Pelosi-land

March 19, 2010 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Richard Nixon | 1 Comment 

The Economist returns to a point that Frank Gannon made a couple of years ago:

WHEN Nancy Pelosi moved to San Francisco, she struggled to find somewhere to live. For months, and with four small children, she lodged with her mother-in-law. So she was relieved when she found a perfect home to rent: big, childproof and with swings in the garden. She was about to seal the deal when she discovered that the owner’s husband was heading east to join the Nixon administration. “We won’t be able to live here,” she said. “I could never live anyplace that was made available because of the election of Richard Nixon.”

If this story were told by a Republican, Lexington would dismiss it as apocryphal. It confirms too neatly the caricature of Mrs Pelosi as a petty and tribal partisan. But the source is Mrs Pelosi’s autobiography, “Know Your Power: a Message to America’s Daughters”. And in case you think it out of character, she adds that her daughter Alexandra “often says to me that she knows everything she needs to know about me by hearing that story.”

Issa on RN and President Obama

March 10, 2010 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

At National Review Online, Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) observes that some commentators have favorably likened our current president to Richard Nixon.  He argues that there are key differences, too:

Regrettably, President Obama is failing where Richard Nixon succeeded. Nixon was ever-willing to meet at the negotiating table, but only as a tactic that complemented his overall strategy of engagement. Thus far, POTUS 44 almost exclusively prefers the policy of outstretched hands and summits, without the diplomatic finesse and appreciation for American power that can keep our enemies guessing. Nixon never showed all his cards, and somehow managed to convince the world that he was holding trumps. President Obama, like Carter before him, gives the endless impression that his strongest bet is always a bluff.

Barack Obama–Administrator: A Story Of Tomorrow

March 5, 2010 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Annals of the Obama Administration, Barack Obama, Healthcare, History, Political Philosophy, Politics, Presidents, Public Opinion, U.S. History, White House | 1 Comment 

Did you know that the word, “manufacture” is from the Latin and literally means: “to make by hand?” Of course, the term has long since been connected with things made by machines. The word no longer means what it meant.

Language—any language—is like that. “Brave” used to mean “cowardly.” Really. And “nice?” Well, it originally meant, “not to know,” or another way to say someone was ignorant.

Nice.

Etymologists—those who study word origins and meanings—tell us that words change for several reasons: generalization—specialization—degeneration, to name a few. Now, apparently, we must add politicization to the list of word-changers. Most of the time, such linguistic morphing is subtle and hardly noticed. But right now before our eyes, a very good word is becoming something quite unlike what it originally meant.

Reconciliation—a word rich in nuance, meaning, and historic impact; a term that has for centuries indicated the removal of barriers and the restoration of relationship—may be rendered virtually meaningless soon. What is now being planned for the whole health care fix in this country, all other avenues having failed those who just know they know better than the rest of us, will likely come to pass in some form via a political process now known famously as Reconciliation.

George Orwell would be proud. What once meant the end of hostility and all parties coming together in good will, soon will likely stand for the raw exercise of party and power politics. And in the process it will leave in its wake anything but the fruit of real reconciliation. In fact, all indications are that we are on the verge of entering a fierce period of vituperative political conflict—one even worse than what we have recently seen.

Yes, I understand that, in this case, the word is being used in an accounting sense. But when you “reconcile” your bank statement, isn’t that also called “balancing?” Where’s the balance in such a political maneuver?

Of course, the idea—and in fact, the practice—of reconciliation in matters of legislation has been around for more than 35 years. And the process was used in the past by Republicans, giving some credence to the charge of hypocrisy now being hurled by the Democrats. But a closer look at matters handled in the past via the Byrd-rule suggests that nothing prior even comes close to comparing to what is being suggested and orchestrated now—a takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

It’s all part of that “fundamental transformation of America” that was being talked about in 2008.

In the past, the opposite of reconciliation—in fact, a key reason for the term’s existence in language—was alienation. Now, however, reconciliation will not be healing alienation, rather it will be exacerbating it. And what is striking and enduringly frustrating about the whole thing is that at every turn Americans have been sending not-so-subtle signals to those breathing the rarified air inside the Beltway. The message has been consistent and persistent: Read our lips—no new Health Care. The things that are weak in our current system can be fixed, not by moving away from market-based economics, but by creating incentives for the market to fix itself.

One particular thing that makes my skin crawl every time I hear it is this idea that under Obamacare all Americans who are happy with their current health care can keep things as they are. While theoretically (i.e., outside the actual real world) this may sound reasonable and reassuring, the facts speak otherwise.

Most Americans did not choose their current coverage—their employers did—or, at least, some entity within the business, corporation, or union organizational structure. That means that decisions about future coverage will not be in the hands of employees, but rather such decision makers. And if a business owner or CEO sees a better deal, or feels pressure to alter the plan—does anyone really think a mere employee has much of a say?

Why, then, the big push in the face of overwhelming political ill will? The only reasonable answer is that those pushing the Obamacare agenda have made up their minds that they know best and that those opposing the measures are simply ignorant. In other words—it’s arrogance.

And when political arrogance meets perceived public ignorance, it can only mean one thing: The spirit of Woodrow Wilson is back at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Like the professor who knew better way back then, Mr. Obama and company honestly feel that if this thing can be passed, even by the thinnest of razor margins, Americans will ultimately like enough of the plan once implemented that they’ll tend to embarrassingly forget what all the fuss was about. They are also banking on the fact that once a generation grows accustomed to a certain entitlement, it is almost impossible to reverse it.

But Woodrow Wilson learned a thing or two the hard way about the folly of political arrogance. Self-assurance, crusader-zeal, and personal charisma can only carry a politician so far. History shows that leaders who rely on such traits long-term are eventually devoured by them. One day the cheering actually does stop.

Interestingly, such arrogance also smacks of something out of a work of fiction that flew close to the flame of fact nearly 100 years ago. Published anonymously in 1912, the year Mr. Wilson was elected as the 28th President of the United States, was the novel “Philip Dru—Administrator: A Story of Tomorrow, 1920-1935.” The author was actually Edward House (he was referred to by the purely honorific “Colonel” House), a man who became Woodrow Wilson’s alter ego—he was the Rahm Emanuel of the day, only much better at it.

The book tells the story of a man, Philip Dru, who becomes the dictator of America—but as a despot he was of the benevolent sort (I told you it was fiction). He was a leader who took unprecedented power, only doing so for the good of the people. Father knows best. In the book’s dedication, House wrote:

“This book is dedicated to the unhappy many who have lived and died lacking opportunity, because, in the starting, the world-wide social structure was wrongly begun.”

One gets the feeling that the ghosts of Philip Dru, Edward House, not to mention Woodrow Wilson are not merely haunting the halls of the White House these days.

In fact, they’re part of the team.

Nixon, Obama, and Health Insurance Price Controls

February 25, 2010 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Healthcare, History, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Steve Chapman writes of the president’s proposal to control health insurance premiums:

Barack Obama has often modeled his policies on Franklin Roosevelt. Lately, though, he’s been coming across more as Richard Nixon Lite.

In 1971, fed up with the steady rise of wages and prices, Nixon had a big idea: Attack inflation by imposing strict controls on wages and prices. A federal board was created to establish guidelines and enforce compliance, on the assumption that government officials were wise enough to decide the correct price for millions of products and the right wage for millions of workers.

This analogy is not encouraging.  As mentioned here last year, RN  cknowledged in his memoirs that price controls had been a mistake:

What did America reap from its brief fling with economic controls?  The August 15, 1971 decision to impose them was politically necessary and immensely popular in the short run.  But in the long run I believe that it was wrong.  The piper must always be paid, and there was an unquestionably high price for tampering with the orthodox economic mechanisms.

A Vital Political Question For 2010

February 5, 2010 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Annals of the Obama Administration, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Intelligence, International Affairs, Iran, Islam, National Security, Obama administration, Political Philosophy, Presidents, Terrorism, War on Terror | 1 Comment 

In the waning days of the 1980 presidential campaign, Republican nominee Ronald Reagan used his allotted time in the closing moments of his only debate with President Jimmy Carter to ask a question. It was one of the most effective rhetorical devices in American history.

“Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

Because most Americans answered a resounding “No” that night, Mr. Reagan was able to pull the line out again four years later, this time as President and against Walter Mondale, who ran a quixotic campaign to oust him. And Americans answered by electing Reagan to a second term.

Over the years, the question about being “better off” has been used to great affect by many politicians, including later aspirants to the White House. It became, in effect, a rhetorical trump card.

Now there is another question in the room—one that was asked, in a manner of speaking, during several recent special elections and will be commonplace this November as all of us go to the polls in the “off-year” ritual. The question is: “Are you safer than you were four years ago?”

It is hard to find anything about President Barack Obama’s first term—at least anything of substance—that can be realistically characterized as successful. And by successful, I mean accomplishing one’s stated goals. Whether it was the healthcare bridge too far, cap-and-trade, or dramatically improving the economy, this administration has simply not delivered on what it promised. Of course, in the area of national security they have tried to make good on pledges, but have found the resistance to every move to be surprising strong.

And one gets the feeling that not only did they not see failure coming in the euphoria of those early halcyon days in charge—but they really don’t have a clue as to where to go from here. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the area of national security and dealing with the very real threat of Islamist terror. And nowhere are the stakes any higher.

The other day, Leon Panetta, Director of CIA, in concert with other leaders in the national security community, told Congress that a terror attack (the indication being that this would be an attempt of significant magnitude) is likely during the next three to six months. It was also suggested that this warning is based, at least in part, on information gleaned from the man who tried to blow up an American airplane en route to Detroit on Christmas Day, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Presumably, this so-called “underwear-bomber” has been cooperating with authorities lately, following the intervention of some of his family from Nigeria, such intervention being prompted by FBI visits to that country.

With its too-sad-to-be-farcical “you-could-have-had-me-at-enemy-combatant” Miranda prolonged delay, this episode is in a real sense a window into the thinking—some would say, lack thereof—of the Obama administration on the whole issue of terror, Islamism, “detainees,” and national security. It seems that there is this naïve insistence on seeing and framing the issues as something nuanced—an almost “shirts versus skins” game—instead of a very grave matter of life and death.

A President is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and by extension, therefore, those under its cover. The founders and framers did not fashion a document for global governance, nor did they seek to extend its protection beyond “we the people.” But these days we are witnessing the most ambitious attempt ever to broadly interpret its provisions.

On the domestic side, “we” the people is giving way to “for” the people, as those wiser-than-the-rest-of-us seek to “fundamentally transform” (to use Mr. Obama’s words) America. And when it comes to foreign policy and international issues, apparently now this new-improved understanding of our Constitution—one that makes Franklin Roosevelt look like a paleo-conservative in comparison—reads, “they” the people. It covers not only illegal aliens, but also non-U.S. citizen enemy combatants, giving them more rights than any of us would ever receive in some Islamist majority country.

“Are you safer than you were four years ago?”

Iran moves arrogantly and confidently forward to develop the materials and technology to soon become a nuclear power. Just the other day, its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, talked of delivering a blow to “global arrogance” as that nation marks the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution on February 11.

Sure we protest, but words from a teleprompter don’t make much impact on a man who thinks he gets his ideas directly from Allah. And at any rate—the whole first year of Mr. Obama’s administration and its mea culpa “we like you” overtures to the Islamic world, notwithstanding—there is no evidence that anyone who hated us when George W. Bush was in town, hates us any less now.

In fact, someone in the White House should take a look at something else the mahdaviatist President of Iran said the other day in that same speech:

“If the Islamic Revolution had not occurred, liberalism and Marxism would have crushed all human dignity in their power-seeking and money-grubbing claws. Nothing would have remained of human and spiritual principles.”

Did you see that? The enemy is “liberalism and Marxism.” So as the current administration tries to pursue some kind of rapprochement with Iran and other Islamist nations, while at the same time trying orchestrate a decidedly more liberal agenda domestically—one that smacks of “Marxist” thinking at many turns—something ironic is happening. The new “good guys” who tell us that America is now going be loved more around the world because bad old George Bush and the cranky conservatives are gone, have missed a key plot-point: Islamists hate democratic liberalism—with its socialist vision—even more than they hate militaristic neo-conservatism.

Oops.

Of course, I hope and pray that we are spared any such terror attack this, or any, year. And I pray that there remains a sufficient remnant of discerning men and women in key areas of expertise and responsibility across the land, people who have not bowed the knee to the Baal of liberal statism and diplomatic naïveté, in place to forestall such a disaster.

But I must admit, there seems to be an inexplicable zeitgeist, combining lackadaisical apathy with arrogance that makes me feel anything but safe.

Someone talked to me recently about how, if we are attacked, people will rally around our new president like they did George W. Bush in 2001. I countered that I wasn’t so sure. That was a different time—before we really knew what terrorism meant on these shores. Post game analysis back then revealed so many areas of weakness leading to that dreadful day of terror on Sept. 11.

If such a thing, or anything similar, were to happen these days, I am not sure that those in charge now would get the kind of good will that translates into a political pass—or future.

The Next Castro?

