A Moderate Republican's View of Obama's Presidency

Hillary will announce after November elections

2010-08-13T23:30:00.000-07:00

Today's speech by the President supporting the building of the mosque near Ground Zero was the final political blunder by a president who seems to be unable to get out of his own way. I just don't understand why he felt it necessary to weigh in on such an emotionally-charged issue. Following his decision to sue the State of Arizona over their immigration law, his expansion of the war in Afghanistan, and his speech on Iraqi troops being ready to take over the lead in their war, which was followed so closely by a refutation of that position by the Iraqis themselves, all demonstrates the poor political advice Barack Obama is receiving. People may criticize the politics of Rove, Cheney and the rest of the advisors surrounding President Bush, but politically they made very few errors (at least in his first term). I am afraid to say it is unlikely there will be a second term for Barack Obama.

Whether it will be Hillary who challenges the sitting president remains to be seen. But if she resigns from Secretary of State soon after the mid-term elections, you can bet she smells the blood. My prediction - she will run in 2012.

Another Bad Choice by the President

2010-07-29T09:42:00.000-07:00

As if President Obama did not have enough divisive issues facing his presidency, his decision to challenge Arizona's immigation law while doing virtually nothing to address the underlying problem is one that will come back to haunt him. Polls show that a sizeable majority of Americans agree with the Arizona law. Even those that don't, have serious reservations about how the Federal government has been enforcing the exisiting Federal immigration laws. So by throwing his administration into the middle of this controversial issue on the side of maintaining the staus quo he has made the worst of all possible choices.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the lack of success in reducing unemployement and the President's support of an unwinnable war in Afghanistan are destined to be his achilees heels. Now he has added immigration to the list - a list which puts his administration and its re-election in jeopardy.

The Politics of Immigration Reform

President Obama is not the first to have sought to use the immigration issue as a catalyst for political popularity. Few have been successful. That is because most of the people who have views on the subject have strong views - the kind that catapults them into political activity. Probably no example is more clear than that of former president George W Bush. He remained a darling of the conservative wing of the party even while abandoning many of the most basic economic prinicples of conservatives beliefs. But it was was his support of "comprehensive immigration reform" that caused many of his most avid supporters to jump ship and question his presidency.

Now the Obama administration has chosen to take a similar path and it seems clear that it will be equally unsuccessful. Like the Bush administration, the President wants to solidify his Hispanic base. What he is not taking into account is the depth of the opposition will offset any gains he may receive, plus a percentage of those who may agree with his policy simply cannot vote.

Immigration policy is not a political winner and maintaining the status quo will lose him support on both sides of the issue.

For a more detailed discussion of the immigration issue, go to my new blog: Lies, Damn Lies, and Solutions

Barack Obama is in Trouble (or is he?)

2010-01-24T08:36:00.000-08:00

I admit it. I never expected the reaction from the electorate in Massachusetts, and was struggling with exactly what it meant. Did I (and Barack Obama) totally miscalculate what the country wanted? Were the extremes in each Party correct that compromise and cooperation were a path to failure?

The latest poll from the results of the election said that three-quarters, that's 75%, of those who voted for Scott Brown want him to work with Democrats on legislation and fifty percent (50%) specifically want him to do so on the health care legislation.

So while the Massachusetts voters felt that the country under Democratic control had gone off track (what the Republicans have been telling us) what they really were saying is that they are tired of the old partisan politics and want to end this dysfunctional government.

How can we expect the government to handle something as complex as health care if we can't even find a terrorist when his father tell us he is a threat?

So Democrats and Republicans take note! The voters want action, cooperation, and an end to the politics which have dominated our recent history. Those in the Democratic Party who are calling for the President's head because he was unwilling to stick to a far-left agenda without seeking cooperation from the other side beware of what you wish for. You may very well end up with a "pure" liberal party - but a much smaller one at that. And those in the Republican Party who see the Massachusetts victory as a license to return to the days of George W Bush where it was full steam ahead and damn the consequences better pay heed to what the voters were truly saying.

THIS IS OUR COUNTRY, NOT YOURS and WE WANT IT BACK!

There is a better way to tackle the difficult task of solving the budget, jobs, health care, and foreign policy issues. Both sides have people with good ideas and locking them out of the process does not win our favor. For standing in the wings are less partisan people like Michael Bloomberg and Colin Powell who may well realize that their love of country supercedes their fear of taking on the current political system. The voters want solutions, not platitudes and partisan politics.

Are you listening?

2009 - A Mixed Bag for Barack Obama

2009-12-28T20:00:00.000-08:00

With health care reform on the verge of passing, unemployment remaining at historically high levels, a stock market recovery that exceeds most years, two wars in the Middle East that won't go away, a much more supportive Europe, a budget deficit that exceeds anything previously imaginable, new restrictions on excesses by financial institutions, and real estate prices still resisting a recovery, this has been a very mixed year for the new President.

While support for his programs has plummeted and even his personal support has declined, he still remains the most respected single person in American politics. Is that a sign of of his popularity or a sign of how unpopular his opponents are?

Looking into the future - 2010 and 2012 - I see two major issues that could dramatically alter the political landscape - Afghanistan and unemployment. With all due respect to the emphasis placed on health care reform over the past few months, only its defeat could have a major impact on the near and mid-term political climate. There will just not be enough time to evaluate its success or failure prior to 2012.

That is not true of the War in Afghanistan. If the new "surge" does not result in a clear victory (such as the capture of Osama bin Ladin) or allow a speedy withdrawal with minimum casualties (neither of which alternative is likely), the repercussions to President Obama could be dramatic.

