BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 03:23 PM

Not the FEDERAL funds given to MD, VA, and DC to pay for the "public safety" aspects.

But I suppose you don't want to look at that, as you would if it was Bush.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 03:25 PM

"t will be one of the biggest parties in American history, but half of the country will be left out. With a price tag of up to $50 million, President George W Bush's inauguration in 11 days' time will be an unashamed celebration of Red America's victory over Blue America in last November's election.

It is going to be the most expensive, most security-obsessed event in the history of Washington DC. An army of 10,000 police, secret service officers and FBI agents will patrol the capital for four days of massive celebrations that some critics have derided as reminiscent of the lavish shindigs thrown by Louis XIV, France's extravagant Sun King.

More than 150,000 people, nearly all Republicans whose tickets are a reward for election work, will pack the Mall to hear Bush take his oath of office on 20 January. There will be nine official balls, countless unofficial ones, parades and a concert hosted by Bush's daughters, Jenna and Barbara. "


Anyway, I agree the money would be better spent on supporting charitable works. Between Bush's wars and Paulson's bail-out, in comparison it seems a pittance. 'T is a shame.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 03:53 PM

"Inauguration has already cost Maryland $11 million
By Paul West | [e-mail]
12:56 PM EST, January 13, 2009
WASHINGTON - Next week's presidential inauguration of Barack Obama has already cost Maryland at least $11 million, state officials said today.

The unbudgeted spending, mainly for transportation and security, is part of some $75 million that Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia have already had to absorb, Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty told reporters.

The $11 million figure also includes costs associated with Obama's Saturday train trip and scheduled stop in Baltimore.

Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, said he has spoken with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada about getting Congress to reimburse the cash-short state government. Members of the Maryland congressional delegation, including Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, and Rep. Elijah E. Cummings of Baltimore, are also involved in seeking federal reimbursement, he said."


And the $75,000,000 is only the cost to the states- NOT the cost of the inaugural ( I think that was about $40,000,000- I'll look for the exact amount)

Makes Bush's $50,000,000 seem just a pittance, doesn't it?

The real question is who is paying? If donations, ( the "cost" of the inaugurals) fine- but that $75,000,000 is FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 04:00 PM

"Should Obama and his supporters spend $24-$50 million for the inauguration at a time when the United States is in in the midst of a Recession and facing the highest unemployment rate in sixteen years with 2.6 million having lost their jobs? Who are the donors so gladly paying as much as $50,000 to participate and hosting galas for Congressional members as well?"

http://us-president.suite101.com/article.cfm/obama_and_the_24_million_inaugural



"Obama and Congressional Donor List
Obama's campaign has capped donors to the inauguration at $50,000 and banned lobbyist and corporations from contributing to inaugural events. Corporate donors, such as Florida Power & Lights and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida have gotten around this by contributing to private parties. Critics such as Public Citizen note that most contributors to the presidential inaugural committee and the private parts, including those for Congress members, are well-connected political donors.(McClatchy News, 01/09/09)

Donors, including businesses and their lobbying arms, are helping to underwrite the 10 official celebrations. These include corporations and individuals giving $50,000 such as:

American Airlines
Chicago-based Exelon Utility
The Nuclear Energy Institute
Director and Producer Steven and his wife, Kate Capshaw Spielberg
John Keane of CBS-Viacom
Louis Susman of Citibank

Congress is not without it donors. Although an ethics law passed barred lawmakers from attending parties in their honor but left a loop hole for inauguration-related events. For example, textbook publishers and educational-software providers are helping to pay for a ball honoring Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass, chairman of the education committee. The Creative Coalition, and entertainment industry group, will host a gala with more than 40 lawmakers as "honorary hosts." (USA Today, 12/23/08)

At a time when many Americans are suffering economically, and when Obama has promised "Change", some wonder whether it is appropriate to continue the excessive presidential inaugural festivities, whether being paid for with private or public funds. As the Obama Donor List is scrutinized, there may be some suspicion that Obama and Congress are not much different than the administrations that preceded them."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 04:05 PM

Obama raises $27 million for inaugural
January 6, 2009 - 4:35pm

By SHARON THEIMER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite the economic hard times, money keeps pouring in for President-elect Barack Obama's inaugural festivities.

The inaugural committee has raised at least $27 million, donor information on its Web site Tuesday showed. Most of that has come in over the past three weeks.

If fundraising continues at that pace, Obama's committee will have no problem reaching or exceeding the roughly $40 million raised for each of President George W. Bush's two inaugural celebrations.

More than 2,000 donors are helping to finance Obama's Jan. 20 swearing-in festivities. At least 378 gave the maximum $50,000.

Top donors include financier and major Democratic donor George Soros, actors Halle Berry, Jamie Foxx, Sharon Stone and Samuel L. Jackson, producer Jeffrey Katzenberg and directors Ron Howard, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis. Lisa Henson, daughter of "Muppets" creator Jim Henson and the co-CEO of The Jim Henson Co., also gave the maximum.

Math teacher Jon Mormino of Washington's Sidwell Friends School, where Obama's daughters Malia and Sasha started classes this week, gave $250.

The $50,000 donors get access to inaugural events including candlelight dinners with appearances by members of Congress and the Obamas and tickets to an official ball, the swearing-in ceremony and parade seating.

The committee expects to raise about the same amount as Bush did for his last inauguration. Americans shouldn't get the impression that the money will be spent on caviar and champagne, inaugural committee spokeswoman Linda Douglass said. Light fare and snacks will be served at the official balls; there will be no caviar, and people will have to pay for their drinks, she said.

...
The inaugural committee is releasing the names of those who give $200 or more. It is refusing money from labor unions, corporations, political action committees, foreigners and Washington lobbyists.

The committee isn't turning away contributions from those whose enterprises lobby in Washington, however.

Google chief executive Eric Schmidt and five others at the Internet company gave $25,000 each. The inaugural committee received a total of $150,500 from six Microsoft employees, including the maximum $50,000 from Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.

Also giving the limit were Thomas Strickland, UnitedHealth Group executive vice president and chief legal officer, and two Indian tribes with casinos, the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in California.

Microsoft, Google, UnitedHealth and the two Indian tribes have all lobbied in Washington over the past year.

Other maximum donors include Louis Susman, who retired this month as vice chairman of Citigroup, a banking giant that has received a multibillion-dollar bailout from the U.S. government.

___

On the Net:

Inaugural donors: http://www.pic2009.org/page/content/donors/

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 04:11 PM

Wall Street Dominates List of Inaugural Donors
Posted Jan 9, 09 1:30 PM CST in Business, Politics
(Newser) – Private donations to defray the cost of Barack Obama's inauguration festivities total $27.3 million—and large donors, including Wall Street executives flush with bailout cash, chipped in $24.8 million, the Wall Street Journal reports. That runs counter to the vow to remain independent of special interests that led the president-elect to ban corporations from funding the Jan. 20 ceremonies.

Financial-services execs have bundled donations, and just 378 people raised 70% of the money raised through yesterday. Wall Street employees were the largest single source. A Lehman exec bundled $115,000, a Citigroup director put a $265,000 package together, and Goldman accounted for least $175,000. Congress approved $10 million in public funds for the event.
Source: Wall Street Journal




So, $10,000,000 from Congress, and $75,000,000 to reinburse states- $85,000,000 tax dollars.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 08:30 PM

Sigh.

Actually its oranges and apples. No mention was made of the security and transport costs during the unprecedented Bush four-day celebration.

Notice also, that Obama has invited Americans all over the country to contribute with a day of public service, as he and Michelle are doing the day before the inauguration.

One day of your godforsaken war, Bruce, would have paid for both their damned inaugurations.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 12:58 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if most Americans agree, both the war and the inauguration--at least at this level--are a waste of money.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 12:24 PM

"We are here today not simply to pay tribute to our first patriots but to take up the work that they began. The trials we face are very different now, but severe in their own right. Only a handful of times in our history has a generation been confronted with challenges so vast. An economy that is faltering. Two wars, one that needs to be ended responsibly, one that needs to be waged wisely. A planet that is warming from our unsustainable dependence on oil.

And yet while our problems may be new, what is required to overcome them is not. What is required is the same perseverance and idealism that our founders displayed. What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives - from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry - an appeal not to our easy instincts but to our better angels.

That is the reason I launched my campaign for the presidency nearly two years ago. I did so in the belief that the most fundamental American ideal, that a better life is in store for all those willing to work for it, was slipping out of reach. That Washington was serving the interests of the few, not the many. And that our politics had grown too small for the scale of the challenges we faced.

