in 10 New Yorkers approved of the job Cuomo was doing, while just 18 percent disapproved. Amazingly, 59 percent of self-identified Republicans said they approved of how Cuomo was handling his job.
*
“If you can govern successfully in this environment, everyone has to take you seriously,” said Democratic strategist Paul Begala.

Huntsman Steps Into the Republican Presidential Candidate Vacuum

I have mentioned former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman because in my view he's just about the only sane presidential contender. The question is whether he has a snowball's chance in Hell of securing the GOP nomination given the extremism and outright insanity of today's GOP base. Jonathan Capehart at the Washington Post finds him an intriguing candidate - as do a number of those individuals who go by the oxymoron term "gay Republicans" as discussed by Politico. As several news outlets have reported, when asked about the possible passage of marriage equality in New York State, Huntsman indicated that he'd respect the state's decision. Obviously, such a statement plays well with moderates and progressives but must have set many in the GOP base into convulsions. Here are highlights from Capehart's column:
*
Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman is getting into the race today for the Republican nomination for president, and I’m glad for it. Of all the candidates in the field, he’s the one I find most intriguing, for a couple of reasons.
*
For the folks looking for a GOP alternative to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Huntsman could fill the bill. They both look presidential and have families to match. They’re both smart and have substantial records to run on (and away from) in an appeal to voters. But there are two things that make Huntsman stand out and more promising to me. First, his stances on issues appear to be more firm than Romney’s.
*
Second, Huntsman is willing to stand by positions he’s taken that very well could hurt him with the Republican Party faithful.
*
It is that willingness to be unabashedly moderate in a party that has swung far to the right that makes Huntsman so appealing to me. And to many Republicans. GOP strategist Mark McKinnon, an adviser to 2008 presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), said on “Morning Joe” today that he doesn’t think Huntsman is too moderate for the party. A nomination fight with Huntsman in it will be “a fight for the heart and soul of the Republican Party.”
*
As for the Politico coverage, note is taken to Huntsman's support for same sex civil unions. While I find civil unions to be too little and a case of "separate but equal" bullshit, Huntsman is the only GOP contender who has the balls to take the position. Here are highlights from Politico:
*
[A] consultant for the campaign is fundraising off his support for civil unions. The email from Charles T. Moran, a vice chair with the California Log Cabin Republicans and a political consultant, highlights Huntsman and his wife Mary Kaye's support for the LGBT community, adding as Utah's governor he's "talked the talk and walked the walk," and is "unique in his desire to have a fully inclusive campaign."
*
Huntsman doesn't support gay marriage, but was considered to be a fairly pro-gay rights governor, including on issues like hospital visitation. He's also not making much of an overt play for social conservatives - most notably bypassing Iowa,
*
Polling has indicated that voters nationally have moved on the subject of gay marriage, but it remains a potentially complicated issue in a Republican primary. And it is unusual to see an official fundraising appeal that highlights a national candidate's favorable stand on gay rights.
*
I don't know if I could support Huntsman or not. But it would be nice to have a president who might actually be willing to be a leader rather than a timid follower like Obama has been throughout most of his time in the White House.

