"Taken alone, without any damage having occurred in Louisiana or elsewhere, Katrina's toll on the Mississippi Coast would constitute the greatest natural disaster in American history."

Stan Tiner of the Sun-Herald has an editorial about President Obama's decision to skip the Mississippi Gulf Coast on his recent Katrina swing.  I'm a fan of President Obama, but I'll have to admit that it stings a little bit for him to go only to New Orleans when making a Katrina trip.  The nation's conscious seems to have a blind spot when it comes to Katrina's affect on Mississippi, and his refusal to come here only enlarges it.  I'm aware of the administration's assertions that it has sent more of its Cabinet-level personnel to the Gulf Coast than to any other portion of the country.  I'm also aware of what Stan Tiner wrote:

"Taken alone, without any damage having occurred in Louisiana or elsewhere, Katrina's toll on the Mississippi Coast would constitute the greatest natural disaster in American history."

A visit by President Obama would go a long way towards reminding our fellow Americans (especially Republicans in Congress who try to kill funding bills) that we are still in need of their prayers and support.

Watch Out Republicans, the Stimulus is Working!

The major news organizations are all reporting that Ford is posing its first increase in sales since November 2007 -- an increase credited to the "Cash-for-Clunkers" Program. This is the CNN Money story.

In another story, the Associated Press is reporting that the call to increase funding for the program is being heavily supported by industry leaders:

The Senate came under increasing pressure Monday to refuel the stalling "cash-for-clunkers" initiative amid uncertainty over how much money, if any, is left in the fund bankrolling the popular program.

The Obama administration pushed for an additional $2 billion after serving notice over the weekend that the program could expire as early as this week unless the Senate acts, as the House did in voting overwhelmingly for the money last Friday.

* * * *

Fierce lobbying for keeping the program running came from several quarters. The National Automobile Dealers Association and the American International Automobile Dealers said they were contacting thousands of dealerships and encouraging them to bombard the Senate with phone calls and e-mails.

"This is the one true stimulus that seems to be working out of all the things that have been tried in the last few months," said Cody Lusk, president of the international dealer association.

In my humble opinion, the program makes sense. It gives the economy a jolt while, at the same time, increasing fuel efficiency overall in the U.S. Who can be opposed to it?

But as usual these days, the Party of Herbert Hoover wants to "Just Say No" to more funding. The New York Times quotes Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina (who also opposes health care reform) as saying:

Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, said the “cash for clunkers” program was an example of the “stupidity coming out of Washington right now.”

“The federal government went bankrupt in one week in the used-car business, and now they want to run our health care system,” Mr. DeMint said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” “This is crazy to try to rush this thing through again while they’re trying to rush through health care, and they want to get on to cap-and-trade electricity tax. We’ve got to slow this thing down.”

At the same time, Senator John McCain has announced that he will lead a filibuster against the funding increase.

Will the Republicans come to their senses and admit this part of the stimulus is working? Or are they bound and determined to be DeMinted? Stay tuned.

Won't Be Fooled Again?

The Kaiser Foundation, started by the founders of the first HMO in America (and builders of the hospital where this writer was born) studies issues regarding delivery of health care in America. The Foundation has released a study of the history of the struggle for health care reform in the U.S. The report is facsinating, because it shows how many of the heroes of 20th Century American History (TR, FDR, Truman, etc) fought for universal health care, and how the special interests kept it from becoming a reality.

Now some of the same special interests (the AMA having seen the light) are trying to scare the American people into rejecting the Obama Administration's attempt to -- finally -- give the American people a right to health care. Will we be fooled again by slick marketing that tries to convince Americans that the current HMO and health insurance controlled health care system gives us "freedoms" that a government controlled system would take away?

How is it that Americans have a right to a lawyer, but not a right to a doctor (or nurse, medicine, etc)? If I had to choose, I'd take the right to a doctor any day. But why do we have to choose?

This report is worth pondering as we enter a month-long ad campaign to sink health care reform:

History of Health Care Reform (Kaiser)

NMC Discusses US Attorney Rumors

I expect most readers of this blog also read NMissCommentator, ably moderated by Oxford attorney Tom Freeland. But in case you don't, Tom has latched onto a website that keeps track of the various rumors surrounding the President's appointment of United States Attorneys for the Federal District Courts. The U.S. Attorney is the equivalent of the State District Attorney: he or she is the chief Federal prosecutor in the District, and also represents the Federal Government in civil suits. Mississippi is divided into a Northern and Southern District for this purpose.

