Concessions... the good kind

When I came across the Huffington Post headline "Obama team offers concessions on stimulus plan", I began to get those usual "Democrats admit defeat before fight" feelings that have been so common over the past 8 years. So you can imagine my surprise when I went on to the article and read that Obama was changing the plans in response to the senate's smart criticism of the bill that we mentioned here on Friday:

President-elect Barack Obama tried Sunday to shore up support in Congress for his ambitious economic policies, with his top advisers offering concessions on his economic-stimulus proposal and preparing to detail conditions for how the incoming administration will spend the second half of the $700 billion financial rescue package.

Emerging from a two-hour meeting in the Capitol with Obama advisers Lawrence Summers and Jason Furman, Senate Democrats praised the President-elect's team for agreeing to make changes to its stimulus proposal based off of concerns senators raised last week at a meeting with the president-elect’s senior aides.

The Obama team told about 35 Senate Democrats gathered at Sunday’s meeting that it would grow the size of an energy-tax incentive package and modify proposed tax credits for individuals and for businesses that hire new employees, according to meeting attendees. Also, with lawmakers raising concerns that the first half of the $700 billion of the financial rescue law was badly mismanaged, Obama’s team signaled it would lay out precisely how it would spend the second half of that package, which Congress is expected to consider as soon as this week.

“It’s very clear they’ve listened, they’ve heard and that they’re moving to respond,” said Sen. Kent Conrad, chairman of the Budget Committee, who questioned previously whether the tax credits in the stimulus package were enough to encourage new jobs. “It was very, very healthy. They’re not defensive, not arguing back, they’re listening, they’re attempting to hear and they’re responding.”

This is great news, and it shows the power of healthy debate with an administration that's willing to listen. Pretty wild stuff.

My initial reaction to the story also took me aback. As someone who began following politics seriously around the start of the W Era, I have really only known one set of political rules and truisms.

The Republicans were ruthlessly effective at implementing their agenda. The Democrats lacked any type of leadership and folded like a house of cards at the slightest sign of a fight. And most importantly, a "compromise" or "concession" was virtually synonymous with bending over for Mr. 22 percent or the senate republicans, no matter what the issue, the stakes or electoral implications.

Maybe the first aspect of change is unlearning the habits you've picked up following politics and the democratic party during it's lowest point in history. Maybe now that there's a democratic president the senate democrats will feel free to take few more chances, pick a few fights and govern like a party that's been voted into office twice with an overwhelming majority, kind of like how Caron and Antwan change their games when a healthy Gil is in the lineup.

It really could be the dawn of a new era in so many ways (for the Democrats that is, sadly the Wizards are going to take some time). Watching Mitch McConnell on the Sunday shows looking as defeated as I've ever seen any public figure was very encouraging. The leadership in congress is critically important and has the ability to be a huge asset or a massive liability to the president elect.

During the Bush years, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were needed to fight back against a determined and well orchestrated onslaught from the Bush administration on just about every area where the government makes policy. They failed miserably.

Maybe didn't understand the stakes or underestimated their opponent's willingness to go the mat. Frankly I think they were more concerned with republicans calling them pussies than than doing what the American people elected them to do. The Republicans knew they lacked the backbone for a real fight, and they exploited this fact ruthlessly the way a good coach gives 40 touches to whoever is being "guarded" by Antwan Jamison.

The dynamics have changed, and whether the leadership's mentality has changed will be evident soon enough. Hopefully this recent back and forth is a sign of things to come. While it's important not to switch into "we have a Democratic president/congress, all will be fixed" mode, it's gonna be an important step to get out of the siege mentality we've developed over the last 8 years and get ready for some good things to happen.

Senate Democrats actually fighting for progressive reforms with the president, not only does he listen but he makes some of the changes.

Holy Crap.

For the first time since the election, it might have actually sunk in that Obama is going to be our next president.

What the hell is going on here?

In a shocking but awesome development, there appears to be some legit and public push-back from democratic senators on the crappy aspects of Obama's stimulus plan. (Via Open Left)
Tom Harkin:

"There's only one thing we've got to do in this stimulus, and that's create jobs," Harkin told me. "I'm a little concerned by the way Mr. Summers and others are going on this ... it still looks a little more to me like trickle-down."