The Disingenuousness of the Deficit Debate

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne has a column in the Post that looks at the disingenuousness of the GOP leadership in the on-going budget deficit debate. Yes, there are insane ideologues in the ranks of House Republicans who would destroy the country and make the lives of many citizens truly horrific in order to pander to the nastiest elements of the GOP base who constantly rewrite history and seem utterly untethered from any kind of objective reality. But as Dionne notes, there still are some adults left in the GOP leadership ranks - although I would not count Virginia's Eric Cantor among them - so a great deal of the GOP posturing is simply disingenuous and the question becomes one of when will the adults rein in the crazies. Assuming, of course, they can still control the Frankenstein monsters of the Christian Taliban and the Tea Party that they opportunistically helped create. Here are highlights from Dionne's column:
*
Symbolism doesn’t pay off debts or cover the costs of Social Security and Medicare. This has not stopped politicians in the nation’s capital from engaging in an extended and entirely symbolic fight over how to raise the debt ceiling. It’s time to stop the charade.
*
The outlines of an eventual deal are already clear. Both parties will agree to some spending cuts and to a deficit-reduction trigger that won’t take effect until well after the 2012 elections. The triggering language will be vague enough so Republicans can say it would force large spending reductions and Democrats can say it would allow for a mix of cuts and tax increases.
*
Republicans holding the debt ceiling increase hostage to their efforts to eviscerate programs know perfectly well that Congress will not risk a financial crisis. They even acknowledge this.
*
Yet Boehner needs to push things to the brink because the Tea Party members of his caucus believe that last year’s election gave the GOP a “mandate” to make their wildest small-government dreams a reality. Boehner is trying to appease the right with extended rounds of shadow-boxing and big slabs of anti-spending rhetoric.
*
Of course, there was no Tea Party mandate. Democrats still have a majority in the Senate in part because the Tea Party doomed Republican chances of taking it over last year by helping to nominate unelectable candidates, notably Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Sharron Angle in Nevada. And the evidence is unmistakable that Republicans realize the budget they adopted last month, confected by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), is a political albatross.
*
In the campaign for next week’s special election in New York’s 26th Congressional District, Republican Jane Corwin is in unexpected jeopardy because Democrat Kathy Hochul has turned the election into a referendum on Ryan’s budget and its Medicare cuts. Astonishingly (and falsely), Corwin is now accusing the Democrat of favoring Medicare cuts. . . . Republicans will toss the Ryan budget overboard if that’s what it takes to save House seats.
*
And Newt Gingrich is being punished by his party for the great sin of telling the truth about the Ryan budget: Voters simply won’t buy “right-wing social engineering.” . . . All the goodwill in the world can’t get around the fact that the bulk of the deficit problem over the next decade or so arises from the ongoing impact of the Bush-era tax cuts.
*
Having lost on Medicare, Republicans are likely to drop back and seek huge Medicaid cuts — and Ryan’s reductions here are, if anything, worse than his Medicare reductions. As even the cautious Congressional Budget Office concluded, his Medicaid plan “would probably require states to . . . curtail eligibility for Medicaid, provide less extensive coverage to beneficiaries, or pay more themselves.” The cuts would especially harm those with disabilities, who account for 42 percent of Medicaid expenditures.
*
The president could also usefully interrupt our deficit obsession for a moment to remind Congress that 13.7 million Americans are still unemployed. If setting up a mechanism for cutting the deficit in the long term makes sense, slashing it now would be foolish.
*
That’s why a quick and narrow deal to raise the debt ceiling is the only sensible way out of this time-wasting confrontation. It is truly irrational to risk the nation’s credit standing for the purpose of offering empty symbols to the Tea Party.

Could Huntsman Get the GOP Nomination and Beat Obama?

