However, his recent tango with the birthers movement made his ratings take a nose dive and, well, CNN showed him the door as a result.

So that’s why this interview with Jon Stewart isn’t necessarily puzzling, but it is a bit sad. Just 9 short months into this presidency and Dobbs actually thinks that Obama is continuing Bush’s policies? Sure, there are a few things he hasn’t changed, but it’s hard for me to believe that Dobbs doesn’t appreciate that these things aren’t simply going to happen overnight…especially with two wars and a massive economic crisis happening…especially since Dobbs himself says he’s an incrementalist. (ahem!)

In short, where is this paranoia (that must have fueled Dobbs’ birther flirtation) coming from?

In any event, take a gander…

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

I’ll ask the question that Stewart asks in the interview…do independents think that our country and our standing is that fragile? Because if Bush didn’t destroy it in the last 8 years, why do indies all of a sudden think that Obama’s going to do it by passing health care reform and rebuilding our infrastructure?

What say you?

I’ve heard quite a bit of back channel chatter about the last two posts on the blog and I wanted to explain how I was responsible for the topic even showing up here in the first place.

Doug and I are friends on Facebook and he feeds his posts through his profile. I saw the bowing post and we had the following conversation…

As far as John’s post, well, I give everybody the same access to post when I invite them to have an account. That means he can come and go as he pleases. And that policy is my responsibility too. (Although I’d prefer the headlines were less sensationalist than what John wrote, and have told him as much.)

So, not that I want this to turn into a prolonged fight over the protocols of bowing, but if you have an account here to blog…tell us what you think.

In any event, hope this clears up any confusion.

Also, I hope you don’t unsubscribe because of a couple posts rubbed you the wrong way. After all, that’s sort of the point of this site.

We all know we’re on an unsustainable course with all of this spending. And this is why I voted for this guy: he’s a realist. We needed a short term shot in the arm when he first got in here, but now we have to worry about the long term consequences.

Politico has more:

On the practical side, Obama has spent more money on new programs in nine months than Bill Clinton did in eight years, pushing the annual deficit to $1.4 trillion. This leaves little room for big spending initiatives.

On the political side, Obama can help moderate Democrats avoid some tough votes in an election year and, perhaps more importantly, calm the nerves of independent voters who are voicing big concerns with the big spending and deficits. Even if Obama succeeds – and that’s a big if – it will be tough for many Democrats to sell themselves as deeply concerned about spending after voting for the stimulus, the bailouts, the health care legislation and a plan to address global warming, four enormous government programs.

“Democrats have to reassure voters we are not being reckless,” said a Democratic official involved in the planning. “The White House knows this and that’s why we’ll be hearing a lot about reducing the deficit early next year. Democrats owned this issue for the past four years and cannot afford to cede it to Republicans now.”

And sure, some of this is political, but it’s still a refreshingly logical decision and goes completely against the “socialist” meme that Obama’s critics are trying to smear him with. It makes even more sense when you consider that Independent voters are starting to grow weary of the Congressional Dems.

So then, will a focus on the deficit and jobs in 2010 put Obama in a better position for 2012?

As I’ve said numerous times before, voters aren’t stupid. They know who piloted our economic collapse last year and it’s going to be extremely hard for Republicans to convince them otherwise.

Still, it is kind of telling that Republicans blame Obama more for the economy than Bush, even though it’s by a very small 6 point margin. I mean, come on folks…we’re 10 months in and you REALLY believe that Obama is the reason why we’re still only treading water?

Also note how the number of Republicans is skewing the total to be 7 points more than what Independents think. Because that number is really what you should be looking at since they’ll determine whether or not Republicans make serious gains in 2010. And since the economy is bound to be the #1 issue at that time, this doesn’t bode well for the GOP.

Still, I predict that if the economy doesn’t get better by this time next year Obama and Bush will be even. At least among Indies. Because at that point it’ll be about 20 months in and, fair or not, Obama will own it.

But what do you think? When will Obama own the economy in swing voters’ minds?

Here’s the graph from Gallup:

This creates a bit of an interesting predicament. Should Obama simply push forward with his initiatives and let the polls be damned or can he risk losing independents in front of a tough 2012 fight? I guess it depends on whether or not he can lose independents or not.

Still, this drop isn’t the largest in a President’s first term. That honor is still held by Harry Truman and I doubt anybody will be beating him soon…

-19% in 6 months time?

Yikes!

Who’s this guy?