Likening Barack Obama's economic recovery plan to the failed supply-side excesses of the Reagan and Bush years is a bit of a Cassandra moment. But Harkin didn't back down. "What I'm hearing from Mr. Summers is that they've got a different approach -- tax breaks, and this and that," he said. Harkin warned that, much like the outcome of George Bush's $600 stimulus package last year, recipients of quick tax cuts "are going to be salting it away, not spending it."

Pushback like this is very important in getting better policy and letting Obama know that pressure from the left exists. The good news in this is the positive response that the Obama camp has had to the criticism:

“Obviously, it’s a big answer to a big problem and there are a lot of component parts to it,” Mr. Axelrod said in an interview after meeting with balky Senate Democrats. “These folks are not potted plants. They’re elected officials, and they’re doing their jobs.”

He added, “It’s a collective process, and we’re willing to listen to people’s ideas.”

Asked if they were willing to adopt people’s ideas, Mr. Axelrod said: “We’ll see. It depends on the idea.”

Obama himself:

My staff and I have been engaged in a constructive dialogue with members of Congress over the last few days and weeks about my American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan which will save or create at least 3 million jobs, and make long-term investments in the critical areas of energy, health care and education. We have made good progress in these consultations, and I look forward to working closely with Congress to shape legislation that will work for the American people.

Even the walking-talking human shaped feces that is Larry Summers got in on the act:

Mr. Conrad, who described the meeting as extremely positive, said Mr. Summers ended it by telling the senators, “Message received, loud and clear.”

I guess someone forgot to tell Barack Obama that criticism of his policies hurts him and should only come after he solved all of our serious problems. If people were trying to undermine my presidency, I sure wouldn't be encouraging them to do it further.

In all seriousness, I'm floored by the willingness of the senate democrats to tell Obama that parts of his plan are bullshit, but I'm equally impressed by Obama's openness to the criticism. We don't know if it will change the plan, but it's a very good thing that this type of back and forth is even taking place.

Champions

It all started with this, back in September:

Percy Harvin even at 90% really changed the game, and Tim Tebow in second half looked like a force of nature. In either college or pro football, I don't think I've ever seen one player completely boss a game the way he does. It wasn't a pretty game, but it didn't have to be.

Florida Gators
2008-2009 NCAA National Champions!

Great Moments of 2008: Awesome Quotes

1) From the PUMA blog during the Democratic convention:

JUST SNAPPED THIS PHOTO MOMENTS AGO INSIDE PUMAPAC HQ — WE ARE WATCHING THE INTRO — CHELSEA’S AD. PUMAS ARE CRYING AND YELLING WITH JOY. IT IS UNBELIEVABLE HERE. WE ARE ALL THINKING ABOUT YOU AT HOME.

I think that crying and yelling with joy might be my favorite new expression of this year, to go along with "I don't give a hell" and "I got a Fuck Lion, come fuck with me".

2) Hillary Clinton, before Iowa:

"That's what I intend to do, so I'm in it for the long run. It's not a very long run. It'll be over by February 5th."

Really speaks for itself. Hillary Clinton's primary campaign made me achieve levels of schadenfreude I didn't realize I was capable of.

3) Sam Donnellon, Philadelphia Inquirer sports columnist:

Column Title: "Danny the Great... May Make You Forget Alex."

"For two periods last night, Danny Briere was rewriting the script to this Stanley Cup playoff series. Scratch out Alex Ovechkin. Insert Briere. The go-ahead goal. The back-breaking goal. Two even-strength goals by Briere's line within 33 seconds.

You want an explosive scorer? We have your explosive scorer right here, pal."

Alex Ovechkin so far in 2008-2009: 27 Goals, 26 Assists, 133 Hits.
Daniel Briere's 2008-2009: Mostly injured, fans of non-shitty teams began urinating on him in discust.

4) Geraldine Ferraro's response to people daring to call her racist remarks... racist:

"Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

Flawless logic.

5) Mitt Romney celebrates MLK day the only way he knows how:

Mr. Romney, the Republican candidate from Massachusetts by way of Michigan and Utah who enjoys a milkshake at the end of a long day, stopped by a staging area for a Martin Luther King Birthday parade here. In his dress shirt and tie, and with his unwavering smile, he walked over and posed for photographs with a group of black youngsters. Putting his arm around a teenage girl, he waved to the cameras and offered, “Who let the dogs out?” He added a tepid “woof woof.”

