Mark Riley blog has moved

WE'VE MOVED!

After receiving a number of concerns regarding the ability to post comments here at blogspot, I have set up camp at my own website. Hope you'll find your way over, continue reading my blog posts and...post a comment. I'd love to get some conversations going.

See you at www.markrileymedia.com

Mark

Publish Post

Rush to Judgment?

We've blogged before, with some caution, about the apparent new face of Republicanism in America, Rush Limbaugh. I say with caution only because we happen to be in the same business, and I don't want criticism to be confused with jealousy (lol!).

Yet here is the porcine talker, blathering on as if he and only he holds the key to reversing grim GOP fortunes. And Democrats are sitting back, letting Limbaugh drag his so-called friends down the tube. Yes, folks, that's entertainment!

Michael Steele got it right. Limbaugh is an entertainer. In fact, Steele lost style points for recanting and throwing himself on the sword of Rushbo. What none of these people seem to realize is that Limbaugh's "I hope he fails" mantra is way out of the mainstream. 

How far out of the mainstream? I give you a quote from the man himself. "The Administration is enabling me. They are expanding my profile, expanding my audience, and expanding my influence". Gee, if that's the case, why not make a run for president in 2012, Rush? And what color is the sky in his world?

It only helps Democrats and President Obama that congressional Republicans and people like Michael Steele are scared to cross Limbaugh. If recent polling is at all accurate, this guy has a lower approval rating than Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, two people the GOP tried to tie around Obama's neck during the campaign.

So, keep talking Rush. You may be helping yourself and your radio show, but you're also helping the opposition. 

How does it feel to be a Democratic talking point?  

Was Bush Serious? Yes, He Was!

NB: No blog entries for Friday and yesterday. Got busy on a few things. Back to regular daily posts today.

Most Americans know that the administration of George W. Bush tried to push the envelope on the limits of presidential power. Little did we know how far he and his people were prepared to go after the September 11th terror attacks. Had their twisted view been fully implemented, America would be a very different place.

Here are just a few of the powers our last president was prepared to assume, as exposed in secret legal opinions by his own administration lawyers. His lawyers said it was no problem to use the US military inside the country to combat suspected terrorists, and to conduct raids without a search warrant. Foreign treaties could be unilaterally abrogated, and detainees suspected of terrorism could be handled with no input from Congress.

Much of this came from the minds of three people, according to the memos. John Yoo, Robert Delahunty, and Jay Bybee also conspired to gut the First Amendment in the name of successfully waging war in addition to all the above violations of basic American rights. 

The fact that these opinions came out in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 is no excuse for them. Certainly the nation was rightly concerned with the potential for acts of terror within our boundaries. Yet subsequent events have shown the Bush Administration was ill equipped to insure that innocent people wouldn't get caught up in the wide net they were prepared to cast.

The only silver lining in all this is a memo dated this past January, just before Bush left office. It repudiates the proposed excesses of earlier opinions, even as it makes feeble excuses for their creation. 

George W. Bush was ready, willing, and able to create a "1984" in 21st century America. We are lucky he didn't succeed, and we have a new president who understands the freedom can't be compromised on the level Bush wanted.

Yet how do we make sure this doesn't happen again? 

Many Years Later, He's Still a Wonder

President Barack Obama honored Stevie Wonder at the White House Wednesday night. He received the Library of Congress's Gershwin Prize for Popular Song. A select group of musicians and guests made the night a special one.

First Lady Michelle Obama talked about Stevie's classic "Talking Book" album, the first she ever bought. For me, the name Stevie Wonder goes back even further, to a time when "Little" was attached to it. With all the music this man has produced through the years, it all goes back to 1963, to "Fingertips".

I was right around Stevie Wonder's age when I first heard the song on the radio. Here was a kid whose voice hadn't yet changed, a kid I could relate to. Here was a young man people were calling a genius. From his first exhortation, "Everybody say yeah!", "Fingertips" was special.

In those days, records were often divided into Parts 1 and 2. Unlike most singles, however, "Fingertips Pt. 2" was released as the "A "side, the one that was pushed. It's energy can be traced to the fact that it was recorded live at Chicago's Regal Theater.

Bongos, harmonica, and voice blazing, Little Stevie Wonder served notice with this song. "Fingertips" became the first live, non studio recording to top the Billboard singles chart. It should be noted that the drummer on this song was none other than Marvin Gaye.

There were a lot of talented hitmakers in the early 1960s. 1963 was the year before the Beatles "invaded" America, and changed music forever. Yet so did Stevie Wonder, time after time after time. He's truly an American treasure, fully deserving of the accolades afforded him by the president.

"Everybody say yeah!"

Obama's Hope, or GOP Rope-a-Dope?

By Mark Riley


President Barack Obama addressed Congress for about 52 minutes, or just over 6000 words, if you're counting. He made the most of his time, sketching an ambitious visions for the nation's recovery. At the same time, his speech seemed crafted to repel Republican criticisms he knew were coming.

Now that conservative talk radio and a single business tv rant have become the cornerstones of GOP rebuttal, Obama knew his speech to lawmakers and the nation had to take their influence into account. When he said he didn't believe in bigger government or massive debt, he was speaking to the only talking points Republicans rely on in this, the winter of their discontent.

They can only engage in negative speculation about the consequences of the course Obama has charted. They harbor the absurd belief that a mantra of relentless criticism without any program of their own will actually work in these tough times.

Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana showed his hand not in his response Tuesday night but this past Sunday.



The "rising star" of the Republicans made it plain the game they're playing is about what they consider good politics, not the good of the nation.

Isn't it odd that through every initiative this president has put forward there's been no competing vision by his opposition? Even the "we won't accept parts of the stimulus" movement of just the other day has lost significant steam.

