On December 5th and 6th OFA Illinois will be holding multiple training sessions across the state. These trainings are a great chance to learn how to make the biggest impact in your community, ask questions, and learn specific skills such as how to talk with your neighbors about health reform and use OFA's technology to organize most effectively.
During the election last year, we learned that when we build a dedicated community of volunteer leaders, we can bring about powerful change.
RSVP now to reserve your spot in an OFA National Training event near you.
This training is part of building our momentum on the ground -- strengthening our community in every part of the country by bringing volunteers together, learning and sharing best practices, and refining our plan to move forward with our vision for the future.
After several weeks of gathering as much information as possible, President Obama is reportedly within a few days of announcing his revised approach regarding the war in Afghanistan. Obama has come under a lot of criticism for his alleged “dithering,” as some political opponents have famously put it. Maybe the president could have come to his decision one month earlier, but personally, I would prefer to have him “dither” for a little too long than to make a decision of this importance without first considering all the relevant information and the perspectives of his chief military and civilian advisors. I do not know what the president’s decision will be, but there are two certainties:
Most observers seem to believe that President Obama will opt to send more American troops to Afghanistan, but probably less than the 40,000 requested by General Stanley McChrystal. Even if this is true, that still leaves open a lot of questions regarding where the military personnel will be specifically deployed, and what will be the focus of their mission.
With my usual disclaimer that I have no personal military experience and have little knowledge of military affairs, I am of the opinion that it is time to scale down the mission. Fighting terrorism is important, and I generally supported President Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan and bring down the Taliban regime that provided a base to Al Qaeda. I thought that it was most unfortunate that Mr. Bush switched his emphasis in his “war on terror” from Afghanistan to Iraq, because we might have had much more success in Afghanistan without the very expensive sideshow in the Middle East. However, as noted above, there is no turning back the clock, and President Obama has to deal with the situation as it now stands, rather than what we might think it should have been.
Advocates of a troop surge in Afghanistan, with a change in strategy focused on protecting the civilian population, note how well this approach worked in Iraq. If I believed that this would work as well in Afghanistan, I would probably support it. However, I am persuaded that an additional 40,000 troops –or even double that amount – will be nowhere near enough to do the job in Afghanistan. Compared to Afghanistan, Iraq is a very advanced country, with a well educated population and a strong middle class. The president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, is hopelessly corrupt. Given the tribal nature of the Afghan population, Mr. Karzai is effectively not much more than the mayor of Kabul. He does not come even close to being widely recognized as the legitimate leader of his country.
One of my major objections to President Bush’s actions in the name of fighting terrorism was that, even if we assume honorable motives on the part of Mr. Bush, he was fiscally reckless. It seems amazing that, while the supposedly “conservative” George W. Bush was president, both the White House and its allies in Congress completely ignored the idea that wars are expensive and have to be paid for. Again, previous events cannot be reversed, but it has to be recognized now that there are limits to most resources. When it comes to the ability of the federal government to spend additional funds, those limits were unacknowledged several years ago, and as a result are more severe today.
This does not mean that we abandon Afghanistan as quickly as possible, regardless of the consequences, but it does mean that we have to factor into the decision the costs involved, and honestly explain how we will pay for it. This was largely ignored throughout the Bush years, but there is no excuse for ignoring it any longer (the same principle applies to health care reform and any other major spending proposals, but the subject for today is Afghanistan).
The way I see it, we cannot afford a counterinsurgency strategy of the type used in Iraq. I do not believe that the 40,000 additional troops requested by General McChrystal would be enough to make an effective difference. Besides that, our military forces have already been overcommitted. My impression is that doing the job “right” in Afghanistan would require hundreds of thousands of troops, and that is not going to happen. It is far too expensive, and in any case cannot be accomplished without resuming a military draft. I strongly doubt that there is much of an appetite for that among most Americans.
