“Never take an anti-tax pledge, but never increase taxes…

Date: June 19, 2009
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Bob McDonnell, GOP message, Taxes, Virginia Governor's Race 09

…and don’t vote for anyone who has.”

That seems to be the message of Wyatt Durrette over at Virginia Tomorrow.  He may be doing nothing more than giving cover to Bob McDonnell, who has recently said he won’t take an anti-tax pledge.

McDonnell has been tacking left so fast he’s likely to tip his boat over any day.  Others may be impressed, but this seems just another ploy by McDonnell to mask his true positions and intentions.

Durrette has a confusing post saying pledges are a bad idea.  But…

The simple fact is that transportation needs must be met.  Maybe it can be done without a tax increase at the state level.  I hope so.  And there are options.

…Clearly taxes should not be raised now or in the near term due to the cratered economy.  In fact, some taxes might be reduced to spur job creation.

Gee, does anyone remember anyone in the Repugnant Party (save a few state senators who were nearly run out of the party) voting for a tax increase back a few years ago when we were flush?   With the GOP, there is a never a good time to raise taxes.

But pledges are a bad idea, Durrette says.  Instead voters should look at a candidate’s record.

A record of supporting tax increases is one signal.  One of opposition is another.  Voters need to make judgments on records, not on promises made under circumstances where the unpredictability of the future may require a reversal.

I guess I’m old fashioned.  I want candidates to tell me what vision they have for the county, state or country.  What programs do they want to initiate, expand, contract or cut?  If necessary, what taxes will they raise and which ones might they cut to fulfill their vision?  Leading with a commitment to raise or cut taxes is bassackwards.

That may be what Durrette is saying, but as I wrote in the comments section of his post, given his inferences, “It seems all you are doing here is saying that a candidate should never promise not to raise taxes, but elected officials should never raise them nonetheless. And voters should never vote for one who has.”

Got that?  It’s precisely what McDonnell is trying to say.

Lincoln, 1862 & Obama, 2009

Date: June 19, 2009
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Abraham Lincoln, Gay Rights, Obama

Much has been made about how President Obama fashioned his cabinet after Abraham Lincoln’s by recruiting some of his adversaries and Republicans.  Whether it was to have his adversaries close or to remove them from the electoral landscape is a point of debate.  It certainly didn’t help Lincoln dissuade his Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase from attempting an aborted run against Lincoln for the nomination in 1864.  Lincoln also chose William Seward, another Republican rival, as his secretary of state.  Seward was considered the front runner before the convention.  Obama, of course, chose the early front runner to lead his State department

I have just finished reading Doris Kearns Goodwin’s A Team of Rivals, meaning I know just enough about Lincoln to be dangerous.

But I’m struck by a different parallel between the two presidents.  Goodwin characterizes Lincoln, especially during the early years of his presidency, as cautious, uncertain, and conciliatory.  In her book, he does not come off as an extremely confident individual during the first year of his presidency. 

Once elected, one issue Obama was expected to address fairly early was discrimination against gays.  It was thought that he would extend to gays benefits comparable to what heterosexuals have.  Perhaps not gay marriage at first, but certainly overturning “don’t ask, don’t tell.”  Despite this week’s announcement that Obama will extend some benefits to gay in the federal workforce, the LGBT community has a right to feel disappointed.

In 1860, some leading Republicans were among those most opposed to slavery.  Once the Southern states seceded, many wanted to declare all the slaves free.  Lincoln demurred.  He did  not think black people were equal to whites, but he opposed slavery.  Yet during the first two years of his presidency, as Republicans ratcheted up calls for freeing the slaves, Lincoln resisted, even as he grew less prejudice in his view of blacks. 

Goodwin suggests that by late 1861, the reason Lincoln was still resisting issuing the Emancipation Proclamation was not because of any hesitation on his part.  Rather, she suggests that he was waiting for the country to catch up with him.  Many Northern Democrats, especially, were still against freeing the slaves, and not all moderate Republicans were there yet, either. 

