If you are interested in reading Philip Drew Administrator, you can click on one of the links below to give you the on-line text.
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/7phlp10.txt
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/8phlp10h.htm
Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Philip Dru Administrator: Understanding where we are headed
I was listening to Glenn Beck's radio program this evening when he talked about reading a book that Stu never thought he would pick up. It's called, "Philip Drew Administrator," which Beck traces as the origin of modern progressivism. While doing a search for the book, I came across the following piece called, "The Future Is Calling" at www.pushhamburger.com, which gives a biographical sketch of Edward Mandell, the books author. Finding it quite fascinating reading, I thought I would share this segment with you. You can read the rest here.
The Future Is Calling
by G. Edward Griffin
Revised 2003, September 14
COLONEL HOUSE
As we re-activate our time machine, we find ourselves in the presence of one of the most colorful and mysterious figures of history. His name is Colonel Edward Mandell House. House was never in the military. The title of Colonel was honorary, granted by the Governor of Texas in appreciation for political services. He was one of the most powerful men in American politics and, yet, virtually unknown to most Americans today. He was the personal advisor to Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt. He was close to the Morgan banking dynasty and also to the powerful banking families of Europe. He attended school in England and surrounded himself with Fabians. His father, Thomas, was an exporter in the Southern states and also a lending agent for London banks, which preferred to remain anonymous. It was widely believed that he represented the Rothschild consortium. Thomas House was one of the few in the South who emerged from the War Between the States with a great fortune.
Colonel House was what they called a "king maker" in Texas politics. He personally chose Woodrow Wilson, the most unlikely of all political candidates, and secured his nomination for President on the Democratic ticket in 1912. It was House who convinced the Morgan group, and others with power in politics and media, to throw their support to Wilson, which is what enabled him to win the election and become the 28th President of the United States. House was certainly a member of the Round Table and possibly a member of its inner circle. He was a founder of the CFR.
In 1912 he wrote a novel, entitled Philip Drew Administrator. It was intended to popularize the Fabian blueprint for converting America to collectivism using the Fabian strategy of working slowly as a turtle and secretly as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The hero of his story is Philip Dru, who is a fictionalized version the author, himself: a quiet, unassuming intellectual, working behind the scenes advising and controlling politicians who are easily purchased and just as easily discarded. Speaking through Dru, House describes his political ideal as: "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx."1 Dru’s socialism, of course, was the Fabian version. It was to have gentle and humane qualities to soften its impact and set it apart from the Leninist version called Communism.
Like all collectivists, House spoke eloquently about defending the poor and the downtrodden, but in reality, he had great disdain for the masses. In his view, they are too stupid and lazy to take an interest in their own government, so it’s up to the professionals to do that for them. Speaking through the fictional character of Senator Selwyn, House says:
The average American citizen refuses to pay attention to civic affairs, contenting himself with a general growl at the tax rate, and the character and inefficiency of public officials. He seldom takes the trouble necessary to form the Government to suit his views. The truth is he has no cohesive or well-digested views, Philip Dru, Administrator (New York: Angriff Press, 1912) p. 45. it being too much trouble to form them; therefore, some such organization as ours is essential.
Philip Dru foments civil war, leads an uprising against the old order, captures control of the government, becomes a dictator with the grateful support of the people, is given the title Administrator of the Republic, scraps all constitutional restrictions against government power, establishes a progressive income tax, creates a national banking cartel, annexes Canada, conquers Mexico, invites European nations to participate in world government, and ushers in a glorious new age of collectivism. This was not just a fictional story for entertainment. House described this book as an expression of his own "ethical and political faith."
The reason this is important is that the ethical and political faith of Col. House now is the ethical and political faith of American leadership – and it started with Woodrow Wilson.
In his memoirs, President Wilson said: "Mr. House is my second personality. He is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one."
George Viereck was an admiring biographer of Colonel House and approved of almost everything his did. This is what Viereck said:
For seven long years, Colonel House was Woodrow Wilson’s other self. For six long years he shared with him everything but the title of Chief Magistracy of the Republic. For six years, two rooms were at his disposal in the north wing of the White House. It was House who made the slate for the Cabinet, formulated the first policies of the Administration, and practically directed the foreign affairs of the United States. We had, indeed, two presidents for one! … He was the pilot who guided the ship.
THE WAR TO MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY
As we contemplate a member of the Rhodes secret society, occupying two rooms in the White House, virtually in control of American foreign policy, our time machine finally brings us to World War I. Since our main topic today is war, we must prepare now to comprehend the events we are about to see in terms of the strategy for using war to smash the world to bits and then remold it closer to the hearts desire.
The sinking of the Lusitania was the event that, more than any other, motivated the American people to accept the necessity and the morality of getting into World War I. Prior to that time, there was great reluctance to participate in a war that had little to do with Ibid., pp. 199, 200.
It must be remembered that Philip Dru was published in 1912. The U.S. income tax and Federal Reserve System were then in the drafting stages and being promoted by House, Wilson, J.P. Morgan, and other collectivists in Washington. The income tax and Federal Reserve were passed into law the following year, 1913.
"The Historical Significance of the House Diary," by Arthur Walworth, Yale University Library, http://www.library.yale.edu/un/house/hist_sig.htm. Also "An Internationalist Primer," by Wlliam Grigg, The New American, September 16, 1996, http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no19/vo12no19_cfr.htm.
Charles Seymour, The Intimate Papers of Colonel House (New York: Houghton Miffflin Co., 1926), Vol. 1, p.114.
George Sylvester Viereck, The Strangest Friendship in History: Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House (new York: Liveright Publishers, 1932).
American interests.
However, when the Lusitania left New York Harbor on May 1, 1915, with 196 Americans on board and was sunk six days later off the coast of Ireland, it became the cause celeb that moved the American consciousness into a war mood against Germany.
Americans were outraged at a nation that could viciously and cold-heartedly attack a peaceful passenger ship.
What is not well known about that piece of history is the role played by J.P. Morgan.
