The Year in Springfield, 2011...

(WMassP&I)

With another year under Springfield’s belt comes another edition of the Year in Springfield.  In its 375th year of existence the City of Homes suffered through one of the most erratic year of weather on record which brought a range of immense destruction and gross inconvenience.  Politically, it was also a tumultuous time from Springfield City Hall to Beacon Hill to the steps of Harvard University.

The year 2011 opened in Springfield with an eye, as in other places, to Washington, where a cadre of increasingly nihilistic “citizens” took their place in Congress and in state capitals across the nation.  While the boat rocked in Massachusetts with a shrunken, but still massive Democratic edge in the State House, Governor Deval Patrick took the oath of office once more. 

However, America was rocked only eight days into January when Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head, by quite literally a madman.  Early accusations pointed to tea party extremism, but ultimately mental disease and not right-wing anarchy drove the young man to shoot Giffords and twelve others while murdering six.  Gifford suffered a traumatic shot to the head, be saved by the quick thinking of her intern of five days.

Cong. Gifford w/ her Mother weeks

after the shooting (PK Weis via Facebook)

President Barack Obama, given his first significant opportunity to play the healer-in-chief gave a stirring speech at a memorial service attended by Arizona’s Senators, its governor with Obama has frequently clashed, Giffords’ husband, Mark Kelly and Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who oversees the Ninth Circuit within which the slain judge, John Roll, served.

The event took on somewhat of a local relevance when Congressman Richard Neal held a press conference after the shooting noting that he had known Giffords and had raised money for her ahead of what had been a difficult reelection in 2010.  However, he also urged that parties take down a notch the vitriol and anger that had become pervasive in politics whether Loughner was driven by politics or not.

Also in January Amaad Rivera took office as the Ward 6 Councilor following the resignation of Keith Wright.  He took office because the city’s succession law is only written with only at-large councilors in mind and fills vacancies with runners-up.  Technically, Rivera was a runner-up even though he lost the 2009 election.  The chorus of dissent included this blog and came to a head on a vote for eminent domain as part of Forest Park Middle School renovations.  Rivera invoked Rule 20, the council’s parliamentary motion to delay the project to the shock of other councilors.  While we would settle our differences with Rivera, many remained incensed over the use of Rule 20, ironically including some who would encounter similar anger over its usage.

Councilor Amaad Rivera (WMassP&I)

However, the focus on Rivera would lessen as he became one of a super-majority of councilors that opposed a wood-burning biomass plant.  The special permit had been granted in 2008 by the last council on a 7-2 vote.  All ward councilors and two at-large councilors, including Jose Tosado who voted for the permit in 2008.  The Callahan Family, owners of Palmer Renewable Energy and like-named paving company poured money into experts who dismissed, often condescendingly, the health concerns raised by opponents.  Against the din of protests and threats of legal action the council revoked PRE’s permit on a 10-2 vote.

Say Yes!...

(NY Times by Doug Mills)

YES!

Briefly.  In an address before a joint session of Congress, President Barack Obama hit all of the right points and forwarded a package of measures that can have a real impact on our sputtering economy.  The president urged Congress 17 times to pass this bill.  Meanwhile he stood behind the regulations that keep us safe and for the rights of workers.  And yet, the message and the measures contained therein should appeal to anybody, regardless of party, who care and want to do something to counter this national crisis.  We say YES.  Congress must SAY YES.  This is not "Yes, we can."  It is YES, WE MUST!

Our One Hundreth: Taking on Water...Will Scott's Heart Go On...

RMS Titanic (Wikipedia)

Two things bookend year one of Scott Brown’s career as the junior Senator from Massachusetts so far.  One, is an image of him sailing out from his front door ahead of  a trip to Washington before his swearing-in a few days later.  The other is his impressive, unsinkable approval numbers a year later, after his party gained little or no traction in his home state.  Despite a rejection of Brownism in Massachusetts, Brown had numbers that were bigger than all the other Massachusetts pols.  From that position, Scott Brown’s maiden voyage in the Senate confidently moved on toward reelection.

It is too early to tell, but with each passing month, his second year in the US Senate is not shaping up to be as good as the first.  Brown seemed to avoided catastrophe after last November or so he may have thought, but the fact is that troubled waters lay ahead.  The ocean between his unexpected win and his reelection is vast and not without peril.  But Scott Brown is unsinkable!  So what if there political icebergs out there, they can't take him down!

The Titanic parallels are not without their purpose.  As the arc of history has moved forward, it has become possible to see that Brown faces a bend away from further glory and adulation.  What started as a leak earlier this year when Brown thought he saw a dead Osama bin Laden has become an outright flood.  It is not clear or inevitable that the water will overwhelm more than his forward four watertight compartments.  However, if July and August are any indication, it does not look good for the S.S. Scottanic.

Image by WMassP&I from fair use material

For several months now, but with increased fervor recently, the Massachusetts Democratic Party has hammered Brown for holding nary a single town hall meeting.  Indeed, Brown’s interaction with the public has been limited to scripted events, ed-ops, friendly media encounters and fundraisers.  His jobs tour, which we’ll get to in a moment, has been a feeble attempt to counter that argument, by seeming responsive to the fact that Americans care about jobs and not the deficit nonsense.  The wheels began to come off with the bin Laden photo flack, but it becomes so much easier to see Brown's PR strategy in context following that disastrous interview.

However, Brown’s opportunity to stand out on the debt ceiling was flubbed when he announced he would vote for any plan that raised the debt ceiling.  What was intended to be a declaration of reasonableness amid fiscal lunacy ended up being a pathetic appeal for action from a powerless Senator who made his campaign all about the power of stopping Barack Obama.

Who Struggles with God...

Coat of Arms of Israel (Wikipedia)

For a moment, we will turn away from the curse upon our House the American people voted in last November and consider the consequences of another far-right movement brought in by a dissatisfied public.  For whatever its faults--and there are many--Israel is the only truly functioning democracy in the Middle East so far.  Although freedom can often be relative if you are an Arab, especially if you live in the West Bank or Gaza, the nation has strong democratic institutions and a largely free and open press.

It seems few Israelis realized those institutions, that they take for granted, yet often evoke, are under attack--from within.  For years Israel has identifed threats to its thriving democracy as country's like Iran or the terrorist organization turned Palestinian political party Hamas (which still refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist).  For the far right, the threats may also exist in what they call the "Fifth Column" of their society, Arab Israelis.  Although there is debate to what qualifies as the Israeli right-wing now, this latter belief has been a benchmark of hardliner Israelis since the nation was founded in 1948.

First some background.  Israeli politics have always been, er tumultuous.  The Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, was based on the Yishuv that ran Jewish affairs under the British Mandate.  After the UK left Palestine, the independent State of Israel formalized an electoral system in which voters choose parties rather than individual candidates in constituencies or districts (South Africa actually does something quite similar).  The parties receive seats roughly in proportion to the vote tally they win.  The result, is often a situation where no party has a majority, typically a prerequisite of forming a government (by way of comparison, the African National Congress dominates South African elections).  

Israeli Voting Booth (Wikipedia)

As a result, excluding a rare majority held by the Israeli Labor party's predecessor and a handful of unity governments between the two main parties, Israeli governments are formed through coalitions.  Per Israeli law the President of Israel, a largely ceremonial figure, usually selects the leader of the largest party to form a government.  This is done via bartering and bargaining with like-minded smaller parties and the religious parties, who often receive plum minister positions, but care little for the back and forth among the secular parties.  Last time, however, this did not happen even though Kadima, led by the former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni won the most seats of any party (Livni used to be a member of Likud).  Instead, the former premier Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of Likud, formed a government with the hardliner Yisrael Beiteinu, led by Avigdor Leiberman, and other like parties.  The result has been a fairly right-wing government.  Early on, it appeared as though Netanyahu, mindful that past hardliners like Menachem Begin had become peacemakers, had the upper hand even getting a freeze on new Israeli settlements in the West Bank.  However, the clock ran out and Leiberman, now the country's foreign minister, demurred.

Since that time, Israel has rebuffed prodding by President Barack Obama to restart peace talks and shuddered as its neighbor and Egypt underwent a dramatic transformation earlier this year.  There was talk of an absurd oath requirement that would have run aground of the secular principles the nation's early founders wanted for their country.  Laws were debated and defeated that could have undercut the Israeli Supreme Court's independence.  Then the Knesset passed perilously anti-free speech boycott bill earlier this month.  It was followed by a measure that would investigate the country's left-leaning Non-government organizations.  That bill failed spectacularly, due in no small part to several MK's walking out on the vote.  Political observers noted that Prime Minister Netanyahu bailed on the earlier boycott bill, while coalition partner and one-time Labor Prime Minister Ehud Barak skipped the NGO bill.

Our 100th: Warren and Peace...

Sen. Gillett (Wikipedia)

The last Senator for Massachusetts from Western Mass (the four westernmost counties if you think Worcester is Western) was Frederick Gillett.  Prior to serving one term in the US Senate, Gillett represented the 2nd Massachusetts Congressional district, the same that Richard Neal represents now.  Gillett would also serve as Speaker of the House from 1919-1925.  Like Neal, Gillett was from Springfield.

This bit of historical trivia is not directly tied to the questions among Democrats in their quest to unseat Scott Brown in 2012.  It does, however speak to some of the challenges that will face the nominee whoever, he or she is.  Western Mass went hard for Brown, save the cities, but then swung back hard for Gov. Deval Patrick last year.  It seems that while Western Mass has lagged the rest of Massachusetts in terms of growth, it often becomes the margin of victory for statewide campaigns with a possible assist from the Cape & Islands.  For the moment, Democrats' problems do include geography, but not east and west.  Rather there problems lies between here and Washington.

Sen. Murray (Wikipedia)

The Boston Globe , perhaps overplaying the discord a bit, did highlight the chasm between the national Democratic party and the State Party this past Saturday.  Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the chair of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee is tasked with defending the Democrats' 23 seats up in 2012 and possibly grabbing one or two from the Republicans' 10 seats up next year.  She said earlier this week that a strong challenger would be coming forward "within weeks."  The Globe reported that this has rankled the declared candidates notably Alan Khazei, a philanthropist and Bob Massie, a former Lietenant Gubernatorial candidate.  Setti Warren, Mayor of Newton, notably, had no comment.

In some ways the implications of a better candidate is insulting and could, as some in the story suggested, hurt fund-raising in the future if one of the declared candidates does become the nominee.  Some also suggested that it was wrong for the national party to dictate terms as to who should become the nominee.  

On the ground in Massachusetts, some Democrats seem to agree with Gov. Patrick's call for an organic process.  However, the reality is that the field is weak, perhaps as the New York Times noted in a misleadingly titled story, because Ted Kennedy outshone any efforts to build up a bench for Democrats in Massachusetts.

Ex. State Sen. Rossi (Seattle Weekly)

While Sen. Murray could be a bit more tactful in her language, her fear and her desire for a stronger candidate may come about due to her own experiences.  Although on the winning side, Murray witnessed what happens when candidate rise with a track record of failure and the party on the outs lacks a bench.  Dino Rossi an ex-legislator in Washington state, challenged Murray in last year's Senate election, but lost.  Rossi had earlier run for governor in 2004, lost (after an acrimonious recount) and then went for a rematch against incumbent Christine Gregoire only to lose amongst the Obama wave by a larger margin.  Why did Republicans pick him to run?  They had nobody else.  Republicans seem doomed to repeat this in 2012 against Murray's fellow Washingtonian, Senator Maria Cantwell.

While Rossi was hardly an "organic candidate," he was well-known in Washington State's Republican circles.  His candidacy may be instructive for both supporters of an organic nominees and those who want somebody with star power (it may  be a stretch to say Rossi had star power or was organic, however).  Essentially his candidacy exposed the Republicans for reaching "into the Pickle jar" to quote Rachel Maddow.  The organics should worry about an untested candidate lacking name recognition (like Setti Warren) or one with a track record of failure or no political experience...or name recognition. (like Massie, Khazei).  Remember, Brown's best non-monetary strength is name recognition.