But as 1862 wore on, the mood in the Northern states changed.  So that by the end of the year, the country (that is the Northern states) was ready, and so Lincoln issued the Proclamation freeing slaves living in the Confederate states.

One has to wonder if Obama is waiting for the country to catch up with liberals on gay issues.  I’ve said before that it is inevitable that gays will ultimately win this fight.  I expect gay marriage to be legal in most states in 10 years.  The younger generation is way ahead of the country on this.  But the rest of the country is catching up to them. 

Let’s hope we don’t have to wait 10 years.  I doubt we will.  I expect after the 2010 elections, maybe a year later, Obama will make the big moves the LGBT community is waiting for.  In fact, I would think it strategically advantageous to wait closer to the 2012 elections and hope that the Republicans jump all over the issue.  If they make it central to their presidential campaign, I think it will help sink them.

Is Obama emulating his hero and simply lying in wait?

Iran, 2009 vs. U.S., 2000

Date: June 18, 2009
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Congressional GOP, Iran, Message

Just wondering how Republicans, who are now clamoring for Obama to speak forcefully in favor of the the Mousavi’s supporters, would have felt in 2000 if Iranians were criticizing them, suggesting they were stealing the election and voicing strong support for the Democrats.  Do you think the GOPer might have said, “It’s none of your damn business”?  Or maybe, “How dare you criticize the greatest democracy in the world!” 

No, Republicans always feel they can criticize other countries but take affront when other countries criticize us.

Obama and the Stock Market

Date: June 17, 2009
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Economic Policy, GOP message, Obama, Stock Market

Remember when every dick of a GOPer was blaming Obama for the stock market’s decline?

On March 3, 2009, the Dow Jones closed at 6,726.02, continuing its drop and, despite his claims, Obamanomics (or at least his plans) have contributed to the evaporation of your retirement accounts. Looking at it in perspective, the Dow Jones is:

  • Down 7,438.51 (or 52.5%) since its all-time high
  • Down 2,899.21 (or 30.1%) since Obama’s election
  • Down 1,223.07 (or 15.4%) since Obama’s inauguration

But there is good news to consider in all this while you down your Tums. In 2010, Republicans have the opportunity to retake Congress and overturn the socialist, stock market destroying policies. Two years later, in 2012, Republicans can recapture the White House and reduce all the taxes Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid raised. The campaign to restore fiscal responsibility (Obama spending trillions upon trillions that we don’t have doesn’t qualify, no matter what he says) begins today!

Well, as of yesterday’s close,

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has gained (emphasis added) 15 percent since Obama’s Jan. 20 inauguration, compared with a decline of 9.6 percent in the first five months of the Bush administration and an increase of 3 percent under Clinton.

GOPers, I can’t hear you!

By the way, it was shortly after March 3 when Obama said the stock market was probably then a good investment.  It’s up more than 30% since then.

AIPAC vs. American Jews

Date: June 17, 2009
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Israel, Middle East, Religion

Please read Harold Meyerson’s column in today Washington Post.  It draws the distinction between AIPAC, the pre-imminent Jewish lobby in this country, and most American Jews.

What underpins the resolve of both the administration and Congress to push the Israelis, no less than the Palestinians, toward a settlement is the clear approval this approach commands among American Jews. A poll taken in March for J Street, an organization of American Jews that favors a territorial accord, showed 72 percent support among Jewish Americans for U.S. pressure on Israel and its Arab neighbors to reach an accord, and, remarkably, 57 percent support for U.S. pressure just on Israel. The poll also found 60 percent opposition to the expansion of settlements.

My experience is no more valid than any other non-Jew who has had Jewish friends (some of whom have put me in hot water, but that’s totally unrelated here, and besides, I jumped into the scalding caldron myself).  But my friends usually just roll their eyes when talking about the Israeli’s policy towards Palestinians.  This is all lost on Congressmen and women who quake in fear of AIPAC.  Thus far, Obama hasn’t.

By every measure, American Jews remain intensely committed to liberalism and to universal and minority rights. As a democratic state rising on the ashes of the Holocaust, Israel once embodied those values to its supporters, but 42 years of occupation have rendered Israel a state that tests those values more than it affirms them. Its most fervent American Jewish backers, to be found disproportionately among the Orthodox, identify with it for reasons that are more tribal than universal. All of which has created the political space for President Obama to try to craft a resolution to one of the planet’s most venerable and dangerous disputes.

Read it; it’s a great piece.  To both Meyerson and Obama, Mazel tov.

Obama, the Wily Fish?

Date: June 17, 2009
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Iran, Israel, Middle East, Obama

The American right has been criticizing President Obama for not interjecting himself into the Iranian elections.  They say he should show support for Mir Hussein Moussavi’s bid to become president, bolstering democratic forces in the Middle East, and thereby acknowledging President Bush’s “freedom agenda.”

But Obama, always taking the long view, knows that to do so would only enflame the supporters of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Robert Kagan takes it one step further,  He claims in a Washington Post op-ed today that Obama is siding with Ahmadinejad.  He claims that Obama is being silent because he wants to convince the Iranian mullahs that he does not embrace “regime change.”

If you find all this disturbing, you should. The worst thing is that this approach will probably not prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. But this is what "realism" is all about. It is what sent Brent Scowcroft to raise a champagne toast to China’s leaders in the wake of Tiananmen Square. It is what convinced Gerald Ford not to meet with Alexander Solzhenitsyn at the height of detente. Republicans have traditionally been better at it than Democrats — though they have rarely been rewarded by the American people at the ballot box, as Ford and George H.W. Bush can attest.

You’ve got to wonder at times, if neocons like Kagan would prefer Obama attack the current leaders of Iran, just so they would, in turn, escalate the rhetoric so as to bolter the neocon’s contention that the only way to deal with them is to bomb them into oblivion.

Tom Friedman suggests they aren’t the only ones who would prefer an Ahmadinejad victory

Israel was taken by surprise by events in Lebanon and Iran. And Israeli officials have been saying they would much prefer that Ahmadinejad still wins in Iran — not because Israelis really prefer him but because they believe his thuggish, anti-Semitic behavior reflects the true and immutable character of the Iranian regime. And Israelis fear that if a moderate were to take over, it would not herald any real change in Iran, or its nuclear ambitions, but simply disguise it better.

Let’s hope Obama continues to resist the bait.

UPDATE:  It was just a matter of time before the neocons got their wish.

Is Obama’s Capital Counterfeit?

Date: June 15, 2009
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Democrat moderates, Democrats, Economic Policy, Obama

At least that’s what Felix Salmon think.

How did Obama manage to spend all his political capital so quickly? Did it all go on the stimulus bill? Wasn’t the whole point of bringing Rahm in as chief of staff that he could work constructively with Congress to pass an ambitious agenda? And isn’t Obama himself the first president since JFK to have entered the White House from the Senate?

With Democrats, it may never have been real.

There You Go Again

Date: June 15, 2009
Author: Bob Griendling
Categories: Bush, GOP message, Healthcare, Message, Obama

From the text of President Obama’s health care speech today to the AMA.

We know the moment is right for health care reform.  We know this is an historic opportunity we’ve never seen before and may not see again.  But we also know that there are those who will try and scuttle this opportunity no matter what – who will use the same scare tactics and fear-mongering that’s worked in the past.  They’ll give dire warnings about socialized medicine and government takeovers; long lines and rationed care; decisions made by bureaucrats and not doctors.  We’ve heard it all before – and because these fear tactics have worked, things have kept getting worse.

And the lede in a story today on Politico.

As President Barack Obama tried to sell the American Medical Association today on his health care overhaul, the top Senate Republicans launched a familiar line of attack.

They warned of rationed medical care, lack of patient control and government bureaucracy.

“The American people will not stand for rationed health care,” Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl said Monday. “We believe that a one size fits all approach is the wrong approach."

I think it smart for Obama to repeat and repeat the GOP scare tactics and label them as such.  Ignoring them gives them credibility.  But because President Bush is so identified with “scare tactics” to gin up support for the Iraq War, it’s a beautiful way of keeping Bush-era Republicanism alive!  In effect, Obama is saying, “There you go again.”