But I also believed something else. I believed that our future is our choice, and that if we could just recognize ourselves in one another and bring everyone together - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, north, south, east and west, black, white, Latino, Asian, and Native American, gay and straight, disabled and not - then not only would we restore hope and opportunity in places that yearned for both, but maybe, just maybe, we might perfect our union in the process.

This is what I believed, but you made this belief real. You proved once more that people who love this country can change it. And as I prepare to leave for Washington on a trip that you made possible, know that I will not be traveling alone. I will be taking with me some of the men and women I met along the way, Americans from every corner of this country, whose hopes and heartaches were the core of our cause; whose dreams and struggles have become my own.

Theirs are the voices I will carry with me every day in the White House. Theirs are the stories I will be thinking of when we deliver the changes you elected me to make...."

Barack Obama on the whistle-stop tour from Philly

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 12:42 PM

Next Week!!! Snow White and the seven dwarfs!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 01:07 PM

"Snow White and the seven dwarfs!"

?? I don't get it...guess I must be dense.

I really don't get bruce's series of posts about inauguration costs either. Is there some sort of real point or claim being made, or just another "you judge US by different standards" insinuation?

EVERY president is expected to have some sort of celebration of the beginning of their term, and I see many figures that any excess...(like the train trip) is coming from contributions.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 01:35 PM

It was just another Disney "classic" Bill.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 03:08 PM

AKe is being snarky in his very best passive-aggressive style, Bill. But I think it is saf eto ignore his bad humor on the grounds that he is not of or in th eporcess going on with the advent of Obama.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 02:46 PM

We don't know what he will do as in 1933 people had no idea what FDR would do.

As Krugman has pointed out, a stimulus package will have little affect. If the US remains in Afghanistan or Iraq, the Mid-East crisis will escalate and the economic short-fall to support these incursions may bankrupt the country.

What Obama needs to do is boost trade unionism, put money into infrastructure (which could create "green" jobs), help to enforce the raising of tariffs (yes, protectionism) to support American workers and discourage off-shore corporate movement, put money into education and suggest policies that encourage learning rather than testing, divert funds from the military to peacetime public works as FDR did with the WPA, and encourage service like Americorps or the Peace Corps as an alternative to non-productive military tours of duty.

Frank

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 03:26 PM

Frank, you have the national situation in a nutshell, there. Well put.

Let it so be written, and let it be done.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:15 PM

What Obama needs to do and what he is allowed to do are two competely different issues.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:22 PM

Well, no duh, Ake. He has to cleave to the feasible.

You use the word "allowed" as though he has to toe somebody's line, in addition to achieving enough consensus in COngress to get things accomplished.

Who do you think Mister Obama belongs to, then??????



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:56 PM

He belongs to the same people that Mr Bush belonged to.
The people who fight wars against "Terror" whilst practicing it themselves.
The people who made trillions out of financial manipulation then demanded that you and I pick up the tab to set the whole corrupt mess back on the road.
The people who watched over a thousand women and children slaughtered by our weapons of mass destruction and supported that action..........need I go on......duh!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 05:08 PM

Ake, how many pennies did Mister Bush cost you? And how do you figure President Obama is going to get the UK to pay up?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 05:11 PM

Come on my dear, you're better than that!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 05:13 PM

Your "people" and our "people" are very closely related.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 05:25 PM

I hope you will pardon my naivite, Ake, but I believe you are dead wrong on that one. Although money always talks, not everyone listens slavishly like an alcoholic glued to Sesame Street.


Obama is a different cut of mankind than Bush, and it is just facile (not to say embittered and jaded) to assume the same order of corruption is just sitting there waiting to re-assert itself.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 05:40 PM

Mr Obama's pronouncements on the Middle East,Afghanistan,and the current financial situation, or the composition of his administration, give me no hope that a change of direction is imminent or even possible.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 09 - 07:12 PM

PErhaps, mon vieux jade, you are looking for hope in the wrong quarter . The signs of it are so thickly splattered across the Washington mall as to make that frozen city believe it must be Spring. Do not forget that there is none so blind as he who wills himself not to see.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 07:26 AM

News & Opinion
Tuesday, January 20, 2009


Battered Liberal Syndrome
Perhaps there is something in the soul of Democrats, scarred by the stolen election of 2000 and a close loss in 2004, that anticipates setback. Call it Battered Liberal Syndrome. This time, it's not electoral defeat Democrats fear, but a devaluation of last November's victory, a scenario in which progressive policy is undermined and Democratic dreams are once again deferred.