I've written before about former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman and his ambitions to run as the GOP standard bearing in 2012 against Barack Obama. Huntsman has to huge obstacles to getting the GOP nomination: he's a Mormon and he's not an insane demagogue, the latter seemingly now a requirement to be embraced by the GOP base. Of course, being loved by the GOP base is also likely to make one unpalatable to the less untethered members of the broader electorate. As a gay American, I worry about what Huntsman might do on LGBT equality issues, but (1) he pushed for moderation while governor of Utah and (2) Obama has not proved himself to be the "fierce advocate" he promised much of the time. I also realize, however, that we as a nation need a leader - something Obama has shown repeatedly that he is not - and someone who might just try to come up with lasting solutions to pressing issues facing the nation. A piece in the Daily Beast looks at Huntsman's possible strategy. Here are highlights:
*
Huntsman, 51, is about to make a lightning-fast transformation from President Obama's employee to his potential rival. His resignation as U.S. ambassador to China takes effect Saturday. On Monday he will plunge into meetings with the advisers who, without his input, have been laying groundwork for a race for the Republican nomination. His travel schedule starts this week with a commencement speech (and possibly a debate appearance) in South Carolina, followed two weeks later by a commencement speech in New Hampshire.
*
John Weaver, architect of the 2000 John McCain campaign and now of the nascent Huntsman campaign, says there are "tons of differences" between Huntsman and Obama. "Jon's a fiscal conservative. He was a businessman for 10 years. He's actually had to produce a product and he's employed tens of thousands of people," Weaver says, referring to Huntsman's stint as head of his family's giant chemical company. "He has a free-market health-care plan [in Utah]. He's pro-life. I could go on for hours."
*
Huntsman's team points to his deep foreign-policy background (Mormon mission to Taiwan, fluent in Mandarin Chinese, former ambassador to Singapore, former deputy U.S. trade representative); quirky life experience (high school dropout who played keyboard in a rock band for 11 years); potential appeal to the independents needed in a general election (supports civil unions for gay people and served a Democratic president); and personal qualities that make him stand out in the emerging GOP field.
*
"Huntsman's got that X-factor," Quinn says. "He had a twinkle in his eye, and a sense of humor. He was relaxed and comfortable in his skin." As for the weirdness of having served the guy he wants to beat, "My gut tells me he'll be able to turn that into an advantage" because he'll speak with authority on foreign policy and it's clear that "he's willing to put aside partisan politics when it comes to national security."
*
Only recently, he adds, "have we gotten to where you have to hate someone to run against them… I don't know how people will be able to solve problems in this country if you have to pretend to hate everybody."
*
Huntsman, says Weaver, is "not an angry person." That's how he and others have positioned Huntsman at Horizon PAC, the political action committee that will be the foundation of his 2012 explorations. "What happened to decency? To reason? What happened to common goals? To calm? To respect? What happened to actual, lasting solutions to problems? When were they replaced with anger?" the website asks. And there you have the themes of a Huntsman campaign.
*
One encouraging sign for Huntsman—and Daniels, for that matter—is that Republican voters are unhappy with the current field. Another is that while the historical record does not bode well for upstart former team members, history does not stand still. Quinn quotes Yogi Berra—"the future ain't what it used to be"—to justify his hopes for Huntsman. "How many African-American presidents have we had before Barack Obama? In South Carolina we have an Indian governor who was raised a Sikh and converted to Christianity," he says. "There's nothing that's being shattered more these days than conventional wisdom."
*
Is Huntsman a long shot for the GOP nomination? Probably yes. But the so was Barack Obama a long shot in the lead up to 2008.

Did Obama Deficit Speech Reveals His Core Beliefs?

In a column in the Washington Post, Fareed Zakaria maintains that Obama's speech yesterday on the nation's budget deficit mess revealed Obama's "core beliefs." If if it did -and I frankly increasingly question whether Obama has ANY core beliefs - the question is will Obama actually fight for these beliefs and for a change do more than give pretty speeches only to become missing in action when the going gets tough and a true leader is needed. I'd like to believe that just perhaps this time things with Obama may be different, but at this point, I will believe it only when I see it. Obama has punted his leadership role too many times over the last two years. Here are highlights from the Post column and readers can make their own decision on whether or not we can trust Obama this time around:
*
President Obama made one of the most important speeches of his presidency on Wednesday. It was an eloquent defense of his basic approach to government and outlined specifically how he would tackle the nation’s long-term debt problems. For people who have been searching for Barack Obama’s core beliefs, this speech is perhaps the single best place to start — though it fell short in one important aspect.
*
Obama revealed himself to be a left-of-center Democrat, but not very far left. To begin with, he accepts the proposition that the deficit is America’s biggest challenge; proposed a set of measures that would reduce the deficit, with large spending cuts in all programs and — crucially — proposed a fail-safe so that if the deficit targets are not met, Congress would immediately cut spending further or raise more taxes.
*
Obama presented a vision of an activist government that will make crucial investments in education, infrastructure and research. These investments have been as much a part of American history, he noted, as a vibrant market economy. Without such government support, there would be no American semiconductor industry, no early adoption of computers, no Internet, no global-positioning system.
*
Obama also pointed out that other countries are investing heavily in these areas. Since 1998, for example, China has tripled the percentage of its gross domestic product devoted to education. The number of college students quintupled, from 1 million in 1997 to 5.5 million in 2007. Public funding for universities is collapsing in America while growing massively in China. In this increasingly competitive landscape, should we further cut education?
*
On taxes, the president’s position is correct and inevitable. For a generation, we have kept taxes low as spending crept ever higher, and we made up the difference by borrowing. . . . . America’s tax burden will have to rise; the real debate is simply in what manner. Tax reform — closing loopholes and deductions — is clearly the best approach.
*
Then there are the entitlement programs. Here, Obama was at his most eloquent but least pragmatic. He made a passionate case for maintaining a basic social safety net for all, particularly the elderly and the poor, that I think will resonate with most Americans. But he lost his courage in proposing sensible reforms to these programs.
*
For Social Security, we should also raise the retirement age, means-test benefits and change the indexing formula. As a society, we must determine roughly what percentage of the federal budget will pay for entitlement programs rather than simply allowing demographics and escalating costs to drive these costs ever higher.
*
I praised Paul Ryan for his courage in presenting a budget that takes risks and proposes painful cuts. It has also had the effect of spurring Barack Obama to present his own serious proposal. I prefer Obama’s approach — which is also closer to that of the Simpson-Bowles commission — with more cuts to entitlements. But what’s critical is that, finally, after years of kicking the can down the road, we are having the national debate about America’s future.