Meet Kenneth R. Feinberg, the new pay “czar” for the White House. He’s tasked with reigning in the out of control compensation at companies the government helped recently.

I think it should be noted right off the bat that this is tied to executive compensation and bonuses…two pots of money that are so out of step with compensation in the real world it’s obscene. I mean, one year after all of these places went under and they’re giving out billions in bonuses?

Here’s more from Wash Post:

The cuts will affect 25 of the most highly paid executives at each of five major financial companies and two automakers, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plan has not been made public. Cash salaries will be cut by about 90 percent compared with last year, they said.

The administration will also curtail many corporate perks, including the use of corporate jets for personal travel, chauffeured drivers and country club fee reimbursement, people familiar with the matter have said. Individual perks worth more than $25,000 have received particular scrutiny.

And here are the companies affected…

The seven companies under Feinberg’s purview are Citigroup, Bank of America, General Motors, Chrysler, GMAC, Chrysler Financial and American International Group. These firms have received a total of about $250 billion in bailout funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program, adopted last year by Congress, and benefited from hundreds of billions of dollars more in government guarantees and other support.

Personally, I’d like to see executive pay at publicly traded companies capped at a set price with stock options/bonuses only triggering when those folks actually produce provable results. But this “failing up” nonsense that CEOs continue to do decade after decade is ridiculous.

Of course I know this won’t happen because Wall Street firms will continue to claim that these compensation models are key to attracting the right talent, even though there are usually dozens of qualified applicants for every position they have.

Still, one can dream…

The jokes will be legion, but the policy is sound. And this is a move that Libertarians, Republicans and Democrats can all applaud.

From The AP:The jokes will be legion, but the policy is sound. And this is a move that libertarians, republicans and democrats can all applaud.

From The AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.

Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws.

The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.

Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

What does this mean practically?

Well, no more federal raids of medical marijuana shops, fewer non-violent drug offenders in jail and a LOT of very happy stoners. Oh, and we are able to focus a lot of our efforts on important things (terrorism, gangs, etc.), which should save more lives and a lot of money.

Again, this should be applauded from all corners…but I’m waiting to see what the states’ rights crowd has to say about it.

So, it looks like the artist behind the iconic poster of Barack Obama actually did use an A.P. image as a template to create it. Still, there’s a lot to discuss about copyright infringement, Fair Use, etc.

However, first the details from the NY Times:

The A.P. claimed in January that Mr. Fairey owed them credit and compensation for using the photograph. But in February Mr. Fairey sued The A.P., seeking a declaratory judgment that the poster did not infringe on the agency’s copyrights, and that he was entitled to the image under the “fair use” exception of the copyright law. The A.P. countersued in March, saying that Mr. Fairey misappropriated its rights.

Mr. Fairey told The A.P. — and his own lawyers — that he used a shot from an event about Darfur at the National Press Club in Washington event where Mr. Obama was seated next to George Clooney. Instead, the photograph he used was a solo image of Mr. Obama’s head, tilted in intense concentration. Mr. Fairey admitted that in the subsequent months following the suit and countersuit, Mr. Fairey destroyed evidence and created false documents to cover up the real source.

“In an attempt to conceal my mistake, I submitted false images and deleted other images,” Mr. Fairey said in a statement. “I sincerely apologize for my lapse in judgment, and I take full responsibility for my actions, which were mine alone.”

Yes, Fairey lying about this was wrong, stupid, etc. Shame on him for that. But, as the title suggests, that doesn’t make his use of the photo copyright infringement.

Let’s look at The A.P.’s actual claim. They’re saying that you can’t create ANYTHING that uses their content as mere reference material without paying them. They’ve done similar things with bloggers in the past, and their policies are, in a word, nuts. Because they literally expect people to pay to use even a tiny snippet of their writing or posting a picture. Actually, I’m probably in violation of their terms of use right now for using the photo at the top, but that’s where Fair Use comes in…

The government describes it as such…

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Now, there are 4 basic ways that Fair Use can be applied to any given case, and my guess is that Fairey is using the following as his way out, “The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.” What that means is that the use of the copyrighted material doesn’t negatively impact the value of the image.

And here’s where the true irony of this case comes in…nobody even knew about that Obama photo before Fairey made it famous. So he created the market for The A.P., not the other way around.

But wait…there’s more!

Apparently, there’s confusion as to whether The A.P. even owns the photograph!