As you recall, the CFR was described by Professor Quigley as a front for J.P. Morgan and Company. We must remember that Morgan was, not only a founding member of the CFR, he was also a member of the Round Table, the inner group directing it, so how does Morgan fit into this?
During World War I, the Morgan Bank was the subscription agent for war loans to England and France. These countries had exhausted their financial resources to continue the war against Germany. So they came to the United States and asked J.P. Morgan – who was culturally closer to Britain than to America – to be their agent for selling war bonds. The House of Morgan was happy to do that, and it floated approximately $1.5 billion in war bonds on behalf of England and, to a lesser extent, for France.
Morgan was also the contract agent for these countries when they purchased materials and supplies from American firms. That means he had a wonderfully profitable revolving door in which he received a piece of the action as the money went out of the country as loans and again, when it came back into the country, for the purchase of materials.
As the war progressed, Britain and France were facing the increasing possibility of defeat. The Germans had unleashed a surprise weapon – the submarine – that was new to warfare in those days, and they were sinking the ships that carried food and other necessities to the British Isles. The Germans were literally starving the British into submission who, by their own estimate, at one point said they had only about seven weeks of food left.
For the British, there was only one salvation, and that was to have the Americans come into the war to help them. But on the American side, there was a different agenda.
What would happen to that $1.5 billion in war loans if Britain and France lost the war? The only time war loans are repaid is when the nation borrowing the money wins the war. Losers don’t pay off their bonds. So Morgan was in a terrible fix. Not only were his friends in England in dire danger, he and all his investors were about to lose $1.5 billion! A very serious situation, indeed.
The U.S. Ambassador to England at that time was Walter Page. Page was more than just an ambassador. Among other things, he was a trustee to Rockefeller’s General Education Board. It was in that capacity that he played a role in shaping educational policies to promote collectivism in America. Page sent a telegram to the State Department, and this is what he said,
The pressure of this approaching crisis, I am certain, has gone beyond the ability of the Morgan financial agency for the British and French Governments….
The only way of maintaining our present preeminent trade position and averting a panic is by declaring war on Germany.
Money was not the only motivator for bringing the United States into war. We must not forget that the American players in this drama dreamed of world government based on the model of collectivism, and they saw war as a great motivator to move society in that direction. They looked forward to the creation of the League of Nations when the fighting was over and knew that the only way for the United States to play a dominant role in shaping that world body was to be a combatant. The only ones who divide the spoils of war are the victors who fight the war, and it was that reality that fired the imaginations of House, Wilson, and even J.P. Morgan. Sphere: Related Content
The Future Is Calling
by G. Edward Griffin
Revised 2003, September 14
COLONEL HOUSE
As we re-activate our time machine, we find ourselves in the presence of one of the most colorful and mysterious figures of history. His name is Colonel Edward Mandell House. House was never in the military. The title of Colonel was honorary, granted by the Governor of Texas in appreciation for political services. He was one of the most powerful men in American politics and, yet, virtually unknown to most Americans today. He was the personal advisor to Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt. He was close to the Morgan banking dynasty and also to the powerful banking families of Europe. He attended school in England and surrounded himself with Fabians. His father, Thomas, was an exporter in the Southern states and also a lending agent for London banks, which preferred to remain anonymous. It was widely believed that he represented the Rothschild consortium. Thomas House was one of the few in the South who emerged from the War Between the States with a great fortune.
Colonel House was what they called a "king maker" in Texas politics. He personally chose Woodrow Wilson, the most unlikely of all political candidates, and secured his nomination for President on the Democratic ticket in 1912. It was House who convinced the Morgan group, and others with power in politics and media, to throw their support to Wilson, which is what enabled him to win the election and become the 28th President of the United States. House was certainly a member of the Round Table and possibly a member of its inner circle. He was a founder of the CFR.
In 1912 he wrote a novel, entitled Philip Drew Administrator. It was intended to popularize the Fabian blueprint for converting America to collectivism using the Fabian strategy of working slowly as a turtle and secretly as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The hero of his story is Philip Dru, who is a fictionalized version the author, himself: a quiet, unassuming intellectual, working behind the scenes advising and controlling politicians who are easily purchased and just as easily discarded. Speaking through Dru, House describes his political ideal as: "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx."1 Dru’s socialism, of course, was the Fabian version. It was to have gentle and humane qualities to soften its impact and set it apart from the Leninist version called Communism.
Like all collectivists, House spoke eloquently about defending the poor and the downtrodden, but in reality, he had great disdain for the masses. In his view, they are too stupid and lazy to take an interest in their own government, so it’s up to the professionals to do that for them. Speaking through the fictional character of Senator Selwyn, House says:
The average American citizen refuses to pay attention to civic affairs, contenting himself with a general growl at the tax rate, and the character and inefficiency of public officials. He seldom takes the trouble necessary to form the Government to suit his views. The truth is he has no cohesive or well-digested views, Philip Dru, Administrator (New York: Angriff Press, 1912) p. 45. it being too much trouble to form them; therefore, some such organization as ours is essential.
Philip Dru foments civil war, leads an uprising against the old order, captures control of the government, becomes a dictator with the grateful support of the people, is given the title Administrator of the Republic, scraps all constitutional restrictions against government power, establishes a progressive income tax, creates a national banking cartel, annexes Canada, conquers Mexico, invites European nations to participate in world government, and ushers in a glorious new age of collectivism. This was not just a fictional story for entertainment. House described this book as an expression of his own "ethical and political faith."
The reason this is important is that the ethical and political faith of Col. House now is the ethical and political faith of American leadership – and it started with Woodrow Wilson.
In his memoirs, President Wilson said: "Mr. House is my second personality. He is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one."
George Viereck was an admiring biographer of Colonel House and approved of almost everything his did. This is what Viereck said:
For seven long years, Colonel House was Woodrow Wilson’s other self. For six long years he shared with him everything but the title of Chief Magistracy of the Republic. For six years, two rooms were at his disposal in the north wing of the White House. It was House who made the slate for the Cabinet, formulated the first policies of the Administration, and practically directed the foreign affairs of the United States. We had, indeed, two presidents for one! … He was the pilot who guided the ship.