Sen. Brown (Wikipedia)

While Scott Brown came from nowhere, his path cannot necessarily be replicated.  Brown's candidacy and term thus far, were/are an exercise in political manufacturing.  Once Coakley let her guard down, the Republican message machine led by Eric Ferhnstrom and others sensed their moment and swooped in.  A combination of out-of-state financing and well placed tropes about Brown's Everymanhood shot him from Wrenthem to Washington.  A Democratic candidate can become likewise known, but should not assume that mirroring Brown's path is possible or without its own perils.

Taking all of this in, risks and all, this leaves the field with three possibly four candidates, declared or otherwise, that can/could overcome the hurdles ahead.  Mayor Warren, Elizabeth Warren the Harvard professor struggling to set up the Consumer Finance Protection Agency against generic Republican tripe about liberty and Mike Capuano, the Congressman from Somerville Coakley defeated in 2009. Other Congressmen are possibilities, but they seem more remote than Capuano.

Our 100th: Worse for the Wear...

**UPDATE** This Post has been updated to reflect News about the Cape Cod Times Editorial referenced below and news on Setti Warren's Senate Announcement on 5/13 & 5/18.

(Created from Fair Use image of Brown and other)

Last week should have been a good week for our Senator Scott Brown.  Despite the big news that Osama bin Laden had been taken out by a Navy Seals Special Operations team, Brown's delightfully self-serving tidbit about doing his two-week National Guard stint in Afghanistan was dutifully picked up by a swooning media.  It was largely buried, but anybody who follows the news probably saw it.  Perhaps Brown had probably hoped for more adulation from a media establishment prone to pleasur..err, gratifying him, but the understated delivery of his message was enough.  Even as Brown blamed somebody else for leaking the story, Politico's Ben Smith was quick to note the leaker was none other than Brown himself.  This was planned.

Then, last Wednesday, as President Barack Obama was weighing whether to release photos of bin Laden's bullet-ridden corpse, Scott Brown took to the airways.  He agreed with Obama's decision  not to release the photos and affirmed that he had seen them.  Except the photos that Scott Brown saw were fakes, the very same that had been discredited by numerous news organizations as much as 48 hours before Brown's television appearances.  So Brown got punked.  Big deal, right?  Maybe, except that Brown led the interviewers on NECN and another Boston television station to believe he had seen them in an official briefing.  So, did Brown, as a member of the Armed Services Committee see the pictures, but was otherwise not supposed to blab? 

Bin Laden Graffitt in Romania (wikipedia)

That is unlikely because according to numerous news outlets the classified briefing which all senators were invited included zero photographs.  Borderline Christian Extremist Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire junior senator and Georgia's Sen. Saxby Chambliss (also a Gang of Six gangster) also claimed to have seen the same photos, but their goofs thus far merely reflect being taken in by low-quality hoaxes.  Brown, on the other hand implied he saw what he thought was bin Laden's body, that is the fake, in an official briefing.  Except no briefing available to him included those images., unless Brown got non-official illegal look at the classified pictures.  Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee claims she could have seen them, but declined.  Feinstein, it is worth noting, probably saw her fill of closeup fatal shots to the head when she found the bodies of George Moscone and Harvey Milk.

When Brown refused to respond to requests for clarification from Boston Phoenix reporter David Bernstein, the latter engaged Twitter in a concerted and hilarious effort to ridicule the commonwealth's junior senator.  Armed with the hashtag #scottosawit, several days of tweets filled with what "Scott saw" flew back and forth ranging from the serious to the silly.  Many including a few tweeted by WMassP&I poked fun at Scott Brown's incongruous political positions.  Neither of Brown's twitter accounts appeared to acknowledge the Twitter assault.

While Twitter guffawed over what Scotto saw, the traditional media did not miss a beat.  Columns and opinions from BOTH the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald took swipes at the senator.  Brian McGrory, a Globe Colunist, mocked Brown's sloppiness and called his response to the League of Women Voters EPA ad "whiny" (it is and we will get to that).  McGrory also derided Brown for attacking the media sales tactic (re: bin Laden photos) while being the ultimate salesman himself. 

"This admonition from a guy who posed with next to nothing on for Cosmopolitan and is pushing his ghost-written memoir so hard that his constituent meetings are held at Barnes & Noble and Borders — in other words, a guy who has never shied from salesmanship." 

V-OBL Day...

Pres. Obama & Staff in Sit. Room (The White House)

Sunday, President Barack Obama announced that United States Special Forces had located and killed al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden.  The ruthless head of the terrorist organization had been found in Abbottabad, a suburb of the Pakistani capital of Islamabad.

Almost anything we can say on the matter has already been said by the almost seizure-inducing rush of media coverage that suddenly and amazingly hit Americans as they sat at home closing out an otherwise quiet weekend.   True, al-Qaeda's power is not directly affected by bin Laden's death.  Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula based in Yemen has largely supplanted the efforts to export terror to American shores and those of its allies.  Still there is hope his death will diminish his status as a symbol or give his successor or successors pause before they come to the fore.

That said, I would like to say a few words.  It appears en vogue to consider bin Laden's death to be an appropriate bookend to a traumatic chapter in American life.  The threat is not gone, indeed it may never be.  Something still stirred many, mostly young people, people my age to flood college campuses, the streets around Ground Zero, Lafayette Park and Boston Common, the latter three all in big college towns.

In any event there is little doubt that 9/11 and Osama bin Laden has been a defining characteristic of this generation.  My generation.

I was a freshman in high school when 9/11 happened.  I cannot say that i was personally frightened by the events.  They were shocking less because of the enormity of the attack than because my mother and I had visited the Twin Towers less than a month before.  We did not want to take a later train and dismissed a visit to the South Tower's observatory saying "they'll be there when we come back."  Needless to say, they were not.