Again, from NY Times…

Complicating the legal battle, in July, the freelance photographer, Mannie Garcia, filed court papers in July saying that he was the one who was owned the copyright of the 2006 photo; Mr. Garcia’s assignment was to photograph Mr. Clooney, and he contended that he never assigned his copyright rights to The A.P.

So let me get this straight…The A.P. told somebody to photograph Clooney but they’re claiming that ANY photograph taken during that time belongs to them?

Hmmm….pot meet kettle. Kettle, pot. I’m sure you two have a lot to discuss. Maybe you can talk a little about this guy while you’re at it.

Along with the head scratching regarding President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize came quite a few humorous quips.  Including from the President himself:

After I received the news, Malia walked in and said, “Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo’s birthday!” And then Sasha added, “Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up.” So it’s good to have kids to keep things in perspective.

The President reflected the general feeling that the Nobel Peace Prize award was, at best, premature.  He chose to turn the attention to the country itself, and the hopes and dreams of all people.  Good on you, Mr. President.

But look closely at the text of the speech.  The President recognizes another fact, that the Nobel Committee awarded this prize on the eve of the decision to expand the war in Afghanistan:

And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to confront the world as we know it today. I am the commander in chief of a country that’s responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies.

Ego is one of the core character traits of any world leader, and some have noted that our President is in possession of one himself, to put it mildly.

His frustration with a single media outlet that does not genuflect at the altar of his personality, Fox News Network, leads to a public spat, crossing a line not even the ego-mania of President Nixon would breach:  shooting downhill.  Fox News can only benefit from the attention, and gain even more viewers as they realize only one media outlet is catching the attention of the administration.

His speeches are peppered with self references, and his “World Apology Tour” found him apologizing on our behalf.  Yet, I don’t recall that he ever apologized for saying the Cambridge Police Department “acted stupidly”, even though his subsequent actions showed he knew he blew it.  Ego gets in the way of many things with our leaders.  And the Nobel Committee knows that.

Can a man who accepts the Nobel Peace Prize live with the diminished reputation as the only winner to immediately escalate a war, sending tens of thousands of troops into harm’s way?

The Nobel Committee sent the Peace Prize in a box large enough to house our President.  Mr. Obama’s immediate response indicates that perhaps he won’t climb into the box.  Let’s hope not.

Cross posted to FrankHagan.com

What to say to this?

Well, I’ll give it a try…

Looks like 1st Amendment rights are alive and well if folks can create a billboard that sits on one of the most well traveled highways in the country and suggest Obama is a communist and make a quasi-revolutionary call. I mean…do they not see the irony of that?

Second, has Obama restricted ANY 2nd Amendment rights so far? Obviously he’s not a big gun rights advocate, and he was in favor of renewing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, but abandoned that in April in favor of ratifying a treaty that only deals with small arms trafficking.

So yes, once again the scare tactics are easily disproved.

Moving on…

More from Reuters:

Analysts polled by Reuters had expected non-farm payrolls to drop 180,000 in September and the unemployment rate to rise to 9.8 percent from 9.7 percent the prior month. The poll was conducted before reports, including regional manufacturing surveys, showed some deterioration in employment measures.

The government revised job losses for July and August to show 13,000 more jobs lost than previously reported. Preliminary annual benchmark revisions, released together with September’s employment report showed that total non-farm payroll employment for March would have to be revised down about 824,000. [...]

Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed people has risen by 7.6 million to 15.1 million, the department said. While the decline in payrolls has moderated from early this year, companies are still not hiring on a wide scale, likely waiting for a signal that the economic recovery is sustainable.

This can kind of be a chicken and an egg problem. Companies won’t start hiring until they see signs of recovery, but recovery won’t happen until companies start hiring. Yikes!

That’s where the solvency of the banking industry comes into play, and while we have seen some of the TARP money paid back, money is still hard to come by. My continued belief is employment is always a lagging indicator of economic recovery and that we’ll start to see job growth by Q1 2010.

Tick tock…

First Drudge tried to make it seem like Obama is forcing a news station to not report a story about people who don’t want the Olympics to come to the Chicago…

…and now John Boehner jumps on the pile…

House Minority Leader John Boehner torched President Barack Obama Wednesday for his European trip to pitch the Chicago Olympics bid, criticizing the president for “going to go off to Copenhagen when we’ve got serious issues here at home that need to be debated.”

Yeah John, debate which serious issues?

How you’re not going to agree to any health care reforms?

Or any energy reforms?

Or education reforms?