One can quibble with parts of President Obama's plan to speed the nation's economic recovery. At least, however, he's got a plan.

What do the naysayers have? Rick Santelli, Rush Limbaugh, and Bobby Jindal?

Does Slumdog Exploit, or Just Reflect?

By Mark Riley


By now just about everyone knows the movie "Slumdog Millionaire" was the big winner at this year's Oscars. Eight awards, including best picture will be on every ad for the movie over the next little while.

I don't go to movies often, in fact, I hardly go at all. I've been disappointed by so many, even those with much critical hype attached.



Yet there I was Monday, with my wife, going to the local multiplex to check out Slumdog. Part of what made me go was a dinner conversation over the weekend about whether the film accurately portrays the slum life of Mumbai. That debate was the projection of a larger controversy, with many Indians, including filmmakers, highly critical of Slumdog.

Of course, there's nothing quite like seeing for yourself. The first thing that struck me about the movie-going experience was the annoying volume of the sound. This obviously wasn't the film's fault, but I came away with ear fatigue from all the explosive punctuations Surround Sound pounded through my ear canal. Good sound should never leave your ears pounding.

That having been said, the film was quite well done, even if the story line was a bit sappy. Was it exploitative? I didn't think so, but then, I'm not Indian.

I thought back to another portrayal of slum life, the highly regarded Brazilian film "City of God". I remarked to my wife that there were few if any charges of exploiting slum life against that picture.

She pointed out that "City of God", while critically acclaimed, didn't win an Oscar, much less eight the way Slumdog did. Maybe Hollywood's embrace of a film not part of India's thriving Bollywood cinema scene was part of what troubled people?

What ought to trouble people, in the end, is that slums like those in Mumbai and Rio exist in the first place. We think the world has come so far in the 21st century. For me, the power of "Slumdog Millionaire" is the reality that we've got so far to go.



What do you think? Does "Slumdog Millionaire" exploit the poor of Mumbai?

Want to Quibble Over Stimulus Money?

By Mark Rley

Republican governors are split over whether and how much of President Barack Obama's stimulus money they should accept. We already told you a number of them can't wait for the dollars to come into their coffers. Now, about a half dozen say they'll reject certain parts of the bill they find objectionable.

Fine. Let them say no, for example, to extending unemployment benefits to workers in their states. When last I checked, Mississippi, whose governor has a problem with that part of the package, doesn't have a full employment economy. Let Haley Barbour explain to his constituents why laid off workers in other states are still getting checks while they aren't.

Much like their counterparts in Congress, these gubernatorial naysayers try to cover their partisan agenda with bogus talk of tax cuts. If they seriously think tax cuts will help their states' economies, why not just eliminate state taxes? They certainly have it in their power to do so.

There's a simple reason why they won't put their own money where their mouths are. They know cutting state taxes would bankrupt them, and wouldn't likely create a single job. It's also interesting to note that several of the governors who want to just say no to the stimulus represent southern states.

Mississippi's unemployment rate stood at 8% at the end of last year. South Carolina, where Gov. Mark Sanford also bleats about extending unemployment benefits to part time workers, had a 9.5% jobless rate, 49th out of the 50 states and DC.

Make no mistake. These governors are the Marie Antoinettes of the 21st century. They profess to stand for conservative principles when much more is needed, and they know it. If I were Barack Obama, I'd throw down an ultimatum. Take the stimulus package as is, or take nothing.

Would these governors then be ready to tell the people to eat cake?

Why Does Burris Remind Me of the Doors?

By Mark Riley





The continuing drama surrounding Illinois Senator Roland Burris continues unabated. Just like the sports world has A-Rod, politics has this accidental lawmaker, whose waffling on dealings with associates of of his benefactor, Rod Blagojevich, threaten to bring him down.

So why is it that lately, every time I see or hear Burris' name mentioned in the news, I think back to a song from my misbegotten youth? The song is "Riders on the Storm" by the Doors, and if ever there's storm rider for the 21st century, it's Roland Burris.

Despite repeated calls for his resignation, Burris soldiers on. On Tuesday, I mused that he should announce now that he'd only stay through next year's election. With the media-political nexus calling for his head, even that seems impossible. Or is it? Consider the first verse of "Riders on the Storm"....

Riders on the storm

Into this house we're born

Into this world we're thrown

Like a dog without a bone

An actor out on loan....

Riders on the storm

For me, that verse defines Roland Burris' situation.


Now even black ministers who initially thought he was getting a bad rap from the media are re-thinking their support. And, as Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson puts it, when your credibility rests on matters of syntax and grammar, that's a bad sign.

I for one certainly recognize Roland Burris' service to the people of Illinois, in particular its length. However, you have to ask yourself if those same folks are best served by a politically challenged lawmaker who may well have no shot at the full term he took the job to seek.

It's time for Roland Burris to salvage what's left of his dignity and legacy, and give up that Senate seat. I say this knowing he probably will try to hold out and let the storm pass. Yet if Roland Burris is anything more than "an actor out on loan", he'll recognize it's time to go.

What do you think. Should Roland Burris resign?

A Nation of Cowards?

By Mark Riley

Lots of folks, especially the Sean Hannitys of the world, are going off about remarks made by the nation's Attorney General. In remarks to his staff, Eric Holder said that despite many advances, America remains "a nation of cowards" when it comes to issues of race.


As if to bear him out, the New York Post conjures images of racism past (and present?) with a cartoon showing cops shooting a chimp with a remark about the stimulus bill. The response to the cartoon and Attorney General Holder were both frighteningly predictable.

