The Presidents: #28

#28: Jimmy Carter
Term: January 20, 1977 - January 20, 1981
Grade: C-

I suppose this could be considered a controversial pick, as Jimmy Carter is near the bottom of the list for many people, especially those who lived through his term. However, I think this grade and ranking is defensible because a "C-" is still not a good grade, and because I don't think Carter's term was as bad as people think it was.

Many of the issues Carter faced were around before his presidency, and he certainly tried to fix them. Sure, he deserves to be criticized for his "Malaise" speech, and his handling of the Iran hostage crisis was not something to be proud of. Still, he was the last president to even try to reasonably handle the environment, he signed a bill that preserved a large portion of Alaska for posterity, and he deserves credit for the Camp David Accords. I suppose most of his grade is for effort, even if his execution was significantly off.

In the end, Carter's greatest failing was a general lack of ability to work with Congress. Reading Ted Kennedy's memoi, I got the feeling that Carter just didn't want to work with Congress. Had he been more understanding and more accommodating to Congress, he probably wouldn't have faced the challenge from Ted Kennedy in 1980, and might have been in a better position to handle the Reagan Revolution. I'm not sure that it would have prevented the mess of the Bush 43 Administration, but it might have helped.

The Presidents: The List

Here is the list of the Presidents, in order of my ranking.

1. ??????
2. ??????
3. ??????
4. ??????
5. John F. Kennedy
6. ??????
7. ??????
8. ??????
9. ??????
10. ??????
11. ?????
12. ?????
13. ?????
14. ?????
15. ?????
16. ?????
17. ?????
18. ?????
19. ?????
20. John Adams
21. ?????
22. ?????
23. ?????
24. Benjamin Harrison
25. ?????
26. ?????
27. ?????
28. Jimmy Carter
29. ?????
30. ?????
31. ?????
32. ?????
33. ?????
34. ?????
35. ?????
38 (tie). Millard Fillmore
38 (tie). Franklin Pierce
38 (tie). James Buchanan
39. George W. Bush
40. Richard Nixon
Inc. James Garfield (Inc)
Inc. William H. Harrison (Inc)
N/A Barack Obama

Not Everything is as it appears in Honduras

Check out the latest update from The Field on the mess in Honduras. It appears the recent election there isn't exactly reaffirming the positive power of elections. I can't say I agreed with the acceptance of the election by the U.S. State Department before, and this certainly doesn't help.

On Afghanistan

Honestly, I'm not sure where I stand on Obama's escalation plan in Afghanistan. I am very conflicted about supporting Obama on this. It isn't a surprise to me that this is Obama's plan, just a minor disappointment. Still, the worst part of this is that I'm not sure he had any choice that was better.

Simply put, the options in Afghanistan are a shit-sandwich buffet. Your only solution is to pick the most edible one, and hope it stays down. Is an immediate withdrawl the best? I'm not sure, although I am skeptical of it. I suppose I was hoping for some totally creative and awesome way out of this, but that is the worst kind of wishful thinking.

The fact is, the mess left by the previous administration is huge, and only Democrats seem willing to fix it these days. One of those messes, and arguably the biggest foreign policy mess, is Afghanistan. Had we focused our efforts on stablizing Afghanistan during the better portion of this decade instead of starting a stupid conflict two countries over, Obama most likely would not have had to deliver his speech last night. I recognize the mess we are in, and also understand the appeal and potential benefit of a stable Afghanistan.

However, when I look at Afghanistan, it is very hard to be optimistic about our chances. The forces of history are against us in this land that has stymied many empires. Granted, maybe our focused effort will be different, but I'm not so sure. The terrain, the complexities, and the downright bad feelings just seem to be far too much for me to have much hope for the success of our mission.

Despite the President's arguments to the contrary, I can't help but see the similarities between Afghanistan 2009 and Vietnam 1965. What happens if General McChrystal comes back to President Obama next year with a message that success only needs 30,000 more troops? At what point do we say enough? How can we continue to ask so much of our soldiers without a real sense of results?

What happens if we do our jobs well, but Karzai and his cronies fail miserably? Are we going to pull shit like the CIA did with the coups in South Vietnam? At best, this situation will probably end up like the DMZ in Korea. At worst will have a repeat of Saigon 1975. I hope I am wrong, but I just can't feel optimistic about that.

On top of my misgivings in regards to foreign policy, I also worry about about how this will affect the administrations domestic agenda. We have significant systemic problems that need to be taken care of here at home, and every dollar spent if Afghanistan is one less dollar we can spend on those problems. The Health Care bill is taking an incredibly long time to get through Congress, and what might eventually get passed won't exactly be our nation's greatest triumph. How can we rein in reckless financial behavior, establish a sensible and fair immigration policy, or develop real environmental pro when we are stuck in a money pit halfway around the world?

With all of these considerations in mind, I am willing to cut President Obama some slack. I really think he and his administration is trying to make the best decision possible in a bad situation, and is trying to right the wrongs of the past decade. They deserve time to try this new strategy. I can't deny the people in this administration have more information than I do, and I hope this privileged information is being used properly. If not, there will be hell to pay.

Regardless of how you feel about the decision, you must recognize the brazeness of this decision. It puts the war squarely on Obama's shoulders, and quite possibly could be the defining decision of his Presidency. I hope it will go down as the right decision. For now, I'll give the President my support, while making sure to keep a close eye on the situation. As always, it is our right to change our mind with new information or new circumstances. A stable Afghanistan is good for the world. Hopefully this will be a time for a new path in history.

The Presidents: #20

#20: John Adams
Term: March 4, 1797 - March 4, 1801
Grade: C

Grading the first four Presidents is a complicated task, considering who the Presidents are. Each one played a vital role in the founding of our country before they became President. It is hard to detach their roles during the Revolution and/or the Constitutional Convention from their administrations, all of which fail to live up to those other accomplishments.

Tonight I take on our 2nd President, arguably the most complicated President of the first four. Maybe I am far too influenced by reading John Adams fairly recently, and maybe I like Paul Giamatti too much as well. Still, I don't believe John Adams' administration is defined entirely by the reprehensible Alien and Sedition Acts.

True, he signed these bills into law, and deserves scorn for doing so. These laws are an embarrassment to our nation's history, and it is why he isn't ranked any higher. He doesn't deserve the entire blame for these acts, as they were passed by a very Anglo friendly Federalist Congress. Still, he was the President, and ultimate responsibility rests with him.

However, John Adams deserves credit for keeping us out of a very nasty war with Great Britain or (more likely) Napoleonic France. Getting involved in European politics at that time would have made us as independent as the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Naples, and would have ruined our great experiment in Independence. He also gets credit for keeping Alexander Hamilton and the high Federalists from taking over and establishing a bad precedent, quite possibly even extending to a military dictatorship.

By standing for the right path, he was despised by Jefferson and his Democrats, and by Hamilton and his Federalists. He wasn't very popular as he lost the election to Thomas Jefferson, and left Washington early and without pomp. Still, he left willfully and showed that we could peacefully transfer power to an opposing party. He wasn't exceptionally good, but he wasn't exceptionally bad. He was in the middle, and that is where John Adams belongs.

The Presidents: #24

#24: Benjamin Harrison
Term: March 4, 1889 to March 4, 1893
Grade: C

Benjamin Harrison sits in the middle of a group of Presidents who were neither extraordinarily good or bad. Starting with Chester A. Arthur, and ending with William McKinley, I must admit to knowing only very little about them. When I think about Benjamin Harrison (which is rarely ever), I usually think about The Simpsons song about mediocre presidents. It should be noted that Benjamin Harrison is so unremarkable as to not get mentioned in that song.

Still, unlike some of the lesser known Presidents*, at least Harrison doesn't seem to have done much harm, and actually was party to a few good things. He signed the law that made Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks (although did little to preserve them), and also signed the Sherman Antitrust law (while not really pursuing cases). He fought (and lost) for civil rights in a time when it was not very popular. He believed in reform of the civil service, although didn't seem too prepared to defend it. If signing bills and not executing them effectively were a criteria, he probably would be much higher on this list.

Ultimately, he was taken down by the expensive nature of high tariffs and by the Homestead strike debacle. He lost to Grover Cleveland, the man he beat in the Electoral College in 1888. Thus, he became the only President to lose to the previous incumbent. I suppose being the clunky part of a unique Presidential story is a fitting legacy for him.

