What next? - Then and Now

Now that Bush and his gang of war profiteers are [mostly] gone, what next?

We have a new president and the majority of Americans people have finally come to their senses, so what comes after the country and much of the world breathe a big sigh of relief?

There is so much to do to repair the damage done by the previous administration we need a triage system to manage this disaster.

I don't expect president Obama to magically wave a wand and fix everything that the Bush gang screwed up. I don't expect that I'll agree with everything he does or does not do. I don't expect him to fulfill all his campaign promises. There are too many undercurrents inside the beltway that are working against Barack Obama for him to accomplish that. He has to choose his engagements carefully, trust himself, and those people whose judgment he's learned to trust over the years and start eating the elephant bite by bite.

And if that wasn't enough of a challenge, the Republicans are admittedly doing nothing but throwing roadblocks in his way and publicly hoping that he fails. For purely political reasons the Republicans are working against fixing the very mess they (for the most part) created, America be damned. The only people they care about are what remains of their base. You know, the ones who evidently have no problem with Rush Limbaugh mocking the uncontrollable movements of a beloved actor, Michael J. Fox, that are caused by Parkinson's disease.. Or the thinly veiled and at times outright racism evidenced by things like the "...Magic Negro" song. The ones who through the wars, the lies, the belligerent dictatorial actions seen and unseen, and the refusal to admit reality still thought George Bush was doing the right thing.

(Original draft date 3/9/09)
---------------------------------------------------------
- That's from a draft I just discovered.

Now, ten months into the new administration there's good news and bad news.
Some of the good news is obvious. We now have a president who is intelligent and pragmatic, progressive and engaging. A huge change from former president Bush, the ignorant, reckless, belligerent fool and the political Chickenhawks who surrounded him.

President Obama is representing our country well. He is gaining international respect for himself and for our country. He favors diplomacy over the bullying tactics of the Bush administration that turned allies into enemies (remember "You're either with us or against us"?).

He still has to prove himself over time though, and the 'guts' of a country don't automatically change when a new administration takes office. The career employees and the other branches of government are still there for the most part, and the 'legacy' placements of the previous administration can either help grease, or toss sand into the gears of a new administration.

This administration had a monumental task in front of it, and that task was compounded in those early days by a financial crisis whose magnitude had not been seen since the Great Depression.

I truly can't comprehend what kind of fortitude it took to not only withstand the pressures of those early days, but to do so with such confidence and grace. From what I've noticed, a good sense of humor must help, along with self confidence and a group of trusted advisors & friends.

Some of the bad news relates to (and stems from) the divisive culture nurtured during the Bush years. What used to be partisan wrangling has turned into rude combative obstructionism for so many of the Republican party. Add to that a racist element brought out by the election of our first black president and what we're seeing exposed is an incredibly ugly side of some Americans.

If that wasn't bad enough, irresponsible and egotistical glory-seekers like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck (to name just a few..) are fanning the flames of racism and dissent. An entire cable network, Fox (I won't call it 'News') is engaged in a campaign against the Obama administration. Truth, honesty, or any journalistic principals don't fit into their campaign to take the small group of remaining Bush supporters (and related malcontents) and use them to further their stated goal, that being the failure of president Barack Obama and his goals to fix what Bush and his party broke.

These people have chosen to engage in personal destruction at the expense of our country's health.

Some in the Republican party have compared this to the criticism of president Bush.
How childish and how ignorant!
The same can be said about many of the 'complaints' of the Teabaggers.

The culture of intolerance and hate that's been nurtured over the past eight years has grown to a dangerous level. Irresponsible elected officials like Michelle Bachmann are actually inciting individuals and groups who might just need a slight nudge or implied blessing to move from talk to action.

As I predicted (really going out on a limb..) in my original draft, our new president hasn't fulfilled all his campaign promises. Anyone who expected him to is extremely naive. Despite the best of intentions so many things change once you take over as President of the United States.

Previously unknown facts and issues now figure into your plans.
The competence of those you chose to delegate responsibilities to figures in and isn't always positive.
A cable 'disinformation' network might spend considerable resources (and any remnants of integrity they might have left) working with your failure as their goal.