How dramatic? How about a challenge to his leadership from within the Democratic Party as well as rising opposition from the Republicans.

Even more damaging would be continued high unemployment - 7% or more - through the 2012 primary season.

So which scenario is more likely - a Republican return to power or an internal Democratic challenge? We can wonder who the Republicans have to challenge for the White House in 2012 - Romney, Palin, Hukabee, Canter, Bush (no the other, other Bush)? And if the Democrats challenged their incumbent President, would it be Clinton or Reid or Pelosi or someone new?

But truthfully, will either party go unscathed if the War in Afghanistan is unsuccessful and the economy continues to lag? Could anyone with a connection to the Administration or Congress win the election?

It's doubtful.

If by 2012, the war continues and high unemployment continues, the perfect storm may be created. The public will be looking for someone (anyone) who can offer a new approach not burdened by the political paralysis of the past. They would have to have the notoriety, financial resources, and expertise to take on the existing political structure. H. Ross Perot almost pulled it off by himself, but how much more successful would it be if two such successful men (or women) offered their services to the country.

Would you like to throw out a name or two?

A Reasonable Health Care Reform Bill Is Still Possible

2009-11-22T08:54:00.000-08:00

If it isn't obvious to Republican moderates, their leadership, and the American public by now, a health care reform bill WILL PASS. Last night's vote in the Senate should have dispelled any doubt. The Democrats cannot afford to let it fail. So the only question now is what kind of bill it will be.

The American people and reasonable members of both political parties want a bill that is affordable (or at least relatively affordable), that addresses the serious flaws in our current health care system. Thus far, political operatives of both parties have been playing the system. Democratic liberals have opted for provisions that will bring the cost of the reforms far above the country's ability to pay for such a plan and refused to include any kind of provision that will limit doctor's liability in order to placate their friends in the trial attorney's lobby. The Republican leadership has solidly fought any attempt on the part of their members to offer any real compromises in the hope that they can scuttle the bill and embarrass the President and the Democratic Party. That is just not going to happen.

Real compromise can take place if people of good faith want it to.

Here are some of the provisions that can be included in the bill and still pass if political buffoonery is removed from the process:

1. A provision that guarantees that people with preexisting conditions will not be left with the alternatives of no insurance or unaffordable insurance.

2. A tort reform provision where patients are guaranteed to receive an amount equal to or in excess of what the attorneys receive AFTER EXPENSES.

3. A limitation of services for illegal immigrants to include only emergency services.

4. A guarantee of reimbursement for certain preventative medical services.

5. A requirement that members of Congress be subject to the same plan as that passed for the American people.

6. An alternative to the current public option provision that will still provide competition where insurance companies cannot dictate ever increasing premiums.

7. A bill where reimbursement is NOT tied to Medicare reimbursement, whose purpose is different from this health care reform.

8. And most importantly, a health care system where neither insurance companies nor the government has final say over what services or prescription medicine is prescribed.

This list is not all-inclusive. There are more compromises that can be included in the bill if both sides agree that the good of the American people is more important than their perceived notion of political advantage. Proposing amendments and then saying we still won't support the bill is not compromise. It is politics at its worse. We need reasonable people from both sides to put forth their MUST HAVES and CANNOT SUPPORT and then agree to vote for anything in the middle, while never letting up in their fight for what they want. That is the way our system is supposed to work.

If not, a health care reform bill WILL PASS that may only lead to higher deficits and more chaos in our health care system.

Health Care's Public Option - Pros and Cons

2009-10-29T00:19:00.000-07:00

With Joe Lieberman's announcement that he will not vote for the public option, the issue of whether or not a public option is desirable or even necessary has reached a new level of importance in the Congressional debate on health care reform. In his speech on the Senate floor, Senator Lieberman laid out a persuasive argument regarding the current and anticipated deficits and the economic situation we are currently in. Some may question whether his motives may be just as heavily influenced by the number of insurance companies based in Connecticut. But I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and discuss his objections on their merit.

Sen. Lieberman is willing to delay the passage of health care reform, which he says he strongly supports, because of the current economic crisis in the USA. Yet much of the costs which have led to our deficits are related to the cost of health care. The USA has the highest health care costs of ANY WESTERN COUNTRY, yet is ranked near the bottom of health care efficiency. Our health care costs are continuing to rise faster than inflation and faster than most other western nations. The politics of health care reform in this country are such that there may be no better time in the foreseeable future that comprehensive reform could win passage. It has taken sixteen years since the last debate over health care reform to come this far on the agenda. So effectively delay will probably kill any chance for its passage. From the viewpoint of politics, it may be now or never.

What about alternatives to the proposed bills. Isn't there a better, less expensive way?

The votes to pass health care reform could come from two sources - moderate members of the Republican Party and liberal members of the Democratic Party. So far there has been no indication at all that Republicans will vote for health care reform no matter what compromises are made. In his speech to Congress and the nation, President Obama made three important concessions. One, he offered to delay implementation of the public option for five years. Two, he offered to implement Sen. McCain's interim plan during that five year period. Three, he offered to include tort reform in the health care package.

What was the response of the Republican Party - conservatives and moderates alike? No way! No how!

All the proposals they have made - and some have lots of merit - have not led a single Republican to say, "If this provision is included in the bill I will vote for it. They asked for tort reform - not enough. They asked for members of Congress to be subject to the same plan as every one else - not enough. The House "Blue Dog" Democrats asked for Republican help when they gained control of the bill last month. The moderate Democrats saw an opportunity for a bipartisan bill to be passed in the House. Instead, it was met with a deafening silence. In fact, it seems that the only purpose of these proposals is to try to anger the liberal members of the Democratic Party so that they will not vote for health care reform.

