Manning Up - It's Called Being a President

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

On Friday Morning, President Obama travelled to Baltimore for the Republican Caucus's annual retreat, and submitted himself to questioning from the opposition. Here is the video via MSNBC; and be on the lookout for replays in primetime via CSPAN.

Now, could you imagine Bush doing this? Or even Clinton for that matter? And on camera?

Mind you, we may disagree with some of his answers and proposals - especially regarding Energy Policy (What the hell is "Clean Coal"?), Health Insurance Reform and his initial economic policies, but Obama finally appears to have recaptured some of his Campaign Trail Swagger.

Be sure to check out the question from Tom Price at 39:20 (GA), where he asks "You have stated that Republicans have repeatedly offered no ideas and no solutions...In spite of the fact that we have offered postive solutions for health care...that would provide health care for all Americans...What should we tell our constituents when who know that Republicans have offered positive answers to the challenges that Americans Face?"

Obama's Response at 42:30 - "It's not enough that you say we've offered a health care plan, and I look up the section you've provided me 'Summary of GOP Health Care Reform Bill' [which says] 'The GOP Plan will lower health care premiums for American Families and Small Businesses, addressing America's number One priority for health reform.' That's an idea we all embrace, but specifically it must work. There must be a mechanism that will actually work."

SCOTUS Docket Watch - Citizens United v FEC Ruling Pt. 1

Newsflash ladies and gentlemen! In a 5-4 Decision this morning, the Supreme Court has overturned a 63 year old law and several lower court decisions that prohibited labor unions and private companies from using their own funds to air their own campaign ads. The Full text of the decision is available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/25537902/Citizens-Opinion.

Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the decision was premised upon freedom of speech and political censorship concerns:

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed.

"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.

Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.

For those who have not followed the case, the controversy started when the Conservative Political group Citizens United created an anti-Hillary Clinton campaign video during her run for Presidency. Their goal was to air the ads thru "On-Demand" distribution services. The FEC and federal Courts took issue, saying the film looked more like a campaign ad, and enforced campaign advertising regulations on the film.

The issue developed as lower tried to draw distinctions between what is permissible for individuals, unions and corporations.

As for the immediate impact, expect a RIDICULOUS AMOUNT of spending by privately funded groups, including corporations and union groups in the upcoming midterm. The mechanics of the change simplify just how corporate money can be funneled to candidates:

This basically eliminates a middleman: before today, corporations and unions had to set up PACs (political action committees), filed separately with the IRS, that would receive donations. And they did. Corporations and unions spend millions of dollars on elections. Now, however, the accounting firewall is gone, and Wal-Mart or the Service Employees International Union, for instance, can spend their corporate money directly on candidates.

What do you think? How will the change impact the progressive movement, labor unions and the midterms? I will have more posts on the topic when I get a chance examine the full decision in greater detail.

The End of 2009 - A Blank Page Moment from 2 Old Friends

To celebrate the end of a year on the Ole Train of Thought, I bring you the final strip of Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson. Today is actually the 14th anniversary of its publication. Enjoy.