Republican politicians seem to be making less sense than usual these days, especially when the subject being discussed is President Obama. No matter what Obama does -- or does not do -- it is wrong, according to Republicans. Oh, and everything bad is Obama's fault -- can't forget that one, either.

This was painfully on display last Sunday morning's political chatfests, when the Republicans rolled out their talking points on two different subjects. On the budget, Obama is "failing to lead." On immigration, Obama's attempts to lead are "dead on arrival" -- sight unseen. Got that? Obama has to lead, but when he does lead, Republicans will kill any proposal with his name on it, just because. The doublethink is jaw-dropping in scope. The final one is even more laughable: the upcoming "sequester" is Obama's idea, and is therefore all his fault.

This is all part of the ancient Washington "blame game," of course, where you try to take credit for everything good, and pin all blame for bad things on your political opponents. When a good law is passed, everyone wants to make sure their fingerprints are visibly all over it. When bad laws are passed, everyone must have worn gloves the day it was put together, because there are no fingerprints on it at all.

Continue Reading »

So, Karl, how does it feel to face the extremists in your own party?

This thought was first and foremost in my mind when I read today that some Tea Partiers are using an image of Karl Rove dressed as a Nazi to raise money for their cause from the right-wing base. Perhaps Rove will become some sort of corollary, further defining the ever-widening scope of Godwin's Law, who knows? Karl Rove has met the enemy, and it is entirely of his own making, to paraphrase Pogo Possum. The demagogue finally meets the demos (people) he's been agogos-ing (leading) all along.

OK, I realize that's not even close to being bilingually and grammatically correct, but I'm certainly not going to let that stop me (insert your own "it's all Greek to me" joke here). But this goes way beyond garden-variety irony or schadenfreude, when you get right down to it. Such petard-self-hoisting is truly gleeful to watch, as is true for me with most Republican-on-Republican cage matches.

Continue Reading »

[Program Note: Since it's a federal holiday, I thought it'd be a good day to take a look back at where we were four years ago. Also, it is easier than writing a new column, and I am lazy. I ran this on the first Presidents' Day which happened in Barack Obama's first term. I didn't make too many rash predictions or concrete evaluations, so it's not exactly "laughably wrong" (which it sort of predicts, at the end), but it is interesting to see how four years can change perceptions. Obama tried bipartisanship, to the frustration and annoyance of his Democratic base, over and over again. His results were much the same as Lincoln's, in the end -- not much to show for his efforts. Lincoln, in his second term, had a much different outlook on how things in Washington really worked (no, I still haven't seen the new movie yet, but I hear it's wonderful). One gets the sense that this is true as well for Barack Obama. He has four years' worth of scars from the partisan battles to show, and hopefully he's learned from a few of his mistakes. In any case, I thought it was worth a look back, now that Obama stands at the start of his second term, to what we were saying about the possibilities of his first. One last note: I have updated the comment at the end, to add a link for Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.]

Originally published February 16, 2009

Happy birthday, Abie baby,
Happy birthday to you!
Happy birthday, Abie baby,
Happy birthday to you!
-- "Abie Baby" from the musical "Hair"

Since it's the random Monday when we celebrate "Presidents' Day," and since it is the year of the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, I'd like to take a moment to see whether any lessons can be learned from Lincoln in the Obama age. Lincoln and Obama seem linked together in our minds already (Obama encourages such, it must be noted), so I'd like to look back to Lincoln's First Inaugural Address and see what it has to say to us today.

Continue Reading »

Can anyone tell me why, exactly, Dick Cheney is on my television screen? Was there a shortage of cranky old Republican jingoist men this week, or what? Was John McCain too busy, or something?

Sigh. The vagaries of the news media continue to astound me. I mean, some cruise ship passengers have to put up with some unsavory and unsanitary conditions for a few days, and it's the biggest story of the week? The same week as the "State Of The Union" speech, and a Republican nominee for Secretary of Defense being filibustered? Really?

I guess that's the way it goes these days. "I had to poop in a bag" beats out "Congress is taking yet another week-long vacation with only two weeks remaining before the sequester," at least in terms of relative levels of disgust. I know which one disgusts me more, but apparently this thinking does not match with news program directors across the land. Maybe "a rock fell from the sky" will edge out the returning cruise ship tonight.

I did find it humorous to hear of the emergency broadcast system getting hacked this week, to warn unsuspecting citizens of the start of the zombie apocalypse, however. While hacking our nation's emergency communications system is serious, the federal government can only blame itself for the message thus broadcast, since (as we pointed out way back in FTP 168) the Centers for Disease Control has already been spending our tax dollars to warn us of the upcoming zombie apocalypse (complete with -- you can't make this stuff up, folks -- zombie posters, a zombie blog, and even a zombie graphic novella). Pretty hard not to think "the joke's on you," when you factor that in, really. Canadian lawmakers apparently got in on the fun as well, which just added to the amusement. What will historians really think when they dig that parliamentary speech out 100 years from now, one wonders.

Continue Reading »

Program Note: One week ago, I ran a column which consisted of a list of five questions. These questions were sent to me by a student working on a writing project. I thought they were good questions, and I wanted to think about them over the weekend before writing my responses. I also thought they were good enough questions that it would be interesting to see what my readers felt about them. So I ran the list as a column.

I got an extraordinary amount of very well-thought-out answers from you folks, some of which I agreed with and some of which I did not. But rather than answer points in the comments, I decided the best way to enter the conversation was to just post my answers, as I sent them off. So here is the second part of last week's column. These are my "separation of powers" answers.

They are written in a slightly different style, because they were really written for an audience of one -- the student who asked me the questions in the first place. And I had to include a note prefacing the third one, because the use of the word "exploiting" can be read in two very different ways.

(1.) It has been argued that the president has become too powerful over the years despite the checks carried out by the other branches, do you think that this is indeed the case?

I'm not sure if I'd agree the president has become "too" powerful, but it is an inescapable fact that the power of the presidency has definitely increased over time, specifically in the last three-quarters of a century. Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Executive Branch has gained more and more power within the federal government -- this fact cannot be denied.

Continue Reading »

OK, I fully admit that headline was too tempting for me to pass up. But I have to say, I'm not really all that interested in Senator Marco Rubio's dry mouth or the swig of bottled water he took to quench it. I leave that for others who are better equipped to offer up the proper response. Saturday Night Live and Jon Stewart, in other words.

What struck me about Rubio's response to President Obama's "State Of The Union" speech was the whining he stuck into the middle of it. Now, I've become accustomed to the Republican jiu-jitsu trick of turning a powerful Democratic Party weapon against them by pre-emptively playing the "victim card," but Rubio's attempt at doing so last night was just laughable. Because -- both before and after he made the attempt -- Rubio was guilty of doing exactly what he was complaining about those mean Democrats doing to the poor put-upon Republicans.

Continue Reading »

I write this, as always, to give my honest reactions to President Obama's "State Of The Union" speech, before the inside-the-Beltway set gels on telling the rest of America what to think. This way, I am often "in the wrong" the next day, but at least you get my true feelings, uninfluenced by what others have to say about the speech.

With that preamble, here are a few random thoughts. I should mention that, as possible personal bias, I was a bit tired and not as focused as usual while watching the speech, and my reactions could easily have been influenced by this state of mind. Also as usual, I'm not dissecting exactly what Obama said tonight -- there'll be time enough for that later on.

President Barack Obama spoke tonight for almost exactly one hour. It'll be a few seconds shy, when the people who take statistics seriously get around to putting out "the numbers" on the speech. I would also wager, speaking of "stats," that the numbers for "applause" or "standing ovations" are going to be way down this year from years past.

This wasn't really a function of the speech Obama gave, or not entirely so at any rate. It had more to do with Obama's delivery, I think. Obama just didn't "pause for applause" all that much. His speaking cadence was a lot faster than he normally manages, which made the speech seem not "rushed" but, to me, "urgent." There were plenty of spots where Obama offered up lines that, in a usual year, Democrats (or Republicans) would have jumped out of their seats to enthusiastically support, but he steamrolled right along and didn't give much opportunity for a whole lot of crowd participation.

Continue Reading »

Tomorrow night President Obama will give the first State Of The Union address of his second term. We'll all react to this speech in different ways, but the reaction of Congress will be the usual: alternating wild and raucous applause with stony glares of disapproval, depending on the particular subject being addressed. After the speech is over, Congress will go back to what it loosely calls "work," and largely ignore the speech's suggestions for legislation. Some things the president asks for will get addressed in typical roundabout fashion, but many other things will be completely dropped for political reasons of one sort or another. It didn't always used to be this way, though, at least not on the surface. Congress used to take the president a lot more seriously, which is a tradition that seems ripe for revival.

Political pundits, for some inexplicable reason, always deride State Of The Union speeches as being mere "laundry lists." There's no reason for them to do so, because this is actually the whole point of the speech. Everyone now focuses on the first part of the relevant text from the Constitution, while forgetting what comes after. The Constitution dictates that one part of the duties of the president is: "He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." See? Right there in the definition, it tells the president to provide a legislative laundry list to Congress. And at the start of our nation's history, Congress used to be a lot better at being the "laundromat" (to stretch this metaphor a bit).

Continue Reading »

We begin with cats and birds this week. Iron-lovers across the land were dismayed by the news that the Monopoly folks were discontinuing their favorite token, but cat-lovers were enthused by the feline token which will take its place. Being America, this was done via online voting. In avian news, the Baltimore Ravens won the Super Bowl. The bird is the word!

Almost as amusing (at least for Lefties) was the news that Karl Rove will be waging full-on civil war with the Tea Party, over in Republicanland. Popcorn supplies in blue states may run dangerously low, as Democrats look forward with glee to the spectacle of the Rove-vs.-Craziness cage match.

The irony is, quite simply, delicious. Rove, now representing the sane wing of the Republican Party, will be battling the intraparty forces of reactionary extremism and silliness that he -- more, perhaps, than any other individual -- helped create. This is of Biblical "reap what you sow" whirlwind proportions. Can Rove put down the forces he called up? Will this Republican-on-Republican violence leave casualties bleeding on the mat? Stay tuned, 2014 is looking like a real showdown!

Continue Reading »

This is a reader-participation sort of a column. In fact, it's not really a column at all, instead just trolling for comments from you folks. Just to warn everyone up front.

While I am finally (finally!) approaching the end of my own writing project (at least until I have a book contract to finish it), I have been approached by a student who is working on a scholastic writing project on the subject of American government. This student has asked a few questions that pertain to the power of the American president, and the nature of such power as it relates to the other branches of government.

These are not political questions, really, but more historic and philosophical questions on the way the American government works. I'll be working on answering them over the weekend, but I thought it would be worthwhile to hear a variety of responses, so I'm tossing the questions out to you folks to see what you think.

Continue Reading »