January 3, 2010 by Jim Gallen | Filed Under Afghanistan, Annals of the Obama Administration, Cuba | Leave a Comment 

With the coming of a New Year we are again reminded that on January 1, 1959, now 51 years ago, Fidel Castro and his band of rebels rolled into Havana and established a Communist government in the Western Hemisphere.  Castro is now enjoying his senior status as a thorn in the side of his eleventh American Administration.  Originally regaled as the “Robin Hood of the Caribbean” and the “George Washington of Cuba”, the gradual realization that Castro was a Communist became an embarrassment to President Eisenhower and may have hurt Vice-President Nixon in the 1960 election.  The Bay of Pigs fiasco, intended to oust Castro, weakened the credibility of the new Kennedy Administration.  Claims of Castro’s involvement in the Kennedy assassination have never been completely silenced.  Castro backed insurgencies throughout Latin America presented shifting challenges to the Johnson and Nixon Administrations.  Intervention in Angola would attract the attention of President Ford and contribute to the impression of a bungling President Carter leading the U.S. into a period of decline.  Castro’s support for the Sandinistas in Nicaragua would lead President Reagan into aiding the Contras, which spawned the greatest scandal of his administration.  With the fall of his Soviet sponsors, Castro faded into the role of a minor irritant whose major influence on the U.S. was to drive the Cuban community in Florida, with its growing influence, into the arms of politicians seen as “tough on Castro.”  With the rise of his soul-mate, Hugo Chavez, Castro became a cult hero whose comments were given enhanced attention.  Despite decades of attempts by Exiles and the CIA to achieve regime change or assassination, Castro, protected by his status as a Head of State and Soviet missiles, has lived to peacefully transfer power to his brother and slide into the role of an elder revolutionary.  Absent unforeseen turmoil, Fidel will probably pass on quietly of natural causes.

While Fidel’s influence and irritation coefficients have been declining, those of Osama Bin Laden have been rising.  Slated for capture or death by President Clinton and the target of cruise missiles in 1998 because of his role in attacks on U.S. Embassies in eastern Africa, Bin Laden became Public Enemy # 1 after the September 11 attacks.  Despite President Bush’s proclamation that he was “Wanted: Dead or Alive” and over eight years of manhunts, Bin Laden remains at liberty to fire periodic audio or video messages of threats or suggestions to the Western public and their leaders.  Speaking of the Tora Bora Battle of December 2001, John Kerry said:  “When Bush had an opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden, he took his focus off of him, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords and bin Laden escaped.” He would later claim that Bin Laden’s last minute tape cost him the 2004 election and, as recently as last month, wrote:  “If we had captured or killed Bin Laden, the world would look very different today. His death or imprisonment would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat, but our failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism. It left the American people more vulnerable, and it inflamed the strife that now threatens to engulf Pakistan and Afghanistan.”  Now President Obama is entangled in the War in Afghanistan which was begun to deprive Bin Laden and Al Qaeda of sanctuaries from which to launch further attacks against the West.  Through all this, Bin Laden, protected by his band of tribal militants, roams the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan.  For how long will this outlaw avoid justice?  For how long will Western politics be influenced by his tapes and even his continued life?  For how many presidents will the capture or death of Bin Laden be an elusive goal?  Will he, in the end, be the next Castro, who will continue to avoid the long arm of the U.S. until, full of days, riches and, in the eyes of some, honors, he will die, perhaps at a time and place unknown to his pursuers?  The story develops.

Obama, Nixon, and Peace Through Strength

December 13, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Presidents, Richard Nixon, Terrorism | 1 Comment 

President Obama mentioned RN in his Nobel acceptance speech.  Michael Goodwin of the New York Post perceptively notes what the president left out:

Annals of the Obama Administration

December 8, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | 1 Comment 

Barry Blitt’s cover for this week’s New Yorker:

Provocative Nonsense

December 5, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Afghanistan, Annals of the Obama Administration, Democratic Party, War on Terror | 10 Comments 

At the Huffington Post, Tom Shachtman writes:

Former Vice President Richard B. Cheney in a recent interview with Politico labeled President Barack Obama’s drawn-out process of deciding on a troop surge for Afghanistan as projecting “weakness,” and charged that this and other “signs of weakness” would embolden our adversaries in the world. In articulating this position, Cheney embraced the concept of “provocative weakness” promulgated many years ago by the mysterious Pentagon civilian adviser Fritz G. A. Kraemer.

Schachtman identifies Kraemer as the “shaper” of Henry Kissinger and a neoconservative guru.  Kraemer was one of Kissinger’s mentors, but so was William Y. Elliott of Harvard, an apostle of realism.  In suggesting that Kraemer was responsible for the idea of provocative weakness, Schactman is being ridiculous.  The notion that weakness invites aggression has been around for a very long time.  Consider:

• ” There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness.” — Andrew Jackson, special message to Congress, February 22, 1836
• “Weakness and unpreparedness invite aggression” — 1940 Democratic Platform
• “The disintegration of our military forces since the surrender of Germany and Japan is an encouragement to nations who regard weakness on the part of peace-loving nations as an invitation to aggression. And the countries whose people share our ideals, and who look to us for leadership, but who are weak in resources or manpower, lose faith in our ability to support the principles for which we stand.”  — Harry Truman, June 7, 1947
• “Weakness invites aggression. Strength stops it.” — Dwight Eisenhower, October 9, 1956

RN, BHO, and KSM, continued

November 21, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Election 2008, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

When RN mistakenly declared Charles Manson guilty during his trial, problems ensued.  From a contemporaneous report in Time:

In Los Angeles, the effect of Nixon’s remarks on the Manson trial was instant and dramatic. While the Los Angeles Times came out the same afternoon with a four-inch headline reading MANSON GUILTY, NIXON DECLARES, Judge Charles Older went to great lengths to ensure that the jury, which has been sequestered since the trial began, would not learn of Nixon’s remarks. The windows of the jury bus were whited over with Bon Ami so that no juror could glimpse the headline on street newsstands. If the jury discovered Nixon’s verdict, the defense might have grounds for a mistrial. His efforts were to no avail. Next day Manson himself displayed a copy of the Times to the jury for some ten seconds before a bailiff grabbed the newspaper from his hands. Judge Older called a recess, then questioned the jurors one by one to satisfy himself that their judgment would not be affected. An alternate juror convulsed the courtroom when he announced his disclaimer: “I didn’t vote for Nixon in the first place.”

RN & Manson, Obama & Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

November 19, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Barack Obama, Presidents, Richard Nixon, Terrorism | 1 Comment 

From AP:

President Barack Obama appeared to be taking a page from Richard Nixon’s playbook Wednesday when he seemed to declare the suspected Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed guilty and deserving of the death penalty.  In Nixon’s case, he pronounced cult leader Charles Manson guilty of several murders while Manson was being tried in a California state court for killing actress Sharon Tate and others.

Here’s what happened.  In an interview, the president had this exchange with Chuck Todd of NBC:

TODD: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – can you understand why it is offensive to some for this terrorist to get all the legal privileges of any American citizen?

OBAMA: I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.

TODD: But having that kind of confidence of a conviction – I mean one of the purposes of doing – going to the Justice Department and not military court is to show of the the world our fairness in our court system.

OBAMA: Well –

TODD: But you also just said that he was going to be convicted and given the death penalty.

OBAMA: Look – what I said was people will not be offended if that’s the outcome. I’m not pre-judging; I’m not going to be in that courtroom, that’s the job of prosecutors, the judge and the jury.

The RN remark came on August 3, 1970.  He was criticizing the media for glamorizing criminals, and used Manson as an example:

I noted, for example, the coverage of the Charles Manson case when I was in Los Angeles, front page every day in the papers. It usually got a couple of minutes in the evening news. Here is a man who was guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason.

Ron Ziegler immediately retracted the remark, noting that RN had intended to say “alleged.”  But the comment caused big problems for the prosecution — as Obama’s remark probably will.

There are a couple of differences.  Nixon admitted error. At a press conference several months later, a reporter asked him about the Manson trial and other cases in which he suggested that criminal defendants were guilty. ”I think sometimes we lawyers, even like doctors who try to prescribe for themselves, may make mistakes. And I think that kind of comment probably is unjustified. “  Obama, by contrast, insisted that “when” really means “if.”

Also, the text of Nixon’s original comment was (and is) available on the public record.  But the Obama White House, unlike its immediate predecessors, does not routinely post interview transcripts.  To find them, one must search online in other places.  And as any Googler knows, things often disappear from the web.

The First Pacific President?

November 14, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Barack Obama, Richard Nixon | 1 Comment 

In Tokyo today, President Obama said: “As America’s first Pacific president, I promise you that this Pacific nation will strengthen and sustain our leadership in this vitally important part of the world.”

The president was in error.  Though he was apparently referring to his birth in Hawaii and brief childhood sojourn in Indonesia, he is not our nation’s first Pacific president.  If a “Pacific president” is one born and raised in a Pacific state, that distinction belongs to Richard Nixon, born in Yorba Linda, California in 1913.  Indeed, RN spent a much greater proportion of his life near the Pacific than President Obama has.  He grew up in Whittier, went to Whittier College, practiced law in Southern California, did naval service in the Pacific, represented California in the House and Senate, ran for governor of the state, and for years had a home in San Clemente.  Between the Vietnam War and the opening to China, Pacific Rim affairs were a major focus of his presidency.

Other presidents also had significant experience in the Pacific.  William Howard Taft served as Governor-General of the Philippines.  Herbert Hoover spent much of his childhood in Oregon, graduated from Stanford, and spent years as a mining engineer in Australia and China.  Dwight Eisenhower had military duty in the Panama Canal Zone and the Philippines.

And there was also some fellow named Reagan…

Annals Of The Obama Administration

November 10, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, International Affairs, Secretary Clinton | Leave a Comment 

In today’s Telegraph, blogger Nile Gardiner notes Secretary Clinton’s historically short-sighted remarks at the celebrations marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

It’s bad enough that President Obama could not be bothered to attend the celebrations marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. But Hillary Clinton’s refusal to even acknowledge the role played by Ronald Reagan in the Wall’s demise as well as the downfall of Communism was highly insulting towards one of the greatest figures of our time, and reeked of petty and partisan mean-spiritedness.

The Secretary of State’s remarks yesterday in Berlin completely erased from history the huge contribution played not only by President Reagan but also by the United States in confronting the Soviet Empire. In her speech she applauded half of Europe, but could not bring herself to thank those Americans who bravely served their country and in many cases laid down their lives in defeating Communism, under Reagan’s leadership.

Here is what Clinton said in Berlin on behalf of the Obama administration:

“We remember the allies who conducted the largest humanitarian airlift in history, completing more than a quarter million flights to sustain the people of West Berlin. We remember the Poles – (applause) – who waged a campaign for liberty that began with a strike in the shipyards of Gdansk and ended by shattering a system of tyranny. We remember a Polish Pope who spoke out for the aspirations of people across Europe and the world. (Applause.) We remember the people of the Baltics who joined hands across their lands and helped to break the chains that held their nations captive. We remember the students of Prague who propelled a dissident playwright from a jail cell to the presidency of a free republic. And tonight, we remember the Germans on both sides of the wall, but particularly the Germans in the East who stood up and finally were able to say, “No more. Freedom is our birthright and we will take it by our own hands.”

Incredibly, Clinton ended her remarks, with a tribute not to the tens of millions of victims of Communism, but to Barack Obama!

“I am deeply honored to introduce now a message from someone who represents the fall of different kinds of walls – of walls of discrimination, of stereotype, of character, the walls that too often are inside minds and hearts. Let me introduce a message from President Barack Obama.”

Hillary Clinton would do well to learn from Margaret Thatcher, a great friend of the United States, whom I had the privilege of working for in her private office. Like Ronald Reagan she is a statesman who understands that evil must be confronted and defeated, and a true leader who believes in the greatness of America as a force for good on the world stage.

As Lady Thatcher observed in her eulogy to Reagan at his funeral service at the National Cathedral in Washington in June 2004:

“We live today in the world that Ronald Reagan began to reshape… It is a very different world, with different challenges and new dangers. All in all, however, it is one of greater freedom and prosperity, one more hopeful than the world he inherited on becoming president. .. With the lever of American patriotism, he lifted up the world. And so today, the world – in Prague, in Budapest, in Warsaw and Sofia, in Bucharest, in Kiev, and in Moscow itself, the world mourns the passing of the great liberator and echoes his prayer: God bless America.”

These were the words that Clinton should have echoed in front of the Brandenburg Gate – a recognition of President Reagan’s huge contribution to the advancement of freedom in Europe and across the world.

The Muse of the Obama White House

October 20, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | Leave a Comment 

In their attacks on Fox News and tea-party protesters, White House officials are cribbing from a speech given 40 years ago next month.

[W]e should ask what is the end value–to enlighten or to profit? What is the end result–to inform or to confuse? How does the ongoing exploration for more action, more excitement, more drama, serve our national search for internal peace and stability?

Normality has become the nemesis of the evening news. 

Gresham’s law seems to be operating in the network news.

Bad news drives out good news. The irrational is more controversial than the rational.  Concurrence can no longer compete with dissent…

What has this passionate pursuit of “controversy” done to the politics of progress through logical compromise, essential to the functioning of a democratic society?

The members of Congress who follow their principles and philosophy quietly in a spirit of compromise are unknown to many Americans–while the loudest and most extreme dissenters on every issue are known to every man in the street.

How many marches and demonstrations would we have if the marchers did not know that the ever-faithful TV cameras would be there to record their antics for the next news show?

Pat Buchanan wrote those remarks for Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, who delivered them on November 13, 1969.

Annals of the Obama Administration

October 11, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | Leave a Comment 

The First Lady made a charming video with Sesame Street’s Elmo about encouraging habits of healthy eating and smart  living — with the nice tag “You’re your child’s best role model.”   It’s possible that I am the last person in the western hemisphere to know about this PSA — which, apparently, was made in May.  But  I only saw it for the first time last night when I went to hulu.com to catch up on this week’s episode of FlashForward.*

____________________________________

*FlashForward (Thursday nights on ABC) combines the maddeningly intriguing ambiguities of Lost with the unalloyed adrenaline of 24 (at least it has for three episodes),  and it is phenomenal TV.   Check it out now and you can thank me later.