To Sean Hannity, any hint of reticence on race issues by his core constituency is a slap at all Americans. Don't believe me, just watch his show. One should also understand that for Hannity, race makes excellent fodder for entertainment. Spend a few days talking bad about Eric Holder, and watch the ratings rise.

The cartoon, on the other hand, first drew the ire of the Rev. Al Sharpton. How easy, then, for the bosses at the Post to slap the tag "publicity hound" on the Rev. and try to move on.


No such luck. Condemnations have cascaded from, among others, the National Urban League, the National Association of Black Journalists, my good friend Earl Ofari Hutchinson out of LA, and more.

Unlike the fountain of ignorance that publishes New York's most right wing daily, These folks understand that likening black folks to gorillas and chimpanzees in this country is as old as the nation itself. Again, don't take my word for it. Go back and look for yourself.

So when Eric Holder calls America a nation of cowards about race, don't hate.

Investigate, and decide for yourself. Tell me what you find out.

Best Buds- Obama and Republican Governors?

By Mark Riley

While President Obama takes flack from congressional Republicans on everything from the just passed stimulus bill to the not yet announced home mortgage bailout, Tuesday's New York Times chronicles a curious state of affairs.

Sure, the GOP lawmakers inside the Beltway can keep hollering "tax cut", but an increasing number of Republican governors are in Obama's corner when it comes to trying to jump start the economy.

Governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Charlie Crist of Florida, and Jodi Rell of Connecticut have come to realize the $135 billion in the stimulus package going directly to states helps them balance their budgets.


Charlie Crist even campaigned with the president in Florida last week to get the package passed.

Their support has everything to do with yawning budget gaps they face in their states. These are gaps the Republicans in Washington pay little attention to. They're too busy grandstanding like Republican leader John Boehner. He dumped the bill to the floor during debate. Fat lot of good it did him.

Also crucial to the support of some Republican governors is the genuine effort on the part of this president to listen to their views. Say what you will about the Republican philosophy of limited government, when the states like California are staring at a budget gap of $41 billion dollars, guess who's the only knight that can ride to the rescue?

Now it's on to the home mortgage mess. Expect Republican governors in states with high foreclosure rates to get behind Obama on this as well.


And again, Republicans in Congress will shout from their bully pulpit, only to find few are listening.

What do you think? Can President Obama convince more Republican governors to back his economic recovery plans?

Is Burris Toast?

If you read columns and stories from the punditocracy (I know it's not a word), the career of Illinois Senator Roland Burris died one month to the day after it began. He's the guy former Governor Rod Blagojevich named to replace Barack Obama, and we don't need to go into detail about that mess.

Now it seems like just when things were quieting down, Burris himself stirs the cauldron that is his state's politics. At issue is whether he lied to a state impeachment committee about his contact with Blagojevich staffers about the seat he now holds. 

Burris himself says he did have a previously undisclosed conversation with Blago's brother regarding a contribution to the governor's campaign (no need for that now). The senator's denial that his new affidavit changes his original testimony isn't exactly causing people in Illinois or DC to flock to his defense.

In fact, the silence on both fronts deafening. Senate Democrats, who never wanted to seat Burris in the first place, seem to hoping either he'll quit or won't have enough juice to win his party's nomination next year.

While Republicans in Illinois have called on Burris to quit, the more important question is whether he'll be wounded so badly by all this that the Democratic leadership will get behind another candidate.

Roland Burris' biggest sin? After all, no one, not even his most serious detractors, say he actually gave Blagojevich any money. No, his mistake was not disclosing his new affidavit on the matter before the Chicago media got ahold of it.

If Senator Roland Burris is interested in doing the honorable thing here (some might argue he shouldn't have accepted the appointment in the first place), he needs to pull himself out of next year's Senate race now. That's right. Tell the people of Illinois you'll fight for them, but only until they can decide for themselves who they want.

What do you think? Can Roland Burris survive?    

Happy President's Day

Hope everyone has a happy President's Day. Have some fun with my new music playlist - see below on the right hand side. 

Back tomorrow.

Mark

Thanks but No Thanks? Next!

By Mark Riley

So Republican Senator Judd Gregg has decided to back away from becoming President Obama's Commerce Secretary. He's miraculously gone from goat to hero among his naysaying colleagues, who now attach some extraordinary significance to the fact that one of their number says he can't work with a Democratic president.


Gee, you just found out Obama's a Democrat? You didn't know his agenda when you said you'd take the gig in the first place? If this is truly the end of bipartisanship, you can't blame Obama. The media will spend much of today speculating about when the president knew Gregg had a change of heart. Hey. other than the stimulus, it's been a slow news week.

If the Gregg withdrawal is a symbol of Republican resistance to the stimulus and other Obama initiatives, so be it. Let Gregg and his pals come up with something better, something smarter, something that has even a small chance of helping the struggling, every day American.

Gregg's "I can't serve because I can't stand the stimulus" blather is just that, nonsensical partisan politics at its lowest. However, lest you think I'm dumping on all things GOP as we head into Valentine's and President's day weekend, consider the polar opposite of Judd Gregg.

His name is Anh "Joseph" Cao. He's the first Vietnamese member of Congress, the guy who sent New Orleans' William Jefferson into retirement. He's also publicly proclaimed that the needs of his district outweigh the need to stand with his colleagues on the stimulus bill. That's right. He says he'll vote for it.

When he upset Jefferson just this past November, Republicans touted Cao's ascension as a new day for GOP politics. No more could the party be pigeonholed as a white male bastion of privilege. If Cao holds true to his word, you think they may want to change their minds?