*See 1850-1861 for more information

The Presidents: #5

#5 John F. Kennedy
Term: January 20, 1961 to November 22, 1963
Grade: B+

John F. Kennedy is one probably the hardest President to place in a ranked list. This isn't due to a lack of talent, or a lack of achievements relative to his length of term. It isn't because of an inconsistent record, or an immensely complex personality. The wildcard nature of his ranking is due to one question. What If?

What if Lee Harvey Oswald doesn't make it to that window at the book depository? What if he takes a completely different path on Vietnam What if civil rights legislation dies on the vine?

Had he lived to see January 20, 1969, it is very possible he would deserve to be much lower on this list. The scandals and failures of second terms have tarnished the legacy of many Presidents. It is possible he would have decided upon a similar path in Vietnam. You can almost hear the chants of "Hey, Hey JFK, how many kids did you kill today?"

However, he might also have charted a new course for US foreign policy. The disaster that was Vietnam might have been averted, and the real problems on the domestic front might have been tackled better than they were. Best of all, it might have prevented a Nixon presidency.

Obviously this kind of hypothetical history is not very productive. Kennedy did die, and his death makes it harder to realistically assess his presidency. If I were to rebuild this list from scratch five times over, I would not be surprised if Kennedy ended up anywhere between 20 and 5 on it, depending on my mood.

In that case, why is he at the top of his potential range on the list? I suppose I am in an idealistic mood. His presidency in a way stands for the American experiment, in that its work is never finished. His words and his spirit are the guiding light of our perpetual effort to perfect our union, even if his accomplishments (save for one) don't exactly measure up to that ideal.

But putting aside abstract ideas of progress and inspiration, he deserves credit for the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Had a president such as George W. Bush been in office during a time of such peril, I doubt I would be here writing this blog. It was a particularly precarious tightrope walk, even for a job that is nothing but tightrope walking. During those tense 13 days, he showed what it means to be a President, and why in a democracy the military must answer to the President, and not the other way around.

Up Next: Back to the bottom of the class with our last F-club member
Then: What do William Daniels, Paul Giamatti, and Billy Crystal have in common?

Note: Starting with this post, I will be filling out the list of Presidents in a non-linear fashion. I am doing this partially to shake things up, and partially because slogging through the Gilded Age Presidencies at once probably means I would not get this done. The one exception to this are the top 4, which will be released in order. I hope to be getting roughly 3 of these up a week, until February 12, 2010, when #1 will be unveiled. I bet you can't guess who that might be.

Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday will be the days to look for new posts, with the exception of Feb 7 - 12, which will be nightly. Expect no posts on Thanksgiving or Christmas Eve, but expect a bonus post on January 20, which will be a one year review of the Obama Presidency.

The Presidents: #38a, b, and c

#38a: Millard Fillmore
Term: July 9, 1850 - March 4, 1853
Grade: F


#38b: Franklin Pierce
Term: March 4, 1853 - March 4, 1857
Grade: F


#38c: James Buchanan
Term: March 4, 1857 - March 4, 1861
Grade: F

These Presidents deserve are all so very equally bad, they deserve to be recorded as a trio. They presided over one of our nations worst decades, a decade in which the unanswered question of slavery festered and grew until it split the country and plunged us into war. None of them seemed able to comprehend the major changes which were taking place as the country moved forward in its move westward and its industrialization. Although it is unlikely that anything could have been done to avoid the horrible war of the next decade, their actions certainly made it more inevitable. Whether openly antagonizing the north, such as Pierce, or trying to come to a compromise every party hated, such as Buchanan, these Presidents just did not succeed.

Fillmore helped divide the Whig party and divide the Wilmot Proviso, while doing nothing to answer the tough questions put forth on the issue of slavery. After the defeat of Winfield Scott by Pierce in 1852, the Whig party ceased to be an effective political party, paving the way for the rise of the Republican Party.

Pierce's term wasn't any better, as Bleeding Kansas erupted during this time. A southern sympathizer, he didn't do anything to stop the spread of slavery, favoring the repeal of the Missouri Compromise for the idea of "popular soveriegnity", which further angered northern citizens without pacifying the southerners. Like Fillmore, he was so unpopular the Democrats didn't bother nominating him for 1856, instead choosing James Buchanan.

During Buchanan's administration the bottom fell out. The Dred Scott decision and John Brown's raid further divided the country, while Buchanan did nothing to solve the issue. His bungling almost started a small war against the Utah mormons, although he didn't make the situation of the Pig War any worse. Like his two predecessors he was not chosen to run in 1860, as the Democratic party split in two between northern candidate Stephen A. Douglas and southern candidate John C. Breckenridge. His biggest failure was to do nothing as South Carolina and six other southern states left during the lame duck period before Abraham Lincoln took office. Believing secession illegal, but doing anything about it to also be illegal, he acheived the goal of pleasing nobody while trying to please everybody.

While not rising to the levels of absolute sinister incompetence of George W. Bush, or the disgusting malfeasance of Richard Nixon, these Presidents deserve a grade as bad as our bottom dwellers. They did nothing to slow down, and in many cases acclerated our nations greatest crisis. For this they deserve to be in the "F" club.

THe Myth of Instant Change in America

One of the biggest myths in the unwritten bible of American liberalism is that FDR was elected by a whirlwind in 1933, and everything was fixed immediately. Many people assume that the Democratically controlled Congress was nothing but a rubber stamp that gleefully pumped out the laws creating Social Security, the FDIC, and several other pieces of progressive legislation that reverberate to this day. It is a good story. But, like all myths, it is a collection of inaccuracies and fallacies wrapped around a kernel of truth.

The fact is, as much as FDR accomplished in those legendary first 100 days, not all of it was successful. Much of what was passed was later thrown out by the admittedly out of touch Supreme Court , and that which was never challenged in the courts didn't do as much as hoped, or needed additional legislation later to improve it. The original flavor of Social Security would be considered a betrayal of the nation by the liberal blogosphere today. Many times FDR had to turn to progressive Republicans to get his legislation passed, as many southern Democrats joined with conservative Republicans to oppose FDR. The Depression continued for the most part until the start of World War Two, although the various New Deal pieces of legislation certainly helped keep the nation afloat during that turbulent decade. Nevermind that there were few victories for minorities during this time, a result of the need by FDR to cater to the racist southern Congressmen who held a disproportionate control over Congress during the Jim Crow era (and later the war racism of the west coasters).

An era that was somewhat more accurately an explosion of liberalism was the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson. Even this was nothing more than a major extrapolation of the New Deal, and its civil rights components nothing more than a culmination of a bitter struggle since the end of Reconstruction and the disgrace of Jim Crow. Even here it took the myth of a fallen President, a President who was the most talented vote wringer in our history, and a few willing Republicans to get those laws done. And considering all of those facts, it still wasn't a complete victory, as the divisions over Vietnam, the many well-intentioned failures of the Great Society, and the backlash that created the abomination that is the modern GOP have shown.

Today, the idea that something as sweeping as the New Deal or the Great Society could be attempted is not very convincing. The battle over civil rights in the 1960s resulted in a shift of the Republican base from the Northeast and Midwest to the South, as Rockefeller Republicans went blue while Dixiecrats turned red. The "Reagan Revolution" (the conservative version of the New Deal myth) has created a class of politicians on the right that are unwilling and even hostile to working with Democrats. Where FDR could look to Norris, Borah, and others to support his domestic agenda, Obama and the Congressional leaders face a party who has decided its goal is to be a party of obstruction. Without a few people willing to cross the aisle, the significant, if fairly small, group of conservative Democrats* can pout and hold their breath until bills are watered down so they can still vote against them.

Thiry years of the Reagan myth, and its hold over the so-called "Liberal Media" (another myth of our time), have made it hard for progressives to control the debate. When supposed liberal outposts like the New York Times or CNN parrot GOP talking points, it is hard to counter them, especially when many DLC types believe that Democrats should abandon progressivism and become a Republican Lite party. The political establishment and even the political language of our nation have been so controlled by the right wing since 1980 that it is hard to go against it. Think about this the next time you hear someone use liberal as a slur, or calls a center-left pragmatist with a strong desire for consensus a "socialist liberal America-hating nazi".