If General McChrystal or anybody else can make a convincing case that a maximum addition of 40,000 additional troops will produce lasting and positive results by the end of one additional year, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, we have to scale down our goals. We should continue to pursue known terrorists, and otherwise try to work with the less odious factions of the Taliban. America and its NATO allies might find it easier to work with local Afghan groups if it is clear that our presence there is diminishing. What about the argument that reducing the mission from the previously loftier goals to a more simple counterterrorism would mean that so many lives of brave Americans (and our allies) will have been “wasted?” Unfortunately, we cannot get those lives back, no matter what we do. What we can do is to stop compounding past mistakes.
The general impression I get from watching news programs these days is that Barack Obama’s popularity is slipping away, and that conversely, Sarah Palin is more popular than the Beatles and Elvis Presley combined at their respective primes. For those of us who admire Mr. Obama and hold little regard for Ms. Palin, it would seem that we are headed for some politically bleak times. This picture may not be completely false, but it is probably much less true than it might seem at the moment.
President Obama’s halo is a bit tarnished, which is inevitable for almost any new president, especially one who entered office accompanied by such high expectations. He has made a few missteps (which will be the subject of a later essay by yours truly) during his first year in office, but nothing he cannot recover from. As long as unemployment remains high – and realistically there is no quick fix for that – President Obama will get the blame. It appears that the economy is already in recovery, and when unemployment goes back down to more tolerable levels, it will likely get Obama’s public approval ratings back to the solidly favorable range. It may not happen soon enough for his party to avoid getting clobbered in the mid term elections next year, but it will happen.
As for Sarah Palin, she is going to make millions of dollars selling her book, but I cannot see her as a credible candidate for President in 2012, or any other year. There is an old cliché about how we underestimate her at our peril. I believe I used that line myself, in reference to Palin, during the campaign last year. Some of Palin’s conservative admirers like to compare her to Ronald Reagan, who also showed great skill with a right wing populist appeal, and was also underestimated by his political opponents. One of my favorite conservative pundits, Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune, has a great column comparing Sarah Palin with conservative patron saints Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Here is a link to that column:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped1119chapmannov19,0,4222240.column
To me, Sarah Palin more closely resembles Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, and in my opinion, Ms. Palin combines the worst qualities of each of them. Mr. Nixon had what I believe psychiatrists would call a paranoid personality. He was obsessed with the idea that anybody who criticized or disagreed with him was a personal enemy, and therefore, because he was the president, a traitor to the U.S. The fact that Nixon was also very bright, well read, and hard working was not enough to compensate for the serious deficiencies in his character. Mr. Bush was (is) almost the opposite of Mr. Nixon. He is more at ease with himself as a person, but was one of the most intellectually lazy presidents we have ever had. He acted out of a gut feeling of what he thought was right, and (being the “decider” as he famously put it) pursued his policies without much serious analysis. When he did receive advice that did not fit into his preconceived notions, he ignored it, often with tragic consequences. Sarah Palin has managed to combine Nixon’s persecution complex with Bush’s incredible ignorance and lack of curiosity .
Ms. Palin has a devoted following – enough to make her a rich author, and if she wants it, she could probably get a very lucrative job at Fox News. However, while perhaps 20% of the country absolutely loves Sarah Palin, I cannot see her ever making serious inroads on the other 80%.
Liberal pundit E. J. Dionne has an excellent column in today’s Washington Post. Regarding the ongoing health care reform efforts in Congress, there has been a lot of chatter about “perfect” becoming the enemy of the good. This has been a concern of mine for some months. Here is a link to Mr. Dionne’s column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111122256.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
If any kind of health care reform does get passed into law, the one certainty is that the final product will not be ideal by anybody’s reckoning. I have said in previous blog posts that the biggest obstacles to health care reform are those who insist that the bill contain certain characteristics, such as a “robust public option.” These people – including former Democratic Party leader Howard Dean and interim U.S. Senator Roland Burris (the choice of disgraced former Illinois Governor Blagojevich to fill the unexpired senate term of Barack Obama) – have made clear that they would rather see all reform efforts fail than to have what they believe is half-hearted reform pass. In a way, I have more respect for somebody like Senator Jim DeMint, who at least makes no serious pretense to being anything other than a political enemy of President Obama. If Obama’s presidency fails to achieve its major goals, it will be more due to his supposed allies (such as Dean and Burris) than to his overt opponents (such as DeMint). Reform can pass without any Republican support, but in order for that to happen, the Democrats have to able to unite behind something. As a practical matter, this means accepting the reality that many Democrats representing relatively conservative states and districts cannot support all the provisions favored by their more left-leaning colleagues.
