A common meme heard from right-wing commentators on Sunday morning talk shows is that “Europe is moving to the right,” presumably because they hate their inept government healthcare and don’t want to suffer under high tax rates anymore. This is simply a lie, and can be proven by looking at the actions of “conservative” leaders of Europe and the party platforms of those “conservative” parties in Europe. One of my personal favourite examples is that of Angela Merkel and the Christian Democratic Union in Germany.

While it’s easy for Pat Buchanan to say that the election of Angela Merkel means that German people hate their healthcare and “socialist” government, her government’s actions speak otherwise. During the depths of the recession in the past year, in order to curtail layoffs, the Merkel run German government offered to pay 90% of worker’s wages if those companies kept them in work…how conservative of her. France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, another supposed “conservative” made similar moves in France, and a few months ago we saw that both Germany and France were officially out of recession and had growing economies again. Apparently when government ensures workers the right to a job and makes sure that they’re making real goods, wealth is created…who knew? Meanwhile, we’re left with unemployment and right wing conservatives in this country who would hardly let President Obama pass a public works bill. (more…)

I’m afraid I have to disagree with my friend, Matt, below. There are two ways to look at President Obama’s winning of the Nobel Peace Prize — whether he deserves the award, and whether he is helped by it. On both counts I say he’d be better off politely declining to accept it.

Off the top of my head I can’t think of a person who was especially noteworthy in the peacemaking business for the last 12 months. Obama did set some peacemaking goals this year, such as the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons and a reinvigorated (if ham-fisted) effort to re-start the Arab-Israeli peace process. Not one of his major reconiciliation initiatives has panned out, though — partly because he conducted some of them poorly, but mostly because he simply hasn’t had enough time yet. There is a case to be made for “aspirational” peace prizes that encourage certain policies, but we should be clear that that’s what they are meant to be.

On the question of whether the award helps him, I think it’s a resounding “no.” People in this country have already been wary of Obama’s star power abroad, and I certainly detested foreigners saying that, ‘Yes they did.’ Uh, no — we did. There’s no question that increased respect abroad helps our foreign policy, but Obama risks falling into the trap of Israeli President Shimon Peres — a man loved abroad but not at home. It’s a fine formula for a secretary of state or an ambassador, but not POTUS. Plus, the GOP gets to throw out the Jimmy Carter epithet with ever greater authority.

P.S. Due respect to the Democratic National Committee, but I don’t appreciate being labeled on par with Hamas and the Taliban for questioning the day’s news:

In an e-mail to reporters, DNC press secretary Hari Sevugan suggested that Steele’s statement, which said Obama’s “star power” had overshadowed more deserving recipients, was similar to reactions from Hamas and the Taliban.

I absolutely loved the surprise I got this morning when I turned on my TV to find that President Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his renewed focus on diplomacy as a solution to international crises. And now I’m really enjoying watching my Republican friends show their true colors as they attempt in vain to discredit my president yet again.
I’ll be honest, the other candidates for this award were very impressive. And I’m not particularly hot on awarding the guy who’s yet to close Guantanamo Bay, withdraw our troops from Iraq, and make a decision on Afghanistan. But unlike the reactionary, hate-filled right wingers out there, I see the committee’s decision for what it is: a genuine attempt by the international community to reward incremental but promising progress.

This is a day to take pride in our president’s leadership, and hope that he remember this accolade whenever making critical decisions on matters of war and peace. It is not a day for petty partisanship, but don’t tell the Republicans that.

A recent topic of discussion is the prospect that the GOP could re-take the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterm elections. With today’s unfortunate report that the economy is still shedding jobs, and with the defeat of the public option in the Senate Finance Committee’s version of the health care bill, many Republicans no doubt believe they are on the offensive to a such a degree that they can take back the House. (more…)

“Stay in school, kids” is the latest postscript to the Communist Manifesto, if you are to believe the GOP uproar to the president’s address to the nation’s students yesterday. But in tonight’s address to the nation on health care, the fringe right made another appearance in the form of not just Joe “You Lie!” Wilson, but in many outbursts from various Republican congressmen:

Throughout the speech, Republican members of Congress repeatedly held up stacks of papers that appeared to represent ideas they had for the bill.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) held signs that read “What Bill?” and “What Plan?”