It during my study period that I first heard the news.  The teacher who oversaw that particular block had been listening to the radio and told us what happened. The next period, gym, the announcement came over the loud speaker, which added that the towers had collapsed.  For the most part, the day's schedule continued uninterrupted, but periodic updates were piped into classrooms.  I went home otherwise as usual, only to turn on the television and see what had, up to then, only been described by radios and public address systems.  That night, the Holyoke Mall, where my mother worked closed early.

The paranoia, war and stepped up security procedures ensued.  A generation came of age amongst a new normal.  Notably, however, it survived it.  A classmate in college class I took on American society wrote a paper on how Harry Potter was something of an equivalent to growing up the age of terror.  Although author J.K. Rowling began writing the books years before 9/11, domestic terrorism was not unheard of in Great Britain.  Therefore, especially after 9/11, the idea that life goes on might take on an American context.  Young people make new friends, confront growing pains, lose loved ones and fall in love even as terror, in that case Voldemort, always looms large.

Bin Laden in 1997 (wikipedia)

In some ways the celebration of the end of a human life, even one as wretched as bin Laden's (this blog tweeted that death was too good an outcome for him), was a little gauche.  While such celebration might have happened if bin Laden had been killed in say, 2003, his evasion of our widely cast nets only served as a further reminder of the seeming eternity of full body scanners, war, high bomb-sniffing dog to person ratios and fear.  His death, also an improbable prospect, itself proves that the others listed may not last forever either.  That is not to say that we should stop being vigilant.  Quite the contrary.  However, we might be able to stop holding our breath and take stock of our situation.  One pundit suggested that we should have a new 9/11 commission, one that assesses whether what we have done over this past decade has worked and what has not.

On an individual level, if subconsciously, 9/11 perhaps served as a bulwark against more of my generation slipping into spiral of selfishness and hedonism.  Too often it seems like too many people only think of others to the extent that they receive a tweet or a text back.  Many others did feel inspired, often by the events of 9/11.  Those that learned the most from it, however, did not stop with a pint of blood on September 12th.  They continued to serve and to work and to think of their fellow man.  Others were called to public service.

This is essential if we are to find the right balance between living our lives and protecting them.  Hysterical solutions are not the answer.  I know this best, when in my zeal to get involved, I start bombarded news reporters emails with self-aggrandizing statements.  Likewise we can consider an example in the national context over the need and effectiveness of "security theater."

If there is one simple lesson, one that we all knew and certainly bin Laden realized in his final moments was that the United States would outlast al-Qaeda.  It cannot outlast terrorism in general, anymore than it can outlast disease.  However, it can outlast the people and even the ideologies that utilize it.  Still, bin Laden did succeed in taking nearly 10,000 American lives between 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  A conservative estimate of the cost, let alone economic damage, exceeds $6 trillion dollars.  We may have delivered justice upon him, but it has not been without a price.  The choice that we face is whether we can maintain that unity and resist a return to complacent selfishness while ensuring that the price we have paid does not continue to grow.

A Land of Light or Darkness?...

 **UPDATE 4/15** The House of Representatives has passed Rep. Paul Ryan's bill that would end Medicare as we know it.  The vote was almost entirely on party lines.  No Democrats voted for it and they were joined by four Republicans.  The budget resolution is not expected to pass the Senate.

Obama at GWU (White House)

Yesterday President Barack Obama answered the budget proposal put forward by the House Republican leadership not only with his own prescription to the nation’s fiscal problems, but also a firm defense of progressive and mainstream American values.  The speech, at the George Washington University was sedate, but nevertheless powerful and has been hailed by many, if not all of the Washington punditocracy and others as "serious" perhaps more so than the GOP budget

That Republican budget was the baby of Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan.  For those who follow politics, Ryan’s name is not particularly new.  However, as the threat and then reality of a Republican House came to pass, Ryan’s name became a household name.  Then last week, the boyish, handsome and physically fit (all other media outlets’ descriptions) congressman laid out his party’s answer to the nation’s debt and deficit.  The future, to Ryan, looks bleak both with and without his plan.

His party’s budget, which he wrote, would privatize Medicare and make it into a voucher system.  The government would buy private insurance for future seniors, however it would be weighted to limit the amount the government would actually pay.  The result would transfer the obligation to seniors.  Domestic discretionary spending aside from defense would be substantially cut.  Medicaid would be transformed into a block grant system, which, in this case, would pass nearly all cost increases to states especially in recession.  More likely, it would end Medicaid’s ability to cover those who need it and only cover those a state can or is willing to afford.

Cong. Ryan (wikipedia)

The media’s initial reaction mirrored that of a high school hallway lined with girls watching the captain of the football team walk by.  Indeed at times, it seemed like some in the media may have just as easily expressed their admiration to Ryan in a dark closet after prom.  By week’s end, although some were still calling Ryan’s budget bold and serious, many commentators had at least begun to walk back their comments or find alibis for those crucial drunken moments in the dark.  Among the plan’s many concerns were its numbers, which had been taken from the conservative Heritage Foundation (and later removed from that group’s website) that predicted unrealistically low unemployment.  Paul Krugman, in analogies less suggestive, called the promises in Ryan’s plan “unicorns” i.e. fantasies.

However, President Obama firmly rebutted the austerity and promises of poverty in the GOP budget.  Never mentioning the Wisconsin Republican by name (who was in attendance at the speech), Obama laid out a case for preserving and strengthening our social contract while working within our fiscal means.  Among other things, he called for eliminating the Bush tax cuts on the rich, easing out tax expenditures for both individuals and corporations, freezing domestic spending and rolling back our bloated defense budget.

Fiscal Cmn. at the White House (White House)

Aside from the mechanics of the four-point plan, which were not overly detailed, Obama made the case for Medicare and Social Security quoting that old axiom “There but for the Grace of God, Go I.”  Obama underscored the individuality that defines our country, but he also described it as one side of a coin.  The other side emphasizes our national generosity and community.  At the same time he pivoted to note that Ryan's reductions in spending in education, clean energy, transportation and the social safety net would pay for a $1 trillion in addition tax cuts for wealthy (oh, yeah that’s in Ryan’s budget, too).  Obama went further calling Ryan’s budget, if not by name, neither “courageous” nor “serious” saying there is not “anything courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill.”