Why American Political Candidates Should Have to Answer Questions About Their Religious Beliefs

As noted in the immediately prior post, some in American political life like Antonin Scalia seem incapable of setting their personal religious beliefs aside in the process of performing their elected or appointed duties. While Article VI of the U.S. Constitution correctly bars the imposition of religious test for public service, given the increased toxicity and extremism of some religious adherents, it IS relevant for voters to know whether or not an elected official is likely to properly perform his/her duties as an elected official in a democracy and whether or not he/she will respect the religious beliefs of others as required by the U.S. Constitution. An column in the Washington Post makes this, in my view, valid argument. Obviously, if a candidate wants to subvert the Constitution so as to make their religious beliefs a de facto established religion (e.g., Antonin Scalia), they probably should not be holding public office. Here are some column highlights and some of the relevant questions:
*
Every religion is radically particular, with its own distinctive beliefs about God, human history and the world. These are specific, concrete claims -- about the status of the religious community in relation to other groups and to the nation as a whole, about the character of political and divine authority, about the place of prophecy in religious and political life, about the scope of human knowledge, about the providential role of God in human history, and about the moral and legal status of sex. Depending on where believers come down on such issues, their faith may or may not clash with the requirements of democratic politics. To help us make that determination, all candidates for high office should have to take the religious test, which would include the following questions:
*
How might the doctrines and practices of your religion conflict with the fulfillment of your official duties? This question would be especially pertinent for evangelical Protestant candidates -- such as Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister -- who belong to faith traditions that emphasize transforming the world in the image of their beliefs.
*
Muslim candidates, meanwhile, should be asked to discuss their view of the proper place of sharia law in a religiously pluralistic society.
*
How would you respond if your church issued an edict that clashed with the duties of your office? This would apply primarily to candidates who belong to churches that make strong claims about the divine authority of their leaders. The Roman Catholic hierarchy, for example . . . The dilemma faced by devout Mormon candidates is potentially greater. Mormons believe that the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a prophet of God,
*
What do you believe human beings can know about nature and history? Many evangelical Protestants and Pentecostals believe in biblical inerrancy, which leads them to treat the findings of natural science (especially those of evolutionary biology) with suspicion. . . . Given the ominous implications of a person with strong eschatological convictions becoming the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth, it would be profoundly irresponsible not to ask tough questions about the topic.
*
Do you believe the law should be used to impose and enforce religious views of sexual morality? The nation today is sharply divided between those whose views of sex are still grounded in the norms and customs of traditionalist religion and those who no longer feel bound by those norms and customs. Given this lack of consensus, the law has understandably retreated from enforcing religiously grounded views, leaving it up to individuals to decide how to regulate their sexual conduct.
*
The religious right hopes to reverse this retreat. That opens the troubling prospect of the state seeking to impose the sexual morals of some Americans on the nation as a whole. All candidates -- especially those who court the support of the religious right -- need to clarify where they stand on the issue. Above all, they need to indicate whether they believe it is possible or desirable to use the force of law to uphold a sexual morality affirmed by a fraction of the people.
*
Asking candidates about their faith should not be taken as a sign of anti-religious animus. On the contrary, this sort of questioning takes faith seriously . . . It matters quite a lot if, in the end, a politician's faith is merely an ecumenical expression of American civil religion -- or if, when taking the religious test, he forthrightly declares (as Kennedy did) that in the event of a clash between his spiritual and political allegiances, the Constitution would always come first.
*
For LGBT Americans are particularly relevant as we continue to be made less than full citizens simply because anti-gay RELIGIOUS beliefs continue to be given a quasi-established religion position in the laws - DADT being a prime example.