THE WAR TO MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY
As we contemplate a member of the Rhodes secret society, occupying two rooms in the White House, virtually in control of American foreign policy, our time machine finally brings us to World War I. Since our main topic today is war, we must prepare now to comprehend the events we are about to see in terms of the strategy for using war to smash the world to bits and then remold it closer to the hearts desire.
The sinking of the Lusitania was the event that, more than any other, motivated the American people to accept the necessity and the morality of getting into World War I. Prior to that time, there was great reluctance to participate in a war that had little to do with Ibid., pp. 199, 200.
It must be remembered that Philip Dru was published in 1912. The U.S. income tax and Federal Reserve System were then in the drafting stages and being promoted by House, Wilson, J.P. Morgan, and other collectivists in Washington. The income tax and Federal Reserve were passed into law the following year, 1913.
"The Historical Significance of the House Diary," by Arthur Walworth, Yale University Library, http://www.library.yale.edu/un/house/hist_sig.htm. Also "An Internationalist Primer," by Wlliam Grigg, The New American, September 16, 1996, http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no19/vo12no19_cfr.htm.
Charles Seymour, The Intimate Papers of Colonel House (New York: Houghton Miffflin Co., 1926), Vol. 1, p.114.
George Sylvester Viereck, The Strangest Friendship in History: Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House (new York: Liveright Publishers, 1932).
American interests.
However, when the Lusitania left New York Harbor on May 1, 1915, with 196 Americans on board and was sunk six days later off the coast of Ireland, it became the cause celeb that moved the American consciousness into a war mood against Germany.
Americans were outraged at a nation that could viciously and cold-heartedly attack a peaceful passenger ship.
What is not well known about that piece of history is the role played by J.P. Morgan.
As you recall, the CFR was described by Professor Quigley as a front for J.P. Morgan and Company. We must remember that Morgan was, not only a founding member of the CFR, he was also a member of the Round Table, the inner group directing it, so how does Morgan fit into this?
During World War I, the Morgan Bank was the subscription agent for war loans to England and France. These countries had exhausted their financial resources to continue the war against Germany. So they came to the United States and asked J.P. Morgan – who was culturally closer to Britain than to America – to be their agent for selling war bonds. The House of Morgan was happy to do that, and it floated approximately $1.5 billion in war bonds on behalf of England and, to a lesser extent, for France.
Morgan was also the contract agent for these countries when they purchased materials and supplies from American firms. That means he had a wonderfully profitable revolving door in which he received a piece of the action as the money went out of the country as loans and again, when it came back into the country, for the purchase of materials.
As the war progressed, Britain and France were facing the increasing possibility of defeat. The Germans had unleashed a surprise weapon – the submarine – that was new to warfare in those days, and they were sinking the ships that carried food and other necessities to the British Isles. The Germans were literally starving the British into submission who, by their own estimate, at one point said they had only about seven weeks of food left.
For the British, there was only one salvation, and that was to have the Americans come into the war to help them. But on the American side, there was a different agenda.
What would happen to that $1.5 billion in war loans if Britain and France lost the war? The only time war loans are repaid is when the nation borrowing the money wins the war. Losers don’t pay off their bonds. So Morgan was in a terrible fix. Not only were his friends in England in dire danger, he and all his investors were about to lose $1.5 billion! A very serious situation, indeed.
The U.S. Ambassador to England at that time was Walter Page. Page was more than just an ambassador. Among other things, he was a trustee to Rockefeller’s General Education Board. It was in that capacity that he played a role in shaping educational policies to promote collectivism in America. Page sent a telegram to the State Department, and this is what he said,
The pressure of this approaching crisis, I am certain, has gone beyond the ability of the Morgan financial agency for the British and French Governments….
The only way of maintaining our present preeminent trade position and averting a panic is by declaring war on Germany.
Money was not the only motivator for bringing the United States into war. We must not forget that the American players in this drama dreamed of world government based on the model of collectivism, and they saw war as a great motivator to move society in that direction. They looked forward to the creation of the League of Nations when the fighting was over and knew that the only way for the United States to play a dominant role in shaping that world body was to be a combatant. The only ones who divide the spoils of war are the victors who fight the war, and it was that reality that fired the imaginations of House, Wilson, and even J.P. Morgan. Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Obama's liberal arrogance will be his undoing
The hubris and overreaching of the left sets the stage for the political correction sure to come.
Jonah Goldberg
Los Angeles Times
The most remarkable, or certainly the least remarked on, aspect of Barack Obama's first 100 days has been the infectious arrogance of his presidency.
There's no denying that this is liberalism's greatest opportunity for wish fulfillment since at least 1964. But to listen to Democrats, the only check on their ambition is the limits of their imaginations.
"The world has changed," Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York proclaimed on MSNBC. "The old Reagan philosophy that served them well politically from 1980 to about 2004 and 2006 is over. But the hard right, which still believes ... [in] traditional values kind of arguments and strong foreign policy, all that is over."
Right. "Family values" and a "strong foreign policy" belong next to the "free silver" movement in the lexicon of dead political causes.
No doubt Schumer was employing the kind of simplified shorthand one uses when everyone in the room already agrees with you. He can be forgiven for mistaking an MSNBC studio for such a milieu, but it seemed not to dawn on him that anybody watching might see it differently.
When George W. Bush was in office, we heard constantly about the poisonous nature of American polarization. For example, Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg came out with a book arguing that "our nation's political landscape is now divided more deeply and more evenly than perhaps ever before." One can charitably say this was abject nonsense. Evenly divided? Maybe. But more deeply? Feh.
During the Civil War, the political landscape was so deeply divided that 600,000 Americans died. During the 1930s, labor strife and revolutionary ardor threatened the stability of the republic. In the 1960s, political assassinations, riots and bombings punctuated our political discourse.