“The American I know is generous and compassionate” and “a land of opportunity and optimism,” the president said.  He hit all the right chords to reassure the left, while appealing to the center.  He called out the Republican budget for being unrealistic at best and cruel at worst.  Further he avoided getting bogged down in the policy theories the Republicans spew about how markets can magically solve any problem including healthcare.

Even as he said these things, though, Obama had one more ace up his sleeve.  He included triggers in his proposal that would force spending cuts and revenue increases if agreement could not be found between Congress and the White House.

Obama drew his single applause when he spelled out in no uncertain terms that the Republican budget would save the average wealthy American--who have prospered mightily in comparison to everybody else--as much as it would cost 33 seniors to pay for their healthcare.  Although the speech’s written text, as Rachel Maddow noted in her show yesterday, had the feeling of a campaign stop.  Yet the President’s tone and demeanor were calm.  His speech was meant to reassure his base even as he appealed to a far broader spectrum of Americans.  Indeed he even hit his base a little, however, it was far more of a love tap rather than a sucker punch the left often gets from Democrats.

Lyndon Johnson Signs Medicare Law (Wikipedia)

In the aftermath, Obama drew a great deal of praise for laying down a realistic groundwork to solve the nation’s fiscal crisis.  Indeed most fretting around centrist and liberal circles was that Obama’s proposal would be an opening bid set against the GOP plan.  However, with unequivocal statements on Medicare and the Bush tax cuts, at least it is unlikely Obama would let anything close to Ryan’s plan be made law.

Ryan took the ordeal personally whining in media appearance after media appearance that the president had “poisoned the well.”  To quote a caption on DailyKos, the speech made Ryan “very, very sad.”  For a consummate Washington insider like Ryan, however, the reaction seemed petty.

We will have more about Ryan in the future, but it is important to know something about him.  Ryan’s political philosophy is actually one that abhors any governmental efforts to address social issues.  He has shown  contempt for unemployment benefits and like many other Republicans supports the “starve the beast” plan.  That theory calls for reducing government revenues to unsustainable levels in order to force reductions in spending, particularly in the safety net.  His budget is proof positive of this and given that it would not begin to pay off the debt for decades, it would only be a matter of time that those vouchers would have to go, too, for want of funding.

Perhaps why Ryan took the whole thing so personally was because it exposed his policies for what they are, while the media realized they had been taken advantage of.  They have repaid the favor by refusing to call his program anything but privatization or vouchers.


Obama noted how our commitment to each other ensures “some basic measure of security and dignity,” for all of us.  Just as important, he reminded us that that our nation is made great because of our individuality and our common goal for a better nation for all our citizens.  There are some concerns about where this will lead when it is on the budget table and perhaps the president offered too much in spending cuts.  Even so, it was a good first step for a president and a nation.

Shut 'Er Down or Shut Up You Mouth...

Speaker John Boehner R-OH (Wikipedia)

So this is what it comes down to.  Reports are swirling that the number agreed to by Democrats and Republicans is roughly $40 billion.  While Speaker of the House John Boehner R-OH, insists that a number is not set, it seems likely that it has.  The sticking point, what may very well shut down the federal government tonight is Planned Parenthood.  Republicans charge the institution that provides reproductive health services for many, largely low-income women, should not receive the money because they provide many abortions in the United States.  Under current law, however, the money Planned Parenthood receives only pays for non-abortion services, including birth control, cancer screenings, and care for venereal disease.

This entire debate is in many ways very bizarre.  If in fact the issue is Planned Parenthood in particular and family planning in general, then the Republicans have made a tactical error that will confirm to many voters that they are in fact not worried about jobs.  It also serves to mitigate some claims by tea partiers that they are in fact, libertarian.  Although tea party Illuminati have tried to disavow the cause of social issues or cloak it in fiscal responsibility, many rank and file are not truly libertarian in that they are quite rabid about social issues.  Were this not the case, Boehner, who is ostensibly being held hostage by his right flank, could cut a deal.

Capitol Hill (wikipedia)

As America's first tanorexic Speaker (no offense to true anorexics), Boehner is in an unenviable position.  As many from the right, left, and middle have said, Boehner, a 20 year veteran of the House, is used to cutting deals.  The bulk of his caucus's freshman are not.  In fact they see deal cutting and compromise as among the evils that have brought on the country's troubles.  Boehner could bring a deal to his caucus and get a fair amount of support for it.  Coupled with Democratic votes, there would be a majority in the House and the Senate, equally eager to end this madness would quickly pass it.  However, that would fracture the GOP House caucus and expose Boehner to a challenge for speaker.  Eric Cantor, compared to a "yapping chihuahua" in a Matt Taibbi Rolling Stone article slamming Boehner for general buffoonery, would gladly come to the fore.  Even worse for Boehner, he could face a tea party challenge back home in Ohio.

For President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Boehner is by far the lesser of two evils.  Still, to keep him in power would mean giving up everything, which is untenable for Obama and Reid both from a policy and from a political point of view.  The left wing of the Democratic party has been muted throughout this process, especially as defense cuts began to enter the equation (although this is unconfirmed so far).  While the discretionary cuts disgust liberals, they become a bit more tenable if the defense/security budget is open to reduction as well.  Moreover, liberals used to abuse from the Democratic party anyway, know that bigger fights lie ahead and they cannot afford to  start an intra-party war like the one on the other side of the aisle.