If there is going to be any kind of health care reform bill that clears Congress, it will almost certainly contain some degree of restriction on taxpayer-financed abortions, and it will quite likely not provide for a public option, except perhaps one based on future contingencies. It would still be a major achievement, both in terms of politics and public policy, to get health care reform that extends coverage to all Americans, is fiscally neutral, and controls overall health care costs. This can be done, but not if side shows about the availability of abortions and the public option control the debate.
After countless meetings with constituents, and hearing their health insurance horror stories, (D-11th) Rep. Debbie Halvorson's mind was made up - change was needed.
Organizing for America Illinois would like to thank Rep. Debbie Halvorson for her strong support of health insurance reform, and share a brief video put together by Rep. Halvorson and her staff that relays some of the health care stories from the Illinois' 11th Congressional District.
One of the points made by President Obama in his speech to the joint session of Congress to advocate health care reform was that he would be receptive to good and constructive ideas from any source, including Republicans who oppose nearly everything he does. It was a fine speech, and it succeeded in raising the prospects of enacting some kind of significant health care reform. If he really meant what he said about considering good ideas from the political opposition, he should make that more clear.
Without a doubt, health care reform is a very difficult challenge. As the saying goes, if it was easy, it would have been done long ago. Obama’s allies in Congress (the Democrats) have major differences among themselves, regarding the merits of different aspects of reform. The Republicans are almost 100% united in opposition, both for sincere ideological reasons and for pure political motives. Obama would like to have a bipartisan bill, but (with very few possible exceptions) congressional Republicans will refuse to back any bill, even if it contains several provisions to their liking. By temperament and political background, Obama has always tried to build a consensus, but neither party in Congress is in the mood. What is a president to do?
In apparent opposition to all conventional wisdom, I still believe that the best solution – both for policy and politics – would be a moderate health care reform bill that uses some of the better ideas from both parties. For the reforms to work, they will have to expand access and reduce overall health care costs, regardless of how payment of those costs is distributed. Reforms that focus on one of these issues while ignoring the other will ultimately fail.
With my usual disclaimer about not being an expert on this or any other subject, the best health care reform at this time would have the following characteristics:
1) No legal resident of the U.S. can have his/her coverage denied or revoked due to personal health issues. [The issue regarding illegal residents is trickier. My inclination is to believe that illegal residents should be included, but I would not insist on it as a condition to support an otherwise good bill.]
2) All persons eligible for coverage must be covered. There can be no “opt out” for individuals or families. Tax credits or similar assistance should be available for those who are too poor to afford coverage, but they have to get the coverage. If insurance companies must accept all applicants and all preexisting conditions, then it makes no sense to allow healthy Americans to stay out of the system before the need for insurance becomes obvious.
3) The tax favored treatment for employer-sponsored insurance should be ended, or at least sharply reduced. People who cannot get health insurance through work should not be disadvantaged the way they are now.
4) Individuals and small groups should be able to join large risk pools, in order to remove cost distortions due to underwriting.
5) Sensible tort reform is necessary. This includes caps on non-economic damages and an effective distinction between ordinary and gross negligence. In return for setting limits, the medical profession must do a better job of policing its members. The current practical necessities of defensive medicine and huge malpractice premiums greatly add to overall health care costs, while doing very little for patient well being.
6) End the interstate prohibition on selling medical insurance. Most states need more effective competition among its potential health insurers. Allowing the sale of insurance across state lines would be a big help.
7) Emphasis on prevention, as opposed to treatment and cure, needs to be a component of health care reform. There needs to be financial incentives for people to participate in wellness programs and annual physical exams.
8) For all the talk about “death panels,” the fact is that a large chunk of health care costs take place in the last six months of the patient’s life. I am not about write off somebody for being terminally ill, but there needs to be more honest discussion about the costs associated with extraordinary measures to keep somebody breathing for a few extra months, or weeks, or days. I don’t know what the appropriate answer is, but this is a big element of the national health care bill, and the issue must be faced with more honesty than it has had so far.
9) The public option is not as great an idea as its advocates suggest. This is especially true if there is an “opt out” provision for each individual state. It would likely have the effect of denying coverage for many vulnerable Americans. It will do nothing to contain actual costs, and the notion that it will “save” money by paying doctors at Medicare (or Medicaid) rates makes no sense. Doctors and hospitals can presently treat Medicare as a loss leader item, pushing up the costs to everybody else. They cannot do that if there is no everybody else. The public option either works like Medicare, providing a short term illusion of cost saving, or it works like a private insurance company, with no saving. The “trigger” provision suggested by Olympia Snowe and some other senators, where the public option would be created something like five years in the future if demonstrated to necessary by conditions at that time, might make sense.
Anyway, the status quo cannot continue indefinitely. We need to have some sensible health care reform, but we need to get something that can pass both the House and Senate. Passing a feel good measure that passes only one house of Congress is useless. I believe that a health care reform bill with the characteristics outlined above would be good public policy, and can pass Congress if President Obama makes clear that this is something he supports. It may seem to be too much of half-hearted reform for the liking of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, but even a half-hearted reform now leaves open further reforms in the near future, if those are believed to be needed. The reverse is not true. Failure to pass something now will almost guarantee a very long delay in passing any reform. It will also seriously weaken Obama’s presidency. I do not want that to happen.
Organizing for America Illinois vounteer, and long time Obama supporter Jeremy Cohen held "By the People: The Election of Barack Obama" watch party earlier this evening in Chicago with a group of 15 friends and fellow supporters. Here are some of the event highlights that Jeremy provided for us:
A group of fifteen of us gathered tonight (November 4, 2009) in the West Loop of downtown Chicago for a watch party of the documentary "By the People: The Election of Barack Obama." Prior to viewing the film, we reminisced over the events of the past year. While November 4, 2008 at Grant Park seemed like an eternity ago, we realized the great strides Organizing for America, the President, and our country has gone through. At the same time, we all realized the hard work that still needs to be done to achieve the change we need. The attendees had a real upbeat attitude on health care reform. While the specifics still need ironing out, we all plan on continuing to voice our support of reform to our elected representatives until it is signed into law.After our discussion, we began the documentary. The film brought back emotionally powerful memories of the entire 2008 presidential campaign. Whether it was the Iowa primary or the announcement of Barack Obama becoming President-elect on election night, all of the memories from one-year ago came back to the surface. The watch party had members who worked the voting stations, campaigned on the President's behalf, and/or were in Grant Park one-year ago to the day. For that reason, the memories were particularly strong and personal. Overall, we all greatly enjoyed the film. It rekindled warm memories from the past, but also re-focused the need to create the change we voted for going into the future.
Organizing for America Illinois volunteer Tiffany reflects on her 2008 Election Day experience:
"November 4th 2008 starter as usual, I headed in to the OFA office located in the Lincoln Park area of Chicago where a large groups of volunteers myself gathered for the final push of the campaign. As the day began we had a steady stream of people of all ages come into the office we were working out of asking if they could help.Throughout the day we focused mainly on phone banking into neighboring states such as Indiana and Wisconsin. I will never forget watching all of the kids who had come into the office looking to help, and wondering if they realized the historic nature of what they were taking part in."As they day progressed on groups of people left and began their journey to Grant Park where the post election festivities were going to take place. A handful of us decided to instead stay back in the office and make last minute phone calls to make sure everyone had made it to the polls. I spoke with a few people who wanted to get out and vote, but needed a ride to the polls due to their age and lack of transportation Needless to say; we managed to get them to their polling place in time to cast their votes."By this time we had a feeling our hard work had paid off, and let me tell you – it was a feeling I cannot really describe other then saying it is something I will never forget. We had done it – our new leader was President Barack Obama."
University of Chicago student and Organizing for America Illinois intern Juan, recants his 2008 election day experience:
"Throughout 2008, I had some odd, subconscious feeling that Barack Obama was going to win. So as then Senator Obama cleared each major obstacle, I had a sense that events were flowing in the path of least historical resistance. This of course culminated on Election Day, which I was lucky enough to be in Chicago for.”"As I arrived at Grant Park, I began the trek past the winding mile of security checkpoints. It was during this time that screen confirmed President Obama’s victory – and needless to say crowd erupted in cheers."As the atmospherics cooled and the crowds scattered, I caught a glimpse of the distant stage: a blurry miniature in a blue suit, taller than the others and even then, the Obama presidency still hadn’t sunk in.”"Since the election, I haven't experienced that single, overpowering moment of being struck by the magnitude of the event. Its meaning has come gradually, in quieter guises in various forms such as the outright reasonableness of much of foreign policy. Its instances like this that make me realize how nice it is to have a President like Barack Obama.”“ I feel as though the tide has turned - that there is finally the possibility of addressing the mounting challenges that burden this country, and I look forward to the passing of health insurance reform legislation. The historical achievement that bill will represent may be the only thing comparable to what so many of us felt one year ago on Election Day."
Cathy Foster has been involved with Organizing for America Illinois since day one. Below she talks about her 2008 Election Day experience:
"On Nov. 4, 2008, I voted early. I was on pins and needles all day. I felt like Obama was going to win, but I hardly dared believe it. I had a ticket to Grant Park, but it was already jam-packed when I got there. I will never forget that night. Shoulder to shoulder with people who had fought, worked, prayed and hoped for Obama's victory just as I had. We cheered as election results from CNN showed state after state going to Obama.At 10 p.m., I saw the words "Barack Obama elected president" beamed on the jumbo screens. It was real. We had done it. Tears started trickling down my face. Was anybody NOT crying? The jubilation, the euphoria, the electricity was like nothing I'd ever experienced before. But Obama's quiet, low-key, almost somber address helped underscore the enormity of the task that lay before him and us.I'm 53 years old and I've never been moved to get involved in a campaign before or follow the issues as closely as I do now. I write letters to the editor that have been published and call and write my legislators. I'm always exhorting my friends and family to do the same. I've gone to rallies for health care. I hosted my first call party on Oct. 20. It's not much compared to what others are doing, I know. But this is Obama's true gift that he inspires people like me, people who never bothered to do anything at all before. I have taken to heart his words:"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. I'm asking you to believe in yours."On the one-year anniversary of Obama's election, I renew my commitment to working for the change that only we can help make possible--Obama can't do it without us.
Organizing for America Illinois Sarah Frankiewicz shares some of highlights from last night's event "By the People: The Election of Barack Obama" which took place at the Clarion Inn, in South Holland, IL:
Sheena Patton, the OFA Field Director and I started out planning for the November 3rd Watch Party of the documentary By the People expecting a decent turnout, weeks ago. We began building for this event by inviting former election volunteers and supporters, as well as current Organizing for America Illinois volunteers from all across Chicago. People began to arrive at 7:00pm, there was plenty of food and drink, all of which was donated by local area businesses and the volunteers themselves. I was amazed at how many people showed up to the event and the level of excitement they had over what they were about to watch. Former election volunteers spent a good chunk of time before and after the film getting reacquainted with one another, rehashing campaign stories, and updating each other on their post election life. Eventually the film began, and the reactions of those in attendance were priceless. There were tons of laughs when the film gave a glimpse into President Obama's candid side, one of the attendees even said that it made her feel like she was more like the President then she thought. "He is a real man, with real issues, like every-one else, family, bills, and life." She also commented that the film reaffirmed for her that the President had her best interests at heart, as he serves the greater community. There were a few teary eyed moments, one in particular came when candidate Barack Obama addressed a crowd of people and mentioned the passing of his dear grandmother. All attendees said the really connected with the film, and they felt it truly embodied the electoral experience.Leaving that night I have to admit, I felt good – really good about the outcome. Everyone was charged up and ready to go forward in volunteering for Organizing for America.
Organizing for America Illinois Community Organizer Camille Mitchell talks about last year’s election, and everything that has changed in her life happened since:
“I guess it started around November 3rd - I have to admit I was skeptical - not of Barack’s ability but of his chances with the American public. Then it was the big day - November 4th. I woke up and immediately ran out to vote and then returned back home with buzzing with excitement. Some of us in the neighborhood (and yes, unfortunately this included me too) still thought that this couldn’t happen -- THANK GOD I WAS WRONG!!!!!As the day turned to night I decided that my daughter Jolie and I had to get downtown. By some stroke of luck we managed to find an AMAZING spot and began to watch as history was being made. The atmosphere in Grant Park was electric, and even with the crowd as large as it was I did not see any arguing or fighting what so ever - and that my friend is A LOT to say about any large crowd in Chicago.Once the Grant Park celebration began winding down Jolie and I decided to head over to one of my friend’s house to immerse ourselves in more of the news. As my friend and I watched, we both began crying and jumping around singing “Obama…Obama…Obama…Obama”.I have to admit that my volunteer numbers weren’t all they could have been. I had an 8 year old and was working full time in the financial district downtown - I guess you could say that I was even somewhat apathetic. However on that night, I vowed to myself that I would do more - serve more, and not ask for anything in return.This past July I was became a Community Organizer with Organizing for America Illinois and have treated it as though it was a full time job. While there has been rough times for me and my daughter over the past year, I have to admit that this ride, and working within my community – from working food banks, to organizing my neighborhood – has really changed my life and now that light at the end of the tunnel, no longer looks too far away. And for that thank you Mr. President, Organizing for America – you have changed my life forever.”
Organizing for America Illinois volunteer Kathy G looks back at last year’s historic election and shares her November 4th memories:
“Many of us volunteers brought cameras to the office and throughout the day photos were taken. We also exchanged hugs. We all wanted the campaign to end but many of us did not want the experience to end. I think you can understand what I mean.We wanted Sen. Obama to be elected, and we wanted the negativity to end. We didn't want to lose the spirit and the relationships we volunteers had developed. We spent some of the time reminiscing of the experiences we had shared over the last 18 months.”"We watched the results for each state and cheered as one by one they were called for Sen. I don't remember exactly when MSNBC and CNN called Pennsylvania for Sen. Obama, what I do remember is that we suddenly heard a cheer from the room next door and within a minute Pennsylvania was called for Sen. Obama. What was next door? The people who were monitoring the exit polls and precinct totals, which was a really big moment because we felt we were on the way to a win." "Shortly thereafter one of the staffers started a cheer. He said, "Whose house?" The response to this is "our house." He then said "what house?" We then responded the "White House." The first time I'd heard this cheer was the night of the Iowa caucuses, needless to say I got chills.""About 8:30 Katy called and we were able to meet nearby and head to the rally at Grant Park. We walked through the crowd across the bridge to the south and were able to find the entrance for people with tickets and got in. As the electoral vote count rose for Sen. Obama, it became clear that 10:00 would be the magical moment, and the crowd was very anticipatory. The roar from the crowd when his election was announced was electric. I shed a few tears with a smile on my face. We cheered and hugged and took photos."Civility was the order of the day; strangers talked to and hugged strangers. Entrepreneurial vendors were selling new t-shirts and buttons. On the way out they were half price. The streets were awash with people, moving like lemmings to the sea but with smiles on their faces. People stopped and sat on the medians on Michigan Avenue. People danced; people sang. I had a feeling that the country had somehow changed in one evening. AMAZING."
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is to hear a case involving alleged misconduct by prosecutors in Iowa in a case dating back to 1977. An editorial today in the Washington Post titled The right not to be framed provides useful background on the case. Two black men convicted of murdering a retired white police officer are suing the prosecutors for fabricating evidence to frame the two men, who each spent 25 years in prison for the crime. The convictions were overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court, which concluded that the star witness was a “liar and a perjurer.” One of the two defendants was cleared. The other one initially sought a new trial, but eventually agreed to a conviction, with the sentence limited to time served.