A number of liberal bloggers and columnists, most notably the New York Times' Paul Krugman, worry, hint or state outright that Obama appears to be selling his mandate short. Their indictment of the stimulus—or recovery plan, as Obama prefers to call it—is that the plan is both less efficient and less fair because it includes tax cuts. Then there's Obama's reluctance to pledge to investigate and prosecute a wide array of misconduct in the Bush administration. Obama is reproved for his resolve to focus on the future, not the past. At the least, dissenters on the left insist, he should establish a truth finding panel, with subpoena power, to rake through the Bush detritus and expose it to the world.

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/92398/3/Battered_Liberal_Syndrome

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 07:28 AM

WASHINGTON – Unemployment is up. The stock market is down. Let's party.

The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration gala is expected to break records, with some estimates reaching as high as $150 million. Despite the bleak economy, however, Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concerts and star-studded parties has begun.

Obama's inaugural committee has raised more than $41 million to cover events ranging from a Philadelphia-to-Washington train ride to a megastar concert with Beyonce, U2 and Bruce Springsteen to 10 official inaugural balls. Add to that the massive costs of security and transportation — costs absorbed by U.S. taxpayers — and the historic inauguration will produce an equally historic bill.

In 2005, Reps. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., asked Bush to show a little less pomp and be a little more circumspect at his party.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090117/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_spending

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 07:44 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Inauguration/story?id=6665946&page=1


What Recession? The $170 Million Inauguration
Obama's Inauguration Has Been Financed Partially by Bailed-Out Wall Street Executives
By SCOTT MAYEROWITZ
ABC NEWS Business Unit
Jan. 19, 2009

The country is in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, which isn't stopping rich donors and the government from spending $170 million, or more, on the inauguration of Barack Obama .

Employees at banks, brokerages and Wall Street firms donated $7 million Barack Obama's inauguration.

The actual swearing-in ceremony will cost $1.24 million, according to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

It's the security, parties and countless Porta-a-Potty rentals that really run up the bill.


=====================================================================

The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.

=====================================================================



And then there is the party bill.

"We have a budget of roughly $45 million, maybe a little bit more," said Linda Douglass, spokeswoman for the inaugural committee.

That's more than the $42.3 million in private funds spent by President Bush's committee in 2005 or the $33 million spent for Bill Clinton's first inaugural in 1993.

....

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 08:33 AM

More joy, plus inflation, about accounts for the difference.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 08:48 AM

=====================================================================

The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.

=====================================================================



That is about $124,000,000 of TAX dollars.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 08:37 PM

""A number of liberal bloggers and columnists, most notably the New York Times' Paul Krugman, worry, hint or state outright that Obama appears to be selling his mandate short. Their indictment of the stimulus—or recovery plan, as Obama prefers to call it—is that the plan is both less efficient and less fair because it includes tax cuts. Then there's Obama's reluctance to pledge to investigate and prosecute a wide array of misconduct in the Bush administration. Obama is reproved for his resolve to focus on the future, not the past. At the least, dissenters on the left insist, he should establish a truth finding panel, with subpoena power, to rake through the Bush detritus and expose it to the world.""

Negative as ever Bruce, when faced with defeat of your beloved corporate puppets.

Perhaps President Obama feels that fixing what's wrong with America is a higher priority than chasing down the poor misguided idiot who just left office, and the question of tax cuts depends I suppose on whether YOU stand to gain, or not.

Sorry pal, but most of the "intelligent" world would agree with HIM, not you.

And bear in mind that at the time of writing, he has been de facto pres for just seven and one half hours. Hardly time to judge his progress?

Don T.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Charley Noble
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 08:54 PM

Bearded Bruce-

When you win, you party! And what a party!

Get over it!

Obama did take time in between festivities, to sign some official documents, approving some of his picks for his cabinet.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 06:38 AM

Don,

Too bad you can't bother to read the clickey...


Charlie,

When you win and you are Republican, you are criticised for partying.