Annals Of The Obama Administration

October 7, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Art, White House | Leave a Comment 

The Wall Street Journal yesterday reported on the 45 works of art chosen by the First Lady from various government collections to adorn the White House.

Loaned art in the Residence
• Josef Albers – Homage to the Square: Elected II – Hirshhorn Museum
• Josef Albers – Homage to the Square: Midday – Hirshhorn Museum
• Josef Albers – Study for Homage to the Square: Nacre – Hirshhorn Museum
• George Catlin – A Crow Chief at His Toilette – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – Camanchees Lancing a Buffalo Bull – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – Mired Buffalo and Wolves – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – Cheyenne Village – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – Grizzly Bears Attacking Buffalo – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – Game of the Arrow-Mandan – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – A Foot War Party in Council-Mandan – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – Ball-Play Dance-Choctaw – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – Buffalo Chase, with Accidents – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – Catlin and Indian Attacking Buffalo – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – K’nisteneux Indians Attacking Two Grizzly Bears – National Gallery of Art
• Edward Corbett – Washington, D.C. November 1963 III – National Gallery of Art
• Edgar Degas – Dancer Putting on Stocking – Hirshhorn Museum
• Edgar Degas – The Bow – Hirshhorn Museum
• Richard Diebenkorn – Berkeley, No. 52 – National Gallery of Art
• Nicolas De Stael – Nice – Hirshhorn Museum
• Sam Francis – White Line – National Gallery of Art
• Winslow Homer – Sunset – National Gallery of Art
• Jasper Johns – Numerals, 0 through 9 – National Gallery of Art
• William H. Johnson – Legend – Smithsonian American Art Museum
• William H. Johnson – Children Dance – Smithsonian American Art Museum
• William H. Johnson – Flower to Teacher – Smithsonian American Art Museum
• William H. Johnson – folk Family – Smithsonian American Art Museum
• Glenn Ligon – Black Like Me #2 – Hirshhorn Museum
• Giorgio Morandi – Still Life – National Gallery of Art
• Giorgio Morandi – Still Life – National Gallery of Art
• Louise Nevelson – Model for “Sky Covenant” – National Gallery of Art
• Susan Rothenberg – Butterfly – National Gallery of Art
• Mark Rothko – Red Band – National Gallery of Art
• Edward Ruscha – I think I’ll . . . – National Gallery of Art
• Alma Thomas – Sky Light – Hirshhorn Museum
• Leon Polk Smith – Stretch of Black III – National Gallery of Art
• Unknown Artist – Chief Jumper of the Seminoles – National Gallery of Art

Loaned art in the West Wing
• Frank O. Salisbury – President Harry S. Truman – Harry S. Truman Library, Independence, Missouri – Cabinet Room
• Lucy M. Lewis (Acoma Pueblo) – Vase – National Museum of the American Indian – Oval Office
• Jeri Redcorn (Caddo) – Bottle: Intertwining Scrolls – National Museum of the American Indian – Oval Office
• Steve S. (Iroquois) – Jar – National Museum of the American Indian – Oval Office
• Maria Poveka Martinez (San Ildefonso Pueblo) – Jar – National Museum of the American Indian – Oval Office
• Samuel F. B. Morse – Telegraph Register patent model – National Museum of American History – Oval Office
• John A. Peer – Gear Cutter patent model – National Museum of American History – Oval Office
• Fletcher Felter – Propeller Blade patent model – National Museum of American History – Oval Office

Loaned art in the East Wing
• Alma Thomas – Watusi (Hard Edge) – Hirshhorn Museum – East Wing

In today’s  Washington Post, art critic Blake Gopnik quotes White House curator William Allman’s observation that the Obamas’ choices express “probably more interest in truly modern art” than the previous administration.  The redoubtable Gopnik —whose article is accompanied by a slide show— then examines the selections for deeper meaning:

Working with curators at the White House and at the local museums that made loans, the First Couple selected some works whose politics are explicit, and mild. They seem to redress past imbalances in the nation’s sense of its own art. There are works by African Americans (seven paintings from three artists, out of a total of 47) and by Native Americans (four artists contributed three modern ceramics and one abstract painting). There are also 12 paintings depicting Native Americans, by the 19th-century ethnographic artist George Catlin.

But there are still only six works by women, vs. 41 by men. And there are no works at all by Latinos. (A work by the deceased Cuban American artist Félix González-Torres would have filled the gap perfectly, and added a nod to the country’s gay culture. The Smithsonian’s Hirshhorn Museum has one that could have been borrowed.)

Alma Thomas’ 1973 abstract Sky Light hangs in the private residence…….

.….as does William H. Johnson’s 1944 painting Folk Family.

The First Lady chose Alma Thomas’ 1963 Watusi (Hard Edge) for the East Wing.

Mrs. Obama chose several works by George Catlin for the private residence — among them Buffalo Chase, with Accidents (1861/1869).

Frank O. Salisbury’s 1946 portrait of Harry S Truman now hangs in the Cabinet Room in the West Wing.

Josef Albers’ 1961 Homage to the Square: Elected II was one of three Albers works borrowed from the Hirshhorn collection for the private residence:

So far no wags seem to have singled out one of the First Lady’s most interesting choices — Ed Ruscha’s 1983 painting  ”I Think I’ll….” — which indicates a refined taste or a sense of humor or both.   There’s no indication where this giant 5′5″ x 6′3″ canvas hangs in the private residence:

A Community Organizer Takes On The World

September 25, 2009 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Annals of the Obama Administration, Barack Obama, Cuba, Domestic issues, Economic issues, History, Nixon Administration, Obama administration, Political Philosophy, Richard Nixon, U.S. History, UN | 2 Comments 

President Barack Obama’s visit to the United Nations this past week, complete with a major address and some quality time with a gavel, was yet another step in the process of seizing a much sought after role. For decades, U.S. presidents have routinely been referred to as leaders of the free world. For all practical and theoretical purposes now, though, the appellation “free” no longer applies.

We should now be saying that he’s the leader of the world, period.

Until now, the various elements of a particular president’s philosophy and methodology have usually been categorized dichotomously: domestic policy and foreign policy. And since they both involve issues that seldom fly that close to each other – except for matters of trade – the occupants of the Oval Office have generally been analyzed and graded on them separately by historians.

The prevailing wisdom is that a particular president may have been strong on one and weak on the other. Rare was the leader who got high marks for what he did here as well as his approach to things abroad. Sometimes it had to do with passion. Richard Nixon was fascinated with foreign policy, seeing it as the premier role for a president. And in spite of a solid domestic record (which was impressive in some areas), the 37th President is largely rated highly for his achievements on the international stage.

Even for those who seemed to be effective both domestically and diplomatically, there were few similarities in philosophy and methodology between the two vastly different arenas. That is, until now.

Mr. Obama has a philosophy that runs as a common thread between his approaches to everything he touches from the U.S. economy, to national security, and even, yes, foreign policy. What is this important piece of the puzzle? Simple. Though he pays lip service to one of the most basic issues of human nature and how people relate to and interact with each other on a micro or macro scale, his actions actually minimize – or at least, marginalize – a fundamental instinct common to every person, group, community, and nation on the earth.

Self-interest.

The call du jour from the mountaintop at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is for all of us to rise above, or in new age parlance “transcend,” mere mortal self-interest. On the domestic level this means that capitalism – a mean, primal, greedy, and materialistic approach to economics that steals from the poor to give to the rich – must be replaced (slowly, but surely) with a more enlightened approach; one that emphasizes social justice and the equitable distribution of wealth.

This is all the rage these days. It may be called “progressive,” but it’s really a barely-if-at-all disguised form of socialism. If it walks like a duck, it’s a duck. If it digests food like a goose, it’s…well.

Never mind that this naïve experiment has never really worked well anywhere, and instead of practicing “to each according to need; from each according to ability,” it actually devolves into “to each according to need; from each according to lack thereof.” As Margaret Thatcher famously said: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

You also start running out of freedom. Planned economies involve a construct where the individual trades (wittingly, or not) liberty for some perceived value – all supposedly accomplished on the wings of so-called better angels. The bigger the wings and more aggressive the planners, the greater is the loss of freedom. Capitalism, on the other hand, though often accused of being selfish and cynical, recognizes man’s inbred propensity for selfishness and taps into it.

The father of capitalism, Adam Smith, who wrote An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations in 1776, referred to this as a “system of natural liberty.” And flaws, cycles, weaknesses aside, it has worked pretty well here in our country. This approach to economics is, in fact, woven into the national fabric.

Everyone gets free healthcare in Cuba. But it’s a good thing there, because the average wage earner in that nation makes less than $30.00 per month, including the doctors. And three out of four workers in that country – where a little more than 50 years ago economic development was the highest in Latin America and advanced even by European standards – now work for the public sector (read: the government tab).

But don’t hold your breath while waiting for Michael Moore to make a movie entitled, “Cuba: A Sad Story.” His current movie, a rant about the evils of capitalism, will be released next week in theaters. Of course, Moore wouldn’t make a movie, or do anything for that matter, out of self-interest. Would he?

It’s no secret if you want a high standard of living in countries with planned economies (the collective version of fixed incomes) you go to work for the government. As you climb the ladder you get better Dachas. This was only true here in the U.S. during the days of the Great Depression and New Deal.

Of course, in fairness, the anti-capitalists are just getting started.

On the international front, lip service may be paid here and there to the concept of national self-interest, as when Mr. Obama told the good old boys and girls at the United Nations the other day: “Now, like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests.” However, one just knows that a big fat conjunction is coming signaling the real point: “But,” (see, I told you) “it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 – more than at any point in human history – the interests of nations and peoples are shared.”

Really?

The president’s hyperbolic assignation of this year notwithstanding, is it even remotely true that China or Russia share our interests? And even leaving the roguish states out of the discussion, is it at all realistic to ask any nation to act against, or in any way minimize, its own interest – no matter how compelling or romantic the call? And is it even just a little bit ironic that in a speech with the line, “No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation,” our president calls everyone to follow the magnanimous lead of America, now that the Bush administration has been replaced with a collection of more responsible political gnostics?

President Obama does not have separate principles for his domestic and foreign policy approaches. There is one common thread. It’s out with the old and presumably outdated self-interest and in with a brand new era of quasi-utopian-top-down-we-know-best-because-we-are-enlightened peace and prosperity.

Let bells all over the world ring as empathy breaks out all over.

“The time has come to realize that the old habits, the old arguments, are irrelevant to the challenges faced by our people,” President Obama told the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday. But as ambitious and idealistic – even resonant to some – as such a statement is, the fact is that our fundamental nature as human beings has not changed throughout the course of history. Technology has changed, knowledge has increased, landscapes have morphed, and kingdoms and nations have come and gone, but as the Shakespeare of the prophets recorded six centuries before Christ:

All flesh is grass, and the goodliness there of is as the flower of the field: the grass withereth, the flower fadeth… – Isaiah 40:6-7

The simple, resilient, and undeniable fact is that self-interest is here to stay as long as the world turns. And any philosophy or vision, utopian or otherwise, that fails to take this fact into account, is doomed to failure.

In the waning days of Lyndon Johnson’s presidency, he would sometimes lie awake at night worrying about things; the war, his Great Society dreams, and even his own health (his father died relatively young, and Johnson feared the same fate). Occasionally he’d wander the halls finding his way to a portrait of Woodrow Wilson, a man who had been at the pinnacle of power and influence, only to be eventually devastated emotionally and physically by events and the pressures of his office.

LBJ wondered if he’d wind up the same way. After all, didn’t he just want something better for everyone – a higher standard of living and a world safe and at peace? And, hadn’t he been described as a colossus and the most powerful president since FDR, just a few years earlier?

Mark Twain used to say that “history never repeats itself, but it rhymes.” He was right. The cycles of history are not exact, but one time can resemble another and often does.

And one of history’s most enduring lessons is that if anyone begins a visionary journey with dreams and even ideals that fail to take into account the simple fact that people, businesses, communities (organized or otherwise), nations, and groupings of nations all share a passion for themselves, it is like starting with the premise that 2+2=5. This may only seem to be a small error, but when carried out exponentially it becomes a monstrosity.

Health Care at Morton’s Fork

September 9, 2009 by David Emig | Filed Under American Politics, Annals of the Obama Administration, Barack Obama, Healthcare, Obama administration, Presidents, Republican Party, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

As defined by Wikipedia, a Morton’s Fork is “a choice between two equally unpleasant alternatives.” In the health care debate, this is the choice between government run health care, or corporate run health care.  We progressives like to call this choice — reform or the status quo.

You know, I always laugh at those conservative politicians that decry socialized medicine — while enjoying the benefits of government run health care themselves.  Let them put their health where their mouth is.  Cancel their socialized medicine, and go into the “free” market like everyone else.

As usual, those who oppose reform are using the tried and true fear card.  They tell us that government run health care will lead to socialized medicine, rationing care, and the infamous “death panels”, among other things.

The truth of the matter is: the system that the critics fear is already in place.  It is called corporate health care.  Large insurance companies already ration care by denying claims and coverage.  In California, PacificCare has denied 40% of their claims, while HealthNet has denied 30% of theirs.  Lose necessary tests in a mountain of red tape.  Cancel your policy when you reach a monetary limit.  Never offer insurance at all to those with pre-existing conditions.  Allow the ‘free market’ to raise premiums until a business or individual cannot pay them anymore — and the policy lapses.

For those who have no health insurance, and have a catastrophic illness or injury…aren’t all of these inactions by the corporate insurance companies infamous “death panels?”  Is it easier for the critics to have these death panels consisting of corporate health clerks, rather than government bureaucrats?

Currently, the momentum seems to be away from true reform, and towards reinforcing the corporate health care system.  Proposals such as mandatory health insurance for individuals would only really benefit the corporate insurance market.  It gives them 40 million new customers that must buy their product.  It gives people that are already struggling, another bill.

Any proposed health care system without a public option, a type of Medicare for all, isn’t reform at all.  It is the codification of the status quo, and creation of a windfall comparable to the windfall enjoyed by the oil companies.  This kind of reform doesn’t benefit the majority of American people.  Consider that mother in the news who was trying to feed her family and keep a roof over her head.  She needs real reform, not a Republican congresswoman telling her to “grow up” and get health insurance.

True health care reform doesn’t mean a total government takeover.  Tonight the President needs to return to his original proposal for health care.  If you have health insurance you like, you can keep it.  A strong public option in place for people who cannot afford health care, and foster competition (one of the facets of capitalism I thought).  Outlining pre-existing conditions.  Making the best health care system a right for all American, and not just a privilege for those who can afford it.  While we in America have the greatest health care system in the world – really it’s of limited benefit for people that can’t afford it.

It should be noted that RN in 1971 proposed a similar system of employer mandated health insurance.  The recent book, “The Heart of Power” credits RN with forming the parameters of the future debates of 1994 and 2009 about health care.  The failure of RNs proposal didn’t affect his legacy as president.  There were bigger issues that did.  Watergate.  Vietnam.  China.

In sharp contrast, health care will affect this president’s legacy.  There is also a good chance that it will affect President Obama’s future success and failure as well.  Also the country’s as well…

“Angry White Males,” Health Care, And Richard Nixon

August 17, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Healthcare, Nixon Administration, Public Opinion, Richard Nixon | 4 Comments 

Commentators such as Thomas Edsall, Charles Cooper and Michael Crowley have blamed protests against Obamacare on a GOP effort to stir up “angry white males.”  It all goes back to Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” they say.  The main problem with such arguments is that they don’t make one bit of sense.

Start with “white males.”  Actually, females make up a lot of the people who are protesting.  Survey data show that a plurality of women oppose health-care schemes before Congress.  And the focus on race is strange.  Of course non-Hispanic whites account for much of the opposition:  they make up 76 percent of the electorate.   In any case, the key variable is age, not race.  Senior citizens are the strongest opponents, and for good reason:  Obamacare would cut hundreds of billions from Medicare.  The president claims that seniors don’t have to worry since all the savings will come from greater efficiency.  But in the entire history of American social policy, has a cut that big ever failed to affect services?  (If you can think of an example, please let me know.)

The references to Nixon are invalid.  A previous post dealt with “The Southern Strategy.”  And the notion that Nixon sought to cut health and welfare programs is jaw-droppingly preposterous.  Forty years ago this month, he proposed a guaranteed income, which he acknowledged would “cost more than welfare.”  As for health care, President Clinton said that his own plan “reflects the pragmatic approach that President Nixon took in 1972 when he asked all American employers to take responsibility for providing health care for their employees.”

Annals Of The Obama Administration

July 30, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | Leave a Comment 

The President announced today  this year’s recipients of America’s highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  He said: “These outstanding men and women represent an incredible diversity of backgrounds.  Their tremendous accomplishments span fields from science to sports, from fine arts to foreign affairs.  Yet they share one overarching trait: Each has been an agent of change.  Each saw an imperfect world and set about improving it, often overcoming great obstacles along the way.”

2009 Presidential Medal of Freedom

* Nancy Goodman Brinker is the founder of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the world’s leading breast cancer grassroots organization.

* Pedro José Greer, Jr. is the Assistant Dean of Academic Affairs and Florida International University School of Medicine. He is also the founder of Camillus Health Concern, an agency that provides medical care to over 10,000 homeless and low-income patients each year in Miami.

* Stephen Hawking is an internationally-recognized theoretical physicist, and is the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University.

* Jack Kemp was a U.S. Congressman, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and Republican Nominee for Vice President in 1996. He died in May 2009

* Sen. Edward Kennedy is one of the longest-serving and greatest Senators of all time. He has worked tirelessly for health care reform over the last five decades.

* Billie Jean King is known for winning the famous “Battle of the Sexes” tennis match, and championing gender equality issues not only in sports, but in all aspects of life.

* Rev. Joseph Lowery has been a leader of the civil rights movement since the 2950s, and co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Dr. Martin Luther King.

* Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow is the last living Plains Indian war chief, and author of works on Native American history and culture who has served as an inspiration to young Native Americans across the country.

* Harvey Milk was the first openly gay elected official from a major city in the United States. He was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977, and encouraged LGBT citizens to live their lives openly.

* Sandra Day O’Connor was a Supreme Court Justice from 1981 until her retirement in 2006. She was the first woman ever to sit on the Supreme Court, and has received numerous awards for her outstanding achievements.

* Sidney Poitier is an actor known for breaking racial barriers. He is the first African American to be nominated and win a Best Actor Academy Award.

* Chita Rivera is an actress, singer and dancer, who has broken barriers and inspired a generation of women. In 2002, she was the first Hispanic to receive the Kennedy Center Honor.

* Mary Robinson was the first female President of Ireland and former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Since 2002, she has been the President of Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative.

* Janet Davison Rowley, M.D., is the Blum Riese Distinguished Service Professor of Medicine, Molecular Genetics & Cell Biology and Human Genetics at the University of Chicago. She discovered the first consistent chromosome translocation in a human cancer.

* Desmond Tutu is widely regarded as “South Africa’s moral conscience,” and was a leading anti-apartheid activist in South Africa.

* Muhammad Yunus is a global leader in anti-poverty efforts, and pioneered the use of “micro-loans” to provide credit to poor individuals

Annals Of The Obama Administration

July 27, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | Leave a Comment 

Annals Of The Obama Administration

June 9, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Presidents, Richard Nixon, Sports | 1 Comment 

In today’s WaPo, Richard Leiby    “Just the Sport for A Leader Most Driven” describes the President’s Sunday afternoon:

Although far better known as a hoops man, President Obama seems to be morphing into a golf nut these days. He’s hit the course five times since late April — rushing out to the links on Sunday afternoon just 90 minutes after returning to the White House from his overseas trip. The wife and kids were still back in Paris; no time like the present to get in nine holes.

Mr. Obama, who is, apparently, approaching the links with the same oxymoronic intense sangfroid he brings to most of the things he does, is the fifteen of the last eighteen presidents to play golf.

The attraction would seem simple. It’s a great escape; the game demands such attention that nothing else matters. It’s time spent with friends, an unhurried afternoon in loose clothing (shorts seem to be Obama’s preference). Yet nothing is without deeper meaning where the presidency is concerned. The golfer in chief’s approach to the game is subject to analysis in psychological and political contexts.

To some, Obama’s frequent outings reflect a cool self-confidence. “Given all the things that are going on in the world and with the economy,” says sports psychologist Bob Rotella, “you’d think he wouldn’t be caught anywhere near the golf course . . . To some degree it says: ‘I’m not going to worry about what people say about me. I’m going to do my job, and I’m going to play, too.’ ”

Obama’s predecessor said he quit golfing just as the Iraqi insurgency began to escalate in August 2003. “I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” George W. Bush told interviewers in 2008. “I think, you know, playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”

Obama, who shoots in the mid-90s by most estimates, seems to be taking every opportunity to improve his game by hitting the courses at Andrews Air Force Base and Fort Belvoir. On Sunday, he enlisted Ben Finkenbinder, a White House press assistant, and Marvin Nicholson, his trip scheduler, who once caddied at Augusta National Golf Club, for the round.

Illinois state Sen. Terry Link, one of Obama’s early golfing buddies, sees a direct connection between the president’s calm, methodical approach to the game and his personality. “He has a competitiveness in him, no doubt about it. But he has a smart competitiveness in him. He does not get to where he’s going to blow his cool,” Link says. “He’s going to have a calculated aggressiveness, and that’s how his life is, too.”

Obama, whose grandfather Stanley Dunham golfed, toyed with the game while in high school in Hawaii. He returned to it in 1997 as an Illinois state senator. He stank. But “he kept his head in the game to improve it,” Link recalls. Hacking away, failing to get frustrated, taking lessons and practicing, Obama lowered his score. His playing is still erratic. His swing knocked his BlackBerry off his belt during one of the rounds he played while on vacation post-election in Hawaii.

Leiby, who acknowledges the preeminence of the New York Times’ Don Van Natta where presidential linksmanship is concerned, characterizes the styles of some previous presidents.

– Clinton: Garrulous on the course, hates to lose, stretches the rules. These traits were well-chronicled by Van Natta in a 2003 Sports Illustrated piece that gave birth to the term “Billigans” for the former president’s unique do-over shots, traditionally known as mulligans.

– Gerald Ford: Caricatured as the Chevy Chase of the links, clumsy, known for wild shots. But it should be noted that when Ford played in a 1995 Bob Hope tournament with Clinton and George H.W. Bush, both former presidents drew spectator blood with their errant drives. Despite his rep, Ford was ranked third by Golf Digest, after Eisenhower.

– Bush 41: Capable, quick, thoughtful. “He may not be the greatest presidential golfer, but he may be the fastest. He’s great to play golf with because he is fast. No fooling around,” says sportswriting legend Dan Jenkins, a friend and golfing buddy of the former prez.

– Bush 43: Unreflective, daring, cocky. He drew criticism early in his presidency for opining on serious world events from the greens. Referring to a suicide bombing in Israel while teeing up in August 2002 at Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush said, “I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive.”

RN, who had only taken up the game as Eisenhower’s Vice President, made a hole in one on the second hole at LA’s Bel Air Country Club on 4 September 1961.  Holding the ball and his Spalding five iron for a commemorative photo, he said it was  “the greatest thrill in my life — even better than being elected.”

Annals Of The Obama Administration

June 5, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | Leave a Comment 

Annals Of The Obama Administration

June 4, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | 1 Comment 

On Wednesday afternoon, while POTUS was entering Saudi air space, FLOTUS 44 was entertaining FLOTUS 40 to luncheon in the Family Quarters.  The meal —at which the two met for the first time— was served on the colorful (and once controversially costly) Reagan China, specially brought out for the occasion.   Mrs. Reagan will celebrate her 88th birthday a month from tomorrow.

Annals Of The Obama Administration

May 29, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | 1 Comment 

The President left the White House this afternoon on another hamburger run.

This time he sampled the limited offerings but manifest delights of Five Guys — a local-joint-made-good that is the subject of some pride in these parts.

The good news is: He has lost none of his charm and suavity, and he still knows how to work a room like nobody’s business — all the while snacking on the unshelled peanuts available by-the-box at each red-and-white tiled Five Guys.

The bad news is: It takes him almost a minute to decide on the toppings for his burger (with lettuce added later as an afterthought) and almost three minutes to place the order for his small coterie.

The unspoken etiquette of Five Guys is that you know what you want before you reach the head of the line.  If just some dude took a minute to choose his toppings, he would be pelted with peanuts from the disgruntled ranks behind.

Where any POTUS is concerned, even free time is too precious to be wasted (a rule that equally applies to placing orders at Five Guys), so the entire outing was filmed by NBC as part of a “Day In The Life” special.

The prominently displayed choice of free toppings that caused such cogitation on the part of POTUS:   Mayo, Relish, Onions, Lettuce, Pickles, Tomatoes, Grilled Onions, Grilled Mushrooms, Ketchup, Mustard, Jalapeno Peppers, Green Peppers, A-1 Sauce, Bar-B-Q Sauce, and Hot Sauce.

 

Annals Of The Obama Administration

May 23, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | Leave a Comment 

 

The President gave the commencement address on Friday at the Naval Academy in Annapolis.  He then shook hands with each of the 1,036 graduates of the Class of 2009.  Among them was Ensign John S. McCain IV, the youngest son of Senator John McCain.   The President could be seen saying, “God bless you,” as Jack McCain turned to walk off the stage.

Annals Of The Obama Administration

May 18, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | 1 Comment 

The Vice President’s garrulousness may have led to the verbal equivalent of Air Force One’s $300K+ New York flyover.  If, as Eleanor Clift reports reports in this week’s Newsweek, Mr. Biden has disclosed the whereabouts of the “undisclosed location,” a new multi-million dollar hidey hole will be required.

Vice President Joe Biden, well-known for his verbal gaffes, may have finally outdone himself, divulging potentially classified information meant to save the life of a sitting vice president.

According to a report, while recently attending the Gridiron Club dinner in Washington, an annual event where powerful politicians and media elite get a chance to cozy up to one another, Biden told his dinnermates about the existence of a secret bunker under the old U.S. Naval Observatory, which is now the home of the vice president.

The bunker is believed to be the secure, undisclosed location former Vice President Dick Cheney remained under protection in secret after the 9/11 attacks.

Eleanor Clift, Newsweek magazine’s Washington contributing editor, said Biden revealed the location while filling in for President Obama at the dinner, who, along with Grover Cleveland, is the only president to skip the gathering.

According to Clift’s report on the Newsweek blog, Biden “said a young naval officer giving him a tour of the residence showed him the hideaway, which is behind a massive steel door secured by an elaborate lock with a narrow connecting hallway lined with shelves filled with communications equipment.”

Clift continued: “The officer explained that when Cheney was in lock down, this was where his most trusted aides were stationed, an image that Biden conveyed in a way that suggested we shouldn’t be surprised that the policies that emerged were off the wall.