What eventually happened in the House committee is what the Republicans and the country are going to get - a more liberal bill. Neither the moderate nor liberal members of the Democratic Party have sufficient votes to pass this reform without the other. What the Republicans apparently don't understand is that the Democratic Party cannot afford politically to let health care reform fail.

So in the end, they, you, and I lose. The only way this bill passes is for the "Blue Dog" Democrats to agree to more liberal proposals to be included in the bill. The public option is one of those proposals. Far too many liberal Democrats have insisted that the final bill include a public option.

Will that mean that this country has become socialistic? Well, Medicare and Medicaid are run by the government. So are most educational facilities, the post office, the State Department, the military, and so many other entities which serve us. Some of them compete directly with private enterprise The private universities don't seem to be going out of business. In fact, they seem to be thriving, though they are competing with public universities. Don't tell Harvard or Stanford or Duke that they can't compete.

While many government programs have their share of problems, Enron, WorldCom, Lehman Brothers, AIG and a host of others were not government entities. More importantly, the argument that the government will come between you and your doctor holds little weight when we currently have insurance companies making medical decisions and they have NO INTEREST in your personal welfare unless it adds to their bottom line. No, the government will actually be an improvement over the present system. Perhaps with reform we can actually get it right and restore most of the decisions as ones that should be made between you and your doctor.

Bottom Line - It is important that health care reform be enacted NOW and the best way to do that is with a government run public option. If the Republicans and others who oppose the public option don't agree, let them publicly agree to support a health care reform bill that moderate Democrats can also support and let us put the squeeze on the liberal Democrats.

ALL OF US ARE RESPONSIBLE - A MESSAGE ABOUT HEALTHCARE

2009-09-30T14:28:00.000-07:00

This is a Yom Kippur, day of atONEment, message from Rabbi Dennis Linson, at Temple Judea, Laguna hills, California; given as a sermon on Monday, September 28, 2009

As Americans we are a curious mix, conflicted in our thoughts and actions. In America, we are idealists, we are utopian thinkers, we are descendants of our founding fathers and of Johnny Appleseed.

At the same time we Americans are rugged individualists, we intensely protect our personal ability to opt out of what’s good for all; preserving, almost at all costs, our freedom to act on what’s good for us.

In our cities, we want clean, efficient, low cost mass transit to help us manage our environment, preserve green space, become energy independent. Yet we personally want our own cars, tax-funded roads to where we want to go and low cost, easy-access parking when we get there.

We want a national system of basic healthcare for all citizens, meaning in other words - for everyone else but us and at the same time for ourselves and for our loved ones we want personalized healthcare without limits to access or treatment options.

This curious mix of societal systems and norms for everyone else while preserving personal choice for us individually leaves us problems without the comprehensive solutions we so desperately seek.

We are as they say, "Mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore." Mad that "everyone else" doesn’t have their society-wide solution and mad that we personally, our mom, our dad, our son, our daughter, have problems of affordability, access and choice in getting healthcare we think we deserve. We want what we want when we want it, at a price we can afford; yet we think a basic system of some type is fine for everyone else.

Nikki was a slim and athletic college graduate, who had health insurance, who worked in health care and knew the system. But she had systemic lupus, a chronic inflammatory disease that was diagnosed when she was 21 and gradually left her too sick to work. And once she lost her job, she lost her health insurance.

In any other rich country, Nikki probably would have been fine. Some 80% of lupus patients in the United States live a normal life span. Under a doctor’s care, lupus should be manageable. Nikki tried everything to get medical care, but no insurance company would accept someone with her pre-existing condition.

Finally, Nikki collapsed at her home in Tennessee and she was rushed to a hospital emergency room, which was required to treat her without payment until her condition stabilized. Since money was no longer an issue, the hospital performed 25 emergency surgeries on Nikki, and she spent 6 months in critical care. When Nikki showed up at the emergency room, she received the best of care, and the hospital spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on her care.

But by then it was too late. In 2006, Nikki White died at age 32. Nikki’s doctor said, "Nikki didn’t die from lupus. She died from complications of the failing American health care system."

Nikki White’s story was singled out to be told in both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times; but Nikki is not unique. According to a recent study done by the National Academy of Sciences, every year 18,000 people die simply because they lacked access to healthcare that would have saved their lives. 18,000 Americans die every year from lack of health access. That’s one person dying every 30 minutes – 8 people just this morning. Not from illness itself, not from crime, but purely from our society’s neglect.

This healthcare crisis is not something only affecting people we don’t know. This healthcare crisis is our crisis; every one of us has been affected by it.

Economists have difficulty; healthcare does not follow simple supply and demand curves. A town with one busy doctor, when adding a second doctor will have two busy doctors. It seems healthcare demand expands to fill available capacity. That’s partly why costs continue to rise and now consume over 17% of our domestic economy.

Yet on recognized health measures we Americans are less healthy than other countries. Our infant mortality and life expectancy are less even than other countries though we spend more money on our healthcare.

Today, some 45 million Americans have no health care insurance. They are people like us, in our neighborhood, young people, middle-aged people, not ready for Social Security people, singles, families…the picture of the uninsured and under-insured is a cross-section of America.

It’s a shanda, a disgrace for our affluent society and a tragedy, that throughout our Jewish history Judaism has wrestled with and therefore has something important to say. Judaism is a tradition with many voices and opinions, and on almost no subject is it responsible to say what "the Jewish view" is. But, in fact, on this issue there is almost wall-to-wall agreement that our Jewish tradition requires any society to make basic health care available to everyone.