Thus, it is hard to ignore the scope of the victory achieved last night. Although there are still considerable steps required to get this bill to Obama's desk, its passage through the House is an achievement by itself. I believe most people in this country would support progressivism, if they could just understand the truth of its message, instead of being instantly biased by the message of the media and the Republican party. To do this requires hard work, and a belief that sometimes the perfect must not be the enemy of the good. The first step in this process is to get off of the couch and actually start making Congress and the President do the job we elected them to do. As FDR said to progressives who wanted him to do more:

"I Agree. Now make me do it."

*Real moderates would have supported this health care bill

The Sausage Works: Health Care Bill passes house (UPDATED)

The "People's House" has passed its version of the Health Care Bill 220-115, with 39 so called Democrats voting against it and one Republican (Cao from LA) voting for it. I really don't understand why those 39 Democrats are still Democrats. This bill appears to have much to appease all but the most leftist liberal, as well as some stuff that should have appealed to moderates and even conservatives. Is it perfect? No. Is it in line with the basic tenets of the Democratic party, at least the tenets since 1933? Of course. I am confident those people who voted against this bill will go down in history much like those people who opposed Social Security, Medicare, or any of the other "socialist hells" that on the balance have made this country better.

Of course now it has to get through the "Greatest Deliberative Body in the World". Expect such noble tools of the insurance industry senators such as Landrieu, Lincoln, Pryor, Bayh, and Lieberman to stand up for their masters principles. Who knows, maybe Harry Reid won't shrink from the situation.

(we're doomed)

UPDATE: Sorry, I forgot that a few of those no votes might have been Democrats who felt the bill didn't go far enough. If you voted no for that reason, you are off the hook for cowardice (but not for being unrealistic).

Also, that vote in NY23 wasn't anywhere near as important as New Jersey and Virginia governorships, right? I'm sure those votes in the House of Governors will screw Obama over no...oh wait, nevermind. If the Republicans get behind the Republican, this bill probably fails.

Sigh: Do we have to explain it again?

Apparently some "patriots" just don't get Godwin's Law. Some people just need to STFU and CTFO.

By the way we're still waiting for you to join us at the grown ups table. The moment you start being realistic and pragmatic, you can certainly share in repairing our government and bettering our nation.

That is all.

In Regards to the NY 23

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

I bet that "tip of the spear" is looking awfully sharp right now, eh Mr. Armey?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Of course, it does suck that a crappy governor tied to a crappy financial mess of a company was beaten by a crappy candidate that apparently is doom for Obama even if the exit polls don't say so. Also, it sucks that a weak-ass Democrat ran away from his base and the young folks that helped Obama turn VA blue last year lost to a candidate who played to the middle. And don't get me started on the equal rights of some of our nations citizens being denied once again thanks to stupid ass ballot initiatives. There are many things referendums are good for, but equal rights are not one of them.

It appears that the tally will be a +2 Governors seat gain for the GOP, and a +1 shift for the Democrats in the House. Of course the media will spin this as an absolutely terrible sign for the Obama administration and the Democrats on Capitol Hill. It will be, if they decide more mealy-mouthed crap and Republican Lite posturing is the strategy to use in 2010.

The "real" grading period for Obama has just begun, as the 2010 midterms begin to get ready for the main stage. Game On!

Completely Clueless Classifications: An Explanation

After Posting my first classification, I decided I should probably offer an explanation of some of the structure behind the classifications. In addition to the usual Left -> Right progressions, my classifications tend to have other spectrums in mind. For instance, I also have a Realistic -> Rigid, Reasoned -> Passionate, Cynical -> Idealistic, and Passive -> Aggressive progressions.

The groups that I intend to classify, assuming I bother keeping up with this feature:

Left -> Right

Fundamentalist Liberals
Never Will Be Liberals
Perfectionist Liberals
Fuck This Liberals
Grassroots Liberals
Clueless Wealthy Liberals
West Wing Liberals
Corporate Liberals

Thoughtful Moderates
Spineless Moderates
Average Moderates

Cynical Toads

Realistic Conservatives
Principled Conservatives
Corporate Conservatives
Never Was Conservatives (or Randist Conservatives)
Authoritarian Conservatives
Fundamentalist Conservatives

At some point, I will develop a list of the other progressions, although I hope you can gather some semblance of their makeup from the names.

Completely Clueless Classifications: West Wing Liberals

In this questionably regular feature, I will express my thoughts on political classifications that I have made up. Although these classifications may resemble reasonable thoughts at times, I assure you that this result is purely coincidental.

Classification #1: West Wing Liberals

My Entry on this topic is one that is near and dear to my heart. You see, The West Wing is my favorite TV show of all time. Also, this classification is probably the one that best represents myself.

How you can spot them:
They tend to have Obama, decaying Dean, or possibly even "Bartlet for President" bumper stickers on their car.
They'll pine about the lack of impressive speeches from candidates, and lament the lack of "real" filibusters. In addition, they also are saddened whenever conventions don't become multi ballot slugfests.
They believe all it takes to win over the public is a wacky trip through central Indiana, resulting in hilarity and revelations of what the common man wants.
They are often comparing the President to Jed Bartlet, and wish Toby, Sam and C.J. were handling communications.
They are exceptionally upbeat about the country and its future, even when their more Ziegleresque friends start getting pessimistic.
They openly wish for a Republican party with people like Arnie Vinick, so long lost (and somewhat fictional) days of grand debate can reign once again.
Some can be spotted sitting and pondering whether the current Administration will be as good as The West Wing, or more of a Studio 60 type flameout.
Above all, they believe in the spirit of an ever improving nation, and the idea that government is a place where we can come together to solve problems. And that every year of the presidency should not end in a admission of a secret illness, an assassination attempt, or a kidnapping of the President's daughter.

Political Styles
Rely upon and love for teachable moments, eloquent oratory, and fresh honesty.
Tend to get disappointed when a candidate doesn't live up to point #1.
Believe that those who oppose you in politics may very well have legitimate ideas as well, and that they should be able to express those differences.
Love the tradition of process and ritual, particularly rituals grounded in the American Experience.
Admire those who take principled stands, even if you disagree with them. This doesn't apply when those principles are grounded in hatred or ignorance.
Can get professorial and possibly a bit too intellectual, which can open yourself up to attack from those who have more agressive political styles.
Avoid situations of smartassery and glibness, although you sometimes can resort to this when an opponent is needling you.

Strengths
Has the strongest ability to transcend traditional political boundaries, and build new coalitions.
Can develop consensus on major initiatives, making it easier to get the rest of the country on board with these efforts.
Can inspire optimism, innovation, and determination, resulting in better results regardless of the political makeup of the country.
Members of this classification tend to flock to others of this type, resulting in a solid and reliable political base.
Introspective and intelligent, these types tend to be willing to be held accountable for their actions and be willing to share in success.
Pragmatic to a fault, they can tend to find a solution to a mess, even if it isn't the favorite solution of everybody.

Weaknesses
May get caught up in civility when resistance and shows of power are necessary.
For the left, are some of the easiest to get caught up in American exceptionalism, resulting in the support of misplaced foreign policy.
Although they are well adept at building the middle, can inspire significant resistance on the edges of the political spectrum.
Are consistently in danger of supporting weak policies in the name of pragmatism, when stronger efforts could make better policy (while potentially alienating some people).

Usual Political Affiliations (US Only)

Usually trend Democratic, although would probably be willing to join a more thoroughly progressive or centrist third party, depending upon the circumstances.

Current Political Figure who Closely Resembles:
President Barack Obama

Historical Ideal:
Abraham Lincoln (Liberal Flavor), John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy

Less than Ideal:
Jimmy Carter, John Q. Adams

If the Winds of Change Shift...
As member of this group age (many are in their 20s and 30s), and they take the reins of power, they may shift to a more cynical progressive position such as Neoliberalism, or even a form of Neoconservatism. This is especially true if they back misplaced foreign policy, such as Hubert Humphrey and Vietnam.

Still others will move to left of the irritability scale, and get louder, more specialized, and more pessimistic. This will ultimately lead to be Perfectionist Liberals, Chicken Littles, or Fuck This Liberals.

A few will untether from the bounds of reality, and become Never Will Be Liberals, chasing Quixotic quests for causes that have little chance of success. Although noble to an extent, they will marginalize their ability to achieve any real change, other than maybe inspiring more realistic and pragmatic leaders.