Later, Mr. Romney admired a child’s gold necklace and said, “Oh, you’ve got some bling-bling here.”

And just think, he's the Republican's front-runner for president in 2012! What a talent pool!

There are a bunch I left out (you could do a top 50 Hillary Clinton moments, and I still might) so feel free to add any of your favorite quotes from last year in the comments.

Why Israel's sensless war should matter to you

Israel's most recent bombing and invasion of Gaza is that wonderful combination we got to know well during the Bush years of being simultaneously morally reprehensible and unthinkably stupid. There is no method to this madness, and there is no history of actions such as these ever, and I mean EVER, achieving any kind of peace or stability.

The response from the most politicians, Democratic and Republican, was extremely predictable in blindly supporting the Israeli government (Save the awesome reminder of why I was so passionate about working for Donna Edwards).

While I expect to read blindly pro-Israeli government nonsense in the mainstream media, the number of simplistic "a pox on both their houses" type pieces that started to appear all over the liberal blogs was a bit surprising. To see the places that wrote some of the most eloquent opposition arguments about the war in Iraq twist and turn their arguments on their head to support their indifference to Israel's actions was beginning to drive me insane.

Luckily, David Mizner stepped up with one of the best written essays on the Israel-Palestinian Conflict that I can remember titled "The I/P conflict is simpler than you think":

For progressives and liberals, I mean.

If you're a centrist or a liberal hawk (an oxymoron if there ever was one), if you believe terrorism is the transcendent evil of our time, the issue might be complex and fraught with ambiguity.

But if you believe people have the right to be free, if your sympathies lie with the relatively weak, if you believe military occupation breeds extremity and terrorism, if you believe in peace through peace as opposed to peace through pummeling, you have a clear position on this issue whether you realize it or not.

These last few weeks have made clear that in the opinion of many at Daily Kos, the enlightened position on the I/P conflict is no position. The conflict is so hopelessly complex and nuanced that it demands ambivalence, doubt, qualification. The smart person sits on the fence and criticizes both sides, whereas the person who has clarity on this issue is a zealot, an absolutist, an apologist for child killers.

Mizner goes on to explain his case for for opposing the occupation, using the broad terms that the discussion deserves:

The fundamental fact is that Palestinians are under the military domination of Israel. You can trace the history of this conflict back dozens--or, for that matter, thousands--of years, you can weigh competing historical claims to the land, you can try to figure out who was responsible for the failure of Oslo, but you will eventually arrive at this fact, and this fact should, if you're some kind of liberal, shape your position.

In the West Bank Israel's armed domination takes the form of an occupation, under which soldiers control the movement of Palestinians, seize their homes, and sporadically bombard them in the name of fighting militants. You know: an occupation. In Gaza the form of domination for the last couple of years has been a blockade that has reduced the area to, as Amnesty International put it, "bare survival." I'm sure some Gazans would prefer an outright occupation, what with the denial of lifesaving medical care and children eating grass. And that was before the latest attacks, which have killed hundreds.

Yet to read much mainstream coverage--and many diaries here--is to enter into a fantasy land where Israel's murderous and illegal militarized domination of the Palestinians doesn't exist. The uninformed would conclude that the Palestinians simply share a border with Israel.

Yet obviously, if you're a progressive, the fact of Israel's military domination of the Palestinians has to dictate your moral math. It's the responsibility of the occupier to stop occupying. Or if you prefer, people have to the right to live free from military domination. If you're a progressive, a believer in universal human rights and international law, you likely accept these precepts. You should. In demanding self-determination, Palestinians are not relying on archaic or secondary principles. As Edward Said put it:

This Palestinian insistence is no unique, decontextualized aberration; it is fully supported by every international legal and moral covenant known to the modern world.