It says something about the relationship of liberals to political power that they can overlook domestic dissent when they're at the wheel. When the GOP is in office, America is seen as hopelessly divided because dissent is the highest form of patriotism. When Democrats are in charge, the Frank Riches suddenly declare the culture war over and dismiss dissent as the scary work of the sort of cranks Obama's Department of Homeland Security needs to monitor.
If liberals thought so fondly of social peace and consensus, they would look more favorably on the 1920s and 1950s. Instead, their political idylls are the tumultuous '30s and '60s, when liberalism, if not necessarily liberals, rode high in the saddle.
Sure, America was divided under Bush. And it's still divided under Obama (just look at the recent Minnesota Senate race and the New York congressional special election). According to the polls, America is a bit less divided under Obama than it was at the end of Bush's 100 days. But not as much less as you would expect, given Obama's victory margin and the rally-around-the-president effect of the financial crisis (not to mention the disarray of the GOP).
Meanwhile, circulation for the conservative National Review (where I work) is soaring. More people watch Fox News (where I am a contributor) in prime time than watch CNN and MSNBC combined. The "tea parties" may not have been as big as your typical union-organized "spontaneous" demonstration, but they were far more significant than any protests this early in Bush's tenure.
And yet, according to Democrats and liberal pundits, America is enjoying unprecedented unity, and conservatives are going the way of the dodo.
Obama has surely helped set the tone for the unfolding riot of liberal hubris. In his effort to reprise the sort of expansion of liberal power we saw in the '30s and '60s, Obama has -- without a whiff of self-doubt -- committed America to $6.5 trillion in extra debt, $65 billion for each one of his first 100 days, and that's based on an impossibly rosy forecast of the economy. No wonder congressional Democrats clamor to take over corporations, tax the air we breathe and set wages for everybody.
On social issues such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research, Obama has proved to be, if anything, more of a left-wing culture warrior than Bush was a right-wing one. All the while, Obama transmogrifies his principled opponents into straw-man ideologues while preening about his own humble pragmatism. For him, bipartisanship is defined as shutting up and getting in line.
I'm not arguing that conservatives are poised to make some miraculous comeback. They're not. But American politics didn't come to an end with Obama's election, and nothing in politics breeds corrective antibodies more quickly than overreaching arrogance. And by that measure, Obama's first 100 days have been a huge down payment on the inevitable correction to come. Sphere: Related Content
Jonah Goldberg
Los Angeles Times
The most remarkable, or certainly the least remarked on, aspect of Barack Obama's first 100 days has been the infectious arrogance of his presidency.
There's no denying that this is liberalism's greatest opportunity for wish fulfillment since at least 1964. But to listen to Democrats, the only check on their ambition is the limits of their imaginations.
"The world has changed," Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York proclaimed on MSNBC. "The old Reagan philosophy that served them well politically from 1980 to about 2004 and 2006 is over. But the hard right, which still believes ... [in] traditional values kind of arguments and strong foreign policy, all that is over."
Right. "Family values" and a "strong foreign policy" belong next to the "free silver" movement in the lexicon of dead political causes.
No doubt Schumer was employing the kind of simplified shorthand one uses when everyone in the room already agrees with you. He can be forgiven for mistaking an MSNBC studio for such a milieu, but it seemed not to dawn on him that anybody watching might see it differently.
When George W. Bush was in office, we heard constantly about the poisonous nature of American polarization. For example, Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg came out with a book arguing that "our nation's political landscape is now divided more deeply and more evenly than perhaps ever before." One can charitably say this was abject nonsense. Evenly divided? Maybe. But more deeply? Feh.
During the Civil War, the political landscape was so deeply divided that 600,000 Americans died. During the 1930s, labor strife and revolutionary ardor threatened the stability of the republic. In the 1960s, political assassinations, riots and bombings punctuated our political discourse.
It says something about the relationship of liberals to political power that they can overlook domestic dissent when they're at the wheel. When the GOP is in office, America is seen as hopelessly divided because dissent is the highest form of patriotism. When Democrats are in charge, the Frank Riches suddenly declare the culture war over and dismiss dissent as the scary work of the sort of cranks Obama's Department of Homeland Security needs to monitor.
If liberals thought so fondly of social peace and consensus, they would look more favorably on the 1920s and 1950s. Instead, their political idylls are the tumultuous '30s and '60s, when liberalism, if not necessarily liberals, rode high in the saddle.
Sure, America was divided under Bush. And it's still divided under Obama (just look at the recent Minnesota Senate race and the New York congressional special election). According to the polls, America is a bit less divided under Obama than it was at the end of Bush's 100 days. But not as much less as you would expect, given Obama's victory margin and the rally-around-the-president effect of the financial crisis (not to mention the disarray of the GOP).
Meanwhile, circulation for the conservative National Review (where I work) is soaring. More people watch Fox News (where I am a contributor) in prime time than watch CNN and MSNBC combined. The "tea parties" may not have been as big as your typical union-organized "spontaneous" demonstration, but they were far more significant than any protests this early in Bush's tenure.
And yet, according to Democrats and liberal pundits, America is enjoying unprecedented unity, and conservatives are going the way of the dodo.
Obama has surely helped set the tone for the unfolding riot of liberal hubris. In his effort to reprise the sort of expansion of liberal power we saw in the '30s and '60s, Obama has -- without a whiff of self-doubt -- committed America to $6.5 trillion in extra debt, $65 billion for each one of his first 100 days, and that's based on an impossibly rosy forecast of the economy. No wonder congressional Democrats clamor to take over corporations, tax the air we breathe and set wages for everybody.
On social issues such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research, Obama has proved to be, if anything, more of a left-wing culture warrior than Bush was a right-wing one. All the while, Obama transmogrifies his principled opponents into straw-man ideologues while preening about his own humble pragmatism. For him, bipartisanship is defined as shutting up and getting in line.