However, many of this group will maintain at least a semblance of this classification throughout their life. This group tends to be a fairly intellectually honest group, and should be paid attention to if they start to change their mind on issues. A change in opinion is often a sign of ingesting new information, not a sign of being bought or a cynical maneuver.

Works Best With:
Clueless Wealthy Liberals (For connections and financial support), Grassroots Progressives, Thoughtful Moderates, and Realistic Conservatives

Doesn't Work Well With:
Authoritarian Conservatives, Fundamentalists (On both Sides), Perfectionist and Fuck This Liberals, and Cynical Toads.

More on Health Care Later

I'll have more on Obama's big speech later, once I get it written.

For now, here is the page to contribute to Rob Miller, the opponent to Representative Joe Wilson. Joe Wilson was the person who found it necessary to call President Obama a liar during the speech, despite evidence to the contrary. If you feel that its time to send Representative Wilson a message, this is as good of a place as any. Especially since his website seems to be down.

America's Health Care Götterdämmerung: Robert Reich Explains the Public Option

An excellent explanation from Mr. Reich about the oh-so-horrible public option that a majority of Americans support, despite what Max Baucus and Kent Conrad think.

Personal Responsibility = Socialism These Days

Prepared Remarks of the President

Oh man, that was truly a piece of islamofasciocommunhomomooslemish propaganda. How dare he expound on such pinko values like working hard and taking responsibility for your education. Doesn't he know that the only real american virtues are hating learning, drinking beer, and yelling loud about those fake Amurcans.

Yeesh.

The F*** You Files: The Latest BS from the Right

(Enormous Sigh)

Once again, the reactionary ignorant folks on the right have gotten their underpants in a wad about the President giving a televised speech to American students. Apparently he is going to give a horribly slanted speech about those damned Socialist ideas of "working hard" and "staying in school". Like that horrible Marxist President George H.W. Bush before him, he plans on triggering the ACLA/GLBT/ACORN/Al Qaeda/Communofacist hypnotic suggestion chip hidden deep in all of our children's brains.

To this I have to say:

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MINDS?

Do you honestly believe that Obama is going to get up there and suddenly start spouting passages from Das Kapital, or reading lines from the speeches of Stalin and Lenin? Do you think he will outlay his secret plan for using FEMA re-education camps to turn all of their parents into atheist vegetarian homosexual abortionists? Do you seriously believe he is going to get up there and say anything other than stuff I thought we all agreed on, like encouraging kids to do well in school and try hard?

Obviously our Educational system is in bad shape, because it spawned the likes of you. There is nothing wrong with the President making a speech that is addressed to the children of our nation. He is their president too, after all. Like the best time to reach adults is during primetime, it seems obvious the best time to reach students would be...wait for it....DURING SCHOOL. You know, when your kids are supposed to be there learning.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that Obama won, and won convincingly last November. Why is it also so damn hard for you people to understand that Obama is not some Manchurian Candidate, some secret Pinko plant meant to score a victory for the Soviet Union decades after it fell apart? Do you think we would have been up in arms about George W. giving a speech to children, despite the fact that us on the left were not fans of his? Of course not. Only the most clueless on the left would have babbled on about Bush trying to indoctrinate kids into a fundamentalist christian authoritarian police state. If I had kids, I would have no quibble with them listening to our President, whether I agreed or disagreed with him.

We are not your enemy, we wish no ill-will. Believe it or not, the vast majority of us on the left are not Communists either. Most of us find value in true conservative ideals of honoring tradition and pinching pennys. Although some of us can be as rigid and dogmatic as the most unswervable Dittohead, most of us see a value in other perspectives, in a belief that our way isn't the only way. Once you accept this fact, we will be glad to welcome you to the grownups table.

Now if you excuse me, I have a message to send to my progressive brethren.

---CODE ALPHA OBAMA BRAVO----THE PIG FLYS AT MIDNIGHT---THE BEAR RISES AT SUNRISE---OPERATION DUMBO DROP IS ON AT NOON 9/8/9---NAPOLEON WILL WIN HIS FARM---THAT IS ALL---

An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President,

I hope things are going well for you in your new job. From what I have seen, you have done many good things and begun erasing the stain of the previous administration. I congratulate you on the successful appointment of Justice Sotomayor, and hope that you can get some measure of relaxation on your upcoming vacation.

Starting with your famous speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I have been a eager supporter of you. Your election as my senator in 2004 was a bright spot in an otherwise dark election day. I was ecstatic when you announced your candidacy for President on that frigid February day in Springfield. The moment when the networks declared you the winner of the election last November still remains one of my favorite memories ever.

For the most part I have been pleased by the things you and the members of your administration has accomplished. I hope you are still as committed to closing the national disgrace of Guantanamo as your Executive Order said you were. I wish you were more emphatic of your support of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and weren't so wishy-washy on the Honduras situation. However, for the most part these are just minor issues.

I wish you the best of luck as the fight for health care heats up as it heads towards floor votes in Congress. After all, this was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, part of your domestic plan during the campaign. Failure to create "Change We Can Believe In" will not only harm your political agenda, it will hurt many Americans who are already hurting far too much. I am sure you understand how important this issue is.

I assure you that real and lasting health care reform is very important to us Americans who elected you. It is why we assented to you welcoming Joe Lieberman back into the fold without any real consequences. After all, you have preached empathy and forgiveness, and the potential political capital doesn't hurt either. No action for the rights of our GLBT citizens? It will come, we rationalized, we need to focus on health care. Other important issues to the progressives who helped get you elected need to be delayed? No problem, we're going for health care first.

What has all that capital bought so far? Not all that much, as far as I can tell. All I read about are secret deals with the Pharmaceutical giants, pressure for any bill to be "bi-partisan", and secret negotiations by self-appointed "centrists" who seem adamant on making a bill that no one will like, especially the Republicans who are supposedly involved.

I understand the complexity of our government. I'm well aware that most of the country, yourself included, are more to the right of my ideas. Compromise, behind-the-scenes negotiation, and parliamentary machinations are a necessary and vital part of a representative democracy. As much as a large portion of us on the left would like to deny it, we have to be willing to work with the Blue Dogs. I believe in the ideas of congenial cooperation and consensus building.

What I don't agree with is completely selling out core principles of the plan. At many of your town halls, you have done an excellent job of debunking the ridiculous crap coming out the mouths of the Limbaugh/Beck/BillO/GOP brigade. You've also seemed very committed to a strong public option, a real choice that can compete with the bloated insurance companies. I would like to think those who are skeptical of reform would change their mind if they heard your words.

However, it appears that this supposed critical plank is being eroded. Senators such as Jeff Bingaman and Kent Conrad don't seem confident that the public option can get passed, despite a large percentage of Americans supporting this option. Instead, the talk seems to be shifting towards some weak-ass coop idea, an idea that seems like a chickenshit cop-out.

I am sorry for the passionate language in the previous paragraph. This issue means a great deal to me, and I can tend to get carried away. I just don't understand why you would be so bold as to state your strong preference for a public option to us, but clearly don't care about it when talking to your buddies in the Senate.

I just don't see the strategy in place here, unless it is a strategy meant to betray the American people. I mean, Senator Baucus seems intent on sacrificing CHIP, a program he seems to be very proud of if you view his website. What the hell kind of compromise is it if he is willing to remove care for children just to appease some Republican who would never vote for the bill? How exactly is this change we can believe in?

Your administration seems far too reactive in getting its message out. How is it that a party that controls the White House and both houses of Congress doesn't seem able to get on one page, or even come close to controlling the message on the issue? Why do you not feel it necessary to get out and take this message to the people in a big way. The town hall meetings are a good start, but it still doesn't seem like you are engaged as much as you should be.

I understand why you don't want to engage the lunatics that seem to be intent on disrupting the genuine discussion of ideas. Hopefully their misplaced anger will dissipate as August moves on towards September. Still it is unfortunate that it appears your chief of staff is more concerned with yelling at progressives than getting Blue Dogs in line or dealing with Republican falsities.

I don't offer my concerns out of dislike, or even disappointment. I only offer them out of genuine curiosity at what is going on. Its very possible that you have an excellent strategy in place, and we will really see it in action once Congress gets back from its recess. It wouldn't be the first time that you and your advisers instincts have been better than mine.