NMC's post about the possible Mississippi nominees is here; a foll-up post is here.

As MainJustice reports:

Here are the names we’ve heard for the Northern District: Circuit Court Judge Thomas Gardner of Tupelo and Oxford attorney Christi McCoy. We’ve heard rumors - but can’t confirm — that McCoy may have hit some kind of snag in the vetting process. Through an aide, all Gardner would say is that he “has no way of confirming” any information about his potential candidacy. McCoy did not return a phone call seeking comment. We also heard Cindy Mitchell of Clarksdale mentioned for the post.

For the Southern District, the names we’ve heard are Kathy Nester, a Jackson attorney; Deborah McDonald, a lawyer in Natchez; and Dorsey Carson of Jackson. Mississippi bloggers have also mentioned Constance Slaughter-Harvey of Forest. Slaughter-Harvey is an old friend of Thompson and was the first black woman to graduate from the University of Mississippi law school.

So, I can't say you heard it here first, but you did hear it here.

NYT Certifies: She's The Real Thing

Today's New York Times has an interesting article on Circuit Judge Sonya Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court. It answers a lot of questions I have heard from my friends on the Left since her nomination. Given that the President has a penchant for Establishment appointees like Treasury Secretary Geithner, and given that Judge Sotomayor was a prosecutor before she was appointed as Federal District Judge by President George HW (Daddy) Bush, these friends ask: is the President making the most of his opportunity to re-shape the debate in the Supreme Court?

The answer, happily, is a resounding "yes." According to the Times, in the 1980's Judge Sotomayor was on the board of directors of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), a civil rights advocacy group in New York. The Times reports:

Ms. Sotomayor joined its board in 1980 when she was a young prosecutor in Manhattan and fresh out of Yale Law School. It was full of young, idealistic Latino lawyers like her who were eager to make a mark.

“She just believed in the mission,” Luis Alvarez, a former chairman of its board, said of Ms. Sotomayor. “This was a highly refined group of individuals who came from the premier academic institutions. It was almost like Camelot. It was a wonderful growth period.”

But Ms. Sotomayor stood out, frequently meeting with the legal staff to review the status of cases, several former members said. And so across her 12 years on the board — she left when she was appointed a federal judge in 1992 — she played an active role as the defense fund staked out aggressive stances on issues like police brutality, the death penalty and voting rights.

Among Judge Sotomayor's interests in those advocacy days was capital punishment. As the Times explains:

Ms. Sotomayor was part of a three-person committee of the board that recommended in 1981 that the fund oppose the reinstitution of the death penalty in New York State, according to board minutes from that time.

“Capital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society,” the panel wrote. “It creates inhuman psychological burdens for the offender and his/her family.”

I'm sure this aggravates the hell out of the Right, and it probably scares some on the Left who would prefer a "stealth" nominee -- one who has a hidden philosophy that is only disclosed after confirmation (you can put current Chief Justice Roberts in the category). But this President doesn't shirk the fight. The old politics of trying to "put a fast one" by the electorate by appointing people with no public record is OVER.

Let the debate begin.

PS: For the record, I like Secretary Geithner too.

Decide for Yourself: the Record of President Obama's Nominee

As you have no doubt heard from other sources, President Obama plans to nominate Judge Sonya Sotomayor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to the United States Supreme Court. SCOTUSblog has been posting an excellent series regarding the published opinions of Judge Sotomayor. They are the first and best source for assessing her candidacy:

Civil Opinions Part I

Civil Opinions Part II

Civil Opinions Part III

Civil Opinions Part IV

Judge Sotomayor's Opinions With Dissents

NYT: President's Court Pick Will Have Smooth Sailing In Senate

From today's New York Times, an interesting story suggesting that the battle for the next Justice on the United States Supreme Court is already over. Excerpts below (emphasis added):

Republicans in Senate Lower Expectations of a Court Fight
By Neil A. Lewis

WASHINGTON — While there is growing anticipation that the summer will bring the spectacle of a pitched Supreme Court confirmation battle, some Senate Republicans are lowering expectations that they are planning any major political fight.

President Obama has not yet named his choice to succeed Justice David H. Souter, but several Republicans acknowledge that it is unlikely they will be able to derail the nomination absent some startling revelation about the candidate.