I'm not arguing that conservatives are poised to make some miraculous comeback. They're not. But American politics didn't come to an end with Obama's election, and nothing in politics breeds corrective antibodies more quickly than overreaching arrogance. And by that measure, Obama's first 100 days have been a huge down payment on the inevitable correction to come. Sphere: Related Content
Friday, April 24, 2009
White House Cheat Sheet: Obama's Swing State Road Show
The Fix
by Chris Cillizza
Washington Post
When President Obama commemorates his 100th day in office next Wednesday with a townhall meeting in St. Louis, Mo., it will mark the eleventh state he has visited during the early months of his presidency -- nearly every one of which is expected to be hotly contested in his 2012 reelection race.
In a little more than three months in office, Obama will have visited Arizona (Phoenix), California (Costa Mesa/Los Angeles), Colorado (Denver), Florida (Fort Myers), Illinois (Springfield/Peoria), Indiana (Elkhart), Iowa (Newton), Missouri (St. Louis), North Carolina (Camp Lejeune), Ohio (Columbus), and Virginia (Langley/Springfield/Willamsburg/Fairfax).
Of those eleven, nine were decided by nine points or less in the 2008 election -- the only exceptions being California and Obama's home state of Illinois -- and five were decided by four points or less. (Also worth noting: all of those nine states were carried by George W. Bush in 2004; seven of the nine flipped to Obama four years later.)
No state was closer than Missouri where Obama lost to Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) by approximately 4,500 votes out of more than 2.8 million cast.
Is it then mere coincidence that Obama is choosing to commemorate his first 100 days as president with a stop in Missouri? White House aides insist that is the case but the Fix has followed politics long enough to know that coincidences like that don't just happen.
The most precious commodity in a campaign or in the White House is the time of the candidate/president so it's nearly impossible to think that Obama's domestic travel schedule has not been chosen with an eye toward 2012 and the states he will need to secure for reelection.
This is nothing new in politics: every first term president spends his first four years positioning himself to win a second four years.
Nor does Obama's swing state tour mean that the sole driving force behind his travel schedule is the 2012 election.
But, what his domestic travel schedule does serve to remind us is that Obama and his inner circle are not simply idealists operating in a world without politics. He and they also carry a strong pragmatic streak -- his decisions to reject public financing during the campaign and to oppose the creation of a 9/11-like commission to look into the harsh interrogations used under the Bush administration yesterday are just two examples -- and understand that without winning in the political arena, victory is not possible on the policy front. Sphere: Related Content
by Chris Cillizza
Washington Post
When President Obama commemorates his 100th day in office next Wednesday with a townhall meeting in St. Louis, Mo., it will mark the eleventh state he has visited during the early months of his presidency -- nearly every one of which is expected to be hotly contested in his 2012 reelection race.
In a little more than three months in office, Obama will have visited Arizona (Phoenix), California (Costa Mesa/Los Angeles), Colorado (Denver), Florida (Fort Myers), Illinois (Springfield/Peoria), Indiana (Elkhart), Iowa (Newton), Missouri (St. Louis), North Carolina (Camp Lejeune), Ohio (Columbus), and Virginia (Langley/Springfield/Willamsburg/Fairfax).
Of those eleven, nine were decided by nine points or less in the 2008 election -- the only exceptions being California and Obama's home state of Illinois -- and five were decided by four points or less. (Also worth noting: all of those nine states were carried by George W. Bush in 2004; seven of the nine flipped to Obama four years later.)
No state was closer than Missouri where Obama lost to Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) by approximately 4,500 votes out of more than 2.8 million cast.
Is it then mere coincidence that Obama is choosing to commemorate his first 100 days as president with a stop in Missouri? White House aides insist that is the case but the Fix has followed politics long enough to know that coincidences like that don't just happen.
The most precious commodity in a campaign or in the White House is the time of the candidate/president so it's nearly impossible to think that Obama's domestic travel schedule has not been chosen with an eye toward 2012 and the states he will need to secure for reelection.
This is nothing new in politics: every first term president spends his first four years positioning himself to win a second four years.
Nor does Obama's swing state tour mean that the sole driving force behind his travel schedule is the 2012 election.
But, what his domestic travel schedule does serve to remind us is that Obama and his inner circle are not simply idealists operating in a world without politics. He and they also carry a strong pragmatic streak -- his decisions to reject public financing during the campaign and to oppose the creation of a 9/11-like commission to look into the harsh interrogations used under the Bush administration yesterday are just two examples -- and understand that without winning in the political arena, victory is not possible on the policy front. Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Barack Obama in Iraq Channels George W. Bush
by Mark Whittington
www.associatedcontent.com
President Barack Obama traveled to Iraq from Turkey in a "surprise visit" that was speculated would happen, since Obama was "in the neighborhood." To hear Obama talk, one would have thought that George W. Bush had taken over his body.
Barack Obama had spent most of his campaign for the Presidency decrying the war in Iraq and promising a unilateral withdraw should he become elected. However, between then and now the surge strategy, which Obama opposed as a candidate, has all but broughtBarack Obama in Iraq Channels George W. Bush victory to Iraq. President Obama found that a unilateral withdraw from Iraq was not going to work. One of Obama's many night mares has him listening to Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal or Mitt Romney denouncing him for blowing the war in Iraq, with victory having been in our grasp.
Barack Obama also has strained relations with the US military, whose budget he proposes to slash. The visit to Iraq was a way to mend fences and to reassure our servicemen that he really does appreciate their service. Obama also took the time to present some medals during his brief visit at Camp Victory, the main US base near Baghdad. The troops greeted him with enthusiasm.
"You will be critical in terms of us being able to make sure Iraq is stable, that it is not a safe haven for terrorists, and we can start bringing our folks home," Obama told troops gathered at Camp Victory, a sprawling U.S. base near the airport.