And of course every organization or group that's been held down by the previous administration expects you to work tirelessly on their cause, ignoring all other factors.

My personal disappointments have been in the area of upholding the rule of law and the oath of office. I realize that I am ignorant of so much of what President Obama has to deal with, but I believe I do have a right to expect that a solemn oath be honored. When you swear "...To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America..." you can't just choose to ignore serious and destructive crimes, not just against the Constitution but also those that violate international laws and conventions we've signed on to. Perhaps the worst crime being the lies told to gain acceptance and support for a war resulting in so many unnecessary deaths.

When our jails and prisons are overflowing with so many people convicted of non-violent crimes (including those involving marijuana), and also those who are addicted to heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines (who should be given treatment instead of spending huge amounts of money to 'warehouse' them), you can't simply choose to ignore that oath you took and let those from the previous administration who [allegedly] committed crimes of such magnitude and far reaching implications go unpunished.

For someone who has faced all his other challenges with confidence, to "... choose to look forward instead of backwards ...", ignoring such destructive crimes is truly unbelievable and to me makes you complicit or at the very least guilty of obstructing justice. The same goes for the decision to continue certain secretive policies of the Bush administration, and to let the telecoms who enabled the country's many intelligence agencies to [illegally] spy on innocent citizens 'get off' without prosecution.

President Obama certainly knows what kind of precedent this sets, and how it will enable and give future administration the political cover to engage in similar (or worse) misdeeds. To be complicit in or enable that flies in the face of his otherwise honorable character traits.

It's sad to think that within the legacy of President Obama, this failure to uphold the rule of law, this failure to uphold the oath of office he swore to in front of the citizens of this great country, will tarnish all of the good things he accomplished. Not because he couldn't, but because he chose not to.

Overall I'm so proud of our president and the direction he's taken our country. He represents us well and is such a welcome change after the nightmare of the previous eight years. He is certainly not perfect, nor should anyone ever expect that, but he is an honorable man trying to do his best for his country, doing so in spite of an ugly exhibition of thinly veiled and at times outright racism. His honest attempts at bipartisanship are met with scorn and hostility. Pragmatic in other areas but as yet unable to be so in this case when the good of the country and limited time demand it.

There's still time of course. Two wars, a fragile economy, and the opposition party dedicated to do nothing but obstruct whatever you try to do (and I left a *few* things out) isn't that hard to deal with is it? [\sarcasm]

Best of luck Mr. President. I'm not sure how you've kept your sanity to this point but I'm sure glad you have. The ability to suffer idiots and assholes must be a part of it, something I don't do nearly as well. They're revealing their character and you yours.

I'm proud of you sir, but please don't ignore that oath you took. That and the Constitution are more important than any one of us.

Some Random Thoughts Roaming My Mind

[Sorry about the screwy formatting (grrr), but I'm 'wicked tired' and I've got to eat something..]

1. People are frustrated by all this taxpayer $$ flying out the door and having no control.

2. The credit society most people live in got them (and the lending institutions) into very bad
unsustainable habits.

3. The Bush administration reinforced #2 by committing our forces to a war where the
American people were purposely kept disengaged (no 'war tax' etc.. "War? What war.
Mistakes? No mistakes here..").

Going from a balanced budget and a surplus to Trillion-dollar deficit spending under Bush.
'Heck of a job George...'.

3a. 'Due diligence'.... There was little to no 'due diligence' (except maybe to protecting
"secrets") over the entire Bush administration's tenure.

4. Current frustrations include millionaire financial misfits getting rewarded despite
the fact that they helped create the mess.

- And as far as I'm concerned, there is no place in a responsible society for
failure to be rewarded.

5. This bailout money is corporate welfare.
Ask any social worker about the restrictions imposed if you take public assistance.


I'm sure it's a culture shock and a rude awakening to these millionaire executives to have to
show restraint and contrition. To suddenly be answerable to the people who have to bail their
sorry incompetent asses out when they've gotten used to answering to no one except a chosen few.

Most people that have jobs work hard and many pay their bills on time, only to see their
retirement accounts wiped out or drastically deflated while top executives get their
'golden parachutes' and rewarding failure with 'performance bonuses'.