And those were MY tax dollars being spent.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 08:55 AM

Really?

Have you calculated out the proportion of your own tax remittance to the national tax revenue stream? What do you think it is--one three-millionth? ONe ten-millionth?

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 12:52 PM

"...In his Inaugural Address, President Obama gave them the clarity and the respect for which all Americans have hungered. In about 20 minutes, he swept away eight years of President George Bush's false choices and failed policies and promised to recommit to America's most cherished ideals.

With Mr. Bush looking on (and we'd like to think feeling some remorse), President Obama declared: "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn- out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics."

The speech was not programmatic, nor was it filled with as much soaring language as F.D.R.'s first Inaugural Address or John Kennedy's only one. But it left no doubt how Mr. Obama sees the nation's problems and how he intends to fix them and, unlike Mr. Bush, the necessary sacrifices he will ask of all Americans.

The American story "has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame," he said.

Just as he reshaped the Democratic Party to win its nomination, and the American electorate to defeat John McCain, Mr. Obama said he intended to reshape government so it will truly serve its citizens.

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified," he said.

Mr. Obama was unsparing in condemning the failed ideology of uncontrolled markets. He said the current economic crisis showed how "without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control" and that the nation has to extend the reach of prosperity to "every willing heart, not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good."

Mr. Obama also did not shrink from the early criticism of his ambitious economic recovery plan. Rather, he said the "state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift," to build roads and bridges and electrical power and digital networks, to transform schools, and "harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories."

After more than seven years of Mr. Bush's using fear and xenophobia to justify a disastrous and unnecessary war, and undermine the most fundamental American rights, it was exhilarating to hear Mr. Obama reject "as false the choice between our safety and our ideals."

Instead of Mr. Bush's unilateralism, Mr. Obama said the United States is "ready to lead once more," by making itself a "friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity." He said "our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please." Mr. Obama told the Muslim world that he wants "a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

Mr. Obama was steely toward those "who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents." He warned them that "our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." But where Mr. Bush painted this as an epochal, almost biblical battle between America and those who hate us and "who hate freedom," Mr. Obama also offered to "extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

As the day continued with a parade and parties and balls, the image that stayed with us was the way the 44th president managed to embrace the symbolism and rise above it. It filled us with hope that with Mr. Obama's help, this battered nation will be able to draw together and mend itself.... (NYT)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 12:58 PM

Ask this question in 100 days, after he has actually done something.
So far, all he has done is chose a mixed bag of appointees, given a speech, and partied. This is not enough to judge an administration.
Let's hope he does good for the country under the Constitution.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 09 - 05:57 PM

"...'THE WORK OF REMAKING AMERICA': The Bush administration was marked by a near-ideological adherence to irresponsibility. The dismissal of facts, the failure to plan, and the elevation of politics over competence, led to a host of problems that now consume this nation. Repeatedly, Obama obliquely rebuked the legacy of the previous office-holder. Obama pledged to change the course of government,  saying that "our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed." He pledged to "restore science to its rightful place" --  after eight years of "concerted assault" on the environment and inaction on global warming. Obama rejected "as false the choice between our safety and our ideals" -- in contrast to Bush, who personally authorized torture. And he signaled a new course in foreign policy, telling the Muslim world that "we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

'THE PRICE AND THE PROMISE OF CITIZENSHIP': In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Bush rallied the nation to continue shopping. In 2006, with recession looming, Bush asked the American people to "go shopping more." In a stark contrast, Obama defined his ideal of the "price and the promise of citizenship." He called for "a new era of responsibility," in which every American recognizes "that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and our world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task." In a service event on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, "when a grateful nation emulates Dr. King's sacrifice and service to others," Obama explained his vision of shared responsibility. "If we're just waiting around for somebody else to do it for us, if we're waiting around for somebody else to clean up the vacant lot or waiting for somebody else to get involved in tutoring a child, if we're waiting for somebody else to do something, it never gets done," he said. "We're going to have to take responsibility -- all of us."