As for Judd Gregg, no big loss. Team Obama can find a replacement in short order. True, the Commerce job has been a bit of a problem, with Bill Richardson and now Gregg pulling out. Yet if you believe all things happen for a reason, you've got to believe Obama will get it right the third time.

Who do you think President Obama should nominate as Commerce Secretary? Does the person have to be a Republican?

Lock Up the Peanut Man? You Bet!

I must confess I've had a thing for all things peanut since I was a kid. Raw peanuts, peanut butter, peanut butter cookies, you name it. Maybe that's why the story of Stewart Parnell, boss of the Peanut Corporation of America gets me so upset.

For those who don't already know (and those who need to be reminded), tainted peanuts from Parnell's plant have caused a serious outbreak of salmonella poisoning throughout the country. Nine have died, and 600 have gotten sick since last September.

Stewart Parnell was compelled by subpoena to appear before a House committee to explain a few embarrassing but pertinent facts. For instance, how did he explain lobbying federal regulators to let him keep shipping products from contaminated plants? Those products came with a phony certificate attesting to their purity.

He might also have to explain why, when confronted with evidence of contamination last October from his own lab, he sent the samples to a different one and complained about the delay? Parnell was asked if he was ready to eat any of the 1900 peanut products recalled because of contamination.

To all this, Stewart Parnell responded like a mobster. He took the Fifth on all questions, including whether he'd been present earlier when some of the victims of his greed testified. Then he left the committee hearing with the obligatory entourage.

If Stewart Parnell had shot nine people with a rifle, he rightly be called a mass murderer. He'd be facing life in prison at the very least. The e-mails made public yesterday at that House committee hearing showed Parnell had little if any concern for the people who might eat his tainted products.

Doesn't Stewart Parnell need to face criminal charges, and if convicted, be locked up like any other common miscreant?

Or am I overreacting because I love peanuts?

  

Is the Devil in the Details?

By Mark Riley




Of all President Barack Obama's cabinet picks, I was most nervous about Tim Geithner, his choice for Treasury Secretary. Not that I knew much about him, but the idea that he was an integral part of putting together the TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) bailout made me wonder.

Now his plan to spend the second half of the TARP money (and a whole lot more) has others wondering as well. Geithner's plan lacked much of what both lawmakers and the public had hoped for. There were few specifics about how the plan would accomplish its goals of helping banks, unfreezing the credit markets, and slow the ever spiraling rate of home foreclosures.

We do know this. It will be a week or two before the Obama Administration, and not Treasury, unveils a $50 billion dollar plan to deal with the foreclosure crisis.



That's a week or two too long. The public ought to be able to see tangible benefits from both the bailout and stimulus plans, and right now it doesn't look like they will right away.

The other obvious question is this. Is $50 billion dollars enough to help struggling homeowners when 10,000 American families a day are falling into some stage of foreclosure?

Combine Geithner's hazy vision of the bailout with reports that he resisted the effort of presidential aides to impose tough oversight on those financial institutions receiving help, and one can't be optimistic about his tenure thus far.

Some lawmakers are calling Geithner's plan "Son of Paulson", referring to the disbursement of the first half of the bailout money. We still know little about where that money went. We do know it didn't do what Hank Paulson told us it would.

Is Tim Geithner asking the American people to throw good money after bad? More importantly, is he the right person to guide the nation's troubled financial ship of state?

You tell me. I'm not optimistic.

What Exactly is Important?

By Mark Riley



Today's blog entry is a message to struggling Americans who are wondering how they'll make ends meet, and why the travails of Alex Rodriguez seems so much more important than their livelihoods. Take heart, America. Some people do, in fact, get it.

With all the arguments over the stimulus plan, where the other half of the TARP money will go and with how much oversight, it seems easy to overlook what it feels like to have spent your life working and through no fault of your own, suddenly to be thrown out of a job.

That gnawing feeling in your gut that no medicine can cure comes and goes. You look in the eyes of your children and realize your teachings about the value of hard work are suddenly suspect.

The phone calls from bill collectors come, and you find yourself walking around the house, trying to figure out if there's something you're doing wrong.

Why haven't there been more responses to your resume? How will next month's mortgage be paid? Will you have to skimp on needed medication in order to pay your utility bill? Will all the stuff politicians argue about really make a difference?

In these times of economic crisis, it's hard to find reasons to take heart. But understand this.

Your economic survival is just as important as that of an investment banker, a hedge fund manager, and yes, even some media pundit. Those folks think they live in a different world than you. They're wrong.

You can find some comfort in the notion that we have a person in the White House who at least understands that a 15% unemployment rate in any American city is a problem for all America. He's promised transparency in the way stimulus money is spent. The nation needs to hold him to it as we believe he means it.

What is important? No, it's not A-Rod, Chris Brown, Rihanna, John Boehner or John McCain.

It's you. Tell me your story...post it here so we can learn from each other?

Deal or No Deal on Stimulus?

By Mark Riley

Did the Senate pull our collective leg last Friday when they said there was a deal on President Obama's stimulus plan?


If so, why are so many Republicans, from Congressman Mike Pence to Senator John McCain still badmouthing it?

It's the same blah blah blah... it costs to much... and tax cuts are the answer. I guess they didn't see the news that 600,000 jobs were lost last month.


President Obama did. That's why he's hit the road, holding a town hall meeting in Elkhart, Indiana. That's a city where the unemployment rate stands at better than 15%. It's a good bet most of those people, like most Americans now out of work, did their jobs every day until the plant closed.

Meaning, of course, that calls for personal responsibility are likely to fall on deaf ears. Telling a laid off worker it's his or her fault rather than high flying bankers who still don't miss tee times at their golf clubs simply won't work.

That's what Republican obstructionists fail to understand. They're coming across as far more sympathetic to the plight of financial institutions than they are to the needs of the American people.