They see billions literally thrown at companies* owned by friends of Bush/Cheney. Billions
more thrown to corrupt foreign governments/officials and terrorist organizations.
They see inexperienced political appointees given the job of 'overseeing' critical programs
including spending in Iraq.
Instead of appointing the most competent people to government positions, neophytes whose
primary qualifications are party loyalty and monetary contributions to that same party
were chosen.

Crimes and mismanagement were covered up by over-reaching "secrecy" policies

Between the corruption here at home, and the corruption in many of the foreign
governments that we provide[d] money to, what percent actually got to where it was
supposed to? (We can't tell because too many of the people responsible for that were either
incompetent or complicit themselves!)

- Now picture yourself as President Obama [voluntarily] stepping into this huge
disaster created by seven years of Bush/Cheney and the republican majority (and *some*
democrats).

You can't possibly accomplish anything by yourself (other than by example and leadership)
so you have to delegate much of it to others, some of whom will undoubtedly mess some
things up.

Being a man of courage class and honor he takes ultimate responsibility for his errors and
those in his administration who make mistakes (as opposed to 'having faith in them' but
taking no responsibility and never admitting to any mistakes [as the previous administration
did]).

If most people were truthful and honest with themselves, they'd have to admit that
(were they in President Obama's shoes) they would have either snapped under the pressure
or be looking for some form of escape via medication or heavy drinking.

To Obama's credit, he appears to be holding up fairly well and providing
leadership amidst all the turmoil surrounding him.

He needs to reign in some of his closest advisers though. Rahm Emanuel and others are
making his job harder at the moment.

Don't forget the Republican party (what's left of it), led by a hateful radio commentator (one
of many) who are acting like juvenile delinquents and doing absolutely nothing to help their
constituents by standing in the way of everything President Obama and Congress try to get
done.

America needs their help, and they're hoping for (and contributing to) *our*
failure.

- Picture President Obama trying to scale a wall (holding America's future and
well-being) while other Americans (mainly Republicans) throw crap on him and
try to saw off the bottom of the ladder instead of helping him get up the wall.

And despite all this you will still find far too many people leaving comments on progressive
web sites [and others] being hypercritical, and saying things like "If Bush and Cheney were
back in the White House everything would be just fine.". (Kool-Aid withdrawal/accepting
reality must be very hard for some )



*Some of whom provided sub-standard services, some that put the health and safety of our troops at risk, some that killed innocent civilians, alienating potential allies, some that
basically sanctioned rape of their own employees, and almost all of them protected from
criminal penalties by the administration who considered itself 'untouchable'.

Critical Question For Candidates

Knowing the history of the Presidency regarding the unwillingness to give up presidential powers once their predecessors have gained them (despite how they gained them and whether they're constitutional or not), I think it's imperative that the current candidates for the presidency are asked whether they will reverse the "questionable" powers that Bush has claimed since becoming President. Especially if he's not impeached as he rightfully should be.

If Bush isn't impeached, (as I've stated before) a terrible precedent will have been set on many levels for future Presidents. Candidates need to be on the record (not that that matters anymore) saying that if elected they will renounce the unconstitutional claims of presidential privilege the Bush administration has stubbornly held to since 9/11, clearly and unconditionally.

Instead of the mostly asinine questions asked of candidates, we must ask this one and other critical topics! Electing a president has rarely had so much at stake for the future of our country as this one. If we're not able to reverse the downward decline this president and the majority of the Republican party have "led" us into we will have completely lost the honored position as respected and envied leader of the free world.

Not only thoughtful and respectable people in this country, but people all over the world are waiting to see what happens after the debacle of the Bush presidency is over.

The direction the President has taken us, compounded by the severe lack of representation of the citizenry by Congress in favor of big business interests (and their own) will lead to our downfall eventually. It's surely not what our founders put into place so thoughtfully.
As a matter of fact it's starting to resemble what they rebelled against all those years ago.

Think Progress » Gonzales may face criminal charges.