Or market reforms?

This is getting ridiculous.

I’m starting to notice some poll numbers that suggest an interesting trend. Basically, Americans aren’t necessarily happy with Obama’s health care plans, but they trust Republicans a LOT less.

Take a recent CBS/NY Times poll as an example:

• 52% of Americans trust Obama to make the right decisions for health, while only 27% feel Republicans are more trustworthy.
• 60% think Obama is trying to work with Republicans. Only 30% think Republicans are trying to do the same.
• just 30% have a good view of Congressional Repubs. 47% have a favorable view of Dems.

Next, Pew Research polls on the tone of the debate and finds that the majority thinks it’s rude, disrespectful and the GOP’s fault…

Then, a WSJ/NBC poll finds that if the health care bill fails…voters will blame Republicans:

More than one in three Americans, 37%, said congressional Republicans will be “most to blame” if the bill fails.

That’s almost four times the 10% of respondents who said President Barack Obama will be to blame, and nearly three times the 16% of respondents who said congressional Democrats will be to blame. Nearly a quarter, 23%, said all three will be to blame.

So why is this happening?

• First, Republicans don’t have viable alternatives and Americans aren’t buying the whole “loyal opposition” schtick. They want real ideas and they’re seeing nothing from the right.
• Second, the “Tea Party/birther/Glenn Beck/Obama is a socialist/racist/nazi/anti-christ” nonsense is wearing out the independents. And it’s not that the Indys think anybody who opposes Obama’s plan are racist. Far from it. But some of the folks in the opposition are CLEARLY prejudiced and Congressional Republicans aren’t calling them out. So voters think they’re cowards.
• Last, Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” scream may have turned him into folk hero on the right, but those two words encapsulated everything that Americans don’t like about the current GOP. That’s not to say that there aren’t genuine, thoughtful conservative voices, but they’re being drowned out by the Joe Wilsons of the world. And after a near cataclysmic economic meltdown last year, voters are having none of it from the Repubs. They want the GOP to play nice, compromise and have a little humility.

That’s my take…what do you think?

And all they’re asking you to do is give them $30 so they can send all 50 state attorney generals a fax demanding Obama show his birth certificate.

Fun fact: this is actually running on a CBS affiliate in Texas and other locales across the country.

In related news, if you think Obama is the anti-christ, you’re much more likely to support Sarah Palin.

And scene!

Yes, he’s an alien.

Or a God.

Or a Hawaiian.

Take your pick. :-)

“What is your preference for the outcome of next year’s congressional elections–a Congress controlled by Republicans or a Congress controlled by Democrats?”

Obviously we live in a 2-party system, so that would be the question. But that doesn’t have to be the question, and it ought not be the question. Imagine a poll that asked voters “What is your preference for the outcome of the next year’s congressional elections–a Congress controlled by hacks and partisan shills for the major parties, or people who care about the future of the country?”

Another question in this survey asks:

“When it comes to the partisanship going on in Washington, do you feel this is mainly due to an unwillingness of the Republicans to compromise and find a middle ground to work with the Democrats, or that this is due to an unwillingness of the Democrats to compromise and find a middle ground to work with the Republicans, or do you feel that it is equally the fault of both parties?”

Skipping past the fact that whose fault it is simply doesn’t make a difference, the answers from voters were interesting:  Since February, those who think it’s the Repubs’ fault has gone down from 29% to 22%; those who believe the Dems are at fault has stayed practically even going from 14% to 15% in that time span; and those who think it’s the fault of both parties? You guessed it — starting with a majority of 56% in Feb., it’s now 61%. Voters identifying as Strictly Independent, or Independent/ leaning Democrat or Republican made up 43% of the survey respondents.

Here are my picks for the week’s news for indies:

• Poll Reflects Afghan War Doubts-Obama Slips on Foreign Policy, but Gains on Health-Care and Economic Fronts (By JONATHAN WEISMAN, Wall Street Journal) As the 2010 election cycle heats up, independent voters now favor Republican control of Congress by four percentage points.
• NBC/WSJ: OBAMA HEALTH #S INCH UP (From NBC’s Mark Murray)
• Job One-The only way Obama can pull his presidency back from the brink. (John B. Judis, The New Republic)
• ANALYSIS-ACORN scandal not seen rubbing off on Obama (Reuters)
• The Most Important Number in Politics Today (Chris Cillizza, Washington Post/The Fix)
• Obama’s Leadership Qualities Stand Out to Americans (by Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup) Democrats’ views have barely changed (90% in April vs. 88% today), while Republicans’ (38% vs. 21%) and independents’ (63% vs. 50%) ratings are down more than 10 points each.
• Obama Policies Turn Off Independents (By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers/US News & World Report)
• Regulating King Kong and Crackpot Theory in Talk/Talk with Fred Newman and Jackie Salit, at independentvoting.org. Also check out the letter that independentvoting has sent to Obama asking him to appoint independents to the FEC.