President Obama will also hold a prime time news conference at the White House. Part of that will be taken up with questions about the tax troubles of a few of his nominees. There will also be questions about the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) plan to shore up American banking.

Yet the big issue is the stimulus.


Is there a deal in the Senate, and when will it come to his desk to be signed? And why has it taken so long?

Cheney's Back. Do You Care?

By Mark Riley

Former Vice President and top fear monger Dick Cheney is back in the news this week. And guess why? He's up to his old tricks again. Cheney was always the most fierce defender of Bush Administration policies. After all, he crafted many of them.

So it should come as no big shock that he's amping up the same scare tactics that were a hallmark of the Bush years. Close Guantanamo Bay, move away from torture, he bleats, and the Obama Administration is inviting another 9-11 terror attack.

Nation security experts disagree about the efficacy of many Bush era initiatives. We do know this, however. Torture is banned by international law. Bush's inner circle tried throughout his eight years in office to get around that simple fact.


When some in Bush's own chain of command argued against what was going on at GITMO they were shouted down. In many cases, behind the scenes, Cheney's voice was the loudest. And now he's back, implying that by terminating the most obnoxious Bush policies, President Obama is backtracking on protecting Americans.

When Bush was criticized about the Iraq war, about his tacit support of torture, about his naked attempt to consolidate presidential power, his supporters called critics traitors. What should we call Dick Cheney?

In truth, he's no different than Rush Limbaugh.


Both are trying to remain relevant in a world that's changing before their eyes. The American people have rejected their way of doing things, and in fact their view of the world. Neither Limbaugh nor Cheney know what to do with themselves as a result. So they talk trash.

Is anybody paying attention to Dick Cheney's nonsense? Are you?

Why the Fighting Over Stimulus?

By Mark Riley

The Senate may well take up President Obama's stimulus package before this day is out. One hesitates to put a price tag on it, because it changes depending on what media you consume. Anyway, a number of senators seem top be bent on trimming what they consider to be unnecessary spending from the bill.


That may be all well and good. It's also interesting that the effort to cut the money is bipartisan. And certainly no one wants to waste money, right? More on that later. Senators Ben Nelson and Susan Collins, both centrists, say they'd like to trim $50 to $200 billion dollars from the package.

So where do they want to cut? $50 million for the arts, $14 million from a Homeland Security initiative, $1 billion from the National Science Foundation, $400 million from research into sexually transmitted diseases, $850 million destined for Amtrak, and $400 million for climate change research.

Fantastic! Trouble is, unless my math is really bad, those proposed cuts don't come anywhere near the $50 to $200 billion these folks want to see trimmed. That would mean more delay and haggling, when delay is the worst thing that could happen to the American people.

New claims for unemployment benefits are at the highest rate since 1982.


The January employment report is due tomorrow, and no one is expecting good news. All due respect to Senators Collins and Nelson (and their allies in this cutting fever), if they can't come up with more than the approximately $2.8 billion they've suggested, they need to move out of the way.

Maybe they're trying to prevent what happened with the financial bailout from happening here. The chair of the group overseeing that money says Uncle Sam overpaid for stocks and other assets to the tune of $80 billion dollars.

Yet isn't President Obama's package an investment in the American people? How about getting it done this week?

Why Not Howard Dean for Obama?

Tom Daschle had to withdraw his name from consideration to become Health and Human Services Secretary. The tax thing was obviously too much. President Barack Obama, unlike his predecessor, took the hit and admitted his mistake in continuing to push for Daschle's confirmation.


Good job. So now what?

Howard Dean, that's what! The president would do well to listen to the chorus of progressive voices who are saying the outgoing DNC chair is the perfect person for the job. There are all sorts of rumors to the effect that Rahm Emanuel would counsel the president against picking Dean.

That's not good enough. Sure, the pair clashed over Dean's 50 state strategy, but who turned out to be right? Besides, this can't be about grudge politics. Howard Dean, Dr. Howard Dean, simply has the best credentials.

Dean expanded health care coverage to children when he was governor of Vermont. As a doctor, he can speak to doctors and allay their suspicions about what most progressives feel is most needed, universal health care.

In doing so, he can hopefully get patients on board as well. In many cases, doctors make their most passionate arguments against universal health care to the people they see in their office.

President Obama will do doubt act fast to fill the vacuum created by Daschle's exit. There are people other than Howard Dean who will be considered.


Yet at the end of the day, can those of us who want to see a sharp change in the current health care system say there's anybody more qualified than Howard Dean?

What do you think?

Bad Day to Blog

I've been running around all day, so no real time to blog. Congrats to Eric Holder. You just know he can do better than the last two AGs put together.

Too bad about Daschle. He would have made a good HHS Secretary, but those taxes sank him.

Back tomorrow.

Mark 

Will Daschle Go Down?

By Mark Riley

Former Senator Tom Daschle has become the second Obama Administration nominee to get caught up in a tax mess. Having to pay back taxes of about $34,000 didn't derail the nomination of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. But Daschle's liability is well over $100,000 dollars, and his bid to become Secretary of Health and Human Services could be different.

Congressional Republicans are now trying to use Daschle, Geithner, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's withdrawal of his name for commerce secretary to question the president's vetting process. In addition, the failure of politicians to pay taxes is an issue that resonates with the public in ways few other issues do.

People have every right to compare their own situations to those of these bigwigs and question why they seem to get away with simply paying what they owe. The appearance of a double standard is hard not to note.

Still, in Daschle's case, interesting politics seems to be at work. Senate Republicans aren't ready to say his nomination is dead in the water. That would be despite the fact that a report released Friday by the Finance Committee says Daschle questioned his accountant about possible tax problems back in June. He didn't tell the Obama transition team about his liabilities until weeks after he was nominated.