Presidents And Popularity

May 15, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Barack Obama, Economic issues, Presidents, Public Opinion, Richard Nixon, economy | Leave a Comment 

In The New Republic, John Judis writes:

Almost four months after his inauguration, President Barack Obama is still riding high in the polls. According to Gallup, 66 percent of Americans approve of the job he is doing. But I expect that Obama’s popularity will begin to fall, even plummet, as the leaves turn brown. That’s not to say he is doing a bad job, but that the tasks he faces in fixing the economy remain daunting, and beyond resolution in his first year or, perhaps, even first term.

History suggests that Judis is right about the general trajectory of the president’s popularity.  Political scientists speak of the “decay curve,”  the tendency of presidential approval ratings to decline after the first few months of a new administration. The reason for the decay is straightforward:  the more decisions that a president makes, the more chances there are of alienating people.

For instance, RN’s first Gallup numbers in 1969 were 59 percent approve, 5 percent disapprove.  (That is not a typo: only five percent disapproved of his performance during his first days in office.)  By late June of 1971, the approve/disapprove ratio was a much closer 48-39 percent.

Economic conditions have a great deal to do with approval ratings.  In good times, they tend to stay high.  The boom of the 1990s buoyed Clinton’s numbers and helped him survive impeachment.  In bad times, presidential popularity plummets.  The recession of Ronald Reagan’s early presidency drove his approve/disapprove ratio to a dismal 35-56 percent in January 1983.

Obama still enjoys the benefit of the doubt and can still blame the current economic turmoil on his predecessor.  But as Judis suggests, the public will eventually hold him accountable for the results of his policies.  In that respect, he might ponder what RN wrote about his own bold experiment with big-government economics:

What did America reap from its brief fling with economic controls?  The August 15, 1971 decision to impose them was politically necessary and immensely popular in the short run.  But in the long run I believe that it was wrong.  The piper must always be paid, and there was an unquestionably high price for tampering with the orthodox economic mechanisms.

Annals Of The Obama Administration

May 9, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | Leave a Comment 

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was on the Daily Show the other night. It all started so well — even though he walked on wearing a cowboy hat and carrying a gift bag.  On air gifts are  every host’s nightmare and every segment producer’s nemesis.  They are never as funny as the guests know they’ll be; most often they barely manage to rise to the rank of mildly amusing.  And they slow things down in a business where every moment counts.  

The accomplished Stewart takes the gifts —including the worst of all, a funny hat— in stride.  And the initial exchanges were warm and friendly — as why shouldn’t they have been. Secretary Salazar is a skillful and successful politician with an interestingly mavericky career — first as the Colorado’s AG and, after 2004, as one of its US Senators, until Mr. Obama tapped him last January for the Interior gig.

So I sat back, only half engaged, figuring that I was in for several minutes of home runs about the evils of 43 hit off friendly softballs about the virtues of 44.  And then I watched, increasingly grimly fascinated, as things started going south fast.  

Secretary Salazar seemed so clueless about the operations of his Department that his interlocutor was finally forced to observe, “Now you’re looking at me like you don’t know.”  When those words pass the host’s lips you know that things aren’t going real well.   And that was only about half way through.

The clip is far from recommended viewing.  Its main interest will be for connoisseurs of the format — to see how a seasoned host struggles to steer a train wreck into the next commercial station with the least possible damage to passengers and observers.  That, and to try to figure out exactly what the hell was up with Ken Salazar.

Annals Of The Obama Administration

May 1, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | Leave a Comment 

From “Best of the Web Today” from today’s Wall Street Journal:

Last night found us at the Alexander Hamilton Award Dinner, an annual Manhattan Institute extravaganza. One of the guests of honor was Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state, and in introducing Kissinger, institute trustee Peter Flanigan mentioned something that had escaped our notice until now, and that we confirmed via a February story from London’s Daily Telegraph:

Kissinger, the pioneer of Cold War detente during the Nixon era, has made a return to frontline politics after President Barack Obama reportedly sent him to Moscow to win backing from Vladimir Putin’s government for a nuclear disarmament initiative.

The Daily Telegraph has learned that the 85-year-old former US secretary of state met President Dmitry Medvedev for secret negotiations in December. According to Western diplomats, during two days of talks the octogenarian courted Russian officials to win their support for Mr Obama’s initiative, which could see Russia and the United States each slashing their nuclear warheads to 1,000 warheads.

The decision to send Mr Kissinger to Moscow, taken by Mr Obama when he was still president-elect, is part of a plan to overcome probable Republican objections in Congress.

There’s nothing unusual about a president (or, in this case, a president-elect) calling on an elder statesman for help, but this one caught our attention because of what happened the last time Kissinger was in the public eye. As The Wall Street Journal wrote in a December 2002 editorial:

In yet another sign that American liberalism has lost its bearings, we are now being told that Henry Kissinger is unfit to be President Bush’s choice to lead a probe into government actions prior to September 11, 2001. What did he do, lie under oath in a legal deposition?

Well, no. Under recent liberal standards, that would be a qualification. The former Secretary of State instead stands accused of consulting for corporate clients and of being part of foreign-policy “power circles.” These apparently are an incentive for him to cover up embarrassing details and protect the powers-that-be, maybe even Mr. Bush. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who wants to be President himself, has averred that Mr. Kissinger should sever all ties with his clients.

Now, we remember when it was some conservatives who worried about the Trilateral Commission and other supposed establishment conspiracies. Liberals were the folks who defended experience in government and foreign-policy judgment, both of which Mr. Kissinger has in abundance and would seem to be useful for such an investigation. He has served six Presidents in one capacity or another, and while we’ve tangled with him on the merits more than once, we find it preposterous to suggest he’d sell out his country for a fee.

As for protecting Republicans, Mr. Kissinger’s vice chairman will be George Mitchell, the former Democratic Senate majority leader. The other eight commissioners, half to be appointed by Democrats, aren’t likely to be conned into a coverup.

The banal truth here is that at age 79 Mr. Kissinger probably knows this will be the capstone of his public career; maybe he even thinks he can do some good. Liberals used to believe this mattered more than phantom “conflicts of interest.”

Kissinger was hounded off the 9/11 Commission, and so for that matter was Mitchell, who is now President Obama’s special envoy to the Middle East. It speaks well of Obama that he was willing to ask Kissinger for help. It says something far less flattering about Kerry* and the others who joined the campaign against him back in 2002.

* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam.

Annals Of The Obama Administration

April 27, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | Leave a Comment 

Researchers at George Mason University in Virginia and Chapman University in Orange County conducted joint research regarding the TV evening news coverage of President Obama on the major broadcast outlets: ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox; the study also included the front page of The New York Times.

The results were released yesterday by The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University.

The executive summary supports the headline that President Obama has attracted more coverage in his first hundred days than did Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush —combined— in theirs. And, although the majority of the coverage of the new President’s personal qualities and leadership  has been favorable, the treatment of his proposals and policies have been considerably less enthusiastic. 

During his first 50 days in office, the three broadcast network evening news shows devoted 1021 stories lasting 27 hours 44 minutes to Barack Obama’s presidency. The daily average of seven stories and over 11 minutes of airtime represents about half of the entire newscasts. By contrast, at this point in their presidencies George W. Bush had received 7 hours 42 minutes and Bill Clinton garnered 15 hours 2 minutes of coverage, for a combined total airtime five hours less than Mr. Obama’s.
The networks varied in their attention to the Obama administration. CBS led the coverage with 365 stories and 10 hours 46 minutes of airtime, followed by NBC with 327 stories and 9 hours 38 minutes, and ABC with 329 stories and 7 hours 20 minutes. Thus, CBS has given more coverage to the Obama administration than all three networks combined gave to the first 50 days of George W. Bush’s presidency.

In addition, the first half hour of Fox News “Special Report” (which most closely resembles the broadcast network newscasts) devoted 10 hours 24 minutes to the Obama administration, nearly as much airtime as CBS gave him. And the New York Times devoted 115 front-page stories running 3385 column inches, the equivalent of over 28 full pages of text, to the Obama presidency.

Mr. Obama has received not only more press but also better press than his immediate predecessors. On the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news, fifty-eight percent of all evaluations of the president and his policies have been favorable, and 42 percent were unfavorable. CMPA’s previous studies of network news found that George W. Bush received only 33 percent positive evaluations by sources and reporters during the first 50 days of his administration in 2001, and Bill Clinton received only 44 percent positive evaluations during his first ten weeks (70 days) in office in 1993. (As noted above, these figures are based on judgments by reporters and sources not affiliated with either political party.)

The three networks have evaluated Mr. Obama very similarly – 57% positive comments on ABC, 58% positive on CBS, and 61% positive on NBC. But he fared far better in New York Times stories, where nearly three out of four evaluative comments (73%) by sources and reporters were favorable. And he fared far worse on Fox News, where only one out of eight such comments (13%) were favorable.

While Mr. Obama’s personal qualities and leadership abilities have drawn mostly praise from the mainstream media, his policies have not fared so well. On the broadcast networks fewer than two out of five evaluative soundbites (39%) praised his policies and proposals. ABC’s policy coverage was relatively balanced (48% positive), while source and reporter comments ran over two to one negative at both CBS (32% positive) and NBC (31% positive).

TV news coverage of the president’s economic policies, which focused mainly on the economic stimulus and the various proposed and enacted industry bailouts, garnered support from only 37% of evaluative soundbites. He fared better on domestic issues other than the economy, where praise for his health care proposals and new stem cell research policy brought balanced coverage overall (50% positive). But only one out of four comments (24%) praised his foreign policy decisions, including the war on terror.

Annals Of The Obama Administration

April 27, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | Leave a Comment 

He who lives by the sword can be embarrassed by the sword.

Some will see this as just desserts — the inevitable result of overdependence on the Teleprompter.

Others will see it as an example of a smooth mastery of the limitations of a particular technology.

All should see it as the shape of things to come.  In 2012 every national candidates will be a Telepromptie, and the notion of using a text or referring to notes —in other words, of the quaint notion of even any limited, modified spontaneity— will be as old fashioned as the whistle-stop.

Annals Of The Obama Administration

April 26, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | 1 Comment 

The very model of a modern major POTUS: with not a moment to be wasted, the President maximizes even his walk to work.

Candidate Barack Obama joked that, if he were elected POTUS, his beloved BlackBerry 8830 would have to be pried from his hands.

And, in fact, it was.   But only briefly.  The NSA convinced him that his handset wasn’t sufficiently secure and foisted one of their imprimatured Sectera Edge smartphones.

But this week POTUS took delivery of his super duper new 8830.

His BlackBerry 8830 will run encryption software called SecureVoice, which has been developed by security firm Genesis Key with the NSA to ensure complete defence against hackers, the Washington Times claimed.

The software will allow Mr Obama to view documents classified as Top Secret while out of the White House, as well as letting him stay in touch with wife Michelle and other family members, who will also be issued with the handsets.

US law demands that all emails and other messages sent or received by the president be retained, so Mr Obama’s staff have been working on an archive system to ensure that all his BlackBerry communications are preserved.

It has been reported that the president may have to wait up to 50 minutes to receive emails while they are scanned to ensure they do not contain are viruses.

Annals Of The Obama Administration

April 23, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | Leave a Comment 

Obama administration Auto Czar Steven Steven Rattner suddenly finds himself the focus of some very unwelcome attention.

Mr. Rattner has —along with his power wife, former DNC fundraising chair Maureen White— cut a very wide swath through New York and American finance, politics, and society for the last few decades.

His rise was stylishly profiled by Michael Wolff In his 2003 book Autumn of the Moguls.

In the latest Spectator (London), the Czar is given a serious grilling by no less a connoisseur of pretension and corruption than Taki Theodorocopulos.

After the usual ad hominem digression, Taki gets down to business — in this case of the financial and monkey kinds.

The reason I’m writing about this social climber is because of his involvement in a scandal of gigantic proportions, yet as recently as last Friday a White House spokesman said President Obama had full confidence in the Rat. I find this very strange. I know a man is innocent until proved guilty, but I also know about Caesar’s wife. A new administration that is printing trillions of dollars and taxing everyone to the limit cannot afford types like Steve Rattner cutting corners. After leaving journalism, the Rat joined Lazard Freres and became Felix (the Fixer) Rohatyn’s minion. He angled for the top spot after Felix’s departure, but the big boss, Michel David-Weill, told him it was no go. Rattner quit and began a fund of his own, Quadrangle, around the year 2000. It invested in media properties, including semi-porn magazines. Some of these investments proved to be duds, and the Quadrangle Group had to call upon other investors, drawing on Rattner’s social and political connections. One of the investors was Cerberus, a giant private equity firm which had bought Chrysler some time back. When the porn business faltered, Rattner played hard ball with Cerberus, which had loaned Quadrangle 120 million big ones.

Then, out of the blue, Rattner was named Obama’s front man to deal with the auto mess. How can Chrysler get a fair deal — not that it should after the lousy cars it’s made these past 75 years — from a man that owes it a fortune? Rattner, of course, left Quadrangle once he got the Washington job, not that it means much. He still has his equity in the group and knows which side his bread is buttered on.

Now for the big one: in a 123-count indictment issued last month, two people were accused of selling access to investment firms in the New York state — get this — $122 billion pension fund. In other words, two men working for the comptroller are said to have taken kickbacks in the millions for giving access to the pension fund. Among the firms given access was — yes, you guessed it — Quadrangle Capital. Quadrangle won $100 million worth of business from the pension fund. Rattner is supposedly co-operating fully and is not accused of breaking any laws or paying kickbacks. Before accepting the Obama offer Rattner was angling for Treasury, but wiser heads prevailed.