I do not invite you into a political conversation. There are senators and representatives on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, who are grappling honestly and sincerely with this issue. It seems everyone agrees we need healthcare reform. Democratic and Republican leaders agree reform should provide insurance coverage regardless of preconditions or seriousness of illness. The disagreement is over the details of the reforms being proposed.

I want to be clear about this: There are many different ideas about healthcare reform. But while Judaism teaches we must provide universal access to healthcare. Judaism cannot tell us how to get there. It is unclear which plan is best for our country, whether it should be based on a public option, or private payers, or non-profit co-ops; or whether reform should be built around reforming medical malpractice and allowing insurers to compete across state lines.

The debate about what kind of reform is good and necessary, as long as in the end, some type of serious reform takes place. The most unacceptable thing, from a moral standpoint, is to maintain the status quo.

In response to this crisis, we can teach what Judaism has to say. 4,000 years of Jewish tradition teaches that it is the community’s obligation to provide all its members with access to healthcare. Our Sages learn this obligation to heal from our Torah’s command to return a lost object: Our Talmud teaches this also obligates us to return someone’s lost health. Our Jewish law code states that one who withholds healing is guilty of murder. This of course refers to an individual’s responsibility to heal.

We should know pikuach nefesh saving a life is a foundational principle of Judaism. The most observant Jew will break Shabbat prohibitions to save the life of another. A person mandated by their doctor to eat is prohibited from fasting on Yom Kippur. We are to live by our divine commandments; we are not to harm ourselves or die because of them.

We should know being created in-God’s-image means we’ve been given a divine soul housed in a body given to us by our Creator, and we have an obligation to keep not only our soul, but our body safe from danger. Jewish law does not permit Jews to live in a town without a physician. Accessibility to the doctor is implicit; what’s the point of living in a town with a doctor if you can’t afford to see her? These principles define that we have an obligation to take care of ourselves. Although, we may have insurance; so why should we be worried about others?

First of all, we’re Jews and worrying about others is what we do. We learn al tifrosh min hatzibur, do not separate yourself from the community. For us, our community is beyond the four walls of our synagogue; our community is Orange County, the state of California, the entire USA. Does our society bear any obligation to provide healing to all its members?

Yes, our tradition sees the obligation to heal falling on the entire community. Our rabbis rule that on the basis of the clear obligation of the doctor to heal, a rabbinic court may compel a doctor to provide medical services pro-bono. But that ruling is limited to a case where there’s only one doctor available. What if there is more than one doctor? Which doctor must provide the services?

Since there are two doctors, neither one alone can be viewed as bearing that responsibility. Each could say: let the other do it. In a scenario with more than one doctor, indeed no one doctor can be held singly accountable for providing free services. In such a case a few possible solutions are offered, among the solutions, the doctors divide equally the total number of necessary pro-bono cases, or the doctors are to be paid for their services out of communal funds.

However, since the doctors cannot be held individually responsible, they cannot be forced to offer services pro-bono. If they choose not to provide services pro-bono, the community must then cover the costs of care. Ultimate responsibility for providing healing falls upon the community.

Indeed throughout the ages, whenever foreign rulers granted Jews autonomy to govern ourselves,

Jewish leaders ensured healthcare was provided to all. That is a history of which we should be proud.

Caring for those without access to adequate health care is part of our obligation to be a part of the greater community. You may remember the movie "Schindler’s List" at the end when Schindler is given a ring as a gift. Inside the ring is engraved a quote from our Jewish tradition, "Whoever saves a single soul is credited as though he saved an entire world." Every time we act to save a life, whether as a medical professional, a supporting friend, a blood or organ donor, a mental health professional, a donor to a social service agency, or someone who speaks up for the uninsured, we are saving not only that individual but those who depend on him or her. Every act of compassion affects not only the person in need but concentric circles of people connected to her/his life.

I hope that I have been explicit: the Jewish approach to health care is neither Democrat nor Republican, neither liberal nor conservative. We have an obligation to care for our bodies and as a community to offer health care to all who need it. We should take this obligation seriously every time we enter a voting booth. Talk is not enough to save the loss of those 18,000 lives. The time has come to do something about it – to act.

I do not know which plan is best for our country. I am not here to recommend one solution over another. What I do know about - is our divine commandment to provide healing to those who are ill; our Torah states al titalam - do not run away from doing your part. God tells our prophet Ezekiel that the Temple was destroyed and we were exiled because we did not strengthen the weak and heal those who in need of healing.

I encourage you to act with audacious morality. Today we are bidden to gaze through the prism of morality. We fast; beat our breasts; plead with God to show us compassion; forgive our sins and grant us blessing and well-being in the coming year. In our Haftarah we heard the voice of our prophet Isaiah, admonishing us that it’s not the rituals of Yom Kippur that will elicit God’s blessings: rather it’s our actions of caring and concern for one another that gets God’s attention.

How then can we stand before God seeking God’s mercy when we know we have collectively turned a blind eye to the plight of so many that we simply accept the uninsured as a necessary fact of life? How can we ask God’s compassion, if we as a nation fail to show compassion to the vulnerable in our own midst?

There are several bills before Congress, the details have yet to be worked out. Let me suggest five important steps for each of us to take:

Learn what the options are. Educate yourself. Learn what each would mean. Study the issues; and do not allow shouting and hysteria to persuade you. Be willing to look at all sides of the issue and see merit in an opposing view.

Think compromise. It’s likely in any final version of healthcare reform no one perspective will get everything they want included or excluded. Any first effort at healthcare reform will likely be imperfect. It may not cover everyone you’d like, or may involve costs you don’t like. Yet reform - making healthcare more accessible - is a step in the right direction.