This is a marked change from the Obama of the campaign and a useful example of how a politician must adapt to changing facts. Left unsaid that the strategy that made it possible to leave behind a stable Iraq which will not be a safe haven for terrorists was executed by Obama's processor, George W. Bush, whom Obama rarely misses an opportunity to criticize. Left also unsaid that if Senator Obama had his way, President Obama would be confronting an entirely different Iraq, an Iraq that would resemble South Vietnam in 1975, with the last American helicopters leaving the Green Zone as Baghdad burned.
A more gracious man than Barack Obama would have acknowledged the debt he and the country owes President Bush and would admit that he had been wrong. But Barack Obama may make apologies for the country of which he is President. He has never, publically at least, apologized for himself. Hence the Twilight Zone spectacle of Barack Obama in Iraq celebrating victory and congratulating the troops that helped to bring it about, no thanks to him. Sphere: Related Content
www.associatedcontent.com
President Barack Obama traveled to Iraq from Turkey in a "surprise visit" that was speculated would happen, since Obama was "in the neighborhood." To hear Obama talk, one would have thought that George W. Bush had taken over his body.
Barack Obama had spent most of his campaign for the Presidency decrying the war in Iraq and promising a unilateral withdraw should he become elected. However, between then and now the surge strategy, which Obama opposed as a candidate, has all but broughtBarack Obama in Iraq Channels George W. Bush victory to Iraq. President Obama found that a unilateral withdraw from Iraq was not going to work. One of Obama's many night mares has him listening to Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal or Mitt Romney denouncing him for blowing the war in Iraq, with victory having been in our grasp.
Barack Obama also has strained relations with the US military, whose budget he proposes to slash. The visit to Iraq was a way to mend fences and to reassure our servicemen that he really does appreciate their service. Obama also took the time to present some medals during his brief visit at Camp Victory, the main US base near Baghdad. The troops greeted him with enthusiasm.
"You will be critical in terms of us being able to make sure Iraq is stable, that it is not a safe haven for terrorists, and we can start bringing our folks home," Obama told troops gathered at Camp Victory, a sprawling U.S. base near the airport.
This is a marked change from the Obama of the campaign and a useful example of how a politician must adapt to changing facts. Left unsaid that the strategy that made it possible to leave behind a stable Iraq which will not be a safe haven for terrorists was executed by Obama's processor, George W. Bush, whom Obama rarely misses an opportunity to criticize. Left also unsaid that if Senator Obama had his way, President Obama would be confronting an entirely different Iraq, an Iraq that would resemble South Vietnam in 1975, with the last American helicopters leaving the Green Zone as Baghdad burned.
A more gracious man than Barack Obama would have acknowledged the debt he and the country owes President Bush and would admit that he had been wrong. But Barack Obama may make apologies for the country of which he is President. He has never, publically at least, apologized for himself. Hence the Twilight Zone spectacle of Barack Obama in Iraq celebrating victory and congratulating the troops that helped to bring it about, no thanks to him. Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
RCP: Top 10 States in Budget Trouble
From www.realclearpolitics.com with information provided by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Wall Street Journal.
(Ed - I'm surprised that Michigan, Ohio and Minnesota haven't made the list. I know their budget troubles dwarf North Carolina and a few other states that did make the list)
With the country in economic turmoil, it's no great secret that budget woes are plaguing nearly every state legislature and governor. But just as the stimulus package provides different benefits to different areas, the depth and breadth of the downturn is more severe for some states than others. Here, we take a look at the 10 states that have the largest deficits to deal with--from coast to coast, these unfortunate areas have the biggest gaps to close, and in many cases, it won't be easy.
California
FY2009 Deficit: $13,700,000,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $7,854,800,000
Governor: Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)
Up for Reelection in 2010?: No
Job Approval Rating: 38% Approve, 54% Disapprove*
*Source: Field Research Corp. 3/3/09
Illinois
FY2009 Deficit: $4,300,000,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $2,713,550,000
Governor: Pat Quinn (D)
Up for Reelection in 2010?: Yes
Job Approval Rating: 49% Approve, 6% Disapprove*
*Source: Chicago Tribune 2/11/09
New Jersey
FY2009 Deficit: $3,600,000,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $1,763,258,000
Governor: Jon Corzine (D)
Up for Reelection in 2009?: Yes
Job Approval Rating: 40% Approve, 50% Disapprove*
*Source: Quinnipiac 3/12/09
Massachusetts
FY2009 Deficit: $2,400,000,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $1,314,888,000
Governor: Deval Patrick (D)
Up for Reelection in 2010?: Yes
Job Approval Rating: 28% Approve, 68% Disapprove*
*Source: SurveyUSA 2/26/09
Florida
FY2009 Deficit: $2,300,000,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $3,546,800,000
Governor: Charlie Crist (R)
Up for Reelection in 2010?: Yes
Job Approval Rating: 67% Approve, 22% Disapprove*
*Source: Quinnipiac 2/18/09
Pennsylvania
FY2009 Deficit: $2,300,000,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $2,528,086,000
Governor: Edward Rendell (D)
Up for Reelection in 2010?: No
Job Approval Rating: 47% Approve, 38% Disapprove*
*Source: Quinnipiac 2/11/09
Georgia
FY2009 Deficit: $1,999,662,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $2,200,000,000
Governor: Sonny Perdue (R)
Up for Reelection in 2010?: No
Job Approval Rating: 57% Approve, 39% Disapprove*
*Source: Rasmussen 12/11/2008
North Carolina
FY2009 Deficit: $2,000,000,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $1,838,396,000
Governor: Bev Perdue (D)
Up for Reelection in 2010?: No
Job Approval Rating: 43% Approve, 32% Disapprove*
*Source: Public Policy Polling 2/18/09
Connecticut
FY2009 Deficit: $1,700,000,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $718,194,000
Governor: M. Jodi Rell (R)
Up for Reelection in 2010?: Yes
Job Approval Rating: 75% Approve, 19% Disapprove*
*Source: Quinnipiac 2/11/09
New York
FY2009 Deficit: $1,700,000,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $3,991,858,000
Governor: David Paterson (D)
Up for Reelection in 2010?: Yes
Job Approval Rating: 26% Approve, 71% Disapprove*
*Source: Marist Institute 2/18/09 Sphere: Related Content
(Ed - I'm surprised that Michigan, Ohio and Minnesota haven't made the list. I know their budget troubles dwarf North Carolina and a few other states that did make the list)
With the country in economic turmoil, it's no great secret that budget woes are plaguing nearly every state legislature and governor. But just as the stimulus package provides different benefits to different areas, the depth and breadth of the downturn is more severe for some states than others. Here, we take a look at the 10 states that have the largest deficits to deal with--from coast to coast, these unfortunate areas have the biggest gaps to close, and in many cases, it won't be easy.