Think Progress » Gonzales may face criminal charges.: "Gonzales may face criminal charges. At a speech on Friday, ousted U.S. attorney John McKay revealed that the “U.S. Inspector General may recommend criminal prosecution of departed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at the conclusion of an investigation, possibly as early as next month.”"

---------------------------------------------

I've seen all too many "may"s in the press lately concerning the prosecution of crimes committed by members of President Bush's administration.

I want to read a headline telling me that any/all of these crooks are facing imminent criminal prosecution.

Think of the precedent it will set if the multitudes of crimes committed by members of this administration go unpunished.

When someone like John Dean states that the apparent crimes of the current administration have gone beyond what even Nixon's committed, and that the members of Bush's crimino-political administration have gone mostly unpunished for, and others like Bruce Fein and Jonathan Turley speak about the multiple abuses of power and Presidential authority, I can't understand why the heck so little is being done to address those criminal acts and bring those responsible to justice so that it will be less likely to be repeated in the future.

To me, the failure of Congress (for one) to effectively redress these crimes is a bit like a mother in denial of a child's criminal activity. It's easier to be in denial, otherwise you have to do the hard work of dealing with the problem.

Democratic (and Republican) leaders, you need to grow up and do not what's necessarily best for you, but what is right, and what is best for our country, our rule of law, and our future!

Thanks Keith Olbermann, kind of..

It's obvious that you are trying to dissuade those who would confront you personally, which I can completely understand. There certainly enough examples of crazies taking things too far, noting recently that Michelle Malkin went to the home of 12 year old Graeme Frost. And not to be ignored are the malevolent threats posted on the internet sites. There's a big difference though, you aren't an elected official. Congressman Knollenberg is.

But in the case of activist Bruce Fealk you came very close to tossing at least part of him (maybe just his foot?) under the proverbial bus. I got the impression that your personal fear colored part of tonight's piece. Absolutely nothing in the video shown on your show was illegal. You should have investigated that aspect and made it clear. The visit to the politician's home as I understand it was done in 'good humor' (with ice cream offered), and the 'fear' alleged by his wife and their neighbors is completely manufactured.

Politicians might not like dealing with their constituents face to face, but really that's too bad. And when they're out in public as they were in this video they shouldn't expect any form of 'privacy' or just happy contented citizens praising them.

That's not the real world, and that's part of the big problem we're fighting, especially these days. All too many politicians try to live (and legislate) in a separate reality. It's been that way forever to a certain extent, but over the last seven years the Republican Party has brought it to a whole new (and unconstitutional) level, and it has no place in a representational Democracy. Peaceful dissent is a right and a responsibility of a conscientious citizenry isn't it? I believe that you might even find something written about it in a recently 'crumpled' piece of parchment kept in Washington, DC. called the Constitution.
(The actual wording is quite a bit more forceful than mine if I recall correctly.)

You work for a news network (well, partially at least) whose reporters and photographers stake out and intrude on people's lives whether they're politicians or not.

Political activists, doing their patriotic duty as citizens obviously need to act within the bounds of the law, and hopefully in a polite and legal manner (which Bruce Fealk appears to have done), and if they stray beyond that point they should expect the consequences.

If I knock on someone's door and politely ask them directions and they claim 'assault', it's not my fault that they over-reacted. I don't believe there's any law prohibiting citizens from going to their elected representatives homes to ask questions is there? It's not something that I personally would do or advocate except as a last resort, but if otherwise denied, political activists maybe should, and I think the Founders of this great nation would agree!

You can plainly see what kind of staff controls access to Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), and I commend Bruce Fealk for maintaining his civility during this exchange. It can't be easy trying to have a civil discussion in the face of such a apoplectic response from Trent Wisecup (the person controlling access to the congressman).

In a perfect world the politicians would have nothing but happy contented constituents, but in the real world citizens with serious questions have every right, and really the obligation to speak directly with their elected representatives, and when you deny them that [belligerently] and your chief of staff calls those who ask the hard, legitimate questions "un-american" and worse, some of the more 'active' activists might actually go to their home with a video camera trying to ask them the questions they were denied asking earlier. And I realize that Mr. Fealk was at the congressman's home prior to this on-camera incident, but he also had prior run-ins with Trent Wisecup, and as you noted, the staff had a meeting deciding to 'confront' Mr. fealk for being a terrible 'un-american political activist' who dared to ask pointed questions!