Food Stamp Logo (wikipedia)

The cuts themselves are quite painful.  With Republicans in Congress clinging to the trickle-down myth of lower taxes for the rich though, only some carefully chosen cuts can show an effort to seriously and responsibly bring down the deficit (remember many mandatory spending programs, like food stamps are triggered by need and rise when more Americans meet eligibility).  Not to mention, some of the cuts to which Democrats are agreeing are for things they want out anyway.  Still, the cuts are all the more painful since they are only from the 12% of the budget that is non-discretionary and non-security.  Bloated budgets like defense and security are largely left untouched (the contractors which benefit contributing heavily to campaign coffers and dangling jobs in Congressional districts protect it)

Whatever the outcome of this misadventure, Democrats must be wary of allowing the GOP to force debate to the extreme right by passing budgets and legislation that epitomizes extremist lunacy.  Democrats thinking they could pass a budget with zero cuts was a pipe dream.  The best barometer to compare Democratic action is the budget vote earlier this month (that got Scott Brown in trouble) when they suggested a paltry $10 billion in cuts.  From a mere policy perspective that was generous, but politically it was not.  Still, they have been drawn into considering cuts up to four times that amount.  If the same thing happens with Rep. Paul Ryan's budget (oh, just you wait until we get our proverbial hands around his metaphorical neck), then the nation and the Dems are in real trouble.

Pro-Planned Parenthood

(wikipedia)

Right now, with Planned Parenthood front and center, it is not surprising some Republicans in the Senate are trying to get the House to drop the issue.  Anti-choice Senators like Tom Coburn and Pat Toomey know they stand less of a chance of becoming committee chairman if (self-proclaimed) "moderates" like our boy Scott Brown are caught voting for another budget that sticks it to women's health.

Still, the House GOP is unmoved.  The right flank wants what it wants.  It believes that government is inherently bad and incompetent.  Unfortunately, they are now a driving force in that government and no less than partly responsible for the bumbling that results in the government shutting down.  If government fails at this point, it is because the tea party/right wing forces it to so, not because government naturally sucks.

At Libya to Say...

Pres. Obama giving his Libya speech (White House)

For a nation already overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would seem foolhardy for President Barack Obama, a fierce critic of the Iraq war, to lead us into battle once again.  Yet, a little over a week ago, Obama ordered US air power into Libya, as part of an international coalition to enforce a United Nations’ no-fly zone.  Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi, Libya’s dictator of forty years, had been engaged in a violent crackdown against a rebellion that had started like many of the other Arab uprisings of late: peacefully.

Obama articulated his reasoning for sending US forces into this engagement last night in a speech, carefully orchestrated to undercut any confusion that this was a true war.  Since the term war is relatively plastic (from the Korean War to the War on Drugs), this effort is largely semantic.  The White House wanted to make clear and the president underscored, that this was not like America’s other adventures into Muslim nations.  It still walks and quacks like a war, save for the lack of boots on the ground.

Many in Congress are grumbling that Obama did not go to them first.  Although their concerns are valid, Obama emphasized the urgency and Congress had just adjourned for one of their constituent weeks.  A false comparison has been made with Bush’s Congressional resolution for Iraq.  However, arguably, the former president’s foray into Iraq may have been no more legally valid (truthfulness of statements to Congress notwithstanding) because it called for the president to work with the United Nations.  The United States did not invade Iraq with any international authority.  While Obama explained his reasons for not waiting, it is unlikely that nothing he could say would appease opponents.

Isolationist Chas. Lindberg (wikipedia)

Those opponents, however, are overwhelmingly Democrats.  There are some Republicans complaining, but as Newt Gingrich’s schizophrenic position on Libya illustrates, most are struggling to find a reason to hate the intervention.  While anti-spending, anti-government non-rich misanthropy has taken hold of the Republican party, its neocon interventionist tendencies remain alive and well.  With only a few exceptions like Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Charles Lindbergh style isolationism has not gained much in popularity.  Consequently, intervention in Libya almost screams Republican foreign policy.  However, most of these same Republicans try their darnedest to hate anything Obama.  Consequently, the best they can come up with is “what is the endgame?”

This is a fair question.  How long will the United States be engaged in Libya?  Well we do not know.  It will probably be about as long as it takes for Qaddafi to take a hint and bolt like the former rulers of Egypt and Tunisia.  After all the UN resolution does not just establish a no-fly, but it also allows for any measure to protect civilians.  However since many Republicans have historically supported open-ended commitments, the complaints seem to be about money.  Luckily South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, showing a little bit of that moderation that we used to like about him, called out Republicans for not complaining about Iraq’s costs.

Benghazi (wikipedia)

The fact remains that Libya is a unique situation in which the United States was able to lead an international effort to stop a massacre.  Qaddafi was on the verge of invading Benghazi, the Libyan opposition’s stronghold.  If he did, as the President said last night, there very probably would have been a slaughter.  Qaddafi has already shown a willingness to murder civilians (in addition to foreigners as in Pan Am 103).  When the uprising began, it was peaceful as in Eqypt and Tunisia.  However, Qaddafi saw fit to open fire on his own citizens and that led many of his government’s officials and military leaders to defect.  This also happens to be what turned the revolution into one of the armed variety.

As Obama explained, we could not wait until we saw the images of “slaughter and mass graves.”  Indeed Obama turned that determination not to allow a humanitarian crisis into an example of that American exceptionalism (which incidentally spell check does not recognize) everybody seems fear is fading.  “America is different,” Obama said defining our role as a vanguard for those that are seeking our ideals of self-government.

Star Spangled Banner Flag (wikipedia)

Many have said this, but last night’s speech should put to rest this disgusting notion that Obama (or liberals and progressives or any non-tea partiers) do not love American or believe in American exceptionalism.  Those that believe in this incarnation of exceptionalism perceive America as a place under the grace of God to show the world how wonderful we are.  A more nuanced, yet practical notion is that America is a blessed place (or not if you don‘t buy into God), but one that is an example to world of what democratic principles, inclusion and creativity can yield.

Obama’s rejection of the Iraq example, wherein we actually invade a country like Libya, narrows the focus of what our role is when facing a humanitarian crisis.  Not only does it cost us dearly in blood and treasure, but it also gives the United States ownership of everything that happens thereafter.  While Obama will inevitably be blamed for any bumps in the Libyan road, the United States as a nation is unlikely to be so roundly scorned by the international community as a result.

Col. Qaddafi (wikipedia)

While the Obama administration is straining to assure that there is no Obama doctrine, there is an implicit message or at least one that we received.  America’s foreign policy cannot be enacted through bullying.  While Saddam Hussein was a terrible person in just about any way, with the commingling of craven oil interests and family vendettas, to the outside world, it looked like the US was pushing countries around.  The arrogance of the notion that we were “liberators” poisoned the establishment of democracy in Iraq.  Obama’s perspective is one intended to stop the next Rwanda or Bosnia before it happens.  A helping hand to our fellow human beings not a life lesson in superiority complexes.  Still, as Obama told Brian Williams, Libya’s is not a “cookie cutter” policy.

There are serious questions that Americans need to ask and should ask about who controls what (NATO is in the process of taking over) and how long we will be investing in this.

I think that Obama would encourage us to ask question and yes even challenge his positions and we have an obligation to do so, but not disingenuous.  I do not think he would question our patriotism or American pride, whether it is John Boehner or Dennis Kucinich, for asking these questions.  Truly, American is a special place, if we can defend an assault against our common humanity, but also engage in honest and genuine debate without being attacked for not being patriots…or worse.

For a primer on Qaddafi spelling, try this.

The Year in Springfield 2010...

So comes again another year the wide world of Springfield.  As is tradition, WMassP&I will recount the events and news that made 2010 different from 1876 in Springfield.  As both a city and as one of 351 parts of Massachusetts, Springfield saw its share of ups and downs that may come back to haunt, er, define us in the coming decade.  I guess it really depends.

City Hall (WmassP&I)

The year's most important event may very well have been a continuation of an event we mentioned last year.  The Springfield City Council underwent a paramount shift not only in structure, but in composition as it expanded form nine to thirteen in order to welcome new councilors from the city's eight wards.  Five seats remained at-large.  Four of those seats were retained by councilors under the old setup, with former School Committeeman Thomas Ashe filling out the fifth.  The diverse group of newcomers included time-tested figures like E. Henry Twiggs and past city council candidates John Lysak and Clodo Concepcion.  New faces included the city's youngest councilor in its history, Michael Fenton, Tim Allen, Melvin Edwards, Zaida Luna, and Keith Wright, a Springfield schoolteacher.

Not long afterward, Massachusetts rocked the national political landscape by electing State Senator Scott Brown to the United States Senate.  While national Republicans spun a fairy tale that the President Obama's allegedly left-wing policies were to blame, determined tea partiers aside, the result was due to a dismal campaign by Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Beacon Hill was not without its share of attention.  Budget troubles meant more cuts, particularly for cities and towns meant a reduction in school and unrestricted aid.  The entire situation was laid against the backdrop of an election for governor, which even early in the year was thought to be a bruiser for Democrats.  Charles Baker was coming at Gov. Deval Patrick from the right, Tim Cahill, former Democrat, was coming from the further right, while Jill Stein attempted to slip in from the left.  

Mohegan Sun (wikipedia)

Casinos, too, became an issue that would crest at the end of the session.  Massachusetts Speaker Robert DeLeo rammed through casino legislation that would have essentially given dying racetracks the right to open slot parlors in an attempt to make it like it never was when Deleo's father worked at the tracks.  Locally Mohegan Sun, who forays into non-Connecticut states has not been without controversy, got behind building a casino right off the Mass Pike in Palmer.

Longtime Hampden County District Attorney William Bennett announced his intention to retire this year. 

How Obama Got His Groove Back...

Pres. Obama (White House)

It may be a little premature to announce that President Barack Obama has taken his self-described shellacking and turned it into a force of political and legislative nature.  However, with his tax deal with Republicans and the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" passing just yesterday, the president has satisfied the country's desire for bipartisanship and fulfilled a campaign promise in only a week's time.  Although his New START Treaty with Russia hangs in the balance, the president may yet corral the 66-67 (If Sen. Ron Wyden is absent due to surgery, only 66 votes will be necessary, normally its 67).

Although we never made public any opinions about the deal, this blog reluctantly believes its passage was for the best.  To call the extension of the top bracket Bush tax cuts and a lower estate tax odious, harms the reputation of the word "odious."  However, in the words of one of many commentators on the issue, most people could not believe what Republicans were willing to give up to maintain tax breaks for millionaires.  The exact reasoning among Republicans is difficult to fully understand as many sitting Republican members of Congress thought Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were outlandish nine years ago.  The most likely answer is the intractability of GOP Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, and an ungodly fear of tea partiers.  The "Taxed Enough Already" crowd has, like the majority of Americans, actually seen their tax burden drop (unless their earnings relative to inflation have skyrocketed like the income of the tea party's leading faces has).  Not to mention, there exists fear among GOP senators up for reelection in 2012, like our dear Senator Scott Brown and Maine's Olympia Snowe, that could face a primary challenge and lose.  However, they may risk this anyway as the tea party is not really just an anti-tax, anti-government group, but a solidly anti-Obama and anti-anything good for Obama group.

"Migrant Mother" (Dorothea Lange)

The tax deal is for all intents and purposes a second stimulus.  While it lacks the infrastructural monies that are associated with the first stimulus, it includes many of the tax breaks that made up the bulk of the stimulus.  Also missing was aid to states to minimize budget cuts.  The legislation's most important characteristic, beyond the tax cuts, was an extension of unemployment benefits.  Under current law, after an individual's standard 26 week state benefits expire, the federal program kicks in for a total benefit time of up to 99 weeks.  The funding is largely paid out of the government's pocket, unlike standard benefits which rely on trust funds paid for by employers.  During the economic downturn, some states have exhausted their funds are relied on federal loans to continuing paying benefits under the standard plan.  Others like Massachusetts, automatically raise the employer contributions to maintain the fund's liquidity.

Cong. Neal (wikipedia)

A curious addition to the bill was a 2% cut in social security contributions on the employee side.  All workers must pay 6.2% of their earning, matched by their employer.  Unlike income taxes, employees contribute this income regardless of their income level.  Even the (working) poor pay into Social Security and do not get any of the money back until they begin to collect.  While the tax break will translate into real savings, Cong. Richard Neal, who voted against the deal, worried that it could undermine the solvency of Social Security.  Specifically, it would seem he was alluding to concerns that Republicans may demand that the payroll taxes (as Social Security benefits are technically called) remain lower in their increasingly quixotic demand that all taxes fall into oblivion.  This concern has merit and Neal's position is based less on the liberal discontent over Republican protection of the rich and a more on a real concern about the health of Social Security.

Still, it was a good thing for President Obama to make the deal and to sign the bill.  With little to no hope of pushing through changes absent the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, this was the only way.  Obama knew that some form of economic stimulation by the government was needed to push the economy to begin hiring again and among the most effective things was, ironically, the unemployment extension.  In the end, the Democrats who voted for the bill will face less repercussions in two years than the Republicans who forced the issue.  More on that next time.

Military info on DADT (wikipedia)

The president also achieved a major victory by making good on a campaign promise to repeal DADT.  The Clinton-era policy was actually designed as a compromise to what had been a zero-tolerance policy toward gays and lesbians.  As conceived DADT would have allowed gay service members, albeit closeted ones.  However, due to the idiosyncrasies of the military and an increasing meddling of conservative Christian influence, the rule was often turned on its head, leading eminently qualified, but otherwise gay servicemen and women to a dishonorable discharge--something that follows you for life.

Even in international context, the DADT policy was, well, queer.  Most major western armed forces have ended bans, including Russia, Canada, the UK, France, Australia, and most of the European Union.  The most notable member of this group is Israel.  As the Jewish state is virtually a European country demographically, that it has a similar policy is not surprising.  However, what is most telling is its policy on homosexuals in sensitive intelligence positions.  Almost the complete opposite of the theory of DADT, the Israeli intelligence services permit gays and lesbians provided that they are not closeted.  The theory, presumably, is that a closeted Israeli intelligence agent might be more willing to talk if enemies tried to use their secret against him or her.

Maine Senator Susan Collins (wikipedia)

The latest repeal effort was a legislative Hail Mary.  According to the New York Times topics database on the issue, the Obama administration dragged its feet to avoid waging another partisan war during the health care debate.  However, when lawsuits threatened to upend the ban, Obama and his justice department did not want to be caught defending a law with which he disagreed.  Originally attempts to attach the bill to a defense re-authorization bill were thought best, allowing repeal to occur after a survey of troops was completed.  It ran into road blocks, first over the survey and then, in the lame duck, over amendments to the massive defense bill.  After the last failure of the defense bill, Sen. Susan Collins, who for a while recoiled into her caucus' position, stepped forward with Connecticut senator Independent (read Democrat) Joseph Lieberman and Colorado senator Mark Udall to push a stand-alone appeal.  With the tax deal done (but not the budget), Republican publicly in support of repeal came out of the closet themselves to vote for repeal.  Very probably part of the reason Republicans who supported repeal voted as such was that very little debate on the measure was necessary and therefore it would not take away an appreciable amount of time from other matters.

The end of a gay ban in the military is really more important than just ending what was itself a wrong-headed and discriminatory policy.  It was the end of the last major public policy of the United States that ensconced and endorsed discrimination.  Efforts to paint repeal as endangering troops, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, reveal a naked attempt to define and by extension condemn, an individual based on their sexuality, not their humanity.  Any opposition within the armed services is likely based on common misconceptions about homosexuals either culturally or religiously based.  In any event, as the Department of Defense's brass have said, including Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen, this can be mostly corrected with training.

Adm. Mike Mullen (wikipedia)

With the death of DADT, the United States government has banished active discrimination against homosexuals in the military much as it did against blacks and other minorities when President Truman ordered the armed services desegregated.  Then, as now, the primary fear was unit cohesion and national security.  However, the repeal bill offers a buffer of time to allow for an orderly change in policy, very likely starting from back office operations and moving lastly to the front lines.  Overwhelmingly, the members of the armed forces operate in non-combat support positions.  Had the courts weighed in, the result may have been a more immediate and chaotic repeal.  Given Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy's vote in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws, the Supreme Court may have endorsed such an action.

While there remains inequities on the subject of marriage and/or domestic rights of gay couples, it would be wrong, outside of those states that sought to quash any hope for such benefits, to say that there exists any national law that actively endorses discrimination.  The Defense of Marriage Act may do so to some extent, but largely the worst anti-gay legislation exists on a state level now.  Hate crime legislation, though problematic in and of themselves, now include homophobic attacks.  Federal protection for employment discrimination is not yet available, but such legislation has Republican support and could pass under the next Congress.

Pres. G.W.H. Bush and Premier Gorbachev at START signing (wikipedia)

There exists some concern that the DADT vote could endanger the Start treaty.  Essentially, START is the embodiment on the late Ronald Reagan's call to "trust but verify."  The treaty, which replaces an older one passed under the elder President Bush, calls for US-Russian teams to inspect nuclear facilities and encourage responsible practices.  The Bush I-era treaty has expired leaving the US with no mechanism to verify that Russian nuclear materials are being handled responsibly, particularly that it is kept out of the hands of terrorists.  Republicans opposed to the treaty appear obsessed with the notion that the US is not upgrading it own nuclear stockpile fast enough.  Such concerns are only tangentially related to the treaty's broader goals of nuclear non-proliferation and arms reduction.  Still, some key Senators like Lindsey Graham were disheartened enough by the DADT vote that they threatened to vote against START.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sarcastically called similar threats "real statesmanship."

Pres. Obama in White House East Room (White House)

START's fate and liberal discontent over the tax cuts notwithstanding, President Barack Obama has achieved a major coup.  While many groused about the lame duck session being used this way, those comments reflect the concern that officials are voting contrary to how their successors would vote or had campaigned.  Certainly, DADT would not come up for a vote under a Boehner-led House, but would it have not passed?  We do not know.  Likewise, had all eight Republicans joined Democrats in January to end DADT the result might be the same.   For now, Barack Obama has shown that midterm failure has not destroyed him.  Pragmatism and persistence can and do mesh well for this president and he has proven it.  While liberals feel he caved on taxes, he in fact gave a little to get a lot and with DADT's repeal in his belt, shown those "lines in the sand" he described do exist.  The next legislative session may be more acrimonious than some would like, but certainly less conciliatory than liberals fear.