California
FY2009 Deficit: $13,700,000,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $7,854,800,000
Governor: Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)
Up for Reelection in 2010?: No
Job Approval Rating: 38% Approve, 54% Disapprove*
*Source: Field Research Corp. 3/3/09
Illinois
FY2009 Deficit: $4,300,000,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $2,713,550,000
Governor: Pat Quinn (D)
Up for Reelection in 2010?: Yes
Job Approval Rating: 49% Approve, 6% Disapprove*
*Source: Chicago Tribune 2/11/09
New Jersey
FY2009 Deficit: $3,600,000,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $1,763,258,000
Governor: Jon Corzine (D)
Up for Reelection in 2009?: Yes
Job Approval Rating: 40% Approve, 50% Disapprove*
*Source: Quinnipiac 3/12/09
Massachusetts
FY2009 Deficit: $2,400,000,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $1,314,888,000
Governor: Deval Patrick (D)
Up for Reelection in 2010?: Yes
Job Approval Rating: 28% Approve, 68% Disapprove*
*Source: SurveyUSA 2/26/09
Florida
FY2009 Deficit: $2,300,000,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $3,546,800,000
Governor: Charlie Crist (R)
Up for Reelection in 2010?: Yes
Job Approval Rating: 67% Approve, 22% Disapprove*
*Source: Quinnipiac 2/18/09
Pennsylvania
FY2009 Deficit: $2,300,000,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $2,528,086,000
Governor: Edward Rendell (D)
Up for Reelection in 2010?: No
Job Approval Rating: 47% Approve, 38% Disapprove*
*Source: Quinnipiac 2/11/09
Georgia
FY2009 Deficit: $1,999,662,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $2,200,000,000
Governor: Sonny Perdue (R)
Up for Reelection in 2010?: No
Job Approval Rating: 57% Approve, 39% Disapprove*
*Source: Rasmussen 12/11/2008
North Carolina
FY2009 Deficit: $2,000,000,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $1,838,396,000
Governor: Bev Perdue (D)
Up for Reelection in 2010?: No
Job Approval Rating: 43% Approve, 32% Disapprove*
*Source: Public Policy Polling 2/18/09
Connecticut
FY2009 Deficit: $1,700,000,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $718,194,000
Governor: M. Jodi Rell (R)
Up for Reelection in 2010?: Yes
Job Approval Rating: 75% Approve, 19% Disapprove*
*Source: Quinnipiac 2/11/09
New York
FY2009 Deficit: $1,700,000,000
Projected Stimulus Funds: $3,991,858,000
Governor: David Paterson (D)
Up for Reelection in 2010?: Yes
Job Approval Rating: 26% Approve, 71% Disapprove*
*Source: Marist Institute 2/18/09 Sphere: Related Content
Analysis: Dems punt hard choices on Obama budget
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in Congress are taking only baby steps with his budget, putting off crucial decisions on his ambitious plans to expand health care, curb global warming and raise taxes on the wealthy.
Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and both Bushes all got far stronger assists from Congress on their first budgets. Nonetheless, Obama, is counting on votes approving budget outlines this week to give him some semblance of momentum.
"If we don't pass the budget, it will empower those critics who don't want to see anything getting done," Obama told House Democrats Monday, according to a House aide who required anonymity to reveal what was said at the closed-door meeting.
Risk-averse Democrats, however, are merely kicking the can down the road rather than using the budget to give a real push to the president's agenda. On health care, global warming and even Obama's signature "Making Work Pay" tax cut, the pending House and Senate budget plans offer no clues as to how those big ideas might advance.
The House and Senate are expected to pass separate versions of the budget resolution by week's end, then reconcile differences after their spring break.
Budget resolutions are not law. They don't have to be signed by the president. They are nonbinding outlines paving the way for future legislation. Often, they only determine the amount of money that can be spent on departments' operating budgets that Congress must pass each year.
But they are an early measure of political strength. And especially in the first year of a presidency — when most of the heavy lifting is done on a president's agenda — they have far more importance.
Votes taken during budget resolution debates can put members on record in favor of particular policies — tax cuts or increases, cost curbs on federal health care programs, or welfare reform, for example. Presidents use political capital in winning such votes, and the lawmakers casting them tend to buy into the ideas involved.
At a comparable stage in 1981, Ronald Reagan broke the back of the Democratic House leadership in winning a key budget vote in favor of his tax cut agenda.
And in 1993, debate on Bill Clinton's deficit-cutting plan put his Democratic allies on record in support of higher taxes. That made subsequent votes to actually impose those tax hikes easier.
Budget resolutions also ratified a key 1990 budget pact between President George H.W. Bush and Democrats in which Bush broke his "read my lips" pledge not to raise taxes.
Key Senate budget votes in 2001 and 2003 limited the size of George W. Bush's tax cuts — but made sure they advanced.
To be sure, Obama's plans for global warming and health care are still so fuzzy that it's difficult to translate them into numbers in a congressional budget plan. And rather than overload Republicans now, it could make sense for Democrats to hold off on detailed assumptions in hopes of building bipartisan consensus later.
Still, the budget proposal that Obama sent to Congress in February did present some difficult choices:
_Fewer itemized tax deductions for the wealthy, providing money to help buy health care insurance for tens of millions of Americans who don't have it.