When Obama told the chamber that the “death panel” lie was, in fact, a lie, a Republican member said loudly enough to be heard in the press gallery, “Read the bill” — a common refrain at August’s angry town hall meetings.

When Obama told the chamber that he had “no interest in putting insurance companies out of business,” a Republican member responded with a loud, “Ha!”

Say what you will about members of Code Pink who interrupted speeches by President Bush over the years, but never did we see Democratic members of Congress pollute the discourse like this. Even I, an admitted cynic, did not expect to see this.

Hannity can moan all he wants about how Obama is a “radical leftist,” but he’s dead wrong.

For all that Obama has achieved for the left thus far, he refuses to go as far as Kucinich. Don’t get me wrong now, we have made 2 steps forwards in the past 8 months while Bush took us twenty steps back in the past 8 years.

Environmentally friendly laws have been signed, we are on our way out of Iraq and increasing our presence in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay is on its death bed. But those of us farther to the left are feeling more and more frustrated as the Obama presidency continues. We have a lot more to do in changing this country for the better, but Obama is failing to deliver in key areas.

(more…)

One of the peculiar aspects of Bush foreign policy was the insistence that we could not trust the Syrian government enough to talk face-to-face on regional issues, but that we were happy to receive assurances that the people we sent over there for interrogation wouldn’t be tortured. Silly us.

President Obama, sadly, has said he’ll continue the policy of extraordinary rendition — the temporary deportation of terror suspects to other countries. If American torture doesn’t get us good information, then neither will foreign torture. If our interrogation methods aren’t good enough for the president, then he needs to set about addressing that — not outsourcing the torture business.

Want to get an idea of how skewed the health care debate in this country is? Perhaps you know my Congressman, Barney Frank. The guy who got re-elected in 1990 with 66% of the vote even after he was nearly unanimously reprimanded by the House of Representatives. Yeah, that guy . . . and that district. So he had one of those town hall meetings on health care, where lo and behold, he confronted the same kind of rowdy conservative mobs that have been getting an awful lot of press coverage. It just goes to show you that even though they scream the loudest, they are not representative of the average viewer at home — they only appear that way by showing up en masse and shouting down any and all opposing views.

This is confirmed in a recent NBC poll: Obama’s health care approval ratings — while not impressive — have not gotten any worse in recent weeks. Meanwhile, misinformation on the proposal abounds. As Jon Stewart remarked on the TV coverage of politics, “The race to the bottom is done with tenacity.”

I’m going to preface this by saying I’m sick to death of hearing about the “groundswell” of public outcry against President Obama’s efforts to reform our nation’s inadequate healthcare system. I’m tired of the media legitimizing the wackos that lobbying firms are recruiting to swarm at town hall meetings and shout down the elected officials who dare to mend a broken system. And I’m not even going to begin to talk about the off-the-chart irony of medicare receiving senior citizens lambasting the Obama administration’s proposal for a government-funded public healthcare option. It’s too easy, and that’s not something worth writing, let alone reading.

However, you’re probably thinking that I feel bad for Obama and Congressional Democrats, who can’t seem to sell the reform promises that helped sweep them into office back in November. I do not. In fact, it is my contention that stupid missteps on our side are to blame for the “backlash” with which we must now contend. Here’s what I mean, after the fold… (more…)

Barack Obama should by no means become detached from foreign affairs in his early presidency — as a foreign policy-minded citizen, I think that would be a great mistake. But priority number one for Obama will and ought to be putting together a large economic stimulus package. Even if Obama focuses on outside issues, the Israeli-Palestinian issue will trail behind China, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and maybe even Somali pirates in attention.

Over at GW Discourse, I offered some comments about the recent flare-up in Gaza and Israel. Our communications director Mr. Ingoglia rightly noted that the Arