THE ”DECIDER'S” DECISIONS ARE SO VERY PAINFUL TO REVISIT

President George W. Bush


Some of the key nomenclatures of the George W. Bush Legacy are very painful to endure, even when just hearing about them or seeing them in print or on TV.

Terms such as “Shock & Awe”, “Mission Accomplished”, “I’m the Decider”, “The Bush Doctrine”, “WMD’s”, “IED’s”, “The Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina”, “Stay the course……”, “This government does not torture people.", FEMA & New Orleans”, “Cheney’s; ‘There is no doubt about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction.” and “A Bush speech in October ’08, saying: ‘America’s economic foundation is strong.’ ”

They all cause mental anguish to millions of Americans and the world’s citizens when revisited.

But, as expected, the major media, broadcast, cable and newspapers are already disseminating or as was stated by Chris Matthews on his “Hardball” program on MSNBC, he decided to “deconstruct” President Bush’s eight years in “Hardball’s” one hour special called; “The Decider”

As the Washington Post said of Matthew’s program “Detractors may scoff that the [Hardball] hour -- a recap of George W. Bush's eight years in the White House -- is merely an excuse for Matthews to do more Bush-bashing, gratuitous at this point with Barack Obama all but moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. But here and there, Matthews does seem to be searching for something nice to say, or someone who'll say it. Mark Halperin of Time magazine, one of the many usual or unusual suspects rounded up for the taped hour, says of Bush near the show's end, "He [Bush] did not want this job as much as most people who seek it." That's sort of positive, isn't it?”

That’s pretty sad, if that’s all that he can find to be said as “positive”.

But as we sat looking at Hardball’s condensed version of what was presented to America and the world over the past eight years, the tremendous “wrongs” that were done, just continued again to pile up, one on top of the other.

First, came the fact that Bush had received the warning in his daily security briefing a month before 9/11, where he had ignored the memo entitled “Bin Laden Expected to Attack In The US”. Even today, after the first bombing in the 1990’s of the Twin Towers, the bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and bombing the USS Cole, Bush still says his blood was “not boiling enough to go after Osama and al Qaeda”.

As we continued to watch the show, we again saw the video of the confusion that Bush went through the day the towers were being hit, and we eventually saw how unprepared he and his administration were in those first few days.

We then saw him, a few days later, showing real leadership at the site of the tower’s smoldering aftermath. After that visit, his US and world approval rating skyrocketed into the 90’s, with his positive development of the White House, “Dream Team,” to go after Bin Laden.

In fact, the Bush response to 9/11, started to be the defining moment of the decade, not just of the Bush presidency. Early success against the Taliban in Afghanistan, while going after Osama, was eventually overshadowed however, by the war in Iraq and the many mistakes that followed.

The decision to turn away from going after Osama in Afghanistan, and to go after Saddam was just the beginning of what would become one of the many times that Bush would be relying on his ostensibly infallible "gut" to reach a decision. Bush has admitted, and has shown, that he is a “gut” decider, not a “seeking advice from seasoned individuals” decider.

It has now become common knowledge that Bush did not seek the opinions from his then, Secretary of State and past military commander, Colin Powell, his SecDef; Donald Rumsfeld, his security advisors Rice or Hadley, or his CIA Director, George Tenet, in the decision to go to war. When asked by the prize winning author, Bob Woodward, why he didn’t consult with his direct staff, Bush answered that he didn't need to ask; “Because in my gut, I knew how they felt.”

But Bush did consult with his vice president, Dick Cheney, who just happened to be a strong supporter for going to war with Saddam.

After the decision to go to war was made and executed, and the premature “Mission Accomplished” speech was made aboard the US navy aircraft carrier, it was later determined that there were no WMD’s, as America and the world had been told by the president.

That was when everything then started going downhill.

Once the downhill skid began, as the argument now goes, Bush started outsourcing his decisions and responsibilities. He eventually even seemed to lose interest in being the American president.

Thus, so the ball was dropped in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. This began a policy of negligence, says the former White House press secretary Scott McClellan, that left "an indelible stain on the presidency."

There's irony, obviously, in the Matthew’s show title of the “Decider”, which comes from the Bush remark that he made one time at a news conference. Bush had told the reporters, "I'm the decider, and I decide what's best." Bush was defending his then decision to keep Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the job, even though he'd reversed himself on that decision later. But what he was saying is; “My gut tells me what is right, and I’m the decider.”

Just as the "Mission Accomplished," banner, infamously posted on the aircraft carrier was premature. There was the video of the sign shown on TV that said;"Help Us," which was handmade, and was plaintively held aloft from the roof of a house submerged by Katrina's flooding. This was just another sign of Bush’s lack of connection, or lack of response, to the reality of what was going on in his America.

And then came the sickening photos of prisoners being mistreated at Abu Ghraib in Iraq while Bush was declaring, "This government does not torture people." All the while this was going on, Vice President Dick Cheney, was “still” insisting that; "There is no doubt about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction.”

Today, Abu Ghraib and the development of the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have now been credited as the number one Muslim extremist recruiting tool for causing the extended war in Iraq and the reason that al Qaeda is now considered the largest, world-wide, multi-headed snake of extreme Muslim world terror.

And one news pundit that regularly followed the White House still insists that Bush never listens to Condoleezza Rice, his now Secretary of State. He says instead; “Rice is more of enabler than an adviser". Right or wrong, it appears that Bush has just continued to use his “gut” as the sole way of making his key decisions, regardless of any contradicting advice.

Per another quote from the Washington Post, "I don't think we've ever had as stubborn a president as Bush,” says Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz, de facto leader of the anti-Bush forces in academia. Wilentz does appear to have a point, though: As the Bush years pass in review, it does look like Bush took his father's "stay the course" mantra to heedless, headstrong extremes.”

What the Bush Administration has allowed to occur over the past eight years is continually being deemed by public opinion as basically, “criminal”.

They include; the deregulation that helped the financial markets and the economy to “deep-six”. The loss of a Trillion dollar surplus to become the largest US deficit and debt ever. The unnecessary war in Iraq, its loss of lives, taxpayer money and the bad decisions in its management. Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath that is still a mess after three years. Today’s recession and the loss of millions of jobs in America. And it just seems to goes on, and on, and on………

It is impossible to say for sure how history will treat the president, but current historians are already all but unanimous in their assessment. In a recent independent poll of only recognized, US historians, an awesome 98 percent pronounced Bush's presidency "a failure."

And even though Bush's television technique never really improved over his eight-year haul, video images show that the #1 job, as it always has, took its toll. In footage from 2000, Bush looks 15 or even 20 years younger than he does today.

All this, plus the latest problems between Israel and the Palestinians, means that President Obama will have more than just a “full plate” of problems to inherit.

So for now, good luck Mr. President Elect.

Copyright G.Ater 2008

WHY CHENEY BECAME THE WORST & MOST POWERFUL US VICE PRESIDENT EVER

US Vice President Richard "Dick" Cheney

In a recent interview on FOX News, Vice President Dick Cheney mistakenly “mocked” his soon-to-be successor Joe Biden.

When FOX’s, Chris Wallace, asked Cheney about the VP Elect's comment that Cheney has been "the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history."

Cheney initially ignored Wallace’s question and responded with: "He [Biden] also said that all the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch are laid out in Article I of the Constitution," Cheney went on to say: "Well, they're not. Article I of the Constitution is the one on the legislative branch."

Cheney then also added; “Joe's been chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a member of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate for 36 years, teaches constitutional law back in Delaware, and can't keep straight which article of the Constitution provides for the legislature and which provides for the executive."

Ahem………excuse me Mr. Cheney, but perhaps you’re the one that needs to do a bit of reviewing of the US Constitution…..?

Yes, it is correct that Article 1 of the Constitution specifically covers the legislature, and Article 2 covers the executive branch.

However, if you will review, Article 1, Section 3, of the US Constitution, it does in fact, state the exact role of the Vice President of the United States.

Now, the real question that should instead be asked is, "Why did Dick Cheney, that has been without question the strongest Vice President in US history, insist on taking this aggressive position for power from his very first day in the Bush Administration?"

And since taking that position, why has he has offered no regrets or explanations for his dictatorial, “strong-arm” role in directing US national security policies over the past eight years?

In order to understand the probable answer to this question, one must first understand a bit of Cheney’s past political history of his dealing with the Executive Branch of the US government.

CHENEY’S POLITICAL HISTORY:

Richard Bruce Cheney was born on January 30, 1941, and he is the forty-sixth Vice President of the United States.

He began his political career as an intern for Congressman William A. Steiger, eventually working his way into the White House during the Ford administration where he eventually served as Ford’s, White House Chief of Staff.

Cheney was an Assistant to President Gerald Ford when Donald Rumsfeld was first named as Ford’s Secretary of Defense. Cheney then became the White House Chief of Staff, succeeding Rumsfeld. Cheney later was Ford’s campaign manager for Ford’s failed 1976 presidential campaign.

Cheney then ran and served as a congressman for a district in Wyoming for 10 years and was subsequently chosen as the Secretary of Defense for President George H. W. Bush. He served in that office from March 1989 to January 1993.
During his position as the SecDef, Cheney directed the United States invasion of Panama and of Operation Desert Storm in the first Gulf War against Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait.

WHY CHENEY BECAME SO POWERFUL:

While Dick Cheney was serving as the Chief of Staff (CoS) for President Ford, he also was subjected to the negative atmosphere of the day. This concerned the aftermath from Congress and the nation, regarding the Watergate Scandals and the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon.

During this period, and due to the abuse of power by President Nixon during the Watergate days, Cheney was in a position to see many of the American president’s powers removed or severely limited by Congress, as was compared to what was previously deemed as the normal powers of the Executive Branch.

As president Ford’s CoS, Cheney was constantly in a position to see that President Ford had in many ways become what Cheney felt was a virtually “powerless president” of the greatest nation in the world.

Other than the president’s ability to veto various bills, the executive position seemed to then, only perform mundane presidential functions.

As a very conservative Republican, Cheney’s view has always been that the US Executive Branch should have almost the same power as a strong dictator, especially during a wartime situation.

Therefore, when Cheney became the 46th US VP, he obviously decided to get back or to establish as much executive and VP power as possible, while he and President Bush were still in office. He apparently feels today, that he has accomplished that goal over the last eight years.

And this position is exactly the opposite of President Elect Obama and VP Biden’s view on the presidency.

As Joe Biden said in an interview on ABC's "This Week", he was very clear that he felt that Cheney was "dead wrong" in his views about the chief executive having unfettered presidential powers during wartime. He also said that Cheney’s approach "has been not healthy for our foreign policy, not healthy for our national security, and it has not been consistent with our US Constitution." Biden said he intended to "restore the balance" in power between the presidency and the vice presidency.

Cheney’s response has been: "If he [Biden] wants to diminish the office of the vice president, that's obviously his call," He also added that: "President-elect Obama will decide what he wants in a vice president and, apparently, from the way they're talking about it, he does not expect Biden to have as consequential a role as I have had during my time."

The Biden – Cheney sparring has actually revealed the long-time, past tensions between Cheney and Biden. Joe Biden had stated during the election campaign that Cheney was probably the "most dangerous" vice president in U.S. history.

And with less than a month left in office, Cheney has been both, blunt and unapologetic about his central role in some of the most controversial issues of the past eight years. This includes the invasion of Iraq, warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and harsh interrogation tactics.

Cheney has also acknowledged that he had disagreed with Bush's decision to remove the embattled Defense Secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld in late 2006, saying that "the president doesn't always take my advice."

Even though recent history has shown that Donald Rumsfeld’s performance as the US SecDef was less than stellar, Cheney continues to say; "I was a Rumsfeld man. I'd helped recruit him and I thought he did a good job for us."

Cheney’s Fox News interview was the second in less than a week. This is very abnormal for the normally reclusive vice president, and it comes as part of a broad effort by Bush and his aides to focus attention on what they consider to be their administration's major accomplishments.

However, in an interview with ABC News last week, Cheney disagreed with his boss, President Bush, when he suggested that the administration would have gone to war with Iraq “even without the erroneous intelligence showing that Saddam Hussein had developed weapons of mass destruction”. Cheney also said in that interview, that he approved of the administration's use of coercive interrogation tactics, including the simulated drowning technique known as “Waterboarding”.

Elisa Massimino, the executive director of Human Rights First, said in a recent statement that Cheney "persists in defending these disgraceful policies of abuse which have been rejected by senior retired military leaders and experienced interrogators as ineffective and counterproductive."

Obama has also criticized the Bush administration for condoning torture and has pledged to end interrogation practices barred under international law.

Cheney has however, expressed few regrets in his interviews and has said he was untroubled by opinion polls showing that he and Bush are among the most unpopular White House occupants in modern times. He stated; "Eventually you wear out your welcome in this business, but I'm very comfortable with where we are and what we've achieved substantively.”

He refuses to admit that his “welcome” has instead been “worn out” by his and the President’s abuses of power and of their past efforts for the shredding of the US Constitution whenever possible.

In Biden’s ABC interview, Biden stated that Cheney was "mistaken" in his view of America having; "a unitary executive, meaning that, in time of war, essentially all power goes to the executive". Biden said that this view served; "at a minimum to weaken our standing in the world and weaken our security."

And now a new, national poll has suggested that quite a few people agree with VP Elect Biden:

According to the poll, one out of five Americans think that Dick Cheney is the worst vice president in American history. Twenty-three percent of those questioned in the just released CNN / Opinion Research Corporation survey say that Cheney is the country's worst vice president, when compared with all of his predecessors.

An additional 41 percent feel that Cheney may or may not be the worst VP, but that he is a very “poor vice president”.

It’s too bad, January 21st isn’t here today.

Copyright G.Ater 2008

GEORGE W. BUSH: WITHOUT A TRIAL, IT COULD FOREVER TAINT AMERICA’S HIGHEST ELECTED OFFICE

<<< President Bush & ABC's Charlie Gibson



"At least Richard Nixon resigned and eventually admitted his wrong-doing, while both Bush and Cheney continue to act like they have done no wrong."

Director Ron Howard’s latest movie, Frost / Nixon, visits the 1973 interview of former president; Richard Nixon, by long-time British TV host; David Frost.
This is the interview where Nixon finally admitted that he had performed wrongful acts as the US president during the Watergate scandal.

It was agreed at the time, by most of us that had followed the Watergate Trials, at least from Nixon’s admissions in the Frost interview, the American public was finally allowed a level of “Closure” to a disgraceful period in America’s political history.

During these final days of the Bush II administration, in the recent interview by ABC’s Charles Gibson, Gibson also tried to probe the current president’s past “mistakes”. However, Bush just continued to fail the public by pretending that he did everything “just fine” and according to all the laws. (Of course, as “The Decider”, he decided which laws he would choose to follow.) There was absolutely no admission of any guilt or even a hint of possible wrong doing.

Even when the president was asked by Gibson, if Barack Obama’s election was a repudiation of his presidency, Bush just past it off by saying “most people voted for Barack Obama because they decided they wanted him to be in their living room for the next four years explaining US policy”.

In other words, Obama’s election had nothing to do with how the public felt about the current president’s past performance. And this is for a US president with the worst ever public approval rating since they began doing political rating polls.

The most disgusting interview response from George W., was his answer to Mr. Gibson’s question as to whether he had any “regrets”.

Bush took his time and answered by saying; “the biggest regret of all of my presidency was the intelligence failure in Iraq”.
What you ask….???? No, of course George W. Bush would never have let the American people down. It was all the US and foreign intelligence agency’s faults.

Yes, he then actually went on to say that the existence of WMD’s in Iraq were agreed to by many others as a reason to go after Saddam Hussein.

However, he failed to mention that he and his administration had ignored any and all “intelligence” that didn’t agree with what they wanted it to say.

And he also didn’t admit that his people had eventually changed the reasons for continuing to support the preemptive war multiple times, after no WMD’s were found. (Oh you remember. After no WMD’s were found, the reason for war was for getting rid of a horrible dictator. Then there was the excuse for fighting al-Qaeda “over there, instead of over here”. Then there was the needed war with Iraq to establish a democratic country in the center of the Muslim Middle East. And don’t forget the false claim that Saddam had some connection to 9/11. And so on, and so on………)

And none of these false reasons had anything to do with America’s totally honest president……..of course not!

Here are just a few items that were presented by President Bush and his administration, prior to the Iraq invasion, that were proven to be false and should at least justify a congressional investigation and a possible criminal trial. (Of course, this doesn’t even touch the other questionable areas of Bush’s presidency, such as those of Bush’s US Justice Department and the past Attorney General, Roberto Gonzales’ actions.)

False Issues for the War in Iraq:

>>> No weapons of mass destruction of any kind were found in Iraq.
>>> No mobile biological weapons labs were found in Iraq.
>>> Iraq did not seek to acquire yellowcake uranium from Africa.
>>> The aluminum tubes were not suitable for nuclear weapons development.
>>> Mohamed Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker, did not meet with Iraqi intelligence in Prague.
>>> Iraq did not provide chemical weapons training to al-Qaeda.
>>> There was no collaborative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
>>> The implication that Iraq was involved in the attacks of 9/11 was totally untrue.

At the end of the Gibson interview, President Bush then made it clear that he has no inclination to give the public the “Closure” that at least president Nixon finally did decide to give, as was shown during the Frost / Nixon interview.

Instead of displaying any remorse or guilt, Bush has just stated that he “doesn’t spend any time worrying about his short-term history” and he also doesn’t worry about long-term history, “since I won’t be here to read it”. As usual, “W” continues to show no responsibility for any negatives that might have occurred under the eight years of his failed leadership.

The needless war in Iraq, the bending of US rules and laws, the deregulation that has now devastated American and global economies, the accelerated shrinking of the American Middle Class, the current US Recession / Depression, the largest loss of American jobs in over 70 years, the devastation of America's world-wide reputation and the US torture of war detainees. Of course, none of this is George W. Bush’s fault……………..

Yet, while all this is going on today, Bush’s administration is working day and night in trying to give this presidency the “best spin possible” during these final days.

Shame on us, and shame on our new president and the US Senators and Representatives, if George W. Bush, and his cronies get off scott-free for not having to answer for any wrong-doing, that he and his people have been responsible for over the past eight years.

If that happens, the office of the presidency will forever carry a tainted history. In addition, major negative precedents will also be set for the highest public office in the world.

It’s just not right if that is allowed to happen.

Copyright G.Ater 2008

CONSERVATIVES STILL SUPPORT THE REMOVING OF MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

<<< Freddie Mac mortgages required a bail-out by US taxpayers


After what has occurred to the US economy, specifically over the past 5 years, I just couldn’t believe a recent article in a conservative magazine that stated; “The Left believes our economic problems are due to deregulation. But more regulation is exactly what we ‘don’t’ need!”

The article goes on to say that; “Data shows that federal regulatory activity has increased sharply since the late 1970’s.”

Of course, the article fails to mention that it was the GOP that controlled both the US Executive Branch and the US Congress for most of those years of what they call “increased regulations”.

It also chose to blame the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) that was signed by President Jimmy Carter, before he left office, (which Reagan and the GOP left intact) for all the housing foreclosures. They even stated that the debacle of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was caused by the Democrats. And the Democrats were also the prime cause for all the problems that brought on the recent down economy that is now starting to resemble America’s economy of the late 1920’s.

Of course, they conveniently declined admitting that a large part of the current economic problems are due to their deregulation activities and the lack of oversight in Congress, specifically on the financial, mortgage and banking communities.

This lack of “reasonable regulation” (not excessive) and third-party oversight, was brought about mostly due to the last 20 years of Republican control of both branches of government.

This was the major reason that the banking and mortgage industry was allowed to issue those mortgage loans that should never have been made in the first place.

However, these are just the symptoms and the outcomes of the right-wing’s actions, not the main foundation of the problems for our current economic situation.

What bothers me the most, is that the conservatives have failed to admit that it was under their management that, even though the productivity of the American worker continued to improve over the past 50 years, the income of the average working American has stalled and even declined over the past 30+ years.

As a case in point, the Republicans would not even support or allow an increase in the minimum wage for over 10 years, while the average American’s annual living costs were going through the roof.

This is why the average American homeowner’s only recourse has been to use the equity in their home as if their house was their “own personal ATM Machine”. The increased living costs, combined with the lack of increased personal income, has also forced the American worker to stop saving any portion of their weekly or monthly income.

Instead, they have had to refinance their homes in order to obtain cash for paying for everything from their children’s education, to their increased medical costs, and/or other personal expenses.

Historically, this is the first time in over 50 years that the average American worker’s income has not increased along with the increases in the American worker’s productivity. These increases in productivity have instead been used by corporate management for increased executive pay and for financing the movement of many American manufacturing jobs overseas.

This aforementioned right-wing article also chose to not discuss that there is a big difference between; “appropriate regulation”, (which has NOT been occurring under their watch) and that of “bad or excessive regulation”. Conservatives instead want “zero regulation” for their “free market” and “trickle-down” approach, which has proven time and again, never to work in a democratic union.

Unfortunately, while the GOP was in total control, they proceeded to remove many “good regulations” that properly protected Americans, and American industries. In fact, the approach of using “reasonable regulations” had been the past standard of the US, as well as with most other industrialized countries, since the beginning of the world economy.

As an example of how it works today, after being changed by the GOP, I always use the following auto import issue as the classic case:

“When an American car company exports a US manufactured automobile to China or Japan, these countries, in order to protect their internal auto manufacturers, apply a minimum 20% import duty on all US built automobiles. However, when they send a Japanese or Chinese manufactured car, or other product to the US, due to the past duty deregulation by the GOP, foreign countries only pay a 2-3% US import duty.”

And this is just one more example of why American manufacturing jobs have been continually moving off-shore where the products can be manufactured for $0.50 an hour in wages, while using child labor and having abysmal working conditions.

The article even tried to sell the notion that FDR’s past regulations, that were implemented in the 1930’s, prolonged America’s Great Depression for at least seven years.

The reality is, that the GOP, in control of the US government from the early 1920’s, took nine years for setting up the nation’s economy for what eventually became the Great Depression. By the early 1930’s, the mostly agricultural US had a country-wide unemployment rate of between 25 to 35%.

In 1930, the Republican President Herbert Hoover, then chose to only bail out the financial markets, while doing nothing for the average American worker from 1929 to 1932. By the time FDR took over in 1933, it then took over seven years to get the country back to work and to re-train the Americans in areas other than working on a farm.

It was during this time that the US was able to become the manufacturing capital of the world, which increased even further with the out-break of World War II.

In addition to deregulation being one of the causes for the past loss of US manufacturing jobs, those same deregulation activities are one of the reasons that America now sees their children’s toys and imported pharmaceuticals being recalled.

Toys have been coming into the US from China, painted with poisonous lead-paint. Dog food from China has had additives that poisoned America’s pets and imported pharmaceutical drugs have been imported that don’t meet American manufacturing standards.

These are just a small sample of the areas where the US used to have inspectors for all in-coming imported products.

Over the past two decades, the Republican’s have decimated the government departments that had the responsibility for these inspections. And with the on-going increase in US population, along with all the manufacturing jobs going off-shore every year, there are now even more food and consumer products being shipped into the US every month.

Even with George W. Bush finally being recognized as a failed chapter of US presidential history, we will still have a long way to go before the conservatives ever decide to wake up and start telling the truth, if they ever will .

Copyright G.Ater 2008

RIGHT-WING RADIO AND TV HAVE FAILED, IN TRYING TO CONNECT BLAGOJEVICH TO OBAMA

<<< Wife Patti and Governor Blagojevich









THE RIGHT-WING AND FOX NEWS ARE: “FLAT-OUT OF NEGATIVE MATERIAL ON OBAMA"

Whether it’s TV, radio talk shows or conservative Op-Ed writers, for a moment, they were all ecstatic for the possible opportunity to tie President-Elect Obama to the disgraced Illinois Governor Blagojevich.

Unfortunately for them, it appears that all they are going to be able to do, is to add the governor’s name to the old “re-tread list” of Obama’s past Chicago individuals such as Reverend Wright, “Tony” Rezko and Bill Ayers.

In fact, they can’t get anywhere near to being able to demonstrate a single, past, close connection between Obama and the Illinois governor.

It seems that the president-elect's lack of connection to Blagojevich is just another clear example of Obama’s keen political sense in his rise in Chicago politics.

Of course, it is impossible for a Chicago politician, such as Obama, to “not” have some contact with local, politically corrupt individuals. But Obama has always been able to maneuver away from dealing with them, and only rarely in a first-hand situation. Yes, he did rely on the local, political establishment when it was needed. But he was also able to maintain enough distance to cast himself as a somewhat distant outsider.

"Few people I've ever known have as good a sense about who might end up getting them in trouble," said Denny Jacobs, a retired Illinois politician from East Moline, Ill. Jacobs had befriended Obama when they both served in the state Senate. "It's like a sixth sense. Chicago's a real mess, and Obama was surrounded by it. But he knew [how to avoid] the people that could drag you down and tarnish your image."

While I was recently listening to some right-wing talkers such as; Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, and the infamous “Limbaugh.” And while reading articles by Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol, there seemed to be the consensus of a real heightened sense of their “editorial frustration”.

No matter what has happened during this presidential transition period, all the conservative “talkers and writers” can seem to do is sputter and grasp at distant shadows, while they restate old election campaign slurs and rumors. They just seem to be spinning their wheels, while the soon-to-be-President Obama, continues to handle this transition operation as if he were a long-time, seasoned political veteran.

The current issue with Governor Blagojevich is a perfect case in point.

HISTORY OF OBAMA & GOVERNOR BLAGOJEVICH:

Blagojevich was elected in 2002, however he has faced a series of investigations and charges of ethical irregularities ever since.

"Obama saw this coming, and he was very cautious about not having dealings with the governor for quite some time," said Abner Mikva, a former congressman and current appeals court judge who was Obama's political mentor in Chicago. "The governor was perhaps the only American public officeholder who didn't speak at the Democratic convention, and that wasn't by accident. He's politically poisonous. You don't get through Chicago, like Barack Obama did, unless you know how to avoid people like that."

Like every other politician in Illinois, Governor Rod Blagojevich had waited for Barack Obama's call this summer. He even mentioned to his colleagues and staff that he expected a speaking role at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. The governor obviously thought this would be a payback for being the first governor to endorse the senator in his campaign for president. And by showing a close connection to Obama in Denver, the governor was expecting to repair his own reputation.

However, the Obama campaign instead, made speaking offers to: the Illinois treasurer, the comptroller, the attorney general and a Chicago city clerk.
In addition, Senator Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) was asked to introduce Obama on the convention's final night and Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (Ill.) was asked to speak on television during prime time.

Blagojevich later joked to a crowd at the Illinois State Fair that, yes, he also had been asked to speak, but at 4 a.m., in a Denver area men's restroom.

Since the governor had been elected, Obama had worked hard to distance himself from Blagojevich. Per Obama’s staff, the two men did not talk for more than a year. Blagojevich and Obama also never campaigned together. The governor even arrived very late at the Democratic convention and totally avoided Obama's victory-night celebration at Chicago's Grant Park.

The Washington Post has stated that; “Under different circumstances, friends have said, Obama might have derived some satisfaction from seeing Blagojevich handcuffed for allegedly trying to sell off Obama's vacated Senate seat to the highest bidder. But, only six weeks after Obama won the presidency by casting himself as a reformer, the Blagojevich scandal is a jarring reminder that Obama's political origins are in a city and state long tainted by corruption.”

But even though both Blagojevich and Obama were from Chicago, they literally came from different sides of the tracks.

Blagojevich was the son of a steelworker who grew up on the city's predominantly white North Side and he is a big fan of the Chicago Cubs. He married the daughter of a Chicago alderman and entered politics as a classic product of the “Chicago Democratic Machine”. He drew support from the city's white middle class and was elected to the state legislature in 1992.

Obama, a transplant from Hawaii and New York City, moved into the progressive, south-side and integrated Hyde Park neighborhood. He is also a big fan of the Chicago White Sox, also located on Chicago’s south side. In his campaign for state Senate, he cast himself as the alternative to what he called "old-Chicago school politics". His constituents were mostly a coalition of lower and middle-class African Americans and Hyde Park's liberal upper class.

Obama and Blagojevich rarely interacted until Blagojevich ran for governor. Obama had said privately that he was “unimpressed by Blagojevich's résumé”, and he had instead, tried unsuccessfully to lobby his friend Durbin to enter the race.

Roland Burris eventually ran against Blagojevich. And Burris later had said: "When Blagojevich beat me, I told Barack to get on board with him," Burris also said. "It was kind of like Obama swallowing his pride a little bit, because he didn't really see that he had anything in common with Blagojevich."

Obama did recognize that a Democratic governor could possibly help him build his résumé in anticipation of a possible U.S. Senate run. So, he decided to help Blagojevich's campaign, but only as an informal adviser. He and Obama then formed a tentative and awkward relationship.

Obama continued to pass a steady succession of Illinois state legislation as he slowly built his reputation at the Illinois capital in Springfield.

This was all just fine with both parties until Obama started to become the main rising star in Illinois politics.

Blagojevich never endorsed Obama in his U.S. Senate bid in 2004. He had even expressed a preference for two other Democratic candidates. On the campaign trail, Obama sometimes made a clear point to distance himself from Blagojevich. "Nobody sent me," he often told his audience.

In 2004, Obama was then asked by Senator John Kerry, to give the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention.

This speech immediately launched Obama into American national politics, while Blagojevich, back in Springfield was watching his own reputation go down the drain. After a very poor first term, the governor ended up fighting over the state budget with the state’s Democratic leaders.

As per the Washington Post: “As Obama went on to win the presidency and his rift with the Illinois governor crystallized, Blagojevich grew increasingly desperate. In phone calls reported in the criminal complaint, he pined for a spot in the Obama administration. Maybe, the governor reasoned, he could let Obama pick his own Senate successor in exchange for a job as an ambassador or as secretary of health and human services. Or maybe Obama could set up Blagojevich's wife, Patricia, with a cushy, high-paid position on a corporate board.”

It later became clear that the Obama camp had abandoned Blagojevich for good.

"They're not willing to give me anything but appreciation," the governor told his chief of staff, John Harris. "[Bleep] them."

Copyright G.Ater 2008

WHAT WAS THE “BIG DEAL” OF FDR's "NEW DEAL"?

<<< A TVA Dam.




I forget sometimes, that there is very little US history taught today in America’s public schools. I also forget how many new generations of Americans have been born since the 1950’s.

Most of these younger Americans have no idea as to what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal” was, or how it came to change and grow America for a large portion of the 20th Century.

One of those obviously younger, on-line readers recently responded to my article about a possible “New, New Deal” from President-Elect Obama for today’s America. The reader asked me “What was so great about FDR’s ‘New Deal’ ? What was the big deal about building some roads and schools and other government buildings?”

I guess, a question like that today, from someone that is under 30 years of age and had only attended local American public schools, that is probably a very fair question.

If we don’t take into consideration the tremendous, positive psychological effect that the first 100 days of FDR’s “New Deal” presidency had on all of America, there are still substantial physical examples today of what occurred from 1933 on, that demonstrate why the “New Deal” was such a “big deal” for most working Americans.

BIG DEAL RESULTS:

Roosevelt’s vast government development programs and the results of what became known as the “alphabet soup of government agencies” were as follows:

The CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps)

The CCC was disbanded after only 9 years. The agency was disbanded, so that its members could join the military to fight for the US in World War II. However, during those 9 years, 3 million men had been given meaningful work.
3 billion trees had been planted, 800 state parks had been developed, 20 million acres of land had been saved from soil erosion, 125,000 miles of trails had been cleared, (including those for the first ever, down-hill skiing resort in the US, in Stowe, Vermont)
The CCC was also responsible for inspiring the service programs that eventually became the: Job Corps, Peace Corps, VISTA, & AmeriCorps, plus thousands of smaller, community service agencies. FDR eventually became known as “The Father of American National Service.”

The PWA (Public Works Administration)

More than any other New Deal program, the PWA epitomized the notion of "priming the pump" to encourage economic growth. Between July 1933 and March 1939, the PWA funded the construction of more than 34,000 projects, including airports, electricity-generating dams, aircraft carriers; and seventy percent of the new schools and one third of the hospitals built during that time. It also electrified the Pennsylvania Railroad between New York and Washington, D.C.

The PWA spent over $6 billion in all of its projects. The historical legacy of the PWA is perhaps as important as its practical accomplishments at the time. It provided the federal government with its first systematic network for the distribution of US funds to state localities. It ensured that America’s conservation would remain an element in the national discussion, and it provided the federal administrators with a broad amount of badly needed experience in public policy planning.

When FDR moved industry toward war production and abandoned his opposition on deficit spending, the PWA then became irrelevant and was abolished in June 1941.

The NRA (National Recovery Act)

The bill that formed the NRA was the biggest news of its time. It made changes that still exist to this day. It created public works projects, abolished child labor and set the first federal minimum wage at $12 dollars for a 40 hour week.

It also eliminated antitrust regulation and established thousands of price and production codes for many industries.

The American public liked the program, as it symbolized forward motion against the Great Depression. In 1933, there were pro-NRA marches with 250,000 Americans marching down New York’s Fifth Avenue. And there were large marches in other cities all over the country. Shopkeepers everywhere hung the NRA’s emblem, a blue eagle, in their window, with the legend saying: “We Do Our Part”.

Over time, the NRA led indirectly to the widespread adoption of humane working conditions and new work place safety standards. It also offered the opportunity to recognize, for the first time, the right of workers “to organize and bargain collectively”. The “American Labor Movement” finally had the backing of Washington. This caused the phrase in the NRA charter that allowed this organizational freedom to be called the “ Magna Carta” of labor organizing.

The TVA Act of 1933 (Tennessee Valley Authority)

Even by Depression standards, the Tennessee Valley was in sad shape in 1933. Much of the land had been farmed too hard for too long, eroding and depleting the soil. Crop yields had fallen along with farm incomes. The best timber in the area had already been cut.

The TVA developed fertilizers, taught farmers how to improve crop yields, and helped replant forests, control forest fires, and improve habitat for wildlife and fish.

The most dramatic change in Valley life came from the electricity generated by the TVA dams. Electric lights and modern appliances made life easier and farms more productive. Eventually, having electricity also drew industries into the region, providing desperately needed jobs.

The CWA (Civil Works Administration)

The CWA was established as a temporary organization during the Great Depression, to solely create paying jobs for millions of America’s unemployed. The jobs were merely temporary for the duration of the hard winter of 1933. Harry L. Hopkins was put in charge of the short-term organization by President Roosevelt, who unveiled the CWA on November 8, 1933.

The CWA was a project created under the Federal Emergency Relief Administration.

The CWA created construction jobs, mainly improving or constructing buildings and bridges. It ended in 1934, after costing $200 million a month. So much was spent in such a short time, because it allowed the CWA to hire 4 million unemployed people. This probably saved these people’s lives while providing a small, but initial jump-start for the US economy.

The WPA (Works Progress Administration)

Renamed in 1939, to the Work Projects Administration, was the largest of the New Deal agencies, employing millions of people and affecting most every locality in the United States, especially rural and western mountain populations. It was created by a presidential order and was funded by Congress with the passage of the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935.

The WPA continued and extended relief programs similar to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) started by Herbert Hoover and the U.S. Congress in 1932. However, Hoover never fully funded his much smaller, “experimental-like” programs.

Also headed up by Harry L. Hopkins, the WPA provided jobs and income to the unemployed during the Great Depression. Between 1935 and 1943 the WPA provided almost 8 million jobs. The program built many public buildings, projects and roads and even operated large art, drama, media and literacy projects. It fed children and redistributed food, clothing and housing. At that time, almost every community in America had a park, bridge or school constructed by the WPA agency. Expenditures from 1936 to 1939 totaled nearly $7 billion.

Few Americans today understand that the many roads and public projects, they now take for granted, began with FDR’s “New Deal”. This includes the Triborough Bridge in New York to the Outer Drive in Chicago, to the University of Texas Library and many college football stadiums across the southern states. Virtually every older city in the US contains several roads and public buildings that were constructed under FDR’s federal programs.

The final totals in the US from the WPA included 39,000 new public schools, 2,500 new hospitals, 325 new airports and tens of thousands of smaller projects.
Until it was closed down by Congress, when the war preparation and building-boom took over in 1943, the various programs of the WPA added up to the largest employment base in the country.

Anyone who needed a job could become eligible for most of its jobs. Hourly wages were the prevailing wages in the local areas, and the rules said workers could not work more than 30 hours a week. However, many of the larger projects included months of working in the field, with workers eating and sleeping on the worksites.

There was training involved in teaching new skills and the project's original legislation went forward with a strong emphasis on family, training and building up people’s capabilities and their education.

So, for those that ask “What’s the big deal about FDR’s “New Deal”? Well, here’s the answer.

WHAT IF THE “NEW DEAL” HADN’T HAPPENED?

For those Libertarians and conservatives that say: “Government should stay out of people’s lives. All that government should do is provide for our defense, protect our borders and ports and build roads and dams.”

If the US government had not done what was done during the Depression by FDR and the Democratic Congress, many historians continue to say that the mood at the time would have supported America having a strong dictator take over the country.

Many Americans in the 1930’s, had admired the Italian Dictator Mussolini and Adolf Hitler had just come to power in Germany. Both of these dictators had initially appeared, at the time, to have “saved” their respective countries from economic failure.

America today, could easily have become a much different country, had FDR not had the strength and the intelligence to do what he did, while retaining the country’s democratic republic foundation.

In reality, FDR and the US Government, jumped in and did what individual Americans were incapable of doing for themselves. Had the Republican, US President Herbert Hoover continued in power, his lack of action would have prevented America’s economic recovery, and the US would then not have eventually become the greatest nation in the world.

So, in today’s down economy, will a President Obama take an up-dated approach to that of FDR?

All I know is that the new president-elect is a great student and admirer of both Abraham Lincoln and FDR. And following the new American president and the country over the coming weeks and months, should turn out to be very interesting.

Copyright G.Ater 2008

COMPARING AUTO BAIL-OUT TO THE AIRLINES IS “APPLES TO ORANGES”

<<< GOP Senator Richard Shelby is against helping Detroit's "Big Three" automakers.



It continues to amaze me when I hear some of the Republican Senators and Congress people, continuing to compare a potential US-Detroit auto bail-out, to the previous airline industry bail-out, while recommending Chapter 11 Bankruptcy for the automakers..

First, comparing the purchase of an airline ticket to buying a car is totally absurd.

Since when would someone be concerned about buying a plane ticket if it didn’t have a valid 4-5 year warranty? Or their being concerned whether parts for the plane would be available if the airline went bankrupt. If a car company went into Chapter 11, who would still want to continue buying their cars?

And when Delta and United Airlines went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the airlines did not stop selling tickets or flying. A Chapter 11 auto manufacturer would stop building cars and tens of thousands of jobs would also disappear overnight.

And do you buy an airline ticket to use every day as a needed item for earning a living, that you could not do without? Or use an airline ticket to go to school or to shop for food or other regular, daily / weekly necessities?

In addition, since when is the purchase of an airline ticket the first or second largest, important purchase that is made in the life of the average American citizen? A family or an individual’s purchase of a new or used automobile is usually just that.

Other than buying a new house, a new or used automobile purchase for the average American family is many times the largest purchase ever for a specific family or individual.

I doubt that an airline ticket would, or could, apply under any of those circumstances.

THOSE AGAINTS A LOAN TO DETROIT:

The Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, has now recently emerged as the leading opponent of any kind of aid package for the “Big Three” Detroit automakers. This week, Senator Shelby also threatened a potential filibuster of any attempt to bail out Detroit’s automakers. (However, the Senator may not have the votes in the Senate to sustain a filibuster.)

Now you ask, why in the world, would a the Republican Senator, from a state that is currently home to 116, Tier 1 automobile manufacturers, suppliers and sub-contractors, which provide jobs for over 26,000 Alabama residents, why would he want to block a bail-out of the American automakers…?

Well, of all the auto manufacturers currently located in Alabama, that are also now in neighboring Mississippi and Georgia, not one of those assembly plants are used for building any of the “Big Three’s” American cars.

Instead, they are manufacturing facilities and sub-contractors for the US auto assembly plants for Korea’s; Hyundai Motors, Japan’s; Toyota Motors and the US Honda plant and Germany’s; Daimler-Mercedes plant. (And don’t forget that it was Daimler-Benz that had previously bought Chrysler Motors, managed them into financial trouble and then sold them out-right.)

What’s even more confusing, is; “What does the Senator and his other GOP colleagues have against offering a bridge-loan of taxpayer dollars to a key US manufacturing industry?”

I ask this question of the Alabama Senator, because the reason that the foreign automakers are located in these southern states today, is that Alabama, and now Mississippi and Georgia, were successful in out-bidding other US states with large taxpayer incentives. These vast amounts of tax-payer dollars enticed the foreign auto companies into building their factories in these southern states.

In fact, the Alabama Automobile Manufacturers Association says that Alabama paid approximately $175,000 in incentives for “each” of the 891 employees at the Toyota Engine Plant in Huntsville, Alabama. (That’s $156 Million in taxpayer incentives for one single factory) At that kind of taxpayer cost, what problem does the fine Senator of Alabama have with a tax-payer loan, (not cash or long-term tax incentives) to an American industry that currently involves 1 out of every 10 working Americans? (Both “blue” and “white” collar workers.)

Which, by-the-way, if the Detroit auto companies, the largest manufacturing base in the US, were to go under today, the ripple effect on their American sub-contractors and the support businesses around those American auto plants and towns, could easily bring on an economic Depression all across America. The end result could easily go well beyond the 10+ years of negative effects and unemployment as seen during the Great Depression of the 1930’s.

THE NEW ADMINISTRATION:

President-elect Barack Obama has urged the Bush administration and Congress to find a way to help General Motors Corp., Chrysler LLC and the Ford Motor Co. He is anticipating the inheritance of this issue in January. In an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes", he indicated that Chapter 11 bankruptcy may not be the answer.

"What we have to do is to recognize that these are extraordinary circumstances," he said. "Banks aren't lending as it is. They're not even lending to businesses that are doing well, much less businesses that are doing poorly. And in that circumstance, the usual options may not be available."

Robert Reich, who was Labor Secretary under President Bill Clinton and is now on Obama's board of economic advisers, has suggested that even if a company receiving federal aid does not seek Chapter 11, it should pay a similar price. "In exchange for government aid, the Big Three's creditors, shareholders, and executives should be required to accept losses as large as they'd endure under Chapter 11, and the UAW should agree to some across-the-board wage and benefit cuts," he wrote in his blog.

In any case, the loss of jobs cannot be totally laid on the backs of the worker’s. Detroit’s top management must take most of the responsibility. Ford Motor Company has been making the necessary changes and would only need some minor help from the US government.

Unfortunately, GM and Chrysler LLC are the ones needing the most help, GM in particular. Reorganization is seriously needed and probably a change in upper management as well.

But to allow America’s “Big Three” automakers to go under, while giving the financial community Billions of US dollars with little or no restrictions, is not the answer.

Copyright G.Ater 2008

COMING SOON: THE REVISIONIST HISTORY OF “GEORGE W. BUSH”

<<< Previous Under Secretary, Karen Hughes, back on-board to rewrite the Bush legacy


Well, it has now started in earnest, “The Revisionist View of the George W. Bush Presidency”.

Not only have we started to see the apologists and the conservative revisionist articles, such as the Wall Street Journal’s, Jeffrey S. Shapiro article that stated; “We should be ashamed of how poorly we have treated President Bush,” and then the WSJ’s follow-on, positive-spin piece from a former presidential aide, Jim Towey, headlined with “Why I'll Miss President Bush”.

But “Watch Out”! Today, the key Bush supporters of; Karl Rove and Karen Hughes are back in the White House working to rewrite and “burnish” the past eight years of President Bush’s history with their new “Bush Legacy Project”. (Now, as the “project” is inside the White House, does this mean the taxpayers are paying for this rewriting of presidential history…?)

My first recommendation is that first, President Bush, and the “Bush Revision Team” should at least all get together each morning to coordinate what they are going to say or report to the media.

For instance, in a recent Bush interview with ABC's Charles Gibson at Camp David, Gibson asked the president whether there would have been an Iraq war, if Bush had known that Hussein had no WMD’s? Bush said it would be hard to speculate, but basically he admitted there “would probably still have been a war in Iraq”.

In a subsequent, separate interview, on another network on the same day, Karl Rove said that; “Had they known that there had been “no WMD’s”, there would probably “not have been an invasion.”
Come on guys, let’s get it all together…..

In addition, when Gibson asked the president what one "do-over" he'd like to have from his presidency, this was Bush's reply; "I don't know ---- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure on Iraq."

This was an amazing response!

Instead of this statement, one would have hoped that he would have said that he regretted not paying more attention to the warnings in the Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing memo. The briefing was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.", and is the document that reported "patterns of suspicious activity in the US, consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks."

Or, how about regretting that he had put the nation's emergency response capability (FEMA) in the hands of Michael Brown, an inexperienced, former executive of the International Arabian Horse Association? And then, how he casually watched from afar as New Orleans drowned?

And let’s not forget, as he has said before in a previous interview, that his "Mission Accomplished" photo op on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln was a moment he'd like to have back.

From my area of past “Bush” observations, of all the many things he should regret, there is a very long list and most of them have damaged this nation.

We're talking about items such as the many basic lies told to the nation, the US use of torture, the loss of world-wide American prestige, watching passively as the Gulf Coast drowned, the censoring of science, the politicizing of the US Department of Justice, a ruinous war of his choice in Iraq, spending tax-payer dollars with all the discipline of an 8-year-old in a candy store, and on, and on, and on…………….

And arguably, the most damaging legacy this president leaves is that he has undermined the truth from the office of the American president itself.

After eight years of Bush/Rove politics, we live now in a nation where facts don't mean a whole lot, where it is OK to believe just the "truth" that serves their political needs and ignores anything that does not.

Unfortunately, up to now, truth has come in two flavors. We’ve had “Red” truth and “Blue” truth. But we have been fresh out of “Real” truth. I’m sure you remember back then. That was when the facts were usually unimpeachable and inarguable.

Instead, President Bush has overseen a government of astounding intellectual incoherence, where ideology is valued above competence, accountability has no value what so ever, and one is daily dared to believe the evidence of one's lying eyes.

I’m not the only one that feels this way. As was printed in an editorial in the Miami Herald about the revisionist WSJ article written by Jeffrey Shapiro;

“First, you wonder how old Shapiro is? This is because he sounds very young. I'm talking smudge-of-acne-cream-on-the-cheek, fake-ID-at-the-club / young. Which, presumably, he is not, given his pedigree.

Then you wonder — fear, might be the better word — if this is but the vanguard of a new wave of revisionism, a pre-emptive strike against history, if you will, to impose a sunnier, more forgiving view on the past eight years than the facts will support. If so, we should gird for a very long ‘rest of our lives’.

Finally, you wonder, wearily, if it is really [going to be] necessary to tally yet again the sins of this president.

If George W. Bush's approval ratings sink any lower, they will then emerge in China. That's not accidental. And when his ‘reign of error’ ends on Jan. 20, it will come eight years too late and not a millisecond too soon.”

But there's another problem with the way the Bush team is trying to rewrite history.

After US forces combed Iraq for WMD's and established that none existed, the administration came up with all the other backdated rationales for the invasion.

Vice President Cheney even kept insisting there was some link to the Sept. 11 disaster that only he could perceive. Fortunately, after a while, nobody paid him any attention.

But Bush still continues to speak of having liberated Iraqis from the savage rule of a tyrant, which is true, but that wasn't the reason we were originally told we had to go to war.

The president also speaks of having created a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, one that would shoot out tendrils of freedom to take root throughout the region.

Again, this is a hard story to sell when the war's greatest geopolitical impact has only strengthened its theocratic neighbor, Iran, to the point that today Iran dares to dream of reliving ancient Persian glories.

And Bush even pats himself on the back for keeping his “eye on the ball”, meaning the "war against ideological thugs."

But those ideological thugs are still entrenched somewhere, probably in the lawless frontier territories of Pakistan, rebuilding their networks and plotting new attacks.

Based on all the latest “real” intel, the US invasion of Iraq has given the so called “thugs” the best recruiting tool for the majority of the extreme Muslim groups in all of the Middle East.

Bush’s so called, “eye-on-the-ball” has unfortunately caused the deaths of many US troops in Iraq as well as thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Yes sir, those history revision writers have a lot of material to work with, so it’s very understandable as to why they are getting started now, even before the current president has left his office.

If this were a Mel Brooks film, it could be really laughable, if it wasn’t so sad and pitiful that so many American and Iraqi citizens have had to suffer at the hands of such total presidential incompetence.

But as I said, “watch out”, there’s plenty more to come.

Copyright G.Ater 2008

ALASKAN SENATOR, TED STEVENS: "GOOD-BYE & GOOD RIDDANCE!"

Senator Ted Stevens at his corruption trial

It continues to stick in my craw, the vision I saw last month when the Alaskan Republican Senator, Ted Stevens, was forced to leave the US Senate on his 85th birthday.

Here was a man, that had served 40 years in the US Senate, that had also just recently been convicted of a seven-felony string of corruption charges. Stevens was finally found guilty, by a jury of his peers, of accepting an illegal bonanza of expensive home renovations and fancy trimmings from an oil executive, and Stevens was then caught lying about it.

Instead of resigning and just disappearing, as any normal person with a real conscience would do, Senator Stevens then continued to run for re-election, while he was still on trial. Apparently however, even the citizens of Alaska finally had enough, and Stevens lost his bid for re-election to the Democrat, Mark Begich, by a mere 2000+ votes.

What was so disturbing to watch, was the send-off that Stevens received from his Senatorial colleagues.

Instead of being ostracized or avoided by his esteemed colleagues, Stevens was given time to address the Senate floor and he received a very long, standing ovation. He was also praised by a number of the current Senators, both Democrat and Republican.

Not only were there many words of praise for the Senator’s accomplishments, (Stevens had previously held seven Senate committee chairmanships, was the long-time Republican Senate Whip and had a prominent role as an Eisenhower administration official that worked on Alaska's eventual statehood), the tributes to Stevens took a number of hours in an extended morning Senate session.

Here is the full list of US Senators that spoke “glowingly” on behalf of Senator Stevens:

>>> Harry Reid (D-NV), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Pete Domenici (R-NM), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Patty Murray (D-WA), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Kay-Baily Hutchison (R-TX), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Larry Craig (R-ID), Jim Bunning (R-KY), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Thad Cochran (R-MS). John Warner (R-VA) also praised Stevens in advance of the Alaskan senator’s farewell address

In his final comments to the Senate, Stevens said; "I don't have any rearview mirror, I look only forward. And I still see the day when I can remove the cloud that currently surrounds me." By the time he finished, even a few of the Democratic lawmakers and staffers were dabbing their eyes.

However, during the hours of tributes on the Senate floor, the exact nature of that “cloud” was never described: such as the corruption, the gifts and the free home renovations that eventually brought the career of this so called “legislative legend” to an ignominious end.

As reported in the Washington Post; “The recounting of his role in history made it all the more inexplicable that Stevens, a man who controlled billions of dollars, would chuck it all for; a massage chair, some Christmas lights and a wood deck for his Alaska chalet”.

With just passing reference to this "cloud," he was done. "That's it, Mr. President: Forty years distilled into a few minutes," the chairman-turned-convict said. "I yield the floor for the last time."

On the other hand, it is expected that very few other senators will shed tears for the grumpy, irritable Stevens. Nor are they likely to lament the end of his politics of greedily funneling massive amounts federal “pork” money to his home state.

But for this final day in the Senate, there was celebration of the “bacon” he brought to Alaska. Everything from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline to the new VA Outpatient Clinic in Anchorage. "No senator in the history of this country has done more for his state than Senator Ted Stevens," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

And the scene did have poignancy for another reason: As the old Senators on both sides of the aisle rose to bid adieu to Stevens, they also seemed to be saying farewell to their own era, a time when the Senate was, for better or worse, a true “gentlemen's club”.

Here are some comments by some high-profile US Senators regarding Senator Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator in U.S. history:

"We all make mistakes," Sen. Robert Byrd, celebrating his 91st birthday, said from his wheelchair. "I've made more of them than I have hair follicles." The West Virginia Democrat, in failing health, read his colleague of 40 years an old Irish blessing ("May the road rise up to meet you . . .") and, with faltering speech, said, "Bless your heart, Ted. I love you." Stevens crossed the aisle and held Byrd's hand.

Senator Byrd, the Senate's oldest member also offered the most poignant sendoff. "Some in this town would say we've both lived too long, but a long life is a blessing for many reasons," Byrd said, struggling to turn the pages of his speech. "One learns to appreciate small, special moments and the really good things in life, like a good laugh, a good cry, a good dog, and a good meal. Politics is a rough business with lots of highs and lots of lows."

Stevens is the most visible of the “Old Bulls” to be slain, but other Congress elders are also in their twilight.

Last week, Byrd himself, was stripped of his Appropriations Committee chairmanship because of his declining faculties. As he sat listening to the tributes yesterday, he interrupted senators with shouts of "Yes!" and "That's right!" and "You bet!" until an aide wheeled him from the chamber. "Amen!" Byrd bellowed as he rolled toward the door. "Amen!"

In a soft voice, Sen. Daniel Inouye, 84, a Hawaii Democrat whom Stevens called "my brother," told colleagues that "the events of recent weeks have been less than pleasant, and at times dismal and heartbreaking. But to my friend, I say: Stand tall, Ted, because you have every good reason to do so."

And there were tributes just for the heck of it. "I rise now because I look around and I don't think there's any senator left on the floor that's served longer than I with him," said 76-year-old Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), before reminiscing with his colleague of 36 years about "things we shared as men."

Things were no better for the old guard on the other side of the Capital Building.

House Democrats yesterday ousted as Energy and Commerce Committee chairman the longest-serving member of the House Chamber: John Dingell (Mich.), 82, who uses a wheelchair because of knee replacement. The victor, Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.), taunted the loser in a post-vote news conference. "Seniority is important," said Waxman, 69, "but it should not be a grant of property rights to be chairman for three decades or more."

By the “Dingell standard”, the felonious Stevens was treated royally in the Senate chamber. The senators quickly dispensed with a bill extending unemployment insurance in just a few minutes, while the Stevens tributes took about three hours. Twenty-two Republicans and eight Democrats came to hear Stevens' farewell; his wife and daughter also sat in the first row of the public gallery.

Yes, thank goodness, this is the end of both Ted Stevens as a US Senator and the end of an “era” in the Senate.

But, from where I stand, I did not appreciate the senator’s ovation or the celebration of a “Legend” that was leaving with more of the reputation of an AL Capone or a Baby Faced Nelson, not like a positive statesman’s role-model, such as a George Washington or an Abraham Lincoln.

This “good-bye” to both Stevens and to the aforementioned “era” is instead, more of a “good riddance”, good-bye, as far as the American taxpayer is concerned.

Copyright G.Ater 2008

IS A "NEW" "NEW DEAL” WHAT AMERICA NEEDS?

A 30's "New Deal" Cartoon



I can agree somewhat with opinion writers that say that a “New Deal” type of stimulus package might be very difficult today, as America is much different from the America of FDR back in 1933.

Yes, Americans have a huge challenge today for considering a “New Deal” type of program in the US.

One reason being that, since the early 1980’s and the election of President Ronald Reagan, the number of construction workers, particularly Union workers, that are capable of working on America’s infrastructure for building or repairing; bridges, schools, highways, hydroelectric dams or nuclear power plants has dropped significantly.

And another difference from 1933 is that today, America is the largest “debtor nation” in the world. It is also a nation that has lost hundreds of thousands of blue-collar manufacturing jobs over the past 30 years.

Back in FDR’s time, the America of the 1930’s was the world largest “creditor nation” and even with the Great Depression, it was a world-class manufacturing leader. In addition, the United States was also owed billions of dollars from those European nations that had borrowed from the US to finance World War I.

Today, the US has the world’s highest debt and the largest deficit in world history.

Yes, it is a different America and a different world out there. However, just as it was with the GOP’s economic philosophy of the late 1920’s and early ‘30’s, President Bush’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson’s $700 Billion Bail-Out “mistake” just continues to show that “top-down” is not the proper approach to fix America's economy.

Instead of the current bailed-out banks and finance organizations, using the “Paulson Bailout Program” to provide loans and credit to businesses and the general public, (as they were supposed to do), the tax-payer Bail-Out money is instead being used by big banks to buyout failing smaller banks. This is just making those big banks even bigger banks. Which means that they will now become the new, potential members of the “banks too big to be allowed to fail” club.

"BOTTOM'S UP" IS THE CORRECT WAY:

The proper approach to the economic problems is not a top-down program. It should be an approach that closes the “hopeless” institutions, while supporting the small-to-medium sized banks and financial intermediaries that are more connected to real business producers and consumers.

In addition, part of a real “grass-roots” approach should be to get qualified individuals prepared and trained for the “new” attack on rebuilding America’s infrastructure and for developing and building the new US products for supporting America’s future energy needs.

There should first, be a “Phase One”, federal program at the “hands-on” level for training and to provide corporate financing and tax incentives for developing new “Green” energy and transportation products.

Once Obama takes office, he should declare a “Bank Holiday”, just to get all the facts, and the problems, on the table. The idea, that dumping a lot of money on the problem to “normalize” the banking issues has proven unsound and an enormous waste of the public’s resources.

All that Secretary Paulson’s program has done, is to preserve the large Wall Street financial monsters. It has done nothing for the average consumer, small business owner or the majority of the small to medium size companies that depend on credit, (in modest amounts), in order to maintain their business activity.

As many economists, key analyst organizations and experienced Op-Ed writers agree, the current Bush-Paulson Plan is coming from the wrong direction.

Wall Street and the giant financial titans should not have been the first operations to be chosen for returning them to “normalcy”.

Instead, the government focus should have been on getting the normal lending back in-line and on reviving jobs, incomes and small businesses. Economies depend on more new jobs and consumers spending. Not on employee lay-offs, mortgage foreclosures and bail-outs.

As has been shown many times before, democratic economies will never start working from a “trickle down” or “top-down” approach. They must instead, start from labor, manufacturing and small businesses at the bottom of the pyramid. (Even the Republicans admit that it is America’s millions of small businesses that are the main drivers of the US economy.)

And federal moratoriums must be placed on home mortgage foreclosures to stop the bleeding and where possible, US manufacturing jobs should be kept intact, including those within the US auto and related industries.

Economies that seriously need a stimulus; need preservatives and real reforms, not wholesale bailouts and wishful thinking. And most of all, whatever is done, if it uses taxpayer dollars, there must be ways for the “taxpayer-lender” to eventually get their money back, and with interest.

Can the American government do all this? Yes they can, but like any democracy, it takes time and negotiation to come up with these solutions. This avoids having those so-called “loop-hole problems” and the potential “hasty mistakes” can then be discovered and corrected before the first checks are written.

That’s why the Paulson Plan is bad and still needs to be stopped or fixed. It was implemented too quickly and it has major mistakes and loop-holes the size of a Boeing wide-body jet.

Shame on them, and shame on the US Congress for letting it happen.

Yes, a "REAL New Deal" might be just what we need.

Copyright G.Ater 2008

BOTH PRESIDENT- ELECT OBAMA AND FDR EXPERIENCED; “DIFFICLT PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION PERIODS”

The Twentieth Amendment to the US Constitution was passed before the 1936 campaign, just to shorten the previous & devastating; “ 4 month interval” between the presidential election and the inauguration.

In 1932-33, there was a very difficult 4 month transition period, (as was still then required by the US Constitution), between the election and the inauguration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The “Great Depression”, and the long presidential transition period, together, came close to destroying a great nation that was in serious economic peril.
(Most people today are not aware that during the world-wide “Great Depression”, seven Latin-American governments had been overthrown.)

THE GREAT DEPRESSION IN AMERICA:
>>> There were tens of thousands of unemployed in soup & bread lines.
>>> Banks were failing on an almost daily basis.
>>> Stock market prices were down 75%.
>>> The US national income was down by more than 50%.
>>> US exports were the lowest since 1904.
>>> And over 600,000 American homes or farms were in foreclosure.

One newspaper article in the Chicago Tribune, right after the election, said that the times were so bad, someone had predicted that a Red Communist flag, with a “hammer and a sickle”, would be flying over at least one, mid-western American state’s capital by the end of the year, if America’s problems continued to expand.

And to make things worse, in Europe, on FDR’s birthday, Adolf Hitler would become the Chancellor of Germany and he would then complete his move to power when the German Nazi Party won their general election majority on March 5th, the day after FDR’s inauguration.

Just as Barack Obama has recently won his election with a mandate from the American public, FDR had won his first term with a mandate-majority of 12 million votes.

As is also today’s situation, the country in 1932 voted for "change", and both then and today, the people wanted it right away.

BOTH FDR AND OBAMA SAID, “ONE PRESIDENT AT A TIME”:

In many ways, the 1932 economic issues were very similar, (but much worse back then) to those of today.

Upon both elections, FDR and today’s President-Elect Obama were both in the difficult position of having to observe the country’s economic issues without getting directly involved with the current president’s dealings or approaches to the problems. Both FDR, and now Obama, found themselves with vastly different approaches to their predecessors, while neither incoming executive wanted to be seen as condoning or adopting any of their predecessors actions or solutions.

Neither FDR or Obama knew how the “new guy on the block” was supposed appear to be leaving the current president alone to run the country without also appearing that they were being irresponsible or were ignoring the nation’s problems.

Actually, back early in ’32, there was an idea circulating about the possibility of putting FDR in the White House, right after the election, so that he could get started right away. However, it was later decided that they could have only pushed to implement this extreme “idea”, if FDR won his election by a “20 million vote popular majority”:

The concept was: First, due to the large public mandate, FDR’s team would apply pressure on President Hoover to fire his Secretary of State. Then, Hoover would also have the Vice President resign. Whereupon, the President would submit his own resignation, and FDR would immediately become the new President.

Unfortunately, FDR’s majority was 12 million, not the needed “20 million”.
And besides, President Hoover would probably never have agreed to this “idea” anyway, as he was focused on being the president to the very end. He also had come to hate Roosevelt and thought FDR was going to be physically too weak, (due to his Polio), to do the job as president anyway.

Hoover had also said privately, that he hoped to take the four months of transition to catch the Democrats in a position to blame the country’s lack of “economic problem solving” on the Democrats, before he left the office.

AMERICA IN NOVEMBER 1932:

Just as President-Elect Obama’s position is today, FDR knew that for the next four months, he would not have any power to end the nation’s crisis. He also knew what Hoover had done, or not done, to assist in getting the country into the dire straits it was in at that time, (just as Obama has said about the Bush Administration).

But Roosevelt finally decided to not get in Hoover’s way. (In many ways, FDR had just decided to not interfere with Hoover’s programs and actions and he expected that in doing so, Hoover would probably just hang himself anyway. Which he eventually did.)

FDR had hated seeing all the suffering Americans, but he understood that it was important for him to not be seen as trying to over-shadow the current president.

In addition, he did not want to be attached to Hoover, or any of his failing programs, in any way before he assumed the office. He also knew, the more he stayed out of the way, the better-off he would be, when he and his staff eventually took over the White House.

Roosevelt’s relationship with President Hoover during the 4 months transition, continued to go from bad to worse. Hoover wanted to find ways to blame the Democrats for any and all of the economic problems, while FDR wanted to make sure the people remembered that it was Hoover and the Republicans who had forgotten the interests of the average working American.
(Sound kind of familiar?)

THEN CAME THE ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION:

Today, little is ever said about the February 15th, 1933, incident, before the inauguration, where Giuseppe Zangara, a 5 foot / one inch, 32 year old, unemployed bricklayer from New Jersey tried to assassinate FDR when he was visiting Miami, Florida. Zangara was a mentally deranged individual with assassination of a national leader on his mind.

It was later learned that Zangara had also failed in an attempt to assassinate King Victor Emmanuel of Italy, during a parade in 1923. Fortunately, Zangara was too short to even see over the heads of the King’s guards. Early in 1932, he had wanted to kill President Hoover, but could never get himself into a position to even try. After moving to Florida, he had then decided to kill the new visiting, president-elect, FDR.

In Miami, Zangara was standing on a chair watching, while Roosevelt was speaking from the back of a car that had stopped in the presidential motorcade parade. As FDR finished speaking and sat down, Zangara fired five shots at close range. But Zangara had been jostled while standing on the chair and totally missed FDR.

Unfortunately, six people were wounded by the five bullets. One of the bullets seriously wounded the then Mayor of Chicago, Anton Cermak, who had been vacationing in Miami and had come to the parade to speak with Roosevelt.

Mayor Cermak eventually died from a post-surgery infection, just a week into FDR’s presidency. Zangara was then tried, found guilty and executed just one month from the time of the shooting. (The shortest ever trial and execution in US history.)

FDR’S REPUTATION GREW STRONG:

The president-elect was actually very fearless the evening of the shooting. And FDR knew the importance of “appearing” fearless to the public, during this time of economic strife and difficulty in America.

As today with Obama, it was important that FDR help to instill a strong sense of public confidence in himself and his administration, in order to get accomplished, what he wanted to do in his first 100 days in office.

After the shooting, FDR had insisted that the driver stop the car, which was speeding on the way to the hospital, to see how Mayor Cermak was doing. Cermak was then placed next to FDR in the car where Roosevelt kept checking Cermak’s pulse while calmly speaking to him all the way to the hospital.

Roosevelt’s handling of this “first crisis” did a lot to set the tone for his future presidency. A New York Times editorial wrote that; “To a man, FDR’s country rose to applaud his cool courage in the face of death.” Time Magazine wrote; “He is a martyr president at the start of his first term.”

Even seven years after the shooting, Ray Moley, a close advisor and early member of FDR’s “Brain Trust” team said; “I have never in my life seen anything more magnificent than Roosevelt’s calm that night after the shooting.” A Secret Service agent had also checked in on FDR several times during that night, and each time he was seen as fast asleep. The next day he told reporters that he had “slept like a top”. This was apparently true, but it was also an aura of being “fearless” that FDR intentionally helped create.

Unfortunately, a comment that FDR made on the phone call to his wife Eleanor, after the shooting, has continued to “ring true” throughout the history of presidents and other leaders around the world.

He had told Eleanor; “If someone wanted to kill me and didn’t care if he was himself caught or killed, there was nothing the Secret Service could have done about it. You can’t live with that on your mind all the time, you’ve just got to forget it. We will both just have to force ourselves never to think of these possibilities. Otherwise, living life will be impossible.”

However, the general public and law enforcement officials became very nervous about the new president. Upon returning to New York, FDR was escorted home by one thousand policemen.

Six days later, the lead story in the New York Times, was about a shot-gun shell, that had been sent by a crank and addressed to “Franklin D. Roosevelt”. It was initially discovered at the Washington DC Post Office.

It’s unfortunate that, especially in today’s dangerous world, with Muslim extremist and their “suicide bombers”, the concept of a Lee Harvey Oswald; a James Earl Ray or any possible “presidential assassination” is even more prescient than anyone could have imagined in 1933.

GOING FORWARD WITH THE TRANSITION:

Up to today, in his final days, President Bush has paid little attention to both the economy or to the new President-Elect Obama.

Bush has instead, continued to sabotage as many areas of the US environmental laws and the law in general, with his signing statements and anticipated presidential pardons. (This will be his attempt to get as many of his team mates, and their illegal activities out of town, while he still has the power to do so.)

This was anything but the situation between Hoover and FDR.

By the time Hoover finally agreed that the banks should be closed by Federal Law, there had been such devastating financial destruction, that Hoover was physically seen as severely shaken and confused. The earlier, massive bank panic was the worst in all of US banking history and would have been completely unnecessary, if Hoover would have decided to handle it personally at an earlier date.

During the transition, Hoover had become so blinded by his hatred of Roosevelt that he would not, or could not, admit that his vision of the banks “volunteering” for economic management versus “legal banking” management by the government, had simply failed.

The historic break between the old GOP‘s way of fiscal management and the new progressive way for FDR’s approach, would then take months to become apparent. That is probably what will be the situation with the new Obama Administration’s effect on the country and the current economy.

Herbert Hoover had seriously tried in the final transition days to make his opponent join him in being responsible for the eventual US economic “rubble”. This was the giant mess in which his party and his administration had left America. FDR was deftly able to avoid that situation, as I suspect Obama will be as well.

Just as with Hoover, George W. Bush, with his poor 8 years as US president and his Republican party’s 12 failed years of running the Congress, plus the latest failed economy, will always be the heavy load that this group will have to carry with them as a failed GOP American legacy.

All we can do today is to wish that Obama can stay safe, and to wish him the best of luck in bringing America back to its previous stability, greatness and world respect.

Copyright G.Ater 2008