Have courage. This is important. Have courage. Change is scary. We are always afraid of losing what we already have and what is familiar. It is tempting for those with coverage to give in to the fear of less under reform. That need not be the case. Many countries with better coverage for their citizens spend far less per capita on healthcare than we do. The truth is having good coverage today doesn’t mean we’ll have it tomorrow. No one in the current system is safe from having their access cut off or reduced. Six million more Americans will likely lose coverage in the next 12 months, and we or someone close to us could be among them.

Talk about it. Discuss healthcare reform. Engage in the debate, with family, friends, legislators. But make it a respectful, constructive debate, one aimed not at squashing chances for reform but at helping to shape a reform that can work.

Make an informed decision, then take pen to paper and write to Washington. Tell your representatives and Senators Boxer and Feinstein what you think. Tell them what our Jewish tradition teaches. Teach them about the sanctity of our body and our obligation to care for it and lacking affordable health care is a clear impediment to fulfilling that obligation.

One author writes that the line between good and evil, hope and despair does not divide the world between us and them. It runs down the middle of every one of us.

I do not want to talk to you about what you understand about this world,I want to know what you will do about it.

I do not want to know what you hope; I want to know what you will work for.

I do not want your sympathy for the needs of humanity, I want your muscle. Your muscle to educate, and to inform and to work for the change you believe to be right.

G’mar chatima tova. May you be sealed for a good year. [adapted from Rabbis Weiss and Cohen]

Robert Hall's, "I'm Tired" and My Response

2009-09-13T07:41:00.000-07:00

A friend sent me this commentary from veteran Masschusettes State Senator Robert Hall and asked me to refute it. Below his statement is my response.

"I'm Tired"
by Robert A. Hall

I'll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18 Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.

I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth around" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy or stupid to earn it.

I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them-with their own money.

I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros, and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom and women's rights of Saudi Arabia, the economy of Zimbabwe , the freedom of the press of China , the crime and violence of Mexico , the tolerance for Gay people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela . Won't multiculturalism be beautiful?

I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.

I believe "a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin."

I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of US Senators from Illinois.

I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less in an all-knowing government.

I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful. That thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress, that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his, that slammed Palin, with two years as governor, for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever. Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News?

Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.

I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue, or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.

I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.

I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military... Those are the citizens we need.

I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people then themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years-and still are? Not even close.

So here's the deal:

I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.

I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers-bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois, where the " Illinois Combine" of Democrats and Republicans has worked together harmoniously to loot the public for years. And I notice that the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet are bipartisan as well.

I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers, and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor. Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I'm damn tired.. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to get to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.

Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts State Senate.

Actually my friend, I agree with most what he says. I am sick and tired of politicians, athletes, welfare recipients, illegal immigrants, etc. believing they are entitled to what others have. However, I don't believe that Obama has gotten off scot free from criticism, nor do I believe that Georgw W wasn't deserving of much that he received.

However, I believe that this country deserves more respect than we receive. While we are far from perfect (what the conservative right seems to believe) we are SO MUCH BETTER than most of the rest of the world (what the liberal left seems to believe). I think it is high time for a new political party, one whose focus is on America and not the preservation of their special perks. I wish they would out (not defend) people like Sarah Palin, Michael Moore, and ACORN and embrace people who have the courage to stand up for their principles like Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins.

I believe that taxes should be kept as low as possible and government should be as close to the people as possible. That does not mean (as many conservative Republicans now proclaim) that taxes can be reduced while we increase spending for their pet projects, nor does it mean that taxes should be raised (as many liberal Democrats are demanding) so we can fund all kinds of projects that the government should not be involved in. At one time, the economic mantra of the Republican Party was balanced budgets, not lower taxes and conservatives were highly critical of Democratic Presidents who expressed the desire for the US to nation-build.

I long for Democrats like Scoop Jackson and Republicans like Everitt Dirksen who recognized the value of working together to solve this country's problems, not Nancy Pelosi or Joe Wilson.

I'm sorry if I disappointed you by not disagreeing with the frustration expressed by veteran Massachusetts State Senator Robert Hall. No, I feel it too.

I'm Convinced: Let's Privatize All Health and Safety Professionals

2009-09-02T20:56:00.000-07:00

You did it - yes, all of you strong-willed conservatives who refused to negotiate with those who wanted to convert any part of our health care system to a socialist-style Government run operation, a/k/a "The Public Option". In fact, I don't know what I could have been thinking. There had to be something in the kool-aid to make a life-long Republican believe that any kind of Government participation in our health care system might be good for the country.

Now that you have convinced me and I have seen the light, I intend to become the next Cindy Sheehan (or Ron Paul) and extend this revelation to the rest of our health and public safety professionals. I can't find anything in our Constitution that gives the Government the right to control these professions. I'm sure it must have been those liberal Supreme Court Justices who "interpreted " the Constitution to include firemen, policemen, and even our milita as under their jurisdiction. No one should feel safe with the same government that runs our post office and social security system also running our military. I would much rather have these professionals under the control of our profit driven capitalistic system. In fact, you are probably one step ahead of me in projecting who would be the best organization to run our military, fire, and police departments.

Actually, Halliburton was my second choice. No, the number one candidate is Blackwater. They already have the experience of cleaning up the streets (and the bodies) while protecting decent folks like you and me. (Well not exactly you and me, but well connected captains of Corporate America, like the owners of the insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, and HMOs.).

