.
"We can't sustain a system that bleeds billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness or exist solely because of the power of politicians, lobbyists or interest groups. We simply can't afford it. This isn't about big government or small government. It's about building a smarter government that focuses on what works."

�� Barack Obama


Perhaps no President-Elect in modern times has faced a more daunting challenge than Barack Obama. Hence the depth of preparation, by him and his transition team. And by all accounts those preparations have started earlier and are more thorough than for past transitions.

One change that Obama has signalled is a thorough review of the budget, in order to weed out waste, weed out examples where taxpayers are subsidising the wealthy, reduce costs when objectives could be achieved in a simpler manner.

In the midst of a financial crisis that grows worse by the day, the worst since the Great Depression, we may soon see the power of lobbyists wane, the end of pork barrel politics (Democratic and Republican), and the dawn of greater responsibility (bipartisan!) in Congress.

Dare I say, President-Elect Obama has announced a long-sought-for dose of fiscal conservatism! Or to use his own words: smarter government.

I'm impressed and surprised by the team Obama is putting together. It's amazing that he will keep Gates as Secretary of Defense, as Gates presided over the surge in Iraq which eventually brought more security and stability there. Obama had opposed the surge, so it seems that keeping Gates (a Republican) on his team is an implicit acknowledgement that he was wrong on that point. Good for him, I say: a rare show of humility among politicians. Amazing, too, that Hilary Clinton is his Secretary of State. Recall that he had ridiculed her foreign policy experience during the campaign. Choosing Timothy Geithner to replace Hank Paulson as Treasury is also a surprise, as Geithner, along with Ben Bernake and Paulson have been an unholy triumverate in consulting with one another concerning the government's response to the economic mess. Indeed, one can imagine Gates and Geithner in a McCain cabinet.

Obama ran on the promise that he would bring fresh, new faces and ideas to Washington, but so far he seems to be surrounding himself with veteran Clinton and Bush players. He promised "change we can believe in," and had a message that resonated strongly with far-Left outfits like MoveOn.org, who must be wondering what the hell is going on. I think he shows a pragmatic side, however, which is a pleasant surprise, as I thought he would be more of a a liberal ideologue. So far, so good . . .

A remarkable transparency!
----------------------------------

I think this is nothing short of remarkable.

I�ve never heard of any President, let alone a President-Elect, offer the American public and the world this degree of transparency. Furthermore, Obama�s transition team is actually welcoming intelligent input!

If this continues after President Obama�s team takes power, it will have been a radical change, indeed.

What is especially heartening is that this is not a question of Liberal or conservative. Instead, it is a strong early sign of integrity, competency and smarter government.

HP, you're literally swooning . . .

I think any group or organization given public trust should be transparent regarding their intentions and policies. I do hope there are discussions concerning national security that will be confidential, however, and I'm sure that will be the case.

Judging the man by his actions
--------------------------------------

LOL, swooning? Hardly!
But this is a radical change from what has been. And it�s refreshing. Did someone say "government of the people, by the people and for the people" ... ?

I am judging Obama by his actions.
Granted, what really counts is what will happen after the 20th of January -- but what we�re already seeing on many fronts is highly encouraging.

HP, your thread title has a double-meaning: "Set Things Right." More "Right" than liberals had hoped for, as the linked article below indicates:
- http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16292.html

quote:

Liberals are growing increasingly nervous � and some just flat-out angry � that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.

Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He�s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he�s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.

Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.

�He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it's all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,� said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.

OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: �Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?�

LOL! Well, there once was a time when Democrats weren't so far to the Left as Bowers, MoveOn.org, DailyKos and others have moved them. Good to see Obama reversing himself on some of the ridiculous promises he'd made when campaigning.

quote:

Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he won�t enact the tax.

Obama�s pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts favored the wealthy. But now he�s struck a more cautious stance on rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling he�ll merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.

Obama�s post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed. As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.

Now Obama�s says that on his first day in office he will begin to �design a plan for a responsible drawdown,� as he told NBC�s �Meet the Press� Sunday. Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bush�s defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role.

The central premise of the left�s criticism is direct � don�t bite the hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect. The Internet that helped him so much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.

That's a real heart-breaker, isn't it? But it just goes to show how much the Left is driven by ideology and how little they really care for the welfare of the economy and country, which seems to be Obama's first concern.

Wall Street Journal documents Obama�s rising approval
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In a post above, Phil, you joked about me swooning about Obama. Well, I am genuinely impressed. The President-Elect is obviously handing the Transition and the preparations to exercise power in a manner that inspires confidence -- and not just with European Liberals like me.

As you may well know, Obama received more votes on November 4th than any non-incumbent Presidential Candidate in history.

More striking, however, is the upward pointing curve of his approval rating. This reservoir of good will may well prove decisive when he is called upon to tackle the gargantuan challenges facing the incoming President, his Administration, the Nation and the world. In particular this will hold true with regards to the Financial Crisis, as unemployment rises, businesses close, and savings and homes are lost.

Building confidence and inspiring a joint American effort may be just as vital as the implementation of objective measures.

All the more striking, then, are these observations of the Wall Street Jounal:

quote:

...Mr. Obama is viewed favorably by two-thirds of the public, up from 56% in mid-October. The portion of Americans who see him in a negative light has fallen to 16%. Even 29% of McCain voters now see Mr. Obama positively, compared with 9% in October. Republicans, small-town voters and conservatives have all warmed up to the president-elect since Election Day.

Nearly four in 10 people say they view Mr. Obama more favorably than they did on Election Day.

40 % viewing him more favourably...!
That really is a reassuring judgement.

--HeartPrayer

Yes indeedy! Obama is a marvelous President-elect, which is a real hard job to do!

I do hope he comes out of this mess with the Illinois governor untainted. Chicago politics, in particular, is a dirty business, and he's rubbed shoulders closely with some very unsavory characters. It would be tragic for our country and really the whole world to have him begin his Presidency in the context of a scandal.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
Yes indeed! Obama is a marvelous President-elect, which is a real hard job to do!

Under the present circumstances, it is indeed.

The team must be chosen, and a strong foundation must be laid for what is to come. These are extraordinary times -- and the transparency and clarity of the manner in which this is being handled strikes a chord. Hence the strongly rising approval rate.

As your emoticon implies, what truly counts will come later.
Nevertheless, the preparations are in fact "a real hard job".
(Especially with the disappearing act of the President-eject.)

It's looking increasingly worse for Obama re. the scandal surrounding his vacated Senate seat. Initially, he said that neither he nor anyone in his admin. had been in touch with the IL gov., but now it's obvious that his Chief of Staff, Emmanuel, has had several meetings with the gov. No wrongdoing is implied, but it doesn't help to lie about the matter. After all, no one would be surprised if Obama had an interest in who replaced his Senate position. Hopefully, Emmanuel or Obama won't be subpoenaed for any wrongdoing.

- - -

Yesterday we learned that Obama chose Tom Daschle as his Sec. of Health and Human Services. That's another Washington vet. After promising in his campaign to make a break from the Washington insider crowd, it seems he's chosen the surround himself with the most hard-core insiders.

Hardcore pragmatic personnel choices
------------------------------------------------

Those are good points. I think the key to Obama�s personnel choices is this: Finding the most competent people available. Given the massive (and growing) challenges facing the USA, there is less time for "on-the-job training", and absolutely no opportunity for trial and error. There is too much at stake.

And yet is incorrect to say that Obama is choosing a team of only "Washington insiders". We do have some surprising and refreshing choices:

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): Shaun Donovan. Mr Donovan is currently New York City Commissioner of Housing Preservation and Development.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs: Eric Shinseki. Rather than an "insider", Mr Shinseki was pushed out in the cold by Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney after voicing the prophetic warning that more soldiers would be required in Iraq to hold the peace than were alloted.

Secretary of Energy: Stephen Chu. Mr Chu is hardly a Washington insider, in fact he�s not even a politician! Instead, as a Nobel Prize-winning physicist he will ensure that the policies enacted will be based on solid science.