Those Republicans, including senior staff aides and some senators, suggested in interviews that they believed Mr. Obama’s first nominee for the court would be confirmed without great difficulty no matter how they framed the issues during the confirmation process.

SenatorJeff Sessions, of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, has said he would not necessarily be opposed to a nominee who is gay or an abortion rights advocate. In a recent interview, Mr. Sessions made it clear that whatever his preferences for resistance on the nominee, he could count the numbers.

* * * *
A second top Republican Senate aide, also not connected to Mr. Sessions, said, referring to Mr. Obama, “Elections have consequences; he won.” “Obviously, we’re going to stand up for our principles,” the aide continued, “but the other side has won this right to choose someone this time.”

Specter Defection Refects Seismic Shift in US Politics

AP, CNN and the Washington Post are all reporting the head-spinning news that Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch from the Republican to the Democratic Party.

Conservatives, of course, will note that the pro-choice Specter has voted for years with the Democrats on social issues. I would agree.

But what strikes me as most important about this news is what it portends for the 2010 elections and the future of American politics. Quite obviously, Senator Specter does not want to run for re-election in the swing state of Pennsylvania as a Republican -- even though in an off-year election, the President's party usually loses Congressional seats.

In 1968, the election of Richard Nixon started a forty-year era of Republican dominance in American politics. Could it be that the 2008 election of Barack Obama has done the same for the Democrats?

Is The President Tough Enough For You Now, Kingfish?

Kingfish, the host of local blog Jackson Jambalaya, posted a rather incendiary suggestion on Sunday, titled, "Dear POTUS, Here's How a REAL Leader Dealt With Pirates." The whole post is here: http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/

His general notion is that the President should follow the example of Julius Caesar, who according to Plutarch, had pirates executed by cruxifiction. Kingfish finishes:

"Perhaps the pussy-in-chief should take some lessons from Caesar instead of finding this 'annoying' as Reuters reported. Several crosses with pirates hanging from them on the Somali coast will get their attention more quickly than will a nuanced discussion about habeas corpus or other fancy Latin lingo."

I don't think the words "Navy SEAL Snipers" can be considered "fancy Latin lingo." But I'm sure the operation (personally approved by the President) won't be enough to convince our friends on the Right. They'd rather have a Caesar: a military dictator who ruled by force. Great plan.

Commitment to Excellence? A Suggestion for Ambassadorial Appointments

As you may have read, President Obama has nominated Dan Rooney, owner of the World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers, to serve as United States Ambassador to Ireland. The story is here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29738176

Rooney was a relentless advocate for Obama during the election, visiting steel mills to help the Democratic ticket carry Pennsylvania. In return, the President admitted, in a television interview aired just before the game, that he was pulling for the Steelers in the Super Bowl.

In appointing Rooney, President Obama said:

"I am honored and grateful that such a dedicated and accomplished individual has agreed to serve as the representative of the United States to the Irish people. Dan Rooney is an unwavering supporter of Irish peace, culture, and education, and I have every confidence that he and Secretary Clinton will ensure America's continued close and unique partnership with Ireland in the years ahead."

Now, according to DemConWatch, very few ambassadorial appointments have been made. They keep a list here: http://www.demconwatchblog.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12

The Rooney appointment is a coup, and it should be the model for future appointments. Who, for example, should be ambassador to Russia, a nation that has once again bared its brutal, bearish, imperial teeth, threatening the smaller countries around it and meddling in Middle East politics?

I have the perfect answer: Al Davis, Managing General Partner of the Oakland Raiders. (Fair Disclosure: in My World the Raiders are the Jedi Knights of football.)



You might be surprised to learn that Mr. Davis is keenly interested in foreign policy. Bryan Curtis of The New York Times, in an in-depth story in 2007, recounts Davis' ruminations about the topic. Curtis reports:

I told Davis I had no idea he was interested in foreign affairs. “No, I know foreign affairs,” he said. “From a strategic standpoint dating back to World War II, and maybe a little before that, to the growth of the Third Reich.”

This was an interesting place to take things. In 1981, in a conversation with the sportswriter Gary Smith, Davis confessed he was “captivated” by Hitler. Coming from a Jewish man who had grown up in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, the remark invited all sorts of inquiries.

Davis chuckled when I reminded him of the article. “I didn’t tell him that,” he said. Davis paused. “He had to be stopped, you know?”

Gary Smith?