On the other hand, there are reports that one powerful Democrat in the Senate might want to see Daschle go down. Montana Senator Max Baucus has reportedly had a long running feud with Daschle on a number of issues. Some say Baucus has been slow to come to his former colleagues' defense as a result.

Daschle's supporters point out that he voluntarily reported his tax problem to the IRS when he realized the perks he was getting from a media mogul were taxable income. He's already paid the money he owed, they argue, so this shouldn't be a deal breaker.

Political intrigue aside, the average American must wonder what would have happened if Tom Daschle was Joe Public, and didn't have the money to pay off the liability so easily.

What do you think? Will Tom Daschle's tax problems sink his chances of getting an Obama cabinet post?

What am I, an Idiot? With Technology, Yes!

Mark Riley

It's a moment in life you never see coming, but when it does, you can't figure out why or how it happened. I'm talking about the moment you realize that when it comes to 21st century technology, you're stuck somewhere in the late 20th.

Maybe this has happened to you? Something either goes wrong with your computer, or there's a task you're trying to perform that you can't. In my case, my 11-year-old daughter saunters into the room and innocently asks, "What's wrong, Daddy?"

I proceed to explain my conundrum, only to have her hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and solve the problem! Then, with a look that says "You're so '90s", she goes back upstairs to use her own personal laptop. What she does with it (aside from homework) is a total mystery to me.

Digital manipulation of our dog, courtesy my daughter!

Mind you, when I was coming up, there was no piece of equipment in our home that I knew more about than my parents. The very notion of such a thing would have driven my folks up a wall.

It's not just the computer that makes me feel like a relic from a bygone era. Lately, I've begun to understand that there are people in this world who no longer see the telephone as their primary means of outside communication.

Where once I would pick up the phone and call somebody I wanted to reach, I find it's now faster to either e-mail or text them. Forget texting. I have no idea how it works, and have never sent one knowingly.

Yet it seems that when it comes to mobile and cellphones, actually calling a number is no longer its primary function. This was driven home to me by several recent incidents. One, my daughter (yep, her again) took a phone I used to own after she lost hers.

I only used it to make and receive calls (isn't that the point?). Imagine my amazement when I called her on it and heard a voice say "Please enjoy the music while your party is located". Huh?

I had no idea that my phone had that feature. I'd never bothered to read the manual (too complicated). It wasn't long before I realized she'd customized that phone using lots of features I didn't even know was there.

I soon realized my little one hadn't read it either. Which is kind of the point of this rant. Children process information very differently than we do as adults. Don't ask them to explain it because they either can't or won't. But you know what? It works for them.

The other thing I'm noticing a lot is e-mail that says "Sent from my Blackberry". Yet another technological wrinkle I've yet to master. And I've actually got a Blackberry!

President Obama's Sectera Edge



I'm beginning to think in the next year or so I'll be consigned to "The Land of Left Behind".

Is any of this happening to anyone besides me? Or am I just an idiot?

Ready to Spend Yet?

By Mark Riley

It may not be law yet, but the media has already begun analyzing how the House passed economic stimulus bill will affect Americans. The press has also made a big deal out of the fact that despite President Obama's best efforts, no Republicans voted for the plan in the House.

On the first issue, the answer is simple. The purpose of this plan is to convince the public that it's okay to spend again. Keep in mind that as this crisis has deepened, most folks have seriously cut back on buying, even during the Christmas season.

The alternative for many has been to pay down on debt, not necessarily a bad thing. The question now is whether the combination of tax cuts ($211 of the $819 billion dollar package) and new spending will loosen American purse-strings. Maybe, maybe not.

One good thing. The plan would spend serious money on roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. Let's hope major cities get some real money for mass transit improvements. Health care would also get a good chunk of money, some $88 billion to shore up Medicaid alone.

President Obama wants to get this thing passed and signed before President's Day. He's invested serious time and effort in trying to marshall bipartisan support in both houses of Congress. It didn't work in the House. Republicans wanted nothing but a tax cut plan, and bickered during debate about whether GW Bush's cuts in '01 created years of growth.

It makes one wonder if trying to talk sense to these people really makes any. Why is there a part of me that wants the president to crack with whip with both congressional Republicans and clueless bankers? The former don't seem to want to admit how bad things really are.

If they want to talk about the good old days of our former president, let them. Let Barack Obama drive the bus with these people standing on the sidelines, griping. If this plan puts people back to work and gets them to spend again, they'll be exposed for the fools they are.

President Obama is doing exactly what he said he'd do during the campaign. Shouldn't these partisan do nothings be called out for who they are?

You tell me. Leave a comment and start a discussion...

Will Wall Street Ever Learn?

By Mark Riley
As the pushing back and forth on President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan continues, questions abound about whether big executives on Wall St. are really tightening their belts. Juan Gonzalez writes a column in today's NY Daily News that indicates the answer is "absolutely not!"

Sometimes you have to pull together various strands of fabric to make a quilt. Consider the following financial strands, and ask yourself what kind of quilt it makes. Keep in mind that Monday alone, somewhere on the order of 70,000 Americans lost their jobs.

John Thain, former boss at Merrill Lynch, spent $1.2 million dollars on redecorating his office in lower Manhattan.



The redo included $35,000 for a "commode on legs", $25,000 for a "mahogany pedestal table" $87,000 for an area rug, and $1400 bucks for a trash can. That's right, a trash can.

It gets worse. Bank of America, the company that took over Merrill Lynch, announced it would cut 35,000 jobs over three years. That was on Dec. 11th. That same week, John Thain doled out $4 billion (with a B) dollars in bonuses to top execs at Merrill. According to Gonzalez' column, Thain knew Merrill Lynch would show a fourth quarter loss of $15 billion dollars.

So too did the bosses at Bank of America, which was busy asking for $20 billion dollars in government assistance on top of the $25 billion they've already received. The upshot is that Thain was forced out just last week, but the damage had already been done.

The quilt from just these strands of fabric? Taxpayers paid for Merrill Lynch bonuses! If this was the only example of a clueless Wall St. it would be bad enough. Combine it with Citigroup's $50 million dollar jet (it had to cancel the order after it was made public), and the sale of former Lehman Brothers boss Richard Fuld's sale of his $13 million dollar mansion to his wife for $100 bucks, and you get the picture.

These sorts of outrages demand quick action from our new president. Never mind lobbying on Capitol Hill.

He needs to get the titans of American finance in a room, and read them the riot act.

His first question ought to be how it is that 100,000 bank employees have lost their jobs in the past two years, but nearly 90% of the top executives at 200 banks that have gotten federal money are still on the job.

In his inaugural address, the president talked about responsibility. Were America's bankers listening? Apparently not. It's time for Obama to make them pay attention.

What do you think?

Needed Change or Quick Fix?

Politicians, even progressive ones, sometimes react to controversy with well meaning solutions. Too often, the solution is as bad or worse than the problem. So it is with calls to take away the power of state governors to fill vacant seats in the US Senate.

We all know the drama surrounding appointments in Illinois, New York, and Delaware (quick, can anyone tell me the fourth seat that became vacant?). To fix the problem, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold wants to introduce a constitutional amendment requiring a special election if a seat becomes vacant.

Sen. Feingold's logic is that what's good for the House is also good for the Senate. There, the constitution mandates vacancies to be filled by special elections. Further, Feingold argues that citizens, not governors, should be the ones who determine who goes to Washington is a Senate seat is vacant.

It all seems to make sense, and certainly there are numbers of people who will back the proposal after the three ring circus that filling seats in New York, Illinois, and Delaware became. And yet, all this doesn't make the special election route a good idea.

First, some clarity. It's not a bad idea because it takes power away from governors (see Rod Blagojevich). Rest assured they'll be the first ones screaming if Feingold's idea gets traction. No, the problem here is that the proposal doesn't seem to be well thought out.

The House and Senate are two different bodies. One represents an estimated 587,000 people, while senators represent entire states. Besides, there will in fact be special elections to fill all four vacant seats next year. Why rush the process?

Blagojevich's alleged vices aside, does the cost of a special election this year, estimated at $30-50 million dollars really solve a problem? Or is it just a reaction to what's gone on this time around? My gut tells me it's the latter, and my experience tells me these kind of fixes almost never work the way their champions intend.

You tell me. Should governors be stripped of their power to fill vacant Senate seats?

BTW: The fourth vacant seat was in Colorado. It became open when Ken Salazar was tapped to be Interior Secretary.

Mandela, King, Gandhi...Blagojevich?

By Mark Riley
Now that the drama over who would be New York's replacement for Hillary Clinton in the US Senate is done (and the governor is in major damage control mode), the scene shifts back to Illinois. Gov. Rod Blagojevich, apparently on the advice of a PR firm, has gone on a media offensive.




His impeachment trial set to start today, Blago is either acting crazy, or crazy like a fox. After appearing on several Chicago area radio stations, he's now going national. Rather than present a defense to those who will judge him, he's going on, among others "The Today Show", "Good Morning America", "Larry King Live", and "The View".

We now know this is a guy not prone to understatement, and utterly without shame. On "The Today Show", Blagojevich actually said that when he was arrested he thought about Nelson Mandela, Dr. Martin Luther King, and Mohandas Gandhi.







True, all of them did time, but none were ever accused of threatening to withhold children's healthcare funding unless they got campaign donations from a hospital executive. Allegedly, that is.

The particulars of the case have been examined, publicized, and exposed. One would think an honorable politician would step aside temporarily, even as he or she maintained their innocence. Not Blagojevich. He said again over the weekend he's going nowhere. Interestingly, there remain questions about whether prosecutors have enough to convict him on the main charge, trying to sell Barack Obama's old Senate seat to the highest bidder.

That will be for a jury to decide. In the meantime, the current governor of Illinois has carved a fascinating niche for himself in the annals of American politics. He is, however, not unique. If you don't believe me, get ahold of Mark Grossman's "Political Corruption in America", an A to Z overview of the depths those we elect will go to amass power and money.

The Illinois State Senate will no doubt vote to remove impeach Rod Blagojevich, and remove him from office. The only question remaining is whether the process will remove the taint this man has brought to the highest office in his state.



Will Rod Blagojevich's removal from office clean up Illinois politics? You tell me.

Gillibrand's the One. Is She the Right One?

NB: Shout out to my good friend Wayne Barrett from the Village Voice for his reporting on this story. He was one of if not the first to report that Gov. Paterson's choice would be Kirsten Gillibrand.

So it looks like Upstate New York Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand will be Gov. Paterson's choice to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate.



Already the choice has roiled the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, at least inside the state. Yet for a lot of reasons, the choice is smart politics.

The logic against Gillibrand's runs along several progressive fault lines. She's got a 100% rating from the National Rifle Association. She even opposes any limits on the sale of semi automatic weapons or so-called cop killer bullets. Her position on immigration isn't what anyone would call enlightened. She voted against both financial services bailout bills supported, ironically, by one of her current champions, Sen. Chuck Schumer. That won't endear her to New York City residents.

But wait, there's more! She supported the Bush tax cuts, backed continued funding for the Iraq war, and generally described her voting record as one of the most conservative in the state.



She opposes gay marriage (while supporting civil unions). Even though she was an ardent backer of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, it's pretty obvious they don't see eye to eye on any number of issues.

Even with all this, and the possibility of several primary challengers next year, the choice makes political sense. Gov. Paterson knew he needed to replace Hillary Clinton with a woman. Once Caroline Kennedy dropped out, an upstate woman made the most sense. While watching the NY-1 program, "Inside City Hall" last night, I was struck by the number of phone callers who knew quite a bit about Gillibrand's record, and thought she'd be a good choice.

Voting for her certainly won't be a problem for ethnic voters in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. Some of them might even be induced to vote for Gov. Paterson's re-election as well. Keep in mind Gillibrand defeated a long standing incumbent Republican to win her seat in Congress in 2006. There's no way she could have won by taking policy positiions favored by downstate liberals.

Besides, if anyone in theory bears responsibility for the rise of Kirsten Gillibrand, it's Caroline Kennedy. If you believe she was the governor's first choice for the job, the mess created by her last minute departure demanded a quick and clear response.

Kirsten Gillibrand is certainly no perfect vessel. This is politics, and everyone knows there are no perfect vessels. Assuming David Paterson doesn't change his mind, he'll announce her as his choice later today.



If she wants to win a full term, she's going to have to rethink some of her more "Blue Dog" positions, especially on gun control.

Yet in the end, she will be measured by what she's able to bring to the state in the way of jobs and stimulus money. New York, like the rest of the nation, is hurting economically. If she's successful there, she'll win next year.

What do you think? Is Kirsten Gillibrand the right choice?

Too Bad About Caroline, Ya Know?

When it comes to political drama, it seems nothing can top the twin efforts to fill US Senate seats in New York and Illinois. Just when it seemed the controversy surrounding Rod Blagojevich's pick for the latter was dying down, New York's selection process has been thrown into chaos.

That's because Caroline Kennedy, the presumptive choice of Gov. David Paterson, has taken herself out of contention. Speculation abounds about why. Various media are reporting the move caught the governor's office completely by surprise. We may never know the real reason she dropped out.

Fact is, Caroline Kennedy was ill prepared for the blood sport that is New York politics.



Her public rollout was badly flawed, her credentials seriously questioned after a flurry of early positive press. All this she should have expected. Unlike her good friend President Barack Obama, she was incapable of responding effectively to the negative media coverage.

A good speech coach, for example, could have gotten her past the awkward "ums" and "you knows" that made her public interviews agonizing to watch. On top of that, does anyone remember a single policy position she articulated during the course of her shadow campaign for the office?

Why she dropped her bid is anybody's guess. The New York Times cites a person "close to her" as saying it was worry about the health of her uncle, Senator Ted Kennedy. Others are speculating it was a graceful way out, since Gov. Paterson was not going to choose her despite the speculation he had little choice.

And the governor's office doesn't come away unscathed in all this either. As recently as 7:00PM last night, his people were saying reports that Ms. Kennedy was dropping out were "just the rumor of the day". A little more than an hour later, his press secretary asked that the previous statement not be published. Say what?

If there's one thing you never do, it's ask the media not to report something you told them. You issue a clarification, you say the governor didn't have all the information, whatever. This is New York! People should know better. All this has conspired to make Gov. Paterson, a thoughtful man, look indecisive and confused.



I don't think he is. In fact, I was never as certain as some of my colleagues that Caroline Kennedy had a lock on the senate seat. David Paterson has always managed to confound even his friends with the choices he makes. He is his own best counsel. Caroline Kennedy dropping out doesn't change that.

Gov. Paterson will make his choice for Hillary Clinton's senate seat known by the weekend. Who do you think he'll choose?

Can Barack pull it off?

Finally, we can stop calling him President-Elect Barack Obama. An historic day of ceremony took care of that. George W. Bush did fly off in a helicopter, finally a former president. Yet not before he heard some scathing words from his successor.



President Obama spent much of his inaugural speech laying out how he would undo what Bush has done over the past eight years.

In many ways, it was a stinging rebuke. "Our collective failure to make hard choices", and the willingness of suspend the nation's ideals "for expedience's sake" pulled no punches, especially with the guy you're talking about sitting only a few feet away. Fact is, though, it had to be said.

He also rejected the notion of the "false choice" between ideals and safety. Again, a repudiation of the Bush Doctrine. Even these words, however, fail to capture what the world saw during Barack Obama's swearing in Tuesday. From the first camera shot as he prepared to be introduced, the new president exuded confidence without swagger, an aura that said, "I can do this".

For just a moment, my mind went back to the early 1960s, to the dawn of my consciousness about who I was. That consciousness was shaped in part by a brash young man from Louisville, Kentucky, a boxer then named Cassius Clay. Until that time, black people rarely if ever held their heads up and proclaimed their greatness. Cassius Clay was different.



Certainly he was electric, confident to the point of arrogance in the eyes of some. Many people thought Sonny Liston would clean his clock when they fought twice for the heavyweight championship. We all know how that turned out.

Still, watching President Obama stride to the podium, take the oath of office, and speak to the world, I was reminded of the confidence we saw as kids in the man who later became Muhammad Ali. For some reason, I saw a straight line there. And it made me feel proud. And old.



That aura of confidence Barack Obama showed yesterday made me realize he really believes he can change the course of this nation. The outgoing president had to sit there in silence, no doubt a little shocked at how directly his watch was bring critiqued.

But all that was yesterday. The parade, the balls, the glitter, all that is done. Time to get to work.

Can he do it? Post your comment here.