But in closing, tonight you chose the safer path, and in so doing strayed from your usual confrontational 'Truth to Power' discourse which so many of us admire.

Chris Matthews, Alan Greenspan, and Keith Olbermann

Watching Chris Matthews tonight, I couldn't help but be embarrassed for him. He melted like a pad of warm butter all over Alan Greenspan. As I see it, this is one of Chris' major flaws. He seems so personally awed by so many of the major players in and around Washington he exhibits no professional distance in his interviews. It's more like he's interviewing his best friend each time, and god forbid he ask them a hard question that would endanger their personal relationship. He's "embedded" himself in the Washington scene far too long and has lost almost all of his impartiality.

Even when talking about someone like president Bush, who's record of failure should speak for itself, he's stated how much 'respect he has for the man'. Sometimes when Chris says things like that it almost makes my head spin around and I think, did he really just say that?

What's equally weird are the times when he really seems to be back within the bounds of reality. Sure, if you're honest with yourself your feelings can change about certain things as you grow and learn, but as I've watched Chris over the years it appears depending on the day, his mood, or something unknown [to me] that he'll be on opposite sides of the issue.
It's like there's two separate Chris Matthews, one voice coming from his head and the other coming from his heart.

Now regarding Greenspan's comments tonight about how social security should ultimately be 'fixed', he says that cutting entitlements will have to be done.

Now I'm currently "living" on a single social security disability payment each month, similar to what retirees with no other source of income do (I have no 'assets' whatsoever).
I'm just trying to think about what they're supposed to do if their benefits are reduced.
Barely above the poverty line as it is, there is no way that they should have to even contemplate trying to get by on less than they already have, especially when the rich are getting richer (and growing in numbers). Greenspan's cold assessment doesn't include those factors it seems.

They seemed to dance around the fact that one of the major factors in the equation is the massive profits the HMOs and pharmaceutical companies suck out of the system, made worse by raising their rates far above the rate of inflation. The subject about reigning in that major problem is rarely mentioned, and when it is, the agents of the health care lobby (and their partners on strategic government committees) come to their rescue.

The way our government runs these days is shameful. Sure lobbyists aren't new or inherently bad, but the balance is so tilted to one side now that the public's 'representatives' don't work for them, but in many cases look to be working directly against them, giving much too much weight to the upper class and major business interests. And although there are some wonderful, caring people included in this upper class, all too many seem to live by the motto "I've got mine, if you can't get here by yourself, too bad" (or "Sucks to be you!")

When I try to distill this in my head and relate it to the Democrats and Republicans, the Democrats lean towards helping their fellow Americans who are in need, and the Republicans lean towards helping only themselves, and only those who share their philosophy (and wealth). And this attitude has been 'distilled' over the past seven years by the man and administration who promised to "unite" the country.

And briefly, I want to get into my feelings about why someone who I admire greatly, namely Keith Olbermann, is so reticent to say anything relating to some other members of the media's comments, especially (but not solely) in the case of Chris Matthews, "My good friend".

I hope he does speak up at least privately behind the scenes. I know he has to work with him, and it's unreasonable for me to expect absolute honesty from Keith in this particular situation, but from what I've seen of Keith's character, and the 'special comments' that are so right-on, he must cringe [inside] at some of the inane statements and positions Matthews has come out with. And to speak out against comments others in the media have made, as he does regularly (and rightly so), then neglect those made by his "good friend" is less than I expect (even if it is unreasonable) from the conscientious professional I admire.

The other night after the Republican debate Chris was his usual manic (rude?) self interrupting Keith and not taking time to hear the points Keith was making in favor of his point, whatever that was.. I got the feeling that even his good friend was testing his patience at that point.

So often Chris' interviews are more like an interrogation than an interview.
Chris calls it "Hardball", but all too often it's just him rudely pushing his own twisted philosophy down the throats of his 'guests'.

What makes me shake my head is every once in a while he acts perfectly normal, reasonable and courteous. Seriously, it makes me think he needs medication. I wonder what psychiatrists think when they watch his show?

Think Progress » Kristol’s Dark Humor: Bush’s ‘Heartless Assault On Our Children’ Is ‘A Good Idea’

Think Progress » Kristol’s Dark Humor: Bush’s ‘Heartless Assault On Our Children’ Is ‘A Good Idea’

What a low-life Republican scumbag Bill Kristol is. He's right down there with Bush and Cheney.
This kind of disgusting rhetoric plainly shows what kind of people Kristol and Bush are.

The only “pathetic” part of this story is that an editor of a major national publication (The Weekly Standard) would dare say such a thing.

And there's this gem, “You really wonder how stupid they think the American people are”.
Well Bill, they're stupid enough to have believed anything this administration has ever said, they're stupid enough to have voted for Bush, TWICE, and besides that Bush (&Co) is the king of using soldiers and children as props to enhance his propaganda photo-ops!

And oh yeah, some 'Americans' are stupid enough to actually pay money to read your magazine.

You g-damned POS! (There's some 'straight talk' for ya)

Mika Brzezinski, don't slant the facts!

I'm sitting here watching MSNBC [Morning Joe] at 6 AM and here's how Mika Brzezinski characterized
last night's vote "on capital hill now, a major blow to Democrats after senate Republicans blocked a bill to give US troops more time at home between deployments. The proposal largely seen as a Democratic attempt to challenge president Bush's war policy fell four votes short of the sixty needed to cut off debate... ".

"largely seen as a Democratic attempt to challenge president Bush's war policy"... excuse me?
and
"a major blow to Democrats"? How about a major blow to our overextended troops instead?

By that you're saying that this wasn't a bill about trying to save our military from unending tours wringing the last blood and sweat from our service men and women and sending them home in many cases broken in mind and body? No, to you this is all about the Democrats trying to stick it to the president, eh? You are as twisted as Chris Mathews. You've spent most of your life in the Washington scene, both of you, and you are much too close to the players in this disaster called the Bush presidency.

Your characterization of the Democratic effort to get our troops some much needed rest is a slap in the face to our service members who have suffered while the media (like you) perpetuate the
president's fraud!

And while I'm at it, the morning after one of Keith Olbermann's special comments I heard you utter "chill out..." after playing a clip.
NO, Keith shouldn't "chill out", he's the only one of you who has the character and guts to say [on prime time TV] what the majority of Americans are saying, and the rest need to hear.
You are part of the problem that allowed the fraud leading up to the war to become public perception, and that led us to commit our troops and ultimately to the deaths of close to four thousand of them.

Now you're still at it. Turn around what you said and you're closer to the truth.

And I'm not naive, I realize that politics are involved, but the bottom line of the bill was to aid our troops, and instead of saying that, you chose to perpetuate the Republican fraud and mislead your viewers, the 'fraud' being that Democrats don't support the troops, which is a flat out LIE and you know it!

After last night's vote, any Republican who claims to support the troops and who voted against the Webb amendment is a bald-faced liar. And I fully expect each and every one of them to be called on it.

Think of it this way, if the military was a automobile, the Republicans and the president have stolen it and are driving the military/auto on it's rims and the engine is about to blow up because it being driven so hard for so long.

Q: Why were they allowed to steal the car?

Truthdig - Interviews - Jeremy Scahill on Soldiers of Fortune

The MSM doesn't talk about this nearly enough, if at all. I'll bet my life that the majority of Americans don't have any idea that this is going on. The number of private soldiers, how much they're getting paid (by the US taxpayers) and how they don't have to play by the same rules as our military troops also Blackwater's close relationship with the administration. Face it, war is good for their business!

This is INSANE. [We] have to stop this. And I'll say it again, the ones with the keys to stopping this runaway bus are the Republicans. If it wasn't for the majority of Republicans voting with the president every time the Democrats put together bills trying to change course in Iraq, we could start to find the least disastrous way to withdraw from this quagmire.

Every death in this war is on the Bush supporters heads .

Link to Truthdig - Interviews - Jeremy Scahill on Soldiers of Fortune