“No, Hitler. Now, was there some admiration for what they were doing? If you were connected with football, you had to have some admiration. You know, quick strike.”

The whole story is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-davis.html

Can it get any better than this? We know the Russians still think they got the worst of the damage in WWII. What will make them cower more than Ambassador Davis suggesting a "quick strike" in Georgia or Chechnya to the President?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg:

Davis’s football intelligence was never so much a matter of x’s and o’s as a cultural consciousness that Davis has called his “gestalt.” The Raiders were a peculiar mixture of Davis’s desires. Well into the 1960s and ’70s, pro football retained a militaristic snap. George Plimpton, the journalist and erstwhile quarterback, wrote that the ’60s were “so violent that it is impossible to accept the metaphor of football, and its popularity, without wondering whether it reflects some of the country’s excesses.”

As a student of foreign affairs going back to the Third Reich, Davis plundered the association with gusto. For years, the game-day schedule he distributed to the team listed 1 o’clock — game time — as “We go to war!” Military metaphors abounded: the N.F.L.-A.F.L. merger of 1970, which Davis initially opposed, reminded him of the agreement at Yalta; he issued statements like “The guerrilla wins if he doesn’t lose.” Howie Long, a defensive end who studied history at Villanova, found that after his indoctrination with Davis he began imagining the team’s practice center in Alameda as a fortress city in the hills of Cortona, something to be defended at all costs.

And Davis is good at turning a phrase, which is useful in diplomacy. Curtis reminds us that "he minted the team’s muscular catchphrases — “just win, baby,” “pride and poise,” “commitment to excellence.”

And best of all? Davis is color-blind. That's why the Raiders' uniforms are Silver and Black. (Really, that's a fact: check the NYT piece). And that's just the beginning. Again, the NYT piece:

The mix the Raiders achieved was revolutionary, and Davis managed a number of historic firsts. He became the first owner to draft an African-American quarterback in the first round, Eldridge Dickey, way back in 1968. He made Art Shell the first African-American head coach in the modern era; he made Tom Flores the first Hispanic coach. Amy Trask is the first woman to serve as chief executive of an N.F.L. team. In the 1960s, Davis moved two games out of segregated cities in the deep South when he learned the stands and local hotels would be segregated. “I just think he is absolutely unencumbered by prejudice of any type,” Trask says.

A perfect man to represent the new America.

There you have it. That's my advice, Mr. President: Just win, baby.

Mississippi Republicans: Thanks for the Stimulus, Mr. President!

The Associated Press is running an interesting story today: http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=AP&date=20090320&id=9715786

The AP reports that two influential Mississippi Legislators -- both Republicans -- are grateful for President Obama's stimulus package.

Yes, you read that correctly. The AP reports:

Mississippi is set to receive from about $2.5 billion to $2.8 billion in federal stimulus cash between October 2008 and December 2010. Barbour said some federal agencies are still setting regulations for the money.

Some lawmakers say the federal money will pad the state budget and could help head off the possibility of deep cuts in services or layoffs of workers.

"Without the stimulus, we'd be in one heck of a bind," said Rep. Herb Frierson, R-Poplarville.

* * * *
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Alan Nunnelee, R-Tupelo, said some of the federal stimulus money will be used to restore budget cuts Barbour made this year to public education.

With the infusion of federal money and the use of some — but not all — of the state's financial reserves, Nunnelee said, "we will be able to limp through the fiscal years that we have in front of us."

Makes you proud to have supported the President, doesn't it?

President Obama: The Buck Stops Here

Although he almost surely did not have input into the language that allowed companies receiving recovery money to pay six and seven figure bonuses to executives (if they were based on pre-Recovery Act contracts), President Barack Obama took responsibility for the problem. The Wall Street Journal reports:

COSTA MESA, Calif. -- President Barack Obama said he will take the blame for bonuses being paid at American International Group Inc. if it will settle an intense finger pointing under way over how such payments were possible at a company that has received tremendous taxpayer aid.

Washington is all in a tizzy and everybody is pointing fingers at each other and saying it's their fault, the Democrats' fault, the Republicans' fault," he said at a town hall meeting Wednesday. "Listen, I'll take responsibility. I'm the President."

He also make clear that it isn't really his fault. "We didn't grant these contracts," he said.
But he added: "So for everybody in Washington who's busy scrambling, trying to figure out how to blame somebody else, just go ahead and talk to me, because it's my job to make sure that we fix these messes, even if I don't make them."