To those who believe that police and fire protection are an inherent right, let me remind you that those are treasonous words to those of us who believe in the land of the free and the home of the brave. I'm sure that you must have been secretly born in one of those Communist countries, or worse yet, one of your relatives must have come from a country who tried to tax us without proper representation.

I propose that anyone who has any relative who was born in England, France, or Spain must be a traitor and should not be permitted to hold any kind of public office. We should direct the Attorney General to investigate the birth certificates of any citizen who does not agree with us. That is what George Washington would have wanted us to do.

I am amazed that I have to do this, but I have received nearly a dozen E-mails from people who thought the column was serious. HELLO people this is SATIRE. Do you not know who Blackwater is?

P.S. (Any similarity between this column and Art Buchwald's columns must be because of our first names).

Finally We Are Getting Real Health Care Alternatives

2009-08-24T12:13:00.000-07:00

Perhaps it took the Town Hall meetings or Congressmen meeting with their constituents or people finally being heard who had an alternative plan but no one would listen. Whatever the reason we are now hearing real alternatives to the Democratic plans being debated in the Senate and House.

These are not minor modifications fluttering around the edges of the health care problem, nor are they one item "solutions" like some Republican ideologues have proposed, such as "tort reform will solve the whole health care crisis". No, these are fundamental changes to the health care system that are coming from the left, right, middle and across the country. That is exactly what we need to solve this complex issue without bankrupting the country - a true idea debate where the people, the Congress, and the President can choose from among innovative ideas and pick the best part of each of them. We don't have to adopt one plan or another. This is not baseball arbitration.

I encourage you to send me links to viable plans you have heard or read about. Send them to artbcpa@aol.com. I will forward these ideas to the White House, to the leadership of Obama's support organization (OFA-Organizing for American), the Congressional leadership, and the media.

Here are a few I have seen:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-angell-md/health-reform-throwing-go_b_266596.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-paul-toffel/health-care-reform-an-ori_b_258388.html

8 Common Myths About Health Insurance Reform

2009-08-13T05:01:00.000-07:00

This information was just released by the White House to help refocus the health care public debate onto the real areas of contention and away from wild accusations. I'm sure Rush will say that is only because they don't want you to know the truth. Well next time you get one of the E-mails floating around the Internet or a friend tells you one of the following tall tails, ask him/her to show you in one of the two CURRENT PROPOSALS (House or Senate) where it says what they say it does. Then read it yourself. There is so much stretching of the truth going on that their necks should be as long as the tortoises on the Galapagos.

1. Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.

2. We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.

3. Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.

4. Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.

5. Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.

6. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.

7. You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.

8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

House Republicans are Making a Huge Mistake

2009-08-02T17:21:00.000-07:00

As the public watches the debate over health care, one thing becomes immediately clear. There is political dialog going in the Senate and political posturing in the House of Representative. Yet the opportunity for Republicans to be truly engaged in the debate over the future of health care in this country seems infinitely greater in the House.

Republican members are still claiming that they are being locked out of the discussions. At the same time "Blue Dog" conservative Democrats have wrenched control of the bill away from the hard-line members of their own party. So why can't reasonable Republicans show the same backbone and stand up to their own hard-line leaders?

The bill was finally voted out of committee by an extremely close vote, but only after several amendments were accepted. Obviously the compromise reached by House Democrats just a couple of days before was short of the necessary votes to pass the bill - legislation that is absolutely vital to the President.

So whose amendments were accepted? Liberal Democrats... and why? Because House Republicans are still convinced that their best strategy is to go down fighting and delaying instead of debating and engaging.

House Republicans are missing a golden opportunity to have a significant impact on the health care bill that WILL pass this year. The House Republican leadership believes they are better off sniping and waiting for the bill to either fail (which it won't) or for the program to fail (undoubtedly it will have many flaws that they can exploit in the next election).

But is that really what our Democratic system is all about? Is it really my way or the highway?

In November 2010, will the public remember Republicans as the protectors of their liberty or will they remember them as the the ones who continued "politics as usual" as the country moved forward with a new health care system that could have been much better with their assistance?

Health Care - It's Time to Come Clean

2009-07-30T22:23:00.000-07:00

Now that the Conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats have grabbed control of the health care proposal, it is time for the Republican members of the House to engage in negotiations and stop their petty display of "politics as usual". A health care bill is going to pass this year with or without their support and if they want to give their constituents any semblance of public service, they need to be a part of the solution, not wailing like chicken little that the world is coming to an end.

Republican members of the Senate long ago gave up their histrionics and earned a spot at the table. Now it is time for the Republican members of the House to do the same.

Yes, I know the Party Line. Unfortunately it is based on lies. Lying to your constituents is bad enough, but lying to yourself is the worst kind of game.

Lie #1. The United States has the best medical care in the world. There is an incredible amount of evidence that clearly shows that leadership was ceded to others many years ago. You can look at longevity, infant mortality, or percentage of the population that contracts serious diseases and the US lags far behind more than just a few other civilized nations.

Lie #2 - More foreign nationals come to the US for medical care than vice-versa. Whether they are quoting outdated data or merely shutting their eyes to readily available statistics, the publication, Modern Healthcare recently published a definitive study that showed that the latest figures for medical tourism leaving the US was nearly twice that of the amount coming into the US with the trend continuing to rise. Their projection estimated that medical tourism of US citizens going abroad would reach 6 million by 2010, while inbound medical tourism is expected to stay near 470,000.

Lie #3 - Seventy percent (or some other made up number) of the people are happy with their health insurance. Where did this number come from? I have yet to see any substantiated study that confirms such a position. Even if the majority of people who have health insurance were happy with the way their insurance company overrides their doctor's advice, what about the millions of people who don't have health insurance because they are not eligible or can't afford it? Do we continue to ignore this problem for another five or ten years?