Mind you, the bigger the corner cut, the less people are likely to resign…. Rattner should never have gotten the job of car-tsar, and the new administration should have appointed someone with no questions to answer and with less access to billionaires who became billionaires on the back of Wall Street and Washington insiders. It goes to the heart of public integrity, but integrity is a word few know how to spell nowadays. The Rat should resign and go back to social climbing in New York.

Personally —and barring further revelations— I think that this this Rattner flap is probably just the latest example of the problems of appointing anybody who had anything to do with Wall Street.  The outrageously privileged Rattners are clearly people that many find easy to hate, and the schadenfreude is already knee deep.  But just because a wide leeway is in order doesn’t mean that close scrutiny isn’t required.

Annals Of The Obama Administration

April 12, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | 2 Comments 

 

The President and First Lady leave St. John’s Church after Easter Sunday services this morning.

The First Family attended Easter Sunday services at St. John’s Episcopal Church —”the President’s —and Presidents’— church”— just across the street (and over Lafayette Square) from the White House.  President-Elect and Mrs. Obama last attended a service there on the morning of his Inauguration on 20 January (the ninth POTUS —not including RN— to observe this inaugural morning custom initiated by FDR).

There has been some recent speculation and controversy because the President hadn’t attended any public church service in the eleven weeks since he was sworn in.

USA Today reported some details of this morning’s service:

The service began with organ, brass and percussion fanfare. Obama and other worshipers heard readings from the book of Exodus, the Gospel of Mark and other traditional Easter selections from the Bible.

Among prayers offered during the service were those for Obama and others in public life: “Guide and bless us in our work and play and shape the patterns of our political and economic life. We pray for Barack, our president, the leaders of Congress and the Supreme Court and all who are in authority; for Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and the Middle East, that all people may be fulfilled through the bounty of your creation.” The congregation responded, “We are made in your image, O God. Guide us in your grace.”

In his sermon, the Rev. Luis Leon welcomed believers and non-believers alike and called Easter an event based on faith, not logic.

“I can’t explain Easter to anyone. It just can’t be done. It’s like a professor trying to explain one of e.e. cummings’ poems,” he said. He added, “It takes time to be a believer. … Faith cannot be forced, and faith cannot be coerced.”

Leon made no mention of the Obamas in his sermon. Instead, he talked about the North Carolina Tar Heels, the college team that recently won the NCAA men’s basketball championship, and the start of the baseball season.

“I’m a fairly charitable person,” the pastor said, “but I hate the Yankees.”

Pew 54 at St. John’s Lafayette Square is the traditional President’s Pew. There is a 1789 Prayer Book in the Church’s archives bearing in gold letters the inscription “President’s Pew.”

Every POTUS since (and including) James Madison, who was the “occupant” of the (recently burned and reclaimed) Executive Mansion when the church first opened its doors in 1815, has attended service(s) at St. John’s.

St. John’s Episcopal —”The President’s Church”— on Lafayette Square across the street from the White House.

UPDATE: Here is the pool report — by Washington Times White House Correspondent Christina Bellantoni.  It may be more information than you want or need.  But the funny thing about information is — you never know when it will come in handy.

Happy Easter, folks.

News – President Obama and the First Family went to Easter Services at
St. John’s Episcopal Church, Lafayette Square. All four took communion.
Also, we have a lid.

Color – Not much, but some egg roll details below.

Tick-tock – At 10:48 the First Family emerged from the residence. From
where we were in the motorcade, we could only see FLOTUS Michelle Obama
and one of the Obama daughters. At that point we could not see outfits,
but later in church Mrs. Obama and the girls appeared to be wearing
matching white or cream-colored sweaters. The first lady was wearing a
white or cream-colored floral skirt or dress. POTUS wore dark suit even
though we spotted at least 4 parishioners in seersucker suits.

When we returned back, we saw more yoga demonstrating and someone was
singing on the stage for a sound check. A young woman, sorry no news on
who it was.

One of the agents in our van said they were doing yoga practice in
preparation for a fitness demonstration at tomorrow’s egg roll. The
agent said there also will be soccer and basketball.

As we waited for POTUS in the van, about a dozen young looking, barefoot
people were spotted on a colorful fabric mats on the lawn right in front
of the residence. They were stretching and doing both handstands and
headstands.

There’s an “egg roll enter here” sign and oversized bunnies and other
signs sprinkled on the lawn.

As the motorcade (en route less than 2 minutes) stopped and we ran to
catch up with POTUS, huge cheers erupted from the gathering Easter
crowd.

We arrived at 10:53 am.

Service started right at 11, and from press pool spot in back pew, I at
first could not see POTUS or first family. Fortunately AP superstar, the
much-taller-than-me Phil Elliott, spotted POTUS. He sat at least six
rows back from the front of the church, and it was impossible to see the
girls even from standing position while everyone else was seated. Two
agents were seated in the pew behind POTUS.

Parishioners arriving went through two mags set up outside the entrance.
Your pool spotted several little girls in their Easter best with their
arms straight out as they went through security.

Rev. Luis Leon, rector, told congregants it was his 15th Easter service
at the church.

His sermon included references to famous poets E.E. Cummings and Emily
Dickinson, hating the New York Yankees and a shout-out to POTUS-picked
NCAA tournament winners the UNC Tarheels. Some quotes to follow in next
pool report.

A writer’s pool only was allowed into the church while the others had to
wait with the motorcade.

The service was heavy with songs performed by lovely choir and brass
ensemble. Among the selected hymns – Alleluia, Jesus Christ is risen
today, A song of praise, Come, ye faithful, Welcome happy morning.

Readings were:
Exodus 14:10-14, 21-25, 15:20-21
Acts 10:34-43
Mark 16:1-8

A brief mention of President Obama in the program, which served for both
the 9 am and 11 am services.

During prayers of the people, led by Robert Black:

“Guide and bless us in our work and play, and shape the patterns of our
political and economic life; we pray for Barack, our President, the
leaders of Congress, and the Supreme Court, and all who are in
authority; for Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, and the Middle East, that all
people may be filled through the bounty of your creation.”

Response from entire church: “We are your servants, O God. Guide us in
your grace.”

Other than that, there was no mention of president during the service.

The president and first lady stood to briefly greet parishioners during
the “peace be with you” portion. FLOTUS had her hair down and straight.

We also could not see if they placed money in the offertory dish as it
went by. No one from press pew contributed.

As communion began, congregants snuck peeks at the president and his
family. For those wondering, the demographic was at least 90 percent
white.

The first family stood to get in line for communion, all smiling.

POTUS went first with communion, followed by Sasha, Malia, and then
FLOTUS and an unidentified young girl who looked to be Malia’s age.

Smiling wide and seeming to be in great spirits, POTUS returned to his
pew. He kept leaning over FLOTUS to talk to his daughters. Several
parishioners stopped to say hello to the first family during the long
communion session.

Pool escorted out at 12:21, and huge crowds had gathered behind police
tape lines on the corner of 16th and H and in Lafayette Park.

A few minutes later, POTUS left from same side door where he’d entered.

Motorcade rolled again at 12:29. Back at White House and stopped at
12:31. Lid called 12:33.

For more, visit church Web site at stjohns-dc.org

Also per Phil – Obama attended a private service here the morning of the
inauguration. It’s known as the church of the presidents.

Former President George W. Bush has attended services here.

Egg roll color:

Our gather time was around 10:20 and we walked to the south lawn
driveway where the motorcade was waiting.

Before getting in the van we caught an early glimpse of the egg roll
preparation for tomorrow.

Oversized cutouts in the shape of tulips framed the fountain on the
south lawn, where several makeshift fences, tents and a large stage have
been erected. Various stereo equipment and speakers have been set up in
spots on the lawn. 

 

Annals Of The Obama Administration

April 9, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, White House | Leave a Comment 

By the time you read this, a major “first” will have taken place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  The President and First Lady will have marked Passover by inviting friends and staff to a White House Seder — the first ever to have taken place in the Executive Mansion attended by a President.

This afternoon’s AP report rather ungraciously characterized the event (in the story’s lede) as “part of the new president’s effort to reach out to Jewish voters.”  Nothing any President does is ever entirely non-political, but the guest list indicates a more personal and familial —and symbolic— purpose.

Among the invited is Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama’s closest advisers, and family friend Eric Whitaker, who is visiting from Chicago and attended a Seder last year with the campaign. First lady Michelle Obama and the family’s two daughters also plan to attend.

The staff guest list includes aides from the campaign trail who marked last year’s Passover at the Sheraton hotel in Harrisburg, Pa. Obama’s personal aide, Reggie Love; Michelle Obama’s deputy chief of staff, Melissa Winter; personal aide Dana Lewis and associate social secretary Samantha Tubman all received invitations.

Also on the guest list are Eric Lesser, a personal aide to senior adviser David Axelrod, and his family. Lesser worked during the New Hampshire primary and later handled baggage for traveling reporters. White House videographer Arun Chaudhary — a constant presence on the trail — landed invitations for his family.

Others in the exclusive group include Michelle Obama’s counsel and friend Susan Sher; Herbie Ziskend, a staff assistant to Vice President Joe Biden’s policy and economic advisers; and White House deputy director of advance and special events Lisa Kohnke.

Two of the administration’s highest-profile members of the Jewish faith will miss the dinner. Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel doesn’t plan to attend and Axelrod expects to be in Chicago with his family.

The White House says the Seder meal will be traditional, including matzo, bitter herbs, a roasted egg and greens in the family dining room in the executive mansion. The evening will feature the reading of the Haggadah, the religious text of the holiday.

White House aides say they believe this is the first president-hosted Seder at the White House. President Bill Clinton’s aides planned Seders, but Clinton isn’t known to have attended.

Annals Of The Obama Administration

April 3, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | 1 Comment 

The bow heard round the world:

Of course President Obama is a tall man with superb posture.  From his height a normal upper torso tilt of recognition —and, yes, respect— can look like a borderline obeisance.  

And before the dudgeon about Mr. Obama kowtowing to foreign potentates gets out of control, it’s useful to remember a not too distant time:

Annals Of The Obama Administration

April 2, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | Leave a Comment 

 

Annals Of The Obama Administration

April 1, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | 1 Comment 

President Obama’s gifting skills were called into question —and rightly so— when he presented British Prime Minister Gordon Brown with the underwhelming gift of  a box set of 25 DVDs (of “classic” American movies to be sure) that weren’t compatible with British DVD equipment.

But now some troublemakers (Drudge) and some ingrates (you know who you are Toby Harnden) are trying to diss the President for his presentation earlier today of an iPod to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

We are amused: the news of the Queen’s purchase of an iPod caught the British fancy.

Some of the criticism has been based on the fact that HM already has an iPod (a 6GB silver classic model bought from the Regent Street Apple Store in 2005).  But fair’s fair, and when it comes to “the woman who has everything,” the Queen is in a category of her own.

So usability isn’t the criterion.  Aptness is.

And, this time around, I think POTUS got it just right.  What is more emblematic of American invention and style than an iPod?   Not to mention that they are eminently regiftable (unless, of course, he ordered it engraved with “EIIR”).

Better still, this iPod came preprogrammed with video of the Queen’s 2007 trip to the USA, including her visits to Jamestown, Williamsburg, and Richmond.

Later reports have added that the President also gave the Queen a song book signed by Richard Rodgers.  If that’s true, it’s a real home run and shows that someone at the White House or over in Foggy Bottom is really using their noggin.  

The song “People Will Say We’re In Love” —from Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Oklahoma!— was popular at the time when Princess Elizabeth and  Lt. Philip Mountbatten were trying to keep their early courtship from the prying press.  It became a private signal between them.  It was among the songs they requested to be played at their wedding, and it has been a favorite ever since.

No two ways about it, that’s a great gift.

Less skillfully diplomatic, alas, were Mr. Obama’s remarks at the end of his joint press conference with Prime Minister Brown earlier today.  The President said: ”There’s one last thing that I should mention that I love about Great Britain, and that is the Queen.  And so I’m very much looking forward to meeting her for the first time later this evening. And as you might imagine, Michelle has been really thinking that through — because I think in the imagination of people throughout America, I think what the Queen stands for and her decency and her civility, what she represents, that’s very important.”

While undoubtedly heartfelt and sincere, the statement is also inappropriate and condescending.  First, there’s an implication that the Queen is sort of a souped-up First Lady, so dealing with her falls into Michelle’s bailiwick.  

Second, there’s the notion that the stands for “decency and civility.”  Now,  those are undoubtedly fine things to stand for, and, in her conduct and demeanor, HM truly exhibits and embodies them.

But what Queen Elizabeth II actually “stands for” is  the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a score and more of Commonwealth countries, and, while she’s at it, the Church of England, of which she is Defender of the Faith.  

But Mr. Obama made it sound more like he was looking forward to meeting some kindly old lady Gordon Brown keeps stashed away in a luxurious attic (on the lines of Nanny Hawkins in Brideshead Revisited‘) instead of the Head of State.

And even the monarchy’s strongest opponents and detractors don’t deny that —after fifty-seven years of diligent devotion— the Queen is one of the most politically astute people in her realm.

Another variation on the Queen’s acquisition of an iPod from the Apple Store in Regent Street in 2005: a proposed stamp design for the Royal Mail.