The right to self-determination comes with few, if any, exceptions or qualifications. It supersedes all the interests of the occupying nation. Israel has a right to security, but if a Palestinian state were to emerge, the security of Israel, with its overwhelming military advantage and backing of the US, would not be in doubt. Israel would, of course, have the right to retaliate against an attack from a new Palestinian state, but there is no legal or moral justification for denying Palestinians their right to self-determination in the name of security. (Talk about preemptive war.) It would be terrific if a moderate, competent leadership emerged among Palestinians, but it's not incumbent on them to form a government to our liking anymore than it's incumbent on Iraqis to form a government to our liking as a condition for the US's withdrawal.

Indeed, it's virtually unimaginable that a people under occupation would produce a strong moderate leadership. Occupation, as we progressives know, breeds extremism, terrorism, and corruption. For Israel to demand a Palestinian government it admires and trusts as a condition for ending its occupation is like demanding that people you're drowning stop complaining before you shut off the water.

It's here that I'd like to take Mizner's argument a step further. While he goes on to describe the consensus behind the two state solution, I'd argue that is why our opposition to this war goes beyond helping execute an international consensus. Situations such as the civil wars in Sri Lanka or Niger Delta are particularly troubling because even with 100% attention from the US, we don't always hold a credible position with any of the actors who could make a difference. (Not implying that you shouldn't try in those situations, but just pointing out the difference in degree of difficulty)

But the difference with is Israel is that we are responsible for their actions. They are a self governing democracy, but as far as their foreign policy goes, we are the ones that fund it, and therefore control it. We give them billions of dollars of military equipment, far more than any other nation on earth, and we harbor responsibility for what they do with it.

When Israel dumps white phosphorous on Gaza, when they bomb a UN school sheltering refugees for the second time this week, and when their 10 days of attacks have left 500 dead and thousands injured, it was our money that helped that happen. It may not be pretty, but those are the facts.

But while it is unbelievably depressing, it also means that the United States is in (and has been since 1967) a unique position to stop this war and mediate a solution. The entire rest of the world agrees on the framework for a 2 state solution, and we control Israel's hand.

Against this type of progress are the pro war Israeli lobby, which might be more powerful than any other organization of it's kind in this country. What other organization could get the three leading presidential contenders of both parties to agree to essentially the same policies during the height of an extremely contentions election? Who else could get away with accusing two of our country's most well respected foreign policy scholars anti-Semites for writing a paper and then book about their lobby's strength?

There are bright spots too, such as the creation of a pro peace Jewish think tank "J Street" which is already doing an admirable job of combating the misinformation campaign about this current war, and public opinion in the US is beginning to move towards that of the rest of the world.

Changing our polices starts with educating yourself and spreading information among friends and within your communities. Call Congress and let them know that you care about how YOUR money is being spent. The more these issues are discussed and publicized, the greater the hope that we can end APIAC's stranglehold on US policy during our lifetimes.

I Swear to God....

Introduce OBAMA to GUPTA...and GUPTA to OBAMA:

CNN's GUPTA tapped for surgeon general

Ok, my initial reaction resulted in me spitting out my drink on my binder. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, of CNN's "Planet in Peril" fame has reportedly been asked by Obama to serve as Surgeon General.

Seriously...Times like this I wish J.N. was still in the states to lend his insight on the situation.

Now, after taking sometime to think about it..I mean, he is a neurosurgeon right? That should mean something to me, shouldn't it? He also, despite his freelancing on CNN, he did help craft policy as a White House "Fellow" with Hillary Clinton.

Right?? This is just another F U to the establishment, revolutionary, bold, HOPE promoting move by the Obama administration, isn't it?? Is Gupta is Obama's teenage punk rocker wearing a tie sending middle fingers to the Old Cronies in Washington?

Any thoughts on the 'wisdom' of this decision? Or is anyone else as confused as me?

WHY?!?!?!?!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Caps-Flyers: the Rematch

Tonight DCJonesy and I will be attending the first Flyers/Caps game in DC since last season's beyond intense 7 game playoff series. Bruce Boudreau:

"I don't know how much they like us, but we don't like them," Boudreau said. "I think the animosity [at the end of last month's game] was more frustration on our part. We thought we had played a pretty good game, but yet we were down 7-1. There were a lot of boiling points. They wanted to pile it on as much as possible. They were probably bummed out that their tough guy got beat up twice, so they started coming after our guys."

Hopefully I'll have pictures later. For now, let's relive what bummed the Flyers out back in December:

C - A - P - S

CAPS! CAPS! CAPS!