I still trust that my vote wasn't in vain, and that we will see some genuine progress and improvement in this country. We need real solutions, and elected you and your colleagues up the street to provide those answers. Universal Health Care has been an issue in this country since the early 20th century. It is time we finally join the 21st century in regards to health care.

Sincerely,

Andrew C. Tate

P.S. I apologize, but I am withholding any donations to you, congressional democrats, or the DNC until a real health care bill is passed. I hope you understand that I require an appropriate level of return before I invest any of my resources. Unless my donation allows me to discuss this situation one on one with you, Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Baucus, or any of your other colleagues, I figure my donation won't be much use.

Absolutely Moronic

Absolutely Fu**ing pathetic

Keep in mind that this nut would have been our Vice President had Senator McCain won last November. Yes, this crazy person would have been one heartbeat away from the White House. Granted, one big reason why McCain didn't win was because he nominated the Wacko from Wasilla as his #2. However, I shudder to think what might have happened had she been able to move into the Naval Observatory.

Last time I checked creating "death squads" to decided whether the mentally handicapped or the elderly lived or not wasn't part of the democratic plan. I've never seen any body suggest such a reprehensible plan. None of those "Socialist hell-holes" in Europe have these death squads, and their systems are far more comprehensive than any of the weak-ass solutions Harry Reid will squeeze out of the Senate. Considering the shit his mother went through with the private insurance companies as she fought cancer, tying the President to this nonsense is beyond insulting.

Why is it that far too often, I have to wonder whether some powerful member of the GOP is insane, criminally stupid, or criminally cynical. If she is as insane or stupid as this comment applies, the Republican party, and this nation is in trouble. But the far more dangerous alternative is that she is this cynical. Fortunately given her track record, I don't think she is smart enough to be that cynical of an operator.

Sensible Republicans, please take your party back. Conservative principles of frugality, responsibility, and tradition are real values, and have ideological merit. But ignorant authoritarianism, wrapping itself in the flag and carrying the bible, is not a valid strategy if you believe in democracy. I beseech you to ACT NOW, before the party of Lincoln and the Party of TR is completing covered in the shit started by Ronald Reagan and propagated by Ms. Palin.

This is not the Voice of the American Public

Whether you watch the news on TV, listen to it on the radio, or read it online, you are very likely not getting the whole story. Case in point are the "spontaneous protests" at health care town hall events, such as an event held by HHS Secretary Sebelius and Senator Specter in Pennyslvania. Another disruption also took place at a congressman's district in Texas. The goal is to create a sense that the Democrats are acting against the "will of the people".

If you had read the New York Times, it would appear that the Democrats have a problem. Without doing any sort of research, the reporter decided that these angry folks were the unassailable vox populi of the American people. And if they had just shown up and were indiciative of a popular movement in these locales, it would be news, and would be something for Democrats to consider.

However, this is clearly not the case. These aren't groups of citizens trying to make their voice heard in a legitimate matter. These are nothing more than mobs meant to disrupt the meetings and stifle any meaningful discussions of the issues. They have no desire to hear the other side, to them the other side isn't worth debating. They are just there to make sure the Democrats can't get anything done.

To them, debate and compromise are weaknesses, not the foundation of a functioning government. Hell, to most of these people (The supposed patriots known as "Tea-Baggers"), a functioning government is not a desirable goal. They believe any government is unproductive, and as little as possible needs to be put into place. Its a breed of fanaticism that has nothing to do with religion, but has everything to do with the mythical infallibilty of the high holy market. Anything they don't like is tarred and feathered with the word "socialism", and anyone they disagree with is called less than patriotic.

The strategies employed by these mobs are not indicative of what democracy should be. Democracy is built upon the free exchange of ideas, on the grand process of taking many different perspectives and ideas and turning them into functioning policy and law. These town halls are meant to be open forums, where people can get answers from those who represent them in our government. It quite obvious that the tactics of these groups show their desire to be destructive instead of constructive. If they decide to stop attacking and start delivering real alternatives, we'll be waiting for them.

Simply Shameful

Fact: Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii.

Get used to it birthers.

Because you don't like that colored fella with that Islamocommunofascioexistentialpost-modernistic name being elected President, you will believe any crap you are fed, especially if it feeds into your own preconceptions about the man. I'm sure the color of his skin, or his name, or his unique history plays no role in your decision. After all, you are just looking out for the Constitution. I'm sure you were also looking out for the Constitution when President Dubya and his buddy Cheney were shredding it. I'm also sure you applied the same "thorough" research into John McCain's birth.

Shame on you for propagating this crap. It is one thing to criticize a President due to ideological differences. Don't believe the government should fund or play a role in health care? Fine. Believe the deficit should be our highest financial priority? Sure thing. Believe that we should sell Yellowstone, Yosemite, and the Gettysburg battlefield to amusement parks? As bad as this idea is, you're entitled to it.

But ignore every piece of legitimate evidence, such as the birth notices in the Honolulu papers, the testimony of Hawaiian Officials, or the the fact that he has produced the same fucking form that EVERY PERSON IN THE STATE OF HAWAII GETS WHEN THEY REQUEST THEIR BIRTH CERTIFICATE ARGGGHGHHHHH5t43530-59375%#%(#%_#%0-%^560qa...

(calm.......)

(calm.......)

Sorry about that.

Of course, this is what conspiracy theorys are built upon. Come up with solid evidence that disputes their "theory"? Nuh-uh, it ain't real. The Honolulu Newspapers, Obama's relatives, the state of Hawaii, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, every fucking other media outlet this side of the National Review, the Bilderbergers, and Guild of Calamitous Intent are clearly behind this. Show us some form that nobody ever gets to see, and we'll be satisfied. Except of course, that form you just showed us clearly is a forgery of the fuschia triplicated super XL long form for the birth of unicorn babies.

That is what you expect from conspiracists. From JFK and Lincoln, to the Moon Landing deniers and the Truthers, those who hold conspiracy theories as gospel are a dime a dozen. In and of themselves they aren't dangerous.

The real problem is this isn't just that crazy guy on the corner. According to this poll, 23% of the country either believes Obama isn't a natural born US citizen, or aren't sure what to think. Unsurprisingly, the majority of those "patriotic Real Amurcans" are found in the GOP. Sadly, more of those who identify with the once great political party are likely to have doubts about his citizenship than not. Why is that?

Its not blatant racism. I don't believe 58% of the GOP are out their in Klan outfits trying to put the "negrahs in thur place". I don't think the vast majority are truly racist, in that they believe that people of a certain race are inferior or superior to another. The racial dialouge of this country is so screwed up that it just can't be that simple, except for the most hateful slugs and gentle innocents at the ends of the spectrum.

No, I think it rests on pure opportunism by the forces that have constantly milked the undereducated rank and file of the Republican party. The blame for this disgusting trend falls on the shoulders of men like Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, and Glenn "I think the President is a Racist" Beck. I'm not sure these men believe their talking points (I'm not even sure Beck is legally sane), as I truly believe if Obama came out for all of their "positions" tomorrow they would suddenly become strong believers in global warming, single payer health-care, and diplomacy instead of cowboy posturing. However, they certainly do know how to fan the flames, while whistling all the way to the bank.

I understand the appeal of people like Limbaugh, Dobbs, and Beck. We live in a complicated world, one where you are lucky if you do your job competently, keep your marriage running, and raise your children to be good adults. Democracy was complicated in 1789, and it has only gotten more complicated over the last 220 years. Most political experts really don't know what the hell they're doing, so why would you expect to understand it? These men offer you simple dichotomys, good guys and bad guys, and easy to understand talking points that stir your emotions, while absolving yourself of any guilt or responsibility for the greater good.

Hell, I can't really say the left isn't without its own versions of these guys. It isn't like Keith Olbermann is known for inviting those on the other side of an issue, even when that issue has a true opposite argument, to appear on his show. As much as I enjoy his comments, he is certainly preaching to his own choir.

But nothing on the left exists that compares to the disgraceful "birther" movement. I don't recall large groups of Democrats questioning Senator John McCain's citizenship due to his being born in Panama. I certainly don't remember Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, or Paul Krugman constantly demand to see the Senator's long-form birth certificate. And I certainly didn't see Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders get mealy-mouthed and non-committal about their own beliefs on McCain's citizenship.