UPDATE 8.30 PM: Jake Tapper’s excellent ABC News blog —The Punch— supplies the content preloaded on the iPod the President presented to the Queen:

• Photos from the Queen’s 2007 White House State Visit
• Photos from the Queen’s 2007 Jamestown, Va., Visit
• Photos from the Queen’s 2007 Richmond, Va., Visit
• Video from the Queen’s 1957 Jamestown Visit
• Video from the Queen’s 2007 Jamestown Visit
• Video from the Queen’s 2007 Richmond Visit
• Photos from President Obama’s Inauguration
• Audio of then-state senator Obama’s speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and
• Audio of President Obama 2009 Inauguration Address

Annals Of The Obama Administration

March 31, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under American Politics, Annals of the Obama Administration, Congress, Double Standard Paranoia Quotient | Leave a Comment 

Life imitates comedy, and what was originally treated as a sardonic punchline by House Minority Whip Eric Cantor —“It’s easy for [Democrats] to sit here and advocate higher taxes because — you know what? — they don’t pay them”— may turn out to have been an understatement of the facts of the matter.

Geither, Daschle and Solis, and others whose nominations were deep-sixed in order to dodge the tax cheat bullet, are now joined by Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, the disgraced Daschle’s much-touted replacement.

As just reported by Mark Silva on The Swamp blog:

In a coda to the collection of back-taxes from Cabinet nominees, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama’s nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services, said today that she has paid more than $7,000 in back taxes owed.

In a letter to senators released by the administration, Sebelius said the “unintentional” underpayments in income taxes had involved charitable contributions, the sale of a home and business expenses.

Sebelius, who faced her first confirmation hearing by a Senate committee today, said she filed amended tax returns as soon as the errors were found by an accountant hired to scrub her taxes in preparation for her confirmation hearings.

The Kansas governor and her husband, Gary, a federal magistrate judge in Kansas, paid a total of $7,040 in back taxes and $878 in interest to amend returns from 2005-07.

And to save time and space, allow me to add a coda that would undoubtedly have turned into a DSPQ post in the next couple of days:

But Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) quickly moved to quell any controversy: “Congress is going to need a strong partner at the Department of Health and Human Services to achieve comprehensive health reform this year, and we have that partner in Gov. Sebelius,” Baucus said. “There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Gov. Sebelius has the political experience, determination, and bipartisan work ethic to get the job done with Congress this year. She’s the right person for the job.”

The well-regarded Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius posed in her Topeka office for Vogue magazine early last year.  Her hasty payment of more than $7,000 in back taxes presents the Obama administration with the latest in a line of embarrassing revelations regarding its Cabinet nominees.  The accompanying article noted that:  ”In person, the governor is elegant, circumspect (a trait Kansans approve) and strikingly fit. She loves to golf, scuba dive, play tennis, sail and jog (the last while listening to the  Dixie Chicks).”

Annals Of The Obama Administration

March 31, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | Leave a Comment 

Lois Romano reports in today’s WaPo:

Who turns down a free $100,000 home makeover? Barack and Michelle Obama, who are writing a personal check for the redecoration of the private quarters at the White House.

Yesterday, Camille Johnston, the first lady’s director of communications, confirmed the Obamas will forgo the $100K government allowance provided every four years for sprucing up the White House residence, as first reported in New York magazine. “In light of the difficult economic conditions, the Obamas have determined now is not the time to use taxpayer funds for this and they will not be accepting any donations, monetary or goods,” said Johnston.

How much are they shelling out? We’ll never know. “The budget will not be made public since all expenses are private,” Johnston told our colleague Jura Koncius.

And, for the first time in modern history, the first family will not accept any donations through the White House Historical Association for the upstairs residence, something many of their predecessors have done. Which means when they leave, they’re free to take all the stuff they’ve paid for.

“This is so in touch with what is going on now,” said Carl Sferrazza Anthony, historian of the National First Ladies’ Library. “It is politically astute in terms of symbolism. It is also really thoughtful when people are losing their actual houses.”

Annals Of The Obama Administration

March 30, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Culture, Faith, History, International Affairs, Latin America, Obama administration, Religion, Secretary Clinton | Leave a Comment 

SOS Clinton’s reset button gaffe was explained as having been the result of moving her political apparat to Foggy Bottom. 

But news arrives from her Mexican trip that fits into the “you couldn’t make something like this up” category of world class diplomatic blunders.  

On Friday she visited the most sacred of Mexican sites: the Basilica of the nation’s patron saint, the Virgin of Guadalupe.

Mrs. Clinton can be excused for not being personally aware of the history of the shrine and the miraculous painting.  That’s why there are legions of staff at State to prepare briefing books and pithy remarks.  (And I know there’s no reason why she, or anyone at State, should be as intrigued as I am by the story of the Virgin’s eyes, which is something like the western hemisphere’s Shroud of Turin.)

But nothing can prepare you for the sheer tin ear incompetence of what actually went down.  Here’s the Catholic News Agency’s account.   Read it and cringe.  

During her recent visit to Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an unexpected stop at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe and left a bouquet of white flowers “on behalf of the American people,” after asking who painted the famous image.

The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted by Mary on the tilma, or cloak, of St. Juan Diego in 1531. The image has numerous unexplainable phenomena, such as the appearance on Mary’s eyes of those present in the room when the tilma was opened and the image’s lack of decay.

Mrs. Clinton was received on Thursday at 8:15 a.m. by the rector of the Basilica, Msgr. Diego Monroy.

Msgr. Monroy took Mrs. Clinton to the famous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which had been previously lowered from its usual altar for the occasion.

After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked “who painted it?” to which Msgr. Monroy responded “God!”

It’s bad enough already — but it gets worse.  It turns out that she had been there before and still didn’t know what she was seeing.

Clinton then told Msgr. Monroy that she had previously visited the old Basilica in 1979, when the new one was still under construction.

Banality is the mother’s milk of diplomatic diplospeak, but, surely, a worldly Wellesley grad supported by scores of assistant under secretaries and stables of speech writers should be able to come up with something better than this:

After placing a bouquet of white flowers by the image, Mrs. Clinton went to the quemador –the open air area at the Basilica where the faithful light candles- and lit a green candle.

Leaving the basilica half an hour later, Mrs. Clinton told some of the Mexicans gathered outside to greet her, “you have a marvelous virgin!”

Secretary Clinton wrapped up her good will visit to Our Lady of Guadalupe by flying to Houston to receive an award from Planned Parenthood.

This evening [Friday 27 March] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is set to receive the highest award given by Planned Parenthood Federation of America — the Margaret Sanger Award, named for the organization’s founder, a noted eugenicist. The award will be presented at a gala event in Houston, Texas.

Annals Of The Obama Administration

March 25, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Art, Culture, Obama administration | Leave a Comment 

If the politicization of American foreign policy is proceeding Clinton-style at DOS, back at the White House the politicization of American art and culture appears to be proceeding Chicago-style.  

Having dissed the journalistic establishment by blowing off the Gridiron Dinner and ignoring the major print poobahs at Tuesday night’s press conference, it appears that the President is now flipping off all the creative folks who supported him so ardently, and whose hopes for him and what his administration would mean for the arts were so high.

The President recently made three arts-critical appointments of individuals whose resumes are light on arts cred but heavy on political clout.  The fact that these “stealth” appointments were made without any announcement —much less any fanfare— from the  White House delayed the unfavorable reaction that is just now beginning to register.   

So far nobody has pulled out the old “most unlikely appointment since Caligula appointed his horse a Consul” chestnut, but that’s only a matter of time now that Judith H. Dobrzynski has sounded the alarm in her “Blogs & Stories” piece on today’s Daily Beast.  

Her headline sums the situation up neatly: “The arts world is fuming over Obama’s underqualified “arts czar,” and a humanities appointee who lacks a college degree.”  

While the head arts honchos have yet to be appointed, Ms. Dobrzynski reports on the three lower-level but critical appointments of the people who will actually be making things happen.  She calls them “strange at best and, at worst, deflating.  None has much arts expertise; what they do have are political connections.  Bernard, appointed to a key post at the academically minded NEH, never graduated from college, though he claims a bachelor’s degree on his résumé.

Ms. Dobrzynski notes —and dismisses— the predictable defense:

Obama’s defenders say these people don’t need expertise in the arts and humanities, that it’s enough that they’re close to Obama. 

Liaisons to the White House are always political posts. They are involved with all interactions with the White House (and Congress) on things like the budget, agency priorities, and the other political appointments. They work best when the appointments are not highly politicized.

These three appointments seem to be far more politics-as-usual than was expected of the Obama administration. A White House spokesman declined to comment on that directly, but said, “President Obama recognizes that support for creative expression is an important part of who we are as a nation, and he’s committed to ensuring that the arts community has an open line to the White House.”

But, for now, at least, the high-flying arts hopes are falling back to earth. 

The new “arts czar” —who will oversee NEA and NEH for the White House— is a classically politically-charged Chicago lawyer named Kareem Dale.

Take Dale’s stealth appointment as “arts czar.” While the White House has confirmed the appointment to news outlets, no formal announcement has been forthcoming. The only official word on him from the White House came in mid-February, when Dale—who is partially blind—was made special assistant to the president for disability policy. He is currently holding both positions.

Dale—who has both law and MBA degrees from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign—is no slouch, but he has limited experience in the arts: He worked as a volunteer on Obama’s Arts Policy Committee, then as a paid staffer (becoming the campaign’s disability-vote director). He was president of the board of Chicago’s Black Ensemble Theatre, where he helped raise $15 million to finance a new building. His father, who owns R.J. Dale Advertising and Public Relations, preceded him on the board, as chairman. Both the father—Robert J., but known as Bob—and son are members of Chicago’s vibrant African-American network and longtime Obama donors.

At NEH the new Director of White House and Congressional Affairs is Geoffrey Bernard.  Dobrzynski calls this appointment an “even stranger fit” than art czar Dale.

Co-founder of B & G Associates in Los Angeles, a political fund-raising and strategic-planning firm, he raised millions of dollars for the Obama campaign with his partner, Rufus Gifford, the “G” in B & G.

Gifford was recently named finance director of the Democratic National Committee; Bernard was a superdelegate to the Democratic Convention. The pair cuts a wide path through L.A., and on March 10, the Washington Post named them “leading candidates for Washington’s new same-sex power couple.”

B & G’s website says Bernard worked in real estate and cable television before getting into politics. He also did campaign work for President Clinton, who rewarded him with an appointment to the presidential advisory committee of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and is involved with social-justice organizations. As for connections to the humanities? Zip.

The website also says that “Jeremy holds a bachelor’s degree from Hunter College in New York.” But a Hunter spokeswoman, Meredith Helpern, said “He did not graduate from Hunter,” though he did attend. She declined to provide any further information.

At the NEH, Noel Milan, the acting director of public affairs, said, “the documents we have contain no reference to an earned degree. It says he attended Hunter College.” Milan said Bernard did not want to comment.

The third hinky arts appointment is Anita Decker as NEA’s Director of White House and Congressional Affairs (the same position Bernard holds at NEH.) 

She has even less ostensible expertise in the arts, according to published reports. A graduate of the University of Arizona, Decker is from… Chicago!—and has spent her life in Illinois politics. She headed Obama’s downstate office.

Annals Of The Obama Administration

March 24, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, International Affairs, Obama administration, Secretary Clinton | Leave a Comment 

Apparently the Clintonization and the politicization  (some would say that’s the same difference) of America’s foreign policy has been proceeding apace  in Foggy Bottom.

Remember that “reset button” fiasco —the pesky peregruzka problem— a couple of weeks ago?

In today’s Politico, Ben Smith reports the bigger institutional story that was uncovered while digging around to find out who was responsible for the linguistic gaffe:

Hillary Clinton’s departure for the State Department was meant to end the era of Clinton drama, and to leave the turmoil of her campaign behind. But one former Clinton aide, now a senior adviser to Secretary Clinton, has brought at least some of that drama along with him.

State Department reporters and observers have been buzzing about the brewing conflict since her second foreign trip, earlier this month, to Europe and the Middle East. On that trip, her longtime Senate press secretary Philippe Reines – one of the combatants in Hillaryland’s long civil wars – took over as the political staffer charged with handling the press.

The trip was marked by tussles over information and access, but it became known for a high-profile blunder in Geneva on March 6. There, Clinton met Sergei Lavrov, the dour Russian Foreign Minister, and cheerily presented him with a large red button in a yellow case, with the words “Reset” and “Peregruzka” written on it.

“We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?” Clinton asked.

“You got it wrong,” said Lavrov.

The error appalled some in the State Department, because the button – which was inscribed in Latin script, not Cyrillic – hadn’t been assembled with the help of State’s cadre of Russian speakers and professional translators, but rather by Clinton’s small political team. The day of the event, people involved said, Reines showed the finished product to officials who spoke Russian, but who weren’t native, or up-to-date enough to catch the error in a word out of computer terminology.

One of those was the senior director for Russia at the National Security Council, Michael McFaul, a well-known Russia scholar. Three people familiar with the incident said that, in its aftermath, Reines sought to place public blame on McFaul, a former Stanford professor.

Pressed Monday on the button incident, Reines denied that he’d ever blamed McFaul, and sent over a joking statement taking responsibility for the gaffe.

“Ultimotely [sic], this was my soul [sic] risponsibility [sic], nobody else’s in or out of the building. While the Russians laughed off the error and accepted the gift in the spirit of cooperation that it was meant, I’ve been sic [sic] about the mistake since, especially that I let down the Secretary and the fine professionals at the State Department,” he e-mailed.

McFaul didn’t respond to e-mail seeking comment, and National Security Council official Denis McDonough brushed a question about it off as a “typical Washington story.”

A McFaul ally said that “the notion that it was all on him, if that’s what they’re saying, is clearly unfair. He was asked to look at it.” 