'THE SPIRIT OF SERVICE': Obama honored the men and women of the armed services "not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service: a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves," he said. Obama then argued that this spirit "must inhabit us all." this call to service is not new. In the early days of his presidential campaign, Obama "advocated a major expansion of the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps and other national service programs," and established a goal of "50 hours of community service per year for middle and high school students." For MLK Day, Obama asked "all Americans to make an ongoing commitment to better the lives of others." The Obama team established USAService.org, a website meant to be a clearinghouse for service opportunities.  Over 11,000 service projects across the country -- "from working in homeless shelters and mentoring young people to assembling more than 80,000 care packages for our troops at a service event here in Washington, D.C." -- were organized on the site.  As one volunteer in Albuquerque, NM, told reporters, "More people need to be aware that this isn't just six people building a fence, but instead a community coming together to say, 'All right we're getting involved, we're going to make a difference.'"
..."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: freda underhill
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 07:16 AM

I'm very pleased that there has been a change of government. One thing that struck me about Obama's speech was the lack of acknowledgement of the initial occupants of the country - the native Americans. When Obama referred to forefathers it was as if America started withy them.

apart from that, it has been very inspiring. And it's good that he rang Palestinian President Abbas first, before any other with a foreign leader. that is a good sign for the prospects of peace.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 11:05 AM

I dunno. I'd watch that Hillary Clinton if I were him.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 11:46 AM

He just signed the order for Guantanamo closure. He's my man.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 06:49 PM

Yes Heric, and I particularly liked his reference to the US ensuring its safety by giving up its ideals.

I've been waiting a long time to hear that from a US president.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 06:50 PM

Damn, that should read NOT ensuring its safety by giving up its ideals.

DT

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 06:52 PM

He's unsure about what he said!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: fumblefingers
Date: 22 Jan 09 - 07:03 PM

Isn't he just the most perfect thing that ever lived? He's so cute!

And if something goes wrong, everybody knows it'll be Bush's fault.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:44 PM

It has received the least attention of his first-day decisions, but President Barack Obama's memorandum on reviving the Freedom of Information Act stands as the clearest signal yet that his campaign talk about "a new era of open government" wasn't just rhetoric; it's for real.

The key phrase comes right at the top: "The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails."

Later in the memo: "All agencies should adopt a presumption of disclosure. … The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA."
Furthermore, "In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies should act properly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public." In fact, "All agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public."
This could not be clearer. The new president was calling for a complete reversal of the Bush administration's directives on this matter—and a restoration of the Freedom of Information Act's original purpose.

The Bush era's tone was set in October 2001, when then-Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memo to all federal agencies, assuring them that if they were sued for refusing to release documents under the FOIA, the Justice Department would defend them in court as long as their decision had a "sound legal basis." This reversed a guideline, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, noting that the Justice Department would defend agencies' refusals only if releasing the documents would cause "foreseeable harm."...

Slate (Kaplan)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 01:53 PM

"recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public"

...music to my ears.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 03:04 PM

"...Americans tend to get giddy over winners, especially underdogs who take the measure of a foe thought to be impregnable — in this case, the mighty forces carefully assembled over several years by the Clintons.

And it's not just the president himself who looks good. Even the shameless purveyors of fantasy at central casting would blush at the thought of crafting a family as picture perfect as the Obamas. So, yes, there is an awful lot to like about the Obama phenomenon.

But I've seen charismatic politicians and pretty families come and go like sunrises and sunsets over the years. There was something more that was making people go ga-ga over Obama. Something deeper.

We've been watching that something this week, and it's called leadership. Mr. Obama has been feeding the almost desperate hunger in this country for mature leadership, for someone who is not reckless and clownish, shortsighted and self-absorbed.

However you feel about his policies, and there are people grumbling on the right and on the left, Mr. Obama has signaled loudly and clearly that the era of irresponsible behavior in public office is over.

No more crazy wars. No more torture, and no more throwing people in prison without even the semblance of due process. No more napping while critical problems like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, global warming, and economic inequality in the United States grow steadily worse.

"We remain a young nation," Mr. Obama said in his Inaugural Address, "but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things."

On Wednesday, his first full day in office, the president took steps to make the federal government more transparent, signaling immediately that the country would move away from the toxic levels of secrecy that marked the Bush years.

"Transparency and rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," he said. It was a commitment to responsible behavior, and a challenge to the public to hold the Obama administration accountable. It reminded me of the wonderful line written into a federal appeals court ruling in 2002 by Judge Damon Keith:

"Democracies die behind closed doors."