Memo to Republican Senators and Representatives: this is called leadership.

House of Hypocrisy, Part 3

The blog Facing South (http://www.southernstudies.org) has spotted yet another example of rank hypocrisy on the part of Congressional Republicans.

Facing South links to a Human Events post: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31121, which says:

Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and David Vitter (R-La.) will later this morning send a letter to Senate Banking Committee leaders demanding that they subpoena all records of bailed-out insurance giant AIG to find out how AIG executive bonuses were given unique and privileged treatment in the Obama stimulus bill. . . . . [the letter is] aimed at the Banking Committee Chairman, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) who authored the provision under which the AIG bonuses were exempted from the “stimulus” bill’s limits on executive compensation.

The New York Times reports that: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/business/20bailout.html?pagewanted=2&hp

Republicans have seized on possible shortcomings in bills passed to combat the crisis, noting that the Democrats control Congress . . . . Some Republicans have also been offering reminders that not one of them in the House voted for President Obama’s stimulus program.

But wait! As Facing South points out (via link to the Huffington Post), here's what the Republicans said just last month, in opposing any limits on executive compensation: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/06/gop-opposes-pay-limits-on_n_164544.html

President Obama has proposed capping compensation for executives at banks that take taxpayer bailout money at $500,000. Republicans hate the idea -- a position that puts them uncomfortably on the side of people currently about as popular as child-porn producers and subprime mortgage brokers.

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed the "tone deaf" bankers for creating the political environment that allows Obama to call for a cap.

"Because of their excesses, very bad things begin to happen, like the United States government telling a company what it can pay its employees. That's not a good thing in America," Kyl told the Huffington Post.

"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).

* * * *

The GOP is also concerned that setting compensation limits could put the country on the road to serfdom. "This is just a symptom of what happens when the government intervenes and we start controlling all aspects of the economy. This is just the first piece," said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). "If you accept the fact that the government should be setting pay scales in America, then it's hard not to go after these exorbitant salaries. But I think it's a sad day in America when the government starts setting pay, no matter how outlandish they are."

So, I suppose Senator DeMint was against limiting executive bonuses, before he was for them? Hmmmmm . . .

President: No Confidence in Bulldogs

The White House has posted President Obama's brackets for the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. You can find the Pres' picks here:

I noticed that he predicts Mississippi State to be defeated by Washington in the first round. Perhaps the Ole Miss bag he's been carrying around has worked some osmosis on his thinking?

PS: He does pick Memphis to advance to the Elite Eight, but to lose to Louisville.

Don't Listen to Them, Mr. President

The President is facing near-unanimous Republican opposition to his economic policy. But he doesn't need to stare too much at his rear-view mirror -- the Republicans he left in the dust last November are still there. Jason Linkins on The Huffington Post reports a new ABC News poll that shows that 67% of Americans approve of President Obama's plan to use public spending to stimulate the economy. That means, of course, that at least 13-14% of Americans who voted against the President are in his corner on the need for the stimulus. The same poll shows 58% disapproval of Congressional Republicans' stonewalling. 51% of those polled consider the plan's passage to be "critically important," with "Only 16% say it is 'not that important.'"

Linkins' excellent report (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/09/poll-obama-stimulus-effor_n_165206.html) also explains that the "moderate Senators' plan" does NOT cut "pork," but instead reduces funds for State governments and school construction:

Senators Ben Nelson and Susan Collins have been allowed to skate by and issue fundamental falsehoods about what they have done to the bill. . . . . [t]he two Senators claim to have "funded education," and have ensured that the bill will contain "robust spending on infrastructure to create jobs, $87 billion in assistance for states, and assistance to schools, especially for special education and Pell grants." [But in fact their plan includes]:

* Elimination of $25 billion in flexible funding for state governments.

*Cut $7.5 billion in funding for "state incentive grants" to help states make progress toward No Child Left Behind goals.

* Eliminated $19.5 billion in construction aid for schools and colleges.

* Reduced new aid for the Head Start early childhood program by $1 billion.

Nowhere in their statement do [Senators] Nelson and Collins make any effort to justify these decisions. Indeed, they don't even seem prepared to admit that they made these decisions.

Don't stop now, Mr. President. Remember that it was the Republicans who would only vote for the Bush Bailout after $100 billion in pork was added to the Fall package. Take care of the people and we'll take care of the GOP doomsayers.