Which brings me to those Republican members of Congress, the supposed august legislative body of this country, who have never answered straight the question of their belief of Obama's citizenship. Like the bloviators, I highly doubt any of these legislators believe Obama was born anywhere other than the State of Hawaii. Their lack of a spine and unwillingness to commit to a position is very evocative of their Bogeyman from Hope. They don't want to anger his high holy lord Limbaugh and his dittoheads by speaking their mind. Or (I hope this certainly isn't the case), they are too cowardly to admit they are on board with the Birthers, lest they be scorned by the establishment (read: lobbyists, influencers, and fundraisers) who would be scared away from whacked-out nutjobs.

I honestly think this is a serious issue for the Republicans. Some of their more respected and senior members should call a press conference and state emphatically that President Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President, even if we have severe ideological differences with his administration. It would marginalize whackos, bring some fence setters back from the ledge, and show some less extreme Republicans who are tired of Limbaugh and his ilk that Republicans can be independent of the Right Wing Media Mafia. Most of all, the move would take away a potential perception coup for the Democrats. After all, although many Republicans believe this crap, its clear that the majority of this country does not. If the Republicans keep kow-towing to their extreme right (which they are guilty of unlike the Democrats), they will soon find themselves as marginalized as the Prohibition party, or maybe even the unlamented and mostly forgotten Know-Nothings.

SUPER SPECIAL ADDITIONAL LINK - Apparently Eric Cantor couldn't quite grasp the entirety of my point above about appropriate response.

And That's the Way It Is

Although the bulk of his career took place before I was born, and he clearly lived a long and interesting life, I was saddened to see that Walter Cronkite had passed away. He appeared to be an excellent news anchor, and was unique to his time. If only more journalists were like him, instead of the moronic gasbags that fill up cable TV.

As I said before, I wasn't able to experience his news broadcasting first hand. His final sign off was just months before I was born. However, he certainly affected my life. One of my most vivid memories was of watching him on a laser disc of a special about the Apollo XI Moon landing from about 20 years ago. Obviously I remember him from films such as Apollo 13, and from the various clips of his career. Mention the assassination of JFK to me, and the first image to pop into my head will probably be his announcement of the President's death. I even ended a high school oral report with his famous sign-off.

Later on in his life, I enjoyed listening to him play Benjamin Franklin on Liberty's Kids. Cronkite's voice was probably a bit too refined or Dr. Franklin, but his warmth was probably dead on. He was certainly better than the Governator's Baron Von Steuben.

I'm certain there never will be another anchor like him. Not in this era of high profit pressures on journalism, infotainment, and bloviating airheads. I suppose that is a good thing, as a decentralization of the news can certainly lead to a more skeptical public. If an anchor as trusted as Cronkite was to reappear, and be the mouthpiece of the government, it could be a very bad thing. Still, I would like to hope that someone trustworthy would not be bought.

What America Means to Me

On this two hundred thirty third birthday of the United States, I wish to take the time to write down some thoughts about my country. I suppose this is the obligatory "what America means to me" piece that everybody does this time of year. However, despite often thinking over this question, I feel that this time of year is a good way of focusing those thoughts.

First off, I can't shake the dark chapters of the history of the United States. Very often we have failed to live up to the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence, or in our Constitution. The scars of slavery and the prolonged war against the native people of this continent will never fully heal, and nor should they. For a country as prosperous as we are, there is far too much poverty, not only along the avenues of cities like Baltimore and Detroit, but the streets of small towns such as Georgetown and Ridge Farm, Illinois. Our lack of foresight and willingness to compromise our ideals abroad, although at time necessary, are still causing us troubles in areas across the globe.

With that being said, I still think this country is something to be proud of, even if the past 8 years made me hang my head in shame far too often. We may have slipped up in attempting to live up to our high ideals, but we certainly keep trying. The United States is constantly in a state of perfection, attempting to right the wrongs of our past, while also striving to leave a better tomorrow for our posterity. At a time when absolutism was the dominant political theory, we said "no thanks", and created a republic. Flawed though it was, requiring us to fight a bitter civil war to fix the evil of slavery, and flawed though it still is, we continue moving forward, asking "Why not?" when others ask "why?"

Ours is a nation teeming with bounty and natural beauty. Whether you marvel at the beauty of Yellowstone and Yosemite, or stand atop a ridge and peer over vast acreages of crops in the Midwest, the United States is a sight to see. We were the first nation to establish a National Park, and our current system is one of the finest in the world. If you get a chance, I suggest you visit a national park at least sometime this year.

I am proud of those who fought on the battlefields from Concord to Gettysburg, from the Ardennes to Normandy, and from Inchon to Afghanistan. Although I may disagree with the conflicts these men and women are thrown into, let it be known that they have willfully volunteered to give the last full measure of devotion to our country. In addition to our regular forces, I must not forget to honor the men and women of the National Guard. After all, these units are the descendants of our citizen volunteer and militia units, the successors to the farmers, tradesmen, and workers who laid down their tools to pick up their rifles in defense of our nation.

But one must rememeber that democracies are not built on the battlefields. The words, sacrifices, and actions of our civilians are just as important in establishing our current nation as our armed forces. I think about John Adams, a man who successfully defended the British soldiers who were involved in the Boston Massacre. His case showed that even those who oppose us deserve their day in court. I think about the abolitionists, the women's sufferagists, and the civil rights activists who fought the good fight, even if it wasn't popular. I think about Rosa Parks, a woman who set off a new era in the United States just by refusing to move on a bus. I think about the various anonymous people who go about their lives, making sure they leave this country a better place than the one they found.

The recent election of Barack Obama as our 44th President was an awesome step forward, as he and his family now live in a house that just 150 years ago they couldn't have entered unless they were servants. So far he has taken some critical steps to remove us from the mess that the previous administration created. However, we still have a long way to go. Great questions about health care, poverty, immigration, the environment, and GLBT rights still have to be answered. Above all of that is the question of what the role of our nation in this century will be. Not all of these will be answered completely, or at all in the short term, but I am confident that we are on the right track in dealing with these issues. The great experiment continues, forever attempting to correct its mistakes and make this a place where truly all men are created equal.

Of Gettysburg

One hundred and forty-six years ago today the bloody middle day of the battle of Gettysburg took place. Although it wasn't the day of the most famous event of the battle (Pickett's Charge), many important events took place on this day. Whether it was the charge of the 20th Maine, the sacrifice of the 2nd Minnesota, or the desperate overnight fighting around Culps HIll, it was a close struggle. Utlimately, however, the Union held its line, setting up the famous and unsucessful charge on July 3. Four and a half months later Abraham Lincoln would give his famous Address at the newly dedicated cemetery.

If you can only visit one National Battlefield, I would recommend Gettysburg. Few other battlefields give you as good of a sense of the ground, of what each army was fighting for. Several states have monuments, some of which are absolutely amazing and pieces of history by themselves. It is simply amazing to stand atop Little Round Top and wonder at the sheer strength of will it took the soldiers of the Confederacy to charge that steep hill, or the soldiers of the Union to hold it.

The Civil War was then, and still is, the great tragedy of the United States. The Battle of Gettysburg, combined with the surrender of Vicksburg on July 4, were effective turning points in the great conflict. At that point, the Union may still have lost the war, but it became almost impossible for the Confederacy to win. In the fields and forests outside of that small Pennsylvania town, the fate of our nation was quite possibly decided. Walking on that hallowed ground today, the peace and serenity contrasts greatly with the cacaphonous hell that was the battlefield that terrible July day.

A Month of Writing: 31 Posts in 31 Days

Welcome one and all, to my latest experiment on my great blogpire. In order to find my writing voice, and just to see if I can stay committed to something, I am going to write one blog post a day during the month of July, the result being 31 total posts.

This experiment will have a few ground rules. First off, the one post a day is one post total, and not 1 each on the four blogs I (in theory) maintain. This limit is in place because I really haven't shown an ability to keep up with the one post a day goal before. Other more economically beneficial commitments must be kept, and I want to do the best job possible with these posts, so I need to keep the goal somewhat realistic.

Second, each post won't just be a link and a quick blurb. Each post will be at least three paragraphs long. I intend to keep the posts to the point and as entertaining as possible. I've gotten rather rusty in the writing game, being out of it for a while. By July 31, I hope my work will be an improvement over the earliest pieces.

Finally, each post will be on the appropriate blog. If it is political, historical, or another serious topic of that nature, it will go on August Prairie. If it is related to movies, sports, games, web development, or just general ruminations, it will go on Quo Vadimus. Travel stories will go on Prairie Traveler Guide, and Vermilion County related posts will go up on the Vermilion Expat. If you wish to see a list of the posted stories in a central location, I have a page here. Each blog will have a link to the 31 Days of Writing page.

Please keep checking back every day. I hope to have the next story up by 5:00 (although tomorrow's post won't be up until later in the evening). And don't hesitate to offer feedback, as comments will be open for business on every post.

One down, 30 to go. Let it begin!

The Presidents: #39

#39 George W. Bush
Jan 20 2001 to Jan 20 2009
Grade: F

Unlike the rest of the Presidents at this end of the pool, the only one I've had the ignominy of having to live under is George W. Bush. Unfortunately, I have to admit that I played a role in putting him where he was, voting for him in 2000. Fortunately, I didn't vote for him in 2004, not that it did much good.

Who knows when we will finally understand just how corrupt, malevolent and incompetent his administration was. Whether it was his dumb-assery, Grand Vice-Chancellor Cheney, or his incompetence minions, the first eight years of the 21st century won't go down as a time of inspired government in the U.S. Heck, President Obama could call his term a success just cleaning half the mess the Bushies made in Washington.

There was a time (From 1/20/2001 to the first time I heard about the Axis of Evil) that I gave President Bush the benefit of the doubt. He seemed solid enough as a responder to the fanatics in Afghanistan that supported the fanatics who attacked the United States. However, any capital he had gained with me was lost by the pointless and obvious imperial move towards attacking Iraq. I cannot forgive him for the over 4,000 American deaths caused by that unnecessary and unprovoked conflict.

Before his administration, I was a solid Republican. Now, I doubt I will ever go back to the party. This wasn't entirely his doing (the Evangelist/Racist/Amoral Capitalist Wings of the party helped as well), but he helped bring about my party switch. About the only thing good I can say about him is that he did have a somewhat reasonable immigration. Unfortunately, he couldn't get any major Republicans not named John McCain to support it, and it was a failure. Just like his term in office.

Gordon Brown Addresses Congress

Earlier today I listened to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Gordon Brown give an address before a joint session of Congress. It is his first speech to Congress, and he is only the fifth prime minister to address our legislative body. As it is the first joint address by a foreign dignitary of the Obama Administration, and the UK is our closest ally, I felt it necessary to listen to Brown.

I felt it was a good speech, one that conveyed the continued strong friendship of the UK and the US, and also the general friendship between the US and Europe. Gordon Brown clearly doesn't have the stage presence of an Obama, although he certainly held his own. He got a few jabs in at the current opposition party in the US, while also generating several bi-partisan ovations. His story about the refugee who died in Rwanda waiting for the UN help was a heart-breaker.

Putting aside the meat of the speech, it's interesting to note how comfortable the United Kingdom seems to have become in its role as the junior partner in the Anglo-American alliance. 200 years ago it would have been unthinkable that a British PM would be speaking to its separated offspring, and even up until the dark days before World War II the United Kingdom would have laughed at the idea of being subservient to the upstart Yankees. Its a lesson for the United States to remember, as we continue along in this new century.

Here is PM Brown's speech:

The Presidents: #40

#40 Richard M. Nixon (1968-1974)
Grade: F


I'm aware of Nixon's achievements in normalizing US relations with China. I'm also aware that he was President when the Environmental Protection Agency was created, and that domestically he was much more moderate than his Republican successors. I even find some admirable traits in Mr. Nixon, and give him credit for meeting with the protesters at the Lincoln Memorial. And once the entire light comes out on President #39 on my list, it is quite possible that his sorry Administration will deserve this spot on the list.

Had Richard Nixon not operated with such contempt of the checks and balances of our government, it is likely he could find himself in the top half of this list. But act with contempt he did, and therefore he gets the "real" loser spot.

As an incident, the Watergate break-in was a fairly minor scandal. Although breaking into the opposing political party's headquarters wasn't exactly a honorable thing, it wasn't something that should have brought down a presidency. Had Nixon admitted his sordid involvement in the crap, apologized the day after he beat McGovern, and promised to handle his administration better, it would have disappeared.

Instead, he and his associates decided to cover it up, resulting in one of our nations sorriest chapters. The idea that the President is above the law is a disturbing belief, and one that smacks of the obsolete notion of Divine Right. Nixon wasn't the first President to overstep this boundary, but he was certainly the one that did it with the least remorse and without just cause.

On top of the crimes his administration committed during the early 70s, many of his junior acolytes would later be involved in the Reagan and Bush administrations, learning how to continue violating the Constitution without getting impeached, instead of learning the real lessons that were evident. Therefore, Nixon gets penalized more as the trend-setter, rather than the trend follower of Bush 41 (and to a somewhat lesser extent Reagan).

A few quick words on Obama's Address to Congress

Man, its nice having a President who sounds like an adult, isn't it? More talk about getting real things done, and less talk about manimals. It is almost surreal to listen to President Obama after the eight years of President Bush.


(p.s. be watching this blog for more about our most recent Ex-President)

(p.p.s. Holy Krikes, Bobby Jindal sounds like Kenneth the Page!)

UPDATE: A Summary of Jindal's Response:

Obama is very popular, lets not rain on his parade. However, he is a socialist, and therefore our enemy. We must remember his administrations failure during Hurricane Katrina, and cut the hell out of taxes. Because Dubya was on the right track, he just didn't go far enough. Obviously, y'all are dumb as a box of rocks because you don't have vouchers for your schoolin, so I'll speak to you like you are a third grader. High speed rail is bad, we must stay horribly behind in our infrastructure. Because public expenditures are just the anti-democratic thing, reminiscent of the horrible investment by that horrible socialist Dwight Eisenhower in the commie Interstate system. All hail the church of unregulated commerce. The oligarchies demand it, and therefore they shall get it! May Jebus bless you and the United States.

The Presidents: #43 (or 42) to #1

In honor of the election of a new president, the 200th Anniversary of Abe Lincoln's birth, and this CSPAN historian survey, I have decided to share my opinion of the 42 men who have held the office before President Obama.

Like every type of list, this is not static. Ten years ago, my list would have looked different than it does now, and I'm sure the list will be different in another ten years. That being said, I can't see the top or the bottom of the list moving much.

With the exception of today, I'll be posting one President at a time, giving them a grade, and writing my thoughts on their presidency. Some will have more written about them than others. This is especially true for the very bad and the very good.

So sit back, eat some popcorn, and let's delve into the realm of this most exclusive American club.



#42 William Henry Harrison (1741)
Grade: Incomplete



#42 James Garfield (1781)
Grade: Incomplete

Presidents Harrison and Garfield are first up on the list not because of anything they did in their Administrations. The reason they are last is because they were barely in office long enough to be judged accurately. I don't have much to say about either of these men, other than that old men shouldn't give long speeches in bad weather, and that you should always be wary of crazy men wanting a patronage job.

NRO Misses the Point (Once Again)

For some reason (maybe because it gets us liberals to give them page views), the National Review's website has decided to create a list of the 25 greatest Conservative movies over the past 25 years. Naturally, like most of their people, the list misses the irony of several of the choices.

Although some of the choices (Red Dawn, Heartbreak Ridge) are understandable, but others (Lord of the Rings, Brazil, Team America: World Police) show just how little these conservatives* understand concepts such as satire, allegory, and irony. Sure, a few of those movie espouse views that are friendly to ideas of individualism and self-determination, values that aren't exclusive to conservatives. But to suggest that Bush and Cheney are closer to Aragon and Frodo than the Orc General and Sauron is just stupid. **

I fully expect to see Dr. Strangelove make the list, hailing Jack D. Ripper and Buck Turgison as a true model of American military might. Also, John Voight in Catch 22 will be championed as the ultimate patriot: a man who serves his country while lining his pockets.

* Conservatives refer to mindless authoritatarian who supported the late Administration while chanting "USA! USA! USA!". If you are a real conservative who actually uses your brain, this is not you.