It's Time for Obama To Support Gay Marriage

On this coming Tuesday I am supposed to attend the local Democratic Party Committee meeting (which is chaired coincidentally by the First Vice President of the State Democratic Party, who I greatly respect) as a liaison for the LGBT community. Candidly, it's hard to be very enthusiastic given the national Party's betrayal of LGBT citizens and refusal to push through needed legislation like ENDA which would aid LGBT citizens in reactionary backwater states like Virginia. Barack Obama has now made it even harder to be enthusiastic given his mealy mouthed statement through a spokesman indicating that our "fierce advocate" doesn't support marriage equality. The overall situation leaves me tasked to generate support for a Party that has not supported me - it can only claim that it's not as bad as the other guys. In terms of the mid-term elections, I do support the local Congressional Democrat candidates because they HAVE voted the right way on LGBT issues on the occasions the weak kneed leadership in Congress has brought matters to a vote - e.g., DADT repeal - and co-sponsoring ENDA. Unfortunately, nonpolitical junkies in the LGBT community may not even know about these these candidates (Glenn Nye, Bobby Scott and Krystal Ball) and suffer from the malaise besetting so many in the Democratic Party base. Who can change this overnight? Barack Obama provided he puts aside his own prejudicial religious beliefs and stops kissing the asses of the Christianists. David Mixner has an excellent post on this "come to Jesus" issue that Obama cannot sidestep. Here are highlights:
*
After the Proposition 8 historic decision came down on Wednesday, my email box was flooded with people from every walk of life issuing press releases praising the victory. The Republican Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn't be more excited for the LGBT community in our victory. Justice and equality was having a good day and everyone was basking in it.
*
Well, not quite everyone. Our President, our fierce advocate, continued with a game of giving us begrudgingly congratulations in a tepid unemotional and uninspired statement while sending his minions out to make sure the entire country knew that he was against marriage equality. If there was anyone that should sit down and read this opinion it would be this son of an interracial couple who had to go to Supreme Court to obtain marriage equality.
*
This game has to stop. The President is either with us or against us. If he is neutral, so be it but then stop hurting us by saying over and over how marriage equality is between a man and a women. He should pay close attention to the line in Judge Walker's decision that says,
*
"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. "
*
With this case he could no longer hide behind the fact that the Attorney General would have to intervene against us. The case does not involve the federal government. The issue is here to stay. As much as they wish, they can't manage it politically for their convenience. Mr. President, that is no longer possible. The surge toward marriage equality is even going to be stronger in this coming Presidential election. In fact, the Supreme Court could even rule one way or another before the election.
*
For the President, an enormous amount is at stake surrounding this issue and it goes far beyond marriage equality. Is the President going to seize this moment in history and become a great leader or will others have to lead him? Is he going to be remembered as Harry Truman or more like those Senators in the 1960's who walked a fine line attempting to appease all sides in that great epic struggle for civil rights?.
*
Now is the time, Mr. President for you to lead, not tomorrow but today. We want you by our sides. If not, you will be the one that will always be remembered for standing on the sidelines without courage. With or without your leadership, nothing is going to stop our inevitable march to freedom.
*
As always, David has a wonderful way with words. And what he says is true - does Obama want to be remembered as a bold leader or a cowardly follower?