This has been the Obama way, to set a responsible example and then to call on others to follow his mature lead. In Iowa, after his victory in the Democratic caucuses a year ago, he promised to be "a president who will be honest about the choices and challenges we face, who will listen to you and learn from you, even when we disagree, who won't just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know."

In a cynical age, the inclination is to dismiss this stuff as so much political rhetoric. But Mr. Obama carries himself in a way that suggests he means what he says, which gives him great credibility when he urges Americans to work hard and make sacrifices, not just for themselves and their families but for the common good — and when he tells black audiences that young men need to hitch up their trousers and behave themselves, and that families need to turn off the TV so the kids can do their homework.

Or when he says of the many serious challenges facing the nation, as he did in his Inaugural Address: "They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America: They will be met."

The bond is growing between the nation and its new young leader. Let's hope it's a mature romance that weathers the long haul. "

(NYT Columnist Bob Herbert)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 05:26 PM

I wonder if the taxpayers are going to get stuck with the bill for replacing all the mirrors in the White House?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 12:03 AM

Chavez says Obama "throwing stones" at Venezuela
Fri Jan 16, 2009 Reuters

Casting a bad omen for better ties with Washington, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said on Thursday he will keep fighting the U.S. "empire" and warned President-elect Barack Obama against "throwing stones."

Chavez said Obama accused Venezuela in a speech earlier this week of exporting terrorism and obstructing progress in Latin America.

"Look what he has started saying, what's next for us? We'll keep fighting imperialism whether the chief of the empire is black or white," Chavez told hundreds of supporters in Caracas.

Chavez is a fierce critic of U.S. foreign policy and during the administration of President George W. Bush the former paratrooper accused Washington of organizing a 2002 coup against him. In September, he expelled the U.S. ambassador.

Venezuela, an OPEC member, is a key crude oil supplier to the United States, and Chavez has repeatedly threatened to cut off supplies even though the United States is his country's main customer.

Washington accuses Venezuela of supplying guns and money to neighboring Colombia's Marxist guerrillas, a charge Chavez denies. CIA Director Michael Hayden said on Thursday that falling world oil prices could be positive because they might fracture Chavez's government.

Despite warning Obama, Chavez said he hoped relations with the United States would improve under the new president.

"If he respects Venezuela, he will receive a respectful reply," he said. "There is still time for Mr Obama to rectify when he assumes the presidency."

Chavez has been in power for a decade and is popular for welfare programs and building health clinics. He wants to change the constitution so he can run for president again in 2012 but Venezuela's opposition has gained strength in the last two years and Chavez could struggle to win voter approval for the reform.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 05:31 PM

Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney on President Obama: "So far, what we've got is the silence of the lambs, but I thought we were voting for a lion"

BEIRUT, January 21, 2009,

Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was the Green Party candidate for President in 2008. Ms. McKinney was aboard the boat "Dignity", which tried to break the siege in Gaza. She tells iloubnan.info what she thinks about President Barack Obama's promise of change.

iloubnan.info: Do you think American policy in the Middle East will change now that Barack Obama is elected President?
Cynthia McKinney: I have implored President-elect Obama to say something concerning the situation in Gaza. This kind of violence is reported to be the worst violence inflicted to the Palestinians in 60 years. How can this man who has been so loquacious on other subjects be silent on this issue? The two words that would characterize the Obama campaign were Hope and Change and a lot of people voted for Barack Obama based on their big desire for change. Are we going to get it? If we look at the menu of advisors, if we look at the history of the Democratic Party, what we don't see is change. If we look at the incoming cabinet members, what we don't see is change. Now you ask, is there going to be change? Yes, there will be change in the face; there will be a change in the superficialities. But will there be deep substantive change, like the people of Bolivia were able to acquire through their vote, like the people of Ecuador or Venezuela? I am committed to the hope that we can have that kind of change in the United States but obviously it's going to take a lot more than what we've done thus far. So far, what we got is what I call the silence of the lambs, but I thought we were voting for a lion.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 05:32 PM

Cindy Sheehan wrote: "If Obama declares an end to the fucking phony "war on terror," brings our troops home from Iraq AND Afghanistan; repeals the USA PATRIOT ACT; restores habeas corpus and prosecutes George and Dick...I WILL SHAVE MY HEAD and give my abject apologizes to all the Obama maniacs.

This is my promise to you."