Annals Of The Obama Administration

March 22, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | 1 Comment 

The egos were still bruised from the snub, but if President Obama was AWOL from last night’s Gridiron Dinner (apparently the first such first-term-first-time snub from a POTUS since the Gridiron Club was founded back in 372 BCE), his presence was pervasive.*  Explaining the President’s absence, his stand-in, Vice President Biden, launched a quip that is currently being heard around the world (or at least around the blogosphere):

President Obama does send his greetings…He can’t be here tonight — because he’s busy getting ready for Easter.  He thinks it’s about him. …

In fact, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was the evening’s designated Republican speaker (Wisconsin’s Jennifer Granholm rose for the Democrats) probably had the best explanation for President Obama’s decision to spend the weekend at Camp David instead of attending the Gridiron Dinner: “He’s just not that into you.”

Even without POTUS, the annual off-the-record black tie affair was still a highlight of the social season.  The Club’s motto is “singe but never burn,” and, like the Al Smith and White House Correspondent’s Dinners, the criterion is the ability to laugh at oneself while making others join in.  

The Grid format involves putting on a show — in which working journalists perform the humorous lyrics they have written set to familiar tunes.  Among past highlights were Nancy Reagan’s surprise appearance and sending up her much-commented–upon wardrobe by  singing “Second Hand Clothes” to the tune of “Second Hand Rose.”   (“Even though they tell me that I’m no longer Queen / Did Ronnie have to buy me that new sewing machine? / I sure hope Ed Meese sews.”)

And RN’s first-time-first-term Gridiron appearance on 14 March 1969 was the stuff of legends.

The evening, predictably,  had been rife with jokes about the “Southern Strategy” that had been so much discussed and analyzed during the recent campaign.  Instead of delivering the expected remarks from the podium, RN achieved the coup of complete surprise when the curtains parted revealing him and Vice President Agnew seated at two grand pianos.

After a couple of back-and-forth Southern Strategy jokes, RN said that he would play some of the favorite songs of his recent predecessors.  He started off with FDR’s “Home on the Range,” but Agnew broke in with a raucous rendition of  ”Dixie.”  Then Harry Truman’s “Missouri Waltz” — interrupted by “Dixie.”  Ditto LBJ’s “The Eyes of Texas.”  

With the audience already cheering and laughing, RN said, “Hold it!  Hold it!   Now we’ll play my favorite.”  

He launched into “God Bless America.”  Agnew joined in.  The audience was on its feet shouting along with the accompaniment.  

At last night’s Gridiron Dinner, the show’s opening number was “There Is Nothing Like A Change,” set to the tune of South Pacific’s “There Is Nothing Like A Dame.”  The kicker: “What ain’t we got?  We ain’t got jobs!”

Vice President Biden was serenaded to the tune of “Some Enchanted Evening”: ”Some implants and weaving/Biden’s hair this evening/Hair we can believe in!/Hope of the Baby Boom.”

“Vice President Cheney” sang to the tune of “My Way”: “As number two to forty three/ I moved about in such a sly way/ But George, he was the key/ He did it my way.”

Nancy Pelosi’s was the evening’s “Imperial Girl.”

The White House released Mr. Biden’s prepared text.  Like  most such efforts, it contains a few zingers, a few groaners, and a lot of filler.

Axelrod really wanted me to do this on teleprompter — but I told him I’m much better when I wing it. … I know these evenings run long, so I’m going to be brief. Talk about the audacity of hope. … President Obama does send his greetings, though. He can’t be here tonight — because he’s busy getting ready for Easter. (Whisper) He thinks it’s about him. …

I know that no president has missed his first Gridiron since Grover Cleveland. Of course, President Cleveland really did have better things to do on a Saturday night. When he was in the White House — he was married to a 21 year old woman. … I understand these are dark days for the newspaper business, but I hate it when people say that newspapers are obsolete. That’s totally untrue. I know from firsthand experience. I recently got a puppy, and you can’t housebreak a puppy on the Internet.

Now let’s see: we have a Republican speaker who was born in Austria, and tonight’s Democratic speaker was born in Canada. Folks, this is Lou Dobbs’ worst nightmare. … We are now two months into the Obama-Biden administration and the President and I have become extremely close. To give you an idea of how close we are, he told me that next year — maybe, just maybe — he’s going to give me his blackberry email address. … But the Obama Administration really is a good team. I am the experienced veteran. Rahm can be an enforcer. And Tim Geithner is always there when you need to borrow money. And no questions asked.

You know, I never realized just how much power Dick Cheney had until my first day on the job. I walked into my office, and you know how the outgoing president always leaves the incoming president a note in his desk? I opened my drawer and Dick Cheney had left me Barack Obama’s birth certificate. … I now realize that we have to be extra careful when we annunciate new policy ideas to make sure they don’t look like they’re personally motivated. For example, the other day there were a whole bunch of stories about the President’s hair going gray; the next day there’s a story about a Vice President who’s trying to grow new hair, and then the day after that, the two of us come out in favor of stem cell research. That looked bad.

I’d like to address some of the things I said: Like when I said that ‘JOBS’ is a three-letter word. I did say that. But I didn’t mean it literally. It’s like how, right now, most people think AIG is a four-letter word. … Or when I announced our stimulus package website, I was asked how you get to it: All I said was I didn’t know the website number. What I really meant to say was, ‘Ted Stevens didn’t tell me what tube the website is in.”

Annals Of The Obama Administration

March 20, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Humor | Leave a Comment 

As has been noted here before, some British newspapers have a peculiar penchant for lists — some of them peculiar, some of them diverting, some of them exhausting.

And all of them, of course, completely tendentious and made up by ink-stained wretches in order to meet a deadline.

Here’s one from today’s Telegraph: “Top 10 gaffes by Barack Obama and Joe Biden.”

Annals Of The Obama Administration

March 18, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Sports | Leave a Comment 

No more immune to Mad Marchness than any other citizen, the President gets down to serious business with Andy Katz and fills out his very own Final Four bracket.  (You can compare his to yours here.)

Please, no wagering here at TNN.  But — how much would you bet that Jay Leno asks him about this tomorrow night when Mr. Obama becomes the first sitting POTUS to appear on the Tonight Show.  (Chester Arthur had been booked but was forced to cancel at the last minute because of a scheduling conflict involving the opening of the International Meridian Conference.)

Of course, some churls are bound to see this as just the latest example of the President’s Home Alone approach to scheduling.

Annals Of The Obama Administration

March 17, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Holidays | Leave a Comment 

A few reflections on the President and First Lady’s St. Patrick’s Day reception last night in the East Room.

First, it provided a rare opportunity to see Mr. Obama read from text.   No doubt he does it smoothly and well,  But the contrast with the impression of sincerity and spontaneity that have been so clearly —and so carefully— established by his use of a Teleprompter to date strikes me as jarring.   It highlights the extent of the technique behind the eye contact that has become characteristic of most of his performances.

Second, coming from a communications operation that has been state of the art so far, the picture and sound quality are surprisingly poor.   I’m not sure of the source of this video —which is embedded here from Politico— but whether it’s official or from the press pool, someone in the White House communications office seems to have been asleep at the wheel (or maybe away on a run for more green beer).  

Third, the new casual format of events in the Obama White House seems to me to leave a less than dignified impression.  The huddled, standing,noisy crowd and the raised cellphones taking pictures and blocking the shot are —at least to this old fart’s tired eyes— more suited to campaign stops than official events in the Executive Mansion.  (And speaking of green beer….as I was above: the Obamas served their guests a green-colored California sparkling wine; at the risk of sounding snobby, this strikes me as the kind of touch more suited to some mid-sized municipal Saint Paddy’s bash.)

Earlier in the day the President announced that he would be appointing Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney —the long time Republican who became one of his major campaign backers during the Pennsylvania primary— as US Ambassador to Dublin.

Later, the President brought his Irish guest —Taoiseach Brian Cowen — to the Speaker’s St. Patrick’s Day luncheon in the Capitol.  Speaking there —from notes not Teleprompter— he very gracefully quoted the predecessor who had (along with Tip O’Neill) begun the tradition:

“In fact, looking at all of you, I’m reminded of a greeting President Reagan once offered the guests at this gathering.  “On St. Patrick’s Day,” he said, “you should spend time with saints and scholars.  So I have two more stops to make.” 

UPDATE:  3.19.09 9.30 AM EST:  The AP this morning reports on the still imperfect art of the Teleprompter as demonstrated during the morning ceremony when the Taoiseach presented the traditional gift of shamrocks:  

 Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen was just a few paragraphs into an address at a St. Patrick’s Day celebration at the White House when he realized something sounded way too familiar. Turns out, he was repeating the speech President Barack Obama had just given.

Cowen was set to speak twice at the White House on Tuesday night because there were two different parties going on at the executive mansion. No matter — he would give the same speech to the two different audiences.

But Cowen was 20 seconds into his second address when it dawned on him that he was giving word for word the speech that Obama had just read from the same teleprompter.

Cowen stopped and looked back at the president to say, “That’s your speech.”

Obama laughed and returned to the podium to offer what might have been Cowen’s remarks. In doing so, President Obama thanked President Obama for inviting everyone over.

Annals Of The Obama Administration

March 17, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | Leave a Comment 

Yet another first at the Obama White House — the fountains on the North and South Lawns are now flowing green.

The story is being floated, no pun intended, that the First Lady directed this colorful display partly as a tribute to St. Patrick and partly as a nod to a tradition of the Obamas’ home town, where the Chicago River runs green each March 17th.   ”A little bit of home for our new home” is how the East Wing’s press spokesperson expressed it, explaining that the effect is the result of a green dye, and will only last until the dye runs out.  

That explanation is entirely plausible.  Perhaps entirely too plausible.

Could it be that the water has, in fact, turned green because of the overflow from all the money they’ve been churning out down in the basement since they moved in?  

Annals Of The Obama Administration

March 16, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | Leave a Comment 

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has never worked as a reporter or a journalist of any kind.  His job history is as congressional staffer, press secretary, and/or campaign adviser and spokesman.  He was the communications director at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee before signing on as John Kerry’s campaign press honcho in 2004.  After a couple of years as a consultant he joined Team Obama.

Because he was good at his job, Mr. Gibbs rose to the top of his profession.  A profession whose purpose is to spin whatever story is being told.  Of course, the White House Press Office is meant to serve the President and the Press Secretary is there to tell the administration’s side of every story.  

And, regardless of the administration, the White House press corps is never happy with the sacrificial lamb-pinana combination that is placed before them.  A former journalist is considered a Quisling; a non-former journalist is considered an insult.  But an inveterate spinner is considered beneath contempt.  Mr. Gibbs’ briefings —which failed to achieve any level of warmth from the earliest days— are now becoming known for their brittleness.

ABC’s Jake Tapper is building a solid reputation by holding Mr. Gibbs’ feet to the fire.  The grilling at today’s press conference was typical.  Confronted with the backing and filling from the podium, Mr. Tapper starts out as incredulous and ends up close to contemptuous.   

TAPPER:  You guys first found about these bonuses last week?
   
GIBBS:  I think that’s true, based on what I read in the newspaper.
   
TAPPER:  But you gave money to AIG two or three weeks ago?
   
GIBBS:  Um-hmm.
   
TAPPER:  How could you not know that they have these millions — hundreds of millions dollars…
   
GIBBS:  Well, again, there’s — there’s — according to the news reports, there’s existing contracts, some of which the — or of which the president has asked the secretary to examine going forward. I think you also heard the president speak today about having a resolution authority that gives the government and taxpayers far more flexibility in dealing with the disposition of AIG in a way that gives taxpayers protection and flexibility — disposition that we don’t currently have, but steps that we would like to see taken in order to deal with AIG as a whole.
   
TAPPER:  Why didn’t you attach it to the $30 billion you gave a couple weeks ago?
   
GIBBS:  Again, Jake, the…
   
TAPPER:  You’re looking to retroactively attached it to the new $30 billion.
   
GIBBS:  Well, they’re looking through contracts to see what can be done to wrest these bonuses from their recipients.
   
TAPPER:  I’m sorry, just — I don’t understand, so maybe I’m just not understanding, but President Obama said in early February, right when he gave his speech on executive compensation, “these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis isn’t just bad taste, it’s bad strategy, and I will not tolerate it as president.  We’re going to be demanding some restraint in exchange for federal aid.”  Since that time, he gave tens of billions of dollars in federal aid to AIG without demanding restraint.
   
GIBBS:  Well again, Jake, we’ve got existing relationships, contracts, as I just mentioned, that were negotiated a year ago, assistance that was granted outside of the legal authority prior to the creation of the troubled asset relief program. The president has asked the administration to go back and look at what remedies are possible to block those bonuses.
   
TAPPER:  But why didn’t he do that before?
   
GIBBS:  Well, again, the excessive compensation rules that you’d noted, and I think somebody asked this at the background briefing that we had, obviously are prospective based on some limitations that we have in looking backwards. The president has asked Secretary Geithner and members of the administration to exhaust all legal remedies in looking backwards to see what steps could be taken to block these bonuses.

TAPPER:  No, but since — and I’m sorry to belabor this point — but since President Obama gave the speech, you guys gave more money to AIG.  Why wasn’t it attached…
   
GIBBS:  Again, this is…
   
TAPPER:  … to the new money?
   
GIBBS:  Because it’s, again, it’s part of the…
   
TAPPER:  Part of the old contracts.

GIBBS:  Right.  It’s part of…
   
TAPPER:  But you’re looking to now retroactively see if you can attach something to that old money.
   
GIBBS:  That’s what we’re looking at.
   
TAPPER:  But why didn’t you do it at the time, if you’re looking to retroactively do it.
   
GIBBS:  The administration is taking the steps today to go back and see what can be done…to claw those bonuses back.

Next Page »