Secretary of Commerce: Bill Richardson. He is 2nd term Governor of New Mexico. Granted, he has experience from both Washington and the UN, but he also has the necessary distance.

We could go on, for there are many other examples; but any way you look at it, there is nary anyone on the team that hasn�t already proved themselves. Hence also the satisfaction of many Conservatives with Mr Obama�s personnel choices. (The other day, Mr Kissinger wrote a rave review of the foreign policy team.)

More importantly, for each area of challenges Mr Obama seems to be choosing a highly professional team with knowledge and experience that enables them to complement each other and work together to get the job done. In other words, teams that are prepared to say Yes, we wil!l"

This is not the time for measuring things according to a Liberal-Conservative score card. Rather, this is the time for Competence rather than Incompetence, the time for Integrity, the time for mobilising the very best people available.

As you have pointed out, Phil, the President-Elect�s cabinet choices show a pragmatic side. I whole-heartedly agree --pragmatic as in sensible and realistic, smart and result-oriented, rather than in a blindly ideological fashion.

Come to think of it, looking back at disastrous last eight years, that in itself constitutes a major change!

-- HeartPrayer

quote:

Originally posted by HeartPrayer:
[qb]
As you have pointed out, Phil, the President-Elect�s cabinet choices show a pragmatic side. I whole-heartedly agree --pragmatic as in sensible and realistic, smart and result-oriented, rather than in a blindly ideological fashion.

Come to think of it, looking back at disastrous last eight years, that in itself constitutes a major change[/qb]

LOL! OK, HP, you win! No ideologues in Obama's Cabinet (not counting Clinton, Daschle, Biden and Emmanuelle, that is). And . . . yep, Bush's Cabinet was so radically ideological that Obama is keeping his SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. Okee dokee. And Bush's past Secretary of State (Colin Powell) actually endorsed Obama for President.

Really, I do agree with you that Obama's choices are pragmatic, but they're also far to the right of what his prime constituency from the Left expected. Check out http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/56956.html for a sample of the sentiment. And I really love this one:
Right-Wingers and Neocons love Obama's Cabinet Appointments
- http://www.alternet.org/blogs/...abinet_appointments/

Preparing a Pragmatic Administration
-----------------------------------------------

It sounds like we are both thankful that Obama appointed pragmatists rather than the Left-wing ideologues that f.ex. MoveOn.org might have wanted. I certainly am not disappointed with Obama�s choices!

Robert Graves is actually a good example of a highly competent pragmatist, which is why Obama is keeping him, at least during a transitional phase. Excellent idea! His predecessor Donald Rumsfeld was a good example of an incompetent ideological minister. Keeping Graves, who enjoys wide respect amongst Democrats as well as Republicans, is also a strong and ecouraging signal that President Obama will leave the actual waging of war to military professionals, something that Rumsfeld and Bush failed to do, hence the Iraqi debacle.

I suspect that if President Bush would have had the good sense to dump Rumsfeld far earlier, and had appointed the widely-respected Graves as his replacement, the situation in Iraq would have been far better. In fact, I would not be surprised if America could long-since have said what Bush without credibility tried to mutter during that photo-op on the aircraft carrier: Mission accomplished!

Colin Powell is another example of a highly competent pragmatist. So it came as no surprise to me that he endorsed Obama. In my personal opinion he would make an excellent Middle East envoy or an at-large ambassador for the USA.

Rahm Emmanuel an ideologue? I am sure he has many good ideas, but he�s proved himself to be a highly pragmatic player. Furthermore, making the rounds amongst Republican Senators and Congressmen and handing out his private cell phone number, inviting them to call, is a very strong signal of bipartisan intention and pragmatism.

Joe Biden? Once again a man who has proved himself a pragmatist, gaining wide respect for his foreign policy expertise. He�s a solid moderate. Daschle and Clinton? Hillary has patiently walked the grades. In my eyes she is the most surprising appointment thus far. Time will tell how these two handle their cabinet posts and respective areas of policy.