Blog Swarm: Ask HRC To Demand Obama Work To Repeal DADT This Year

A number of bloggers have launched a "blog swarm" today to pressure the Human Rights Campaign ("HRC") into forcefully pressuring President Obama to take a leadership role in the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. As I have complained numerous times, Obama makes pretty speeches and then punts to Congress and does nothing - the health care reform debacle is but one example. We cannot allow the same thing to happen with DADT and HRC needs to stop ass kissing the President and demand action. Indeed, to date, HRC has provided political cover for Obama's do nothing approach to LGBT issues. Here are details of the blog swarm effort which I fully endorse:

*
OUR MESSAGE TO HRC IS SIMPLE:Publicly demand that President Obama take the lead in getting DADT repealed this year.
*
1) That means the President needs to state publicly that he wants Congress to repeal DADT this year; and
*

2) The President needs to take the lead in working with Congress to make sure the repeal happens.
*
HRC Front Desk: (202) 628-4160
TTY: (202) 216-1572
Toll-Free: (800) 777-4723
HRC Web site comment page.
General membership email at hrc: membership@hrc.org
*
As Joe at Joe By God correctly notes, Obama CAN do something if he would but choose to do so (the problem to date is that he has chosen to do nothing):
*

Some may say that there is little the President can do, or that this is up to Congress now. That is simply untrue. The President can send a powerful signal that he wants the repeal done this year. He can include the repeal of DADT in the Defense Budget he sends to Congress in the next few months. If the President is serious about keeping his promises to our community, now is his chance to prove it. . . . As we painfully learned last year during health care reform, nothing happens in Congress unless the President leads. And when the President doesn't lead, disaster is guaranteed.

*

I urge readers to take action and contact HRC. Among the sponsoring blogs are the following:

*

Joe Sudbay and John Aravosis, AMERICAblog

Pam Spaulding, Pam's House Blend

Michelangelo Signorile, Sirius OutQ & the Gist

Markos Moulitsas, DailyKos

Andy Towle, TowleRoad

Joe Jervis, Joe My GodBil Browning, Bilerico

Taylor Marsh, TaylorMarsh.com

Dan Savage, Slog

Albania to Legalise Gay Marriage

In yet another embarrassment to the USA - the alleged land of the free and home of religious freedom - Albania's government has announced that it will push for same sex marriage rights. It's amazing how parts of the world often thought of as backwaters by many Americans - assuming they can even locate them on a world map - are increasingly progressive while the USA remains under the influence of Christianists who want to drag the nation back to a time of ignorance and religious based superstition. Virginia, naturally does it best to remain in the 19th century in areas of social policies and equality under the civil laws. Meanwhile, Barack Obama dithers and sits on his thumbs rather than act as an advocate for equality for ALL Americans. Here are some highlights from Balkin Insight.com:

*
Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha announced in a cabinet meeting on Wednesday that the government would push for a law that recognises homosexual marriages. “This is an important law against discrimination,” said Berisha, who often stresses the importance of family values.
*
The prime minister said that the law had already been put to parliament and that MPs should treat it seriously because it provides a legal basis against discrimination, bringing the country into line with a framework already approved by the EU, which Albania aspires to join.
*
Although deeply secular, Albania is one of the three countries in Europe with a Muslim majority - with Bosnia and Kosovo - and it is unclear how the government’s decision will be accepted by the public. While the Albanian parliament decriminalised homosexual relationships in 1995, more than a decade later, gays and lesbians are still heavily stigmatised, and a majority live clandestine lives, fearing that if their sexual orientation is discovered their safety will be endangered.
*
Human rights reports on Albania concede that ingrained attitudes among the public leave Albanian gays and lesbians on the fringes of society. AHRG reports that Albanian homosexuals face “intolerance, physical and psychological violence - often from the police - and discrimination in the workplace.”

*

Hopefully, the legislation passes. Governments can help shape public acceptance by removing inequalities under the civil laws that deprive anti-gay bigots of laws to point to that support their intolerant and religious based discrimination. Something Obama doesn't seem to grasp.