Read more news for independents at The Hankster

Public Policy Polling pitted the top Republicans (including Jeb Bush) against Obama in a hypothetical matchup and found that the former Arkansas Governor’s folksy ways puts him at the top of the pack. And this makes sense. Huckabee is amiable, has some ideas that at least sound new (get rid of the IRS, FAIR tax) and…ummm…did I mention he’s folksy?

From PPP:

Huckabee comes the closest, trailing Obama 48-41. In the six months PPP has run this poll he has been the most competitive Republican every time. Obama’s lead has increased from 47-44 over the former Arkansas Governor a month ago.

Mitt Romney does next best, down 48-39. In some ways he looks like a stronger general candidate than a primary one though. He has the best favorability of the GOP quartet with Democrats and independents, but only 50% of Republicans have a positive opinion of him compared to 70% for Mike Huckabee and 69% for Sarah Palin. Will he be able to connect well enough with the GOP base to snag the nomination?

And here’s how they all break out:

• Obama/Huckabee – 48/41 – Obama +7
• Obama/Romney – 48/39 – Obama +9
• Obama/Bush – 50/37 – Obama +13
• Obama/Palin – 53/38 – Obama + 15

Yes, the thought of Palin scares more people than the thought of another Bush. But both campaigns are DOA. Guaranteed.

To me, the Romney/Huckabee matchup will be the story. Huckabee obviously has the base locked up tight because he’s so overtly religious, but he scares independents. So he’ll have to do a lot of work to reach out to moderates. Still, it won’t be easy. However, even though Romney appeals to fiscal independents, the base doesn’t trust him. Romney’s saving grace? Palin. She could fragment Huckabee’s support just enough to let the more moderate Romney run away with it…much like Edwards did to Clinton so Obama could thread the needle.

Regardless, I’m anxious for 2012. Can you tell? :-)

First off, my takeaways about the policy in the speech…

1. You can’t be dropped because of pre-existing conditions. No surprise there, but to me this is the most important reform. Also, no more yearly or lifetime caps. For catastrophic illness, this is a must.
2. Stressing that nobody will be forced to change doctors or insurance providers, he’s not in favor of wholesale changes in how health insurance is delivered. And he specifically called a single payer system unrealistic. This should reassured most independents.
3. Health insurance will now be mandated under this plan. That’s a tricky one, and it goes against what he said in the campaign. My guess is that this will be the new target for Republicans, “This is a health tax on everybody” etc.
4. He wants a public option, but he’s not tied to it as the end all be all. That means that we’ll most likely get a localized co-op public option instead of a centralized system. Again, this should appeal to independents.
5. He’s open to testing tort reform…which should be big for Republicans.

Now to the politics…

1. Somehow Obama was able to dismiss the most strident elements of health reform opposition while bringing moderate Republicans closer to the table. Basically he gave them a choice: do you really want to take cues from Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck or do you want to solve this problem? It was an impressive bit of framing and he could get a couple more Rs on his side.
2. This was by far the biggest bipartisan speech of his Presidential career and it could prove to be the most important. In fact, most of what he talked about Republicans had to agree with. They were standing up and clapping A LOT. And when they weren’t clapping, well, they cut their own legs out from under themselves.
3. As for Dems, Obama put enough out there for them to like without promising the moon. He clearly didn’t commit to the specific federal public option they wanted, just that some type of non-profit public option should be part of the plan. So now Obama should be able to shape exactly what that is since he’s saying, “Uber-liberals, don’t blow this for us.” I think that message came through loud and clear and all Dems should now fall in line.

In the end, this speech was a gamble but I honestly think it’ll pay off. In fact, his defense of Medicare as bipartisan legislation was spot on and reminded voters who’s really for Medicare and who wants to slash it. Of course I hesitate to say this one is historic, but have you heard a better defense of government helping the weak and wounded? I certainly haven’t.

You thoughts are welcome and appreciated.

Would love to hear your thoughts, but please be civil.