It appears that the prosecutors are not seriously disputing the allegations of their own misconduct, because they are emphasizing not their innocence, but rather that “there is no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed.” According to the allegations, the prosecutors knowingly coaxed supposed witnesses to fabricate testimony against the suspects. The justification for claiming immunity to lawsuits based on malicious prosecutorial misconduct is based on the idea that if you let this suit go forward, then you would have to allow it for every acquitted defendant and every defendant whose case was subject to minor mistakes by the prosecution. That is ridiculous, and the U.S. Supreme Court should say so.
Prosecutors are an important part of protecting the public from the bad guys, and they should be immune from lawsuits based on innocent errors and “gray area” incidents of possible wrongdoing. Sometimes, the wrongdoing is apparently clear in hindsight, but seemed reasonable at the time it happened. Personally, I am not sympathetic to lawsuits based on alleged misdeeds of this kind. For a lawsuit based on prosecutorial misconduct to have legal standing, the alleged misconduct must far exceed the usual kinds of activity that might be of dubious legality. For the lawsuit to be successful, there should be a high burden of proof by the plaintiff. However, it is outrageous to suggest that such a lawsuit should never have legal standing, no matter how badly the public official abused his authority.
Readers of my past OFA postings might recall that I was opposed to bringing criminal charges against President Bush and/or Vice-President Cheney, as some of my fellow bloggers were inclined to do. As deplorable as some of their (Bush and Cheney) actions were, they can at least make the credible argument that they acted with the motive of protecting the American people from terrorists. I believe that some of their methods were illegal, and they deserve a very harsh judgment by future historians, but I have never thought that criminal charges against them would be appropriate. I mention this now, in order to make clear that I am not a big advocate for legal punishment of government officials for abusing their office. This appears to be one case where it is appropriate.
Here is a link to the Post editorial:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/01/AR2009110101950.html?wpisrc=newsletter
While there is nothing to celebrate until job numbers turn around, the President cites the recent dramatic turnaround in gross domestic product as a sign of better things to come. He also applauds the fact that the Recovery Act has now created or saved more than a million jobs.
The OFA blog today contains a post from somebody, apparently with the moniker “Worship,” with an interesting message:
While I respect the sincerity of people whose admiration for President Obama seems to extend to the level of elevating the president into a deity, I cannot share the attitude. I want to be clear about my own attitude. I do admire Barack Obama as a person. He is the first presidential candidate to get any direct financial support from me. His campaign was also the first, since I was an idealistic high school student forty years ago, where I volunteered my time. I shared in the excitement of his 2008 election victory. This was not merely a victorious candidate who got my vote, but also (for the first time in my life) my enthusiastic support.
To be realistic, however, it is far too early to be sure that Obama will be a great president, let alone the greatest world leader the world has ever seen. For one thing, a great man (or woman) who happens to be the president is very different from being a great president. The qualities are not the same.
President Obama has, in my opinion, qualities that potentially can make him a great president. He is highly intelligent, a well read student of history, and trained to understand and appreciate competing viewpoints regarding a particular issue or problem. He is secure enough about himself that he does not take political attacks personally. He understands, maybe to a greater degree than nearly any of his predecessors (on a level with the senior President Bush), the role of diplomacy in international relations. While not historically a good predictor of presidential performance, Barack Obama is also (by all available evidence) an excellent family man who lives by an admirable personal moral code. Maybe that is not very important, but if nothing else, the absence of any scandal in his life at least precludes his being a target of personal blackmail. It also could give him some additional credibility when he is trying to push some moral cause.
Great presidents have to be excellent politicians. This means sometimes compromising with ideals in order to achieve something important. It sometimes involves choosing the least bad of several unappealing alternatives (the war in Afghanistan comes to mind). It involves making mistakes. Most historians have judged (correctly, in my view) Franklin Roosevelt as one of our greatest presidents. Despite that, however, there is absolutely no justification for FDR rounding up large numbers of Japanese-Americans and putting them in concentration camps. That is just one example. Jimmy Carter had, and still has, many of the same admirable personal qualities as we see in Barack Obama. Unfortunately, Mr. Carter was not a successful president.