OK, so let's see if I understand, here. Bush appointed people like Colin Powell and Robert Gates, whom you admire, but Bush was an ideologue? Actually, not even Rumsfeld can be considered an ideologue; he was appointed largely to reform the Pentagon. Cheney, OK, but Biden's about the same, in my book.

Re. "Mission Accomplished," see http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...aq/main4060963.shtml

quote:

May 1 marks the fifth anniversary of President George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech, as heralded by a giant banner strung across the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln.

After shifting explanations, the White House eventually said the "Mission Accomplished" phrase referred to the carrier's crew completing their 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq.

"President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said 'mission accomplished' for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday. "And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year."

There's another sense in which "Mission Accomplished" wasn't a misnomer. The Iraqi army had been defeated and Saddam had been deposed. The military had accomplished what they set out to do; the next phase was political, with the military playing a supportive role. Granted, there were mistakes, and the Rumsfeld approach didn't go so well, but Rumsfeld was replaced and a different strategy pursued -- by the Bush Admin. It included a buildup of troops and a different approach to security -- a strategy you (along with Obama and Biden) criticized and said wouldn't work. But here we are, just a little more than five years after the invasion, with a new government taking control of things and our military scheduled to begin drawing down. Five years! That's not so bad to go from Saddam to what's quickly becoming a viable democratic government. I wonder why you don't give Bush credit for that, and why you emphasize silly stuff like the "Mission Accomplished" banner and "ideologues." Don't you think that's just a tad biased?

News flash, news flash: Dick Cheney applauds Obama's national security team..

LOL!

Seeking bipartisan common ground
-------------------------------------------

Here is yet another signal of how serious the intentions of the President-Elect are to seek bipartisan agreement:

Obama calls leading Republican Senators and Congressmen to find common ground

Speed will be of the essence when the new Administration takes power on the 20th of January. The challenges facing public servants, whether in the White House or in Congress, are so massive that there will not be time for the usual dithering, politicking and procedural games. (It is not without reason that the standing joke is: What is the opposite of progress?)

I am glad that Obama is taking these steps, and equally glad that a number of key Republicans are seeing them in a positive light. Time will tell how successfully Democrats and Republicans can work together. If they fail to do so, we will all pay a tremendous price.

I say Godspeed -- in every sense of the word!

Amen, HP! I hope, too, they can get beyond posturing and bickering to put the good of the country and the rest of the world first.

.
Yet another interesting example of inclusiveness and building bridges (never mind that it infuriates some symbol-oriented progressives): Obama�s desire to give both Rev. Rick Warren and Rev. Joe Lowry key roles during the inauguration ceremony.

Respectively the invocation and the benediction.

quote:

Obama�s desire to give both Rev. Rick Warren and Rev. Joe Lowry key roles during the inauguration ceremony.

Jeremiah Wright being noticeably absent . . .