_Cuts in government payments to insurance companies and health care providers.
_An expensive and highly controversial plan to combat global warming through a "cap-and-trade" scheme that calls for auctioning off pollution permits for nearly $650 billion. The Senate, during budget debate Tuesday, voted to instead devote any revenues from the scheme to help consumers pay higher gasoline and electric bills that energy companies will pass on to them.
Both the House and Senate budget writers, for the most part, ignored all of Obama's big ideas when crafting their fiscal plans, sapping his agenda of momentum.
Indeed, key lawmakers are already playing "taps" over his proposals to chip away at wealthy people's ability to deduct charitable donations and mortgage interest at higher rates.
Instead, they designed a host of so-called reserve funds that give some modest procedural help to Obama initiatives but do nothing concrete to really advance them.
As a result, lawmakers can cast symbolic votes in favor of Obama's agenda — even if those votes don't say anything about the depth of that commitment. In fact, they can at the same time say they are voting for Obama's agenda even as they distance themselves from key elements of it, like his tax increases or the higher energy bills that would result from his global warming curbs.
The detail-free approach protects lawmakers from difficult votes. Its defenders also say it provides lawmakers with leeway when writing follow-up legislation.
"The strength of reserve funds, from my perspective, is you give the committees full flexibility to write the best legislation they can," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad told reporters.
But flexibility can also indicate a lack of direction. How will Democrats find $1 trillion or more over the next decade to pay for health care reforms? Is Obama's cap-and-trade initiative too unpopular to advance?
For now, there are only guesses.
"They're not putting their cards on the table," said GOP lobbyist Rich Meade. He knows how this works; he's a former staff director of the House Budget Committee.
EDITOR'S NOTE _ Andrew Taylor has covered Congress since 1990. Sphere: Related Content
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in Congress are taking only baby steps with his budget, putting off crucial decisions on his ambitious plans to expand health care, curb global warming and raise taxes on the wealthy.
Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and both Bushes all got far stronger assists from Congress on their first budgets. Nonetheless, Obama, is counting on votes approving budget outlines this week to give him some semblance of momentum.
"If we don't pass the budget, it will empower those critics who don't want to see anything getting done," Obama told House Democrats Monday, according to a House aide who required anonymity to reveal what was said at the closed-door meeting.
Risk-averse Democrats, however, are merely kicking the can down the road rather than using the budget to give a real push to the president's agenda. On health care, global warming and even Obama's signature "Making Work Pay" tax cut, the pending House and Senate budget plans offer no clues as to how those big ideas might advance.
The House and Senate are expected to pass separate versions of the budget resolution by week's end, then reconcile differences after their spring break.
Budget resolutions are not law. They don't have to be signed by the president. They are nonbinding outlines paving the way for future legislation. Often, they only determine the amount of money that can be spent on departments' operating budgets that Congress must pass each year.
But they are an early measure of political strength. And especially in the first year of a presidency — when most of the heavy lifting is done on a president's agenda — they have far more importance.
Votes taken during budget resolution debates can put members on record in favor of particular policies — tax cuts or increases, cost curbs on federal health care programs, or welfare reform, for example. Presidents use political capital in winning such votes, and the lawmakers casting them tend to buy into the ideas involved.
At a comparable stage in 1981, Ronald Reagan broke the back of the Democratic House leadership in winning a key budget vote in favor of his tax cut agenda.
And in 1993, debate on Bill Clinton's deficit-cutting plan put his Democratic allies on record in support of higher taxes. That made subsequent votes to actually impose those tax hikes easier.
Budget resolutions also ratified a key 1990 budget pact between President George H.W. Bush and Democrats in which Bush broke his "read my lips" pledge not to raise taxes.
Key Senate budget votes in 2001 and 2003 limited the size of George W. Bush's tax cuts — but made sure they advanced.
To be sure, Obama's plans for global warming and health care are still so fuzzy that it's difficult to translate them into numbers in a congressional budget plan. And rather than overload Republicans now, it could make sense for Democrats to hold off on detailed assumptions in hopes of building bipartisan consensus later.
Still, the budget proposal that Obama sent to Congress in February did present some difficult choices:
_Fewer itemized tax deductions for the wealthy, providing money to help buy health care insurance for tens of millions of Americans who don't have it.
_Cuts in government payments to insurance companies and health care providers.
_An expensive and highly controversial plan to combat global warming through a "cap-and-trade" scheme that calls for auctioning off pollution permits for nearly $650 billion. The Senate, during budget debate Tuesday, voted to instead devote any revenues from the scheme to help consumers pay higher gasoline and electric bills that energy companies will pass on to them.
Both the House and Senate budget writers, for the most part, ignored all of Obama's big ideas when crafting their fiscal plans, sapping his agenda of momentum.
Indeed, key lawmakers are already playing "taps" over his proposals to chip away at wealthy people's ability to deduct charitable donations and mortgage interest at higher rates.
Instead, they designed a host of so-called reserve funds that give some modest procedural help to Obama initiatives but do nothing concrete to really advance them.
As a result, lawmakers can cast symbolic votes in favor of Obama's agenda — even if those votes don't say anything about the depth of that commitment. In fact, they can at the same time say they are voting for Obama's agenda even as they distance themselves from key elements of it, like his tax increases or the higher energy bills that would result from his global warming curbs.
The detail-free approach protects lawmakers from difficult votes. Its defenders also say it provides lawmakers with leeway when writing follow-up legislation.
"The strength of reserve funds, from my perspective, is you give the committees full flexibility to write the best legislation they can," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad told reporters.
But flexibility can also indicate a lack of direction. How will Democrats find $1 trillion or more over the next decade to pay for health care reforms? Is Obama's cap-and-trade initiative too unpopular to advance?
For now, there are only guesses.
"They're not putting their cards on the table," said GOP lobbyist Rich Meade. He knows how this works; he's a former staff director of the House Budget Committee.
EDITOR'S NOTE _ Andrew Taylor has covered Congress since 1990. Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