I may be a poster child for exactly what is wrong with our present health care system. If it happened to me, you know it can happen to you, too. I was insured by my professional association. When I retired two years ago (partly because of medical reasons) I contacted my insurance representative to ask if I needed to maintain my association membership to keep my health insurance. STUPID ME!

I was told that in order to be insured under the association plan, I needed to work a minimum number of hours - so I was faced with continuing to work until I was 65 and covered by Medicare or buying independent insurance. So I went into the marketplace. Guess what? I am uninsurable - at least according to the gurus who care ONLY about the bottom line and don't want to take the chance that they might have to pay out some of their exorbitant premiums. In other words, these House Republicans are defending a system that treats health care the same as buying furniture, clothing, or automobiles.

So now I am insured by the state plan for uninsureds, which covers little and costs a whole bunch - and I am lucky because the average American could not afford a $916 monthly premium for not much more than catastrophic care.

This may not even be the worst of it?

What do House Republicans face when deciding whether or not to engage in meaningful debate with the conservative members of the Democratic Party? Threats to oppose their reelection within their own party primary if they dare to cross the Party Line.

So what should we do?

We need to tell our Congressmen and Congresswomen that the time for health care reform is now. They need to hear from their constituents that the risk of continuing their policy of doing nothing is greater than participating in a real debate about the structure of the health care plan.

No one can deny there will be flaws with the new health care plan. That does not mean we should not have one or that we should wait years before we "get it right". Massachusetts waited two years and now they are having to make major adjustments to their plan. Let's learn from their mistakes and from all the plans in countries around the world. We do not have to choose one of their plans. We need to have one of our own taking the best parts from the various plans...and still there will be flaws. So we will continue to fix them. There is no perfect plan.

Finally, let me say as clearly as I can. A health care plan without a federal option is not reform. It is a joke. Who else is going to cover the worst of the risks or help keep a lid on prices? Don't buy the scare tactics of those whose true desire is to have no reform at all. A plan with a federal option - not the single payer plan that Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi want - but a real option for those being left out of the present system is a much better choice than our present system. Give me a choice between the government and the greedy insurance companies who show no concern over my plight and I will choose the government every time.

But that's me. If you are happy with your plan and your insurance company, you should be able to keep it.

In a nutshell, that is the plan being proposed by the "Blue Dog" Democrats and supported by President Obama. But the problems are in the details and the Republicans need to be involved with these details not on the outside looking in.

Art Berkowitz

Sotomayor's Nomination; it's Time to Move Forward

2009-05-31T08:26:00.001-07:00

I have been waiting for several days to hear any objections to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor based on legitimate facts. Was she near the bottom of her graduating class? NO. Is she so one sided with her decisions that no member of the other political party would nominate or vote for her as a judicial appointee? NO. Is she Constitutionally unqualified to hold office? No.

Since the President is given the Constitutional power to appoint Supreme Court justices and there are no overriding reasons why she should not be able to serve, can't we just move forward and deal with the issues that need important debate - like health care, energy, the economy, North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq?

I agree that the makeup of the Supreme Court is an important issue, but her replacement of Justice Souter will not philosophically make a significant change in the Supreme Court in the short run and NO ONE knows where her decisions will fall in the long run - think Earl Warren for one.

The Response to Obama's Supreme Court Nominee is not a Surprise, But it is Embarrasing

2009-05-26T21:47:00.000-07:00

That Barack Obama nominated someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy who reflected his view of the judiciary was not a surprise. Neither was the response by those who oppose that view. The viciousness and hypocrisy of that response, however, was.

Apparently the apologists for the George W. Bush presidency have forgotten that just six months ago the electorate in this country voted to reject their brand of negative politics and support Barack Obama and his agenda. Not only did they vote for his views of the country and the world, but they overwhelmingly supported that view with their votes for Congress, the Governors, and State legislators.

So what did these antagonists expect - another Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia?

Even before a full day had gone by, the same political operatives who have attempted to rewrite Republican history have gone on the attack to try and discredit the right of the President (and therefore the people who voted for that President) to select a person who typifies his views. By questioning that right, they are effectively questioning the Constitution that they tell us they hold in such high regard.

We are told that Barack Obama wants a Supreme Court nominee who displays empathy, like empathy is some kind of evil force that will destroy this country and the Constitution. Yet if faced with the prospect of appearing before a judge in a court of law, how many of us would not want that person to be able to understand our point of view? We are told that the nominee has her own agenda, like the framers of the Constitution did not. But most of all, we are made aware of the fact that she is a woman and a Hispanic who may consider these factors when making her decisions. The fact that they believe this is true should be a scary thought for those who are women and/or Hispanic (or believe in equality), for it signifies that perhaps all prior justices were not empathetic to those who were women or Hispanic.

Considering how they justified their support of George W Bush, why should this be a surprise? They seemed to have no problem supporting George W. Bush's huge deficits and intrusive Government behaviors as they try to rewrite the history and principles of the Republican Party. It is quite embarrassing that the same people who constantly remind us that "their party" is the party of Abe Lincoln and refer to the Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson decisions as examples of poor Supreme Court decisions also encourage the worst kinds of personal prejudice against gays and immigrants. They hold up Ronald Reagan as their example of the great defender of their version of economic conservatism yet fail to mention that he supported one of the largest tax increases in history when he deemed it appropriate for the country. They warn of the dangers of the Supreme Court overstepping their authority while cheering Bush v Gore. They condemn Korematsu v. United States while supporting Guantanamo's suspension of civil rights.

So their objections to Sonia Sotomayer come across as shrill and without merit. Wouldn't it be nice if the debate on the Supreme Court nominee was limited to her legal and judicial qualities to be a judge on the Supreme Court? But I guess that is too much to ask for.

Obama Misses the Boat With New Emission Standards

2009-05-19T16:45:00.000-07:00

While I have been lavish in my praise for the new President in the tone and direction of his Administration, that does not mean I will not point out policies that stray far from meeting those goals.

In his press conference today the President rightly said:

Ending our dependence on oil, indeed, ending our dependence on fossil fuels, represents perhaps the most difficult challenge we have ever faced -- not as a party, not as a set of separate interests, but as a people. We have over the course of decades slowly built an economy that runs on oil. It has given us much of what we have -- for good but also for ill. It has transformed the way we live and work, but it's also wreaked havoc on our climate. It has helped create gains in prosperity unprecedented in history, but it also places our future in jeopardy.

Yet the plan he put forward today is centered on the mistaken premise that raising fuel economy standards can help us reach that goal.

Nothing could be further from the truth!

It is precisely that emphasis on raising fuel economy standards that has sidetracked this nation from dealing with the underlying problem . We are dependent on a commodity that is controlled by nations that (to put it nicely) are not our friends. When I say controlled, we only have to look at the run up in prices during this past year to see how easily the markets in oil prices can be manipulated. OPEC has also demonstrated how they can materially adjust the supply of oil when it is to their advantage to do so.

So while this country has wasted the past two or more decades doing little more than increasing the number of miles each automobile can travel on a gallon of gasoline, we have done virtually nothing to address the core problem of dependence on foreign oil...and now Obama has bought into this myth of politics as usual instead of seeking real change.

We have the opportunity right now to do something substantive about our dependence on foreign oil but will we have the will to do so if we believe that raising fuel economy standards a few miles a gallon will delay the inevitable crisis we face.

Let me throw our a few ideas we could be instituting now (not five or ten years from now):

1. Encourage our broken auto companies to totally change direction with a new vision of transportation, (not centered on the internal combustion engine).

2. Mandate that all new cars sold in the United States have a flex fuel or alternative method of operation. (This could be done in the next two years at a minimum cost of less than $1,000 per car).

3. Follow the lead of Brazil and encourage bio fuel cars based on sugar or waste, not corn.

Longer term, we could follow the example of France and develop more nuclear power or we could permit more offshore drilling. Technologies have changed dramatically since we put severe restrictions on these energy methodologies. We need to have a wider focus of alternatives to relieve our dependence on oil.

Now is the time to adopt these plans with so many Americans out of work and companies in financial trouble. Let's encourage innovation and not rehash a plan that is a proven loser.

President Obama, "We want Change, We Need Change."

Israel and Barack Obama are a lot Alike

2009-05-04T07:45:00.000-07:00

One of the things I most admire about Israel is how they keep trying to reach out to their enemies, yet are not afraid to do what is right (or necessary) for their best interest. Barack Obama has that same quality. I'm not sure I could do the same when faced with a constant barrage of negativity.

Obama has shown an unbelievable amount of tolerance to opponents, and even to enemies, and yet he never seems to stop trying to reach out to his opponent's better side. He has even been willing to stand up to those within his own party who want to take revenge on Republicans, or others who oppose his views. Instead, Obama seeks out areas of agreement or members of the opposite side who are willing to talk, negotiate, or even convert (as Sen. Arlen Specter did recently). Cynics may say that Sen. Specter had his own personal and political reasons for changing parties, and that his overtures to members of the Republican leadership have been only for show and did not represent a real effort for bipartisanship. But his strong stand to prevent Democratic Party leadership from punishing Sen. Lieberman and his inclusion of Sen. McCain in legislative plans seem to be far more than just superficial or expedient.

He has also shown a willingness to stand strong when necessary. He did that during the primary campaign with the attacks on his race. He did that during the pirates attack off Somalia.

To those who have read Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, or listened closely to his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention, none of this should come as a surprise. But it does.

We have learned to be cynical of politician's statements and are often just waiting for "the other shoe to fall." This time I feel it may be different.

When I traveled to Israel, I was amazed at the large number of people who still believed that peace could be reached, even after multiple terrorist attacks and multiple failed attempts at reaching any kind of sustained reasonable solution with the Palestinians. It didn't really seem to make a difference who the Prime Minister was or what Party controlled the Government. The only difference really seemed to be in their rhetoric. The Likud (and Netanyahu) speak more forcefully while the leaders of the other parties speak much more openly about agreement, compromise, and peace. But their policies differ little. Netanyahu has been just as diligent in reaching out to moderates in the Arab world and has received just as much (maybe more) criticism from those hard-liners who don't want to make any compromises.

Barack Obama has been, and continues to be, an open proponent of bipartisanship. If you read the comments in editorials or blogs, a vocal percentage of his Party do not seek bipartisanship. They won and they believe to the victor goes the spoils.

Obama refuses to abandon his goals.I believe this is at the center of his popularity. The public is fed up with the political bickering. The public is fed up with the legislative chicanery. The public wants a President who represents all the people. Whether all the people want Obama as that President is another story. But I believe he will keep trying and those attempts will continue to win him friends.

After the First 100 Days

2009-04-30T11:09:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama's first 100 days in his historic presidency are over. You can see my posts on his first 100 days at: Barack Obama's first 100 days.

But I still have more to say. So I am setting up this blog to discuss my views of his presidency for the rest of his term(s). Your comments are welcome.