Phil
Noticing some of the statements made concerning the before and after Presdiential election.My concern is never who anyone voted for rather it's why and how they make their decisions.I found it uniquely revealing that before the election you described Barrick Obama as being very intelligent and reflective yet you after said that the elction should not feature style over substance which seems ideologically oxy-moronic.Then after the election you Kudoed some of President Obama's transitional choices describing him as being surprisingly pragmatic.Again how could anyone who is truly intelligent and reflective not at least invariably reflect pragmatism?Reading your views before the election my concern was the seeming obsessive tendencies some have concerning the Iraqi occupation though you did actually utter that the determination of success was inclusive of Iraq's ultimite self determination soveriegnistically.Many actually don't even say that proferring words like victory and or loss for America without defining the resolve was to exact Iraq's emancpation.You could presume that is fundamental yet tell me many hadn't lost sight of that simple idealistically understood goal exchanging a rally round for the sake of itself doggedness that was strangely seemingly ignoring of Iraq's required sovereignty after deposing Saddam.Yikes?And no don't presume who I voted for. I never divulge that and have proven many can't figure that out being they converse thematically concerning the election with a yeah what's it to ya attitude.I guess it's this 100 unit apartment facility which actually seems to litmus that a microcosm can actually be an immense distortion of the earth's constituency.Heh the computer glitched before I had a chance to finish.Phil what I'm saying is after reading your before and after election rhetoric you resolved a unique circle of logic being that I thought you were seemingly unfairly pigeonholing Barrick Obama then suddenly amongst the same text you describe him conversely and after the election actually compliment some of his decision policies.That proving you weren't being philosophically ignorant.Did you notice they took a leaving the voting precinct poll and a surprising amount of voters said that the Iraq occupation wasn't the nucleic concern that decided their vote?Whether that's a true reflection or not I don't know yet it suggests that aquiescence is crucial and potential that God providentially resets American conciousness like an astable multivibrator.That's electronic tech talk yet it's utteranCe suggests that an election can be a crucial reshuffling of this very important nation and its leadership and that resshuffling is nothing more or less than a 24 hour period before election day that galvanizes what this nation requires for imminent resolve beyond superficial voting reflexes.This is not the least bit knocking candidates Obama -Biden-Mc Cain-Palin rather expressing my before and after election atypically inspired surprise that those chosen for balloting seem imbued with pre ordained levels of maturity mixed with imminence such that which ever balance the nation requires is achieved.Yikes and that not at the mercy of Floridian counties boggling recount sceanarios.Not knocking my great blessed pride for George Bush and Presient Clinton's vice President merely attempting to witness what we've been through.Doesn't it seem invariably God's hand paws amongst the muck enough to give the earth a decent chance?Take care and God bless the blessed!Absolutely no twisted parallels!Absolutely straight forward!Gary V. Giardina!

Thoughts on the resurgence of American patriotism

To many Conservatives, one of the astonishing aspects of Barack Obama�s election, and the impeccably handled Transition, is the resurgence of American patriotism.

Here is an article that explores the "why".

As a European, I truly believe that America will rise united and stronger by embracing the values on which your great Nation and your Constitution is based. In posts in other threads I have underscored my conviction that the US Constitution is the finest guiding document for a nation that I know of.

I am convinced that we will now see a monumental effort by men and women of integrity to get America back on track. This will be a contagious fire of inspiration!

Obama seems to be moving quickly to overturn any and all restrictions on abortion. The Dems knew better than to push any legislation of this kind with Bush as President, but now they have a strong pro-choicer (one almost wishes to say "pro-abortion") exec. in the White House.

- see http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...u/eu_vatican_obama_2

- http://www.foxnews.com/politic...-choice-legislation/

Looks like it's pay-back time for the pro-abort lobbies (and time, finally, for me to drop my membership in the Democrat Party and just register Independent).

The Obama "stimulus plan" seems to be more about moving the country in the direction of socialism than stimulating the private sector to become more productive. A prime example of this is in his education proposals, which vastly increase the influence of the federal government in education policy and funding.
- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...uc.html?ref=business

The "discretionary income" left to the Dept. of Ed. alone is staggering -- even in the Bush admin's final year.

quote:

The Department of Education�s discretionary budget for the 2008 fiscal year was about $60 billion. The stimulus bill would raise that to about $135 billion this year, and to about $146 billion in 2010. Other federal agencies would administer about $20 billion in additional education-related spending.

I'm sorry, but in a time of economic crisis, it makes little sense to allot so much money to "discretionary" spending. Budgets should be justified in terms of specific needs. All that will happen, here, is that states will request to draw on this money to fund education, making them more reliant on the Feds. That will be the trend in more and more sectors, it seems.

Discretionary spending means you have flexibility.
Sounds like an excellent idea in the current situation!

What's the "current situation" that justifies the U.S. Dept. of Education to have 135 billion for "discretionary spending?"

I thought a big part of the signs of the times was an economic crisis with huge government deficits. Seems discretionary spending is an excellent place to begin cutting budgets, not inflating them.

Otoh, maybe it's payback time to the NEA?

Btw, check out the quote at the top of your opening post in light of this exchange. There's almost no federal agency more non-essential than the USDOE.