** About 15% more stupid as someone bitching about these comparisons on his supposedly serious blog.

Quick Hit: Governor #41, your table is ready

Not much for you today, except to give my belated gratitude to the Illinois Senate for ending the tenure of Governor Blagojevich. May Pat Quinn be a better governor, and may Illinois start digging out from the whole it is in. It feels good to have a governor who actually considers it an honor to live in the people's house in Springfield, doesn't it?

The Great Unifier: About our Governor Blago

Being from a large and traditionally conservative Midwestern extended family, I rarely broach the subject of politics in conversation. By doing so, I can keep things civil and keep from getting too riled up, something I have a tendency to do when it comes to politics. Very rarely do issues come along that we all can agree with each other.

So I wish to thank Governor Rod Blagojevich for giving us a topic upon both liberals and conservatives can emphatically agree. No matter the political spectrum of my family, we certainly feel its time for the administration of our 41st Governor to be, Pat Quinn.

Governor Blagojevich has never been very popular, and if it wasn't for his father in law and George Ryan's antics, he wouldn't be governor. The only reason he won a second term is because the Illinois GOP was in sorry shape, unable to get Jim Edgar to run again, or find a better candidate than Judy Baar-Topinka.

I've disagreed with his cavalier way of doing business, especially over the past year. We are all aware the Illinois government has money issues, but to pick on areas like Danville and Charleston by taking away their few tourist attractions is a disgrace. Even before the dramatic events of last December, we were counting down the days until his term in office ended.

I'd rather not waste the space to list all of the reasons he needs to go, mainly because I don't have the time to write a novel. However, his sheer willfulness to ignore the will of the people since he was arrested tops it all and is reminiscent of Robert Mugabe.

Every day he stays in office is a gift to the Republican Party of Illinois. If they are wise, they will nominate a moderate, even an Obamacan (assuming Obama is still popular two years from now) who can bring in disaffected Democrats while keeping the wingnuts from breaking the party in two. As of right now, I'm not exactly sure where they'll find that person (assuming Jim Edgar continues to refuse to come back to public service).

Next week the Illinois Senate will begin the impeachment trial of Governor Blagojevich. Although the House voted overwhelmingly to try the governor, the Senate is always a different beast. Its possible Blago might twist enough arms to keep himself from being convicted, although even that might not be possible now.

Whether he leaves in 2009, 2010, or 2011, we are more than ready to show him the door, if he had the decency to actually live in Springfield. Stay tuned, for maybe will get that wish sooner rather than later.

What's Next?

Thus ended the Presidency of George W. Bush and began the administration of President Barack Obama.

(Yes, its okay to smile when you say it. In fact, say it again: President Barack Obama.)

Some talking heads have decided to trash his inaugural address, but I disagree. It was a sober call to action, a sign that the grown-ups have moved in at 1600 Pennsylvania (Sasha and Malia excepted). The speech was a clear rebuke of the Bush Administration, and a clear sign that this will be a different White House in almost every way. Our nation has many problems to solve, and its time to stop the childish bickering and get to work. We have done it before, and we can do it again.

So celebrate the victory tonight, we've certainly earned it after the eight years of President Bush. But tomorrow, its time to roll up our sleeves and get to work. It won't be easy, but then very little worth doing rarely is.

To wrap up, I leave you with this excellent performance that took place between the inauguration of Vice President Biden (no more Old Man Cheney!) and President Obama. Much like Obama's speech it encapsulates the moment.

Tomorrow's the Big Day

The day that us supporters of Barack Obama have been anticipating since February of 2007 (or even before) is almost here. Tomorrow, President Elect Barack Obama will become President Obama, and the real work begins.

I had hoped to be off work tomorrow, or at least in a position to watch the Inauguration on TV while working. Unfortunately, circumstances require that I be at work tomorrow, contrary to what I wish. However, I still intend to listen to as much of the inauguration as I can, and will catch up on the rest via DVR.

I wish I had some elegaic words to write at this moment, but I cannot come up with the right words for this occasion. The promise of tomorrow has been the shining light in the murky depths of the Bush Administration, and it almost seems surreal that it really is here. But as unreal as it feels, it is here, and I am looking forward to both the inauguration and the Obama presidency. May 44 be a good number for the United States.

Remembering the 2008 Journey: Yes We Can

A year ago tonight was a roller coaster of a night. Having paid too much attention to the talking heads, I was anticipating an Obama victory in New Hampshire, which would virtually assure his nomination. As the history would record, however, the result was much different.

Although Obama won about the same percentage of the New Hampshire vote as he was polling, Senator Clinton picked up virtually all of the undecided votes that day. Despite both candidates winning the same number of delegates, the fact Clinton won the horserace gave her campaign a much needed boost.

Before Senator Obama came out, I sat disgruntledly in my Virginia Beach apartment, wondering if Obama would even make it to my state, and wondering if he could survive the fight that would be on if he did make it to February 12. I watched glumly as Senator Clinton "found her voice", and became more worried, wondering how I would talk myself in to voting for Senator Clinton in November.

Obama's speech began innocently enough. The usual thanks to his supporters, promises for change, standard political speech stuff. It wasn't very remarkable. Until he uttered three little words.

Yes We Can

With those words, the game was changed. His defeat was nothing more than a setback, a call to action. That night I donated money to his campaign. I wasn't alone, as January 8, 2008 was a very good day for Obamas fundraising.

Although nowhere near as enjoyable as the South Carolina or the Chesapeake Primary, it was a memorable night. It showed that even though Clinton wouldn't go away easy, neither would Obama. It was the start of a long haul, and the Obama supporters showed they weren't going away.

2008: Yes We Did

Note: I am well aware that we are now into 2009, and the conventional time for end of year reflection has ended. However, I feel it negligent on my part to let the most momentous election year of my life go without comment.

In many ways, the year 2008 was not a good year. The stock market crashed, taking many retirement accounts with it. Amongst other factors, the reckless actions of several financial institutions resulted in a severe collapse of confidence in our nations economic health, and the further compounding of growing economic woes. Employees across several sectors found themselves out of a job just in time for the holidays.

(Yes we can!)

On the world front, China flexed its muscles, giving one hell of a show at the Olympics, and further showing that we are not the only power in the world. The messes in Afghanistan and Iraq continue, although Iraq fortunately showed some signs of improvement. At the end of the year, the quagmire in the Holy Land flared up once again, and one of the most dangerous corners of the world (the Indian/Pakistani border) has flared up far too much for comfort.

(Yes we can!)

On the government front, the nation had many black eyes this year. From Ted Stevens and Eliot Spitzer, William Jefferson to Rod Blagojevich, the year was full of the worst of our political system. Many state governments teeter on the edge of insolvency, and the state of Illinois is facing two years of gridlock with a thoroughly unpopular (and dilusional) governor. To top it all off, the Republicans brought forth the inevitable result of their 40 year old anti-intellectual, anti-government, and anti-"them" strategy by nominating Sarah Palin, an exceptionally unqualified Vice-Presidential candidate. In the realm of politics it certainly was a dark ye...

(Yes we can!)

Wait, what's that noise?

(YES WE CAN!)

Don't you mean "Yes We Did!"

No matter the crap that was flung by the various campaigns, no matter how low Blago sinks, no matter how many times Republicans questioned his ability to get the "hard-workin Americans", this year will be remembered as the year of Barack Obama.

It was one hell of ride, if a bit exhausting. From the victory celebration that warmed a cold Iowa night on January 3 to the jubilant night of November 4, we witnessed a Presidential campaign for the ages. Not only did an African-American with a deeply foreign name win the presidency, he did it convincingly. He beat the vaunted Clinton Machine, and discredited the tactics of Karl Rove.

Of the many missteps and gaffes made by the Republicans in the fall campaign, the one that riled me the most was their dismissal of the role of community activism. I wonder how Rudy 9-11 and Governor Palin feel about community activisim now, after it beat the pants off of them and clearly turned the tide in North Carolina and Indiana.

But now the bands and speeches of the campaign are silent, put back in place until the 2012 election. It is 2009 now, a time to see if Obama can deliver on his amazing potential. I still have a lot of hope that he will. Our nation has had a knack of picking leaders up to the task when we have great issues facing us, and I am confident we've picked a good one. Howver, only time will tell.

In the mean time, lets look back at it again, and remember that "Yes We Did". After all, its only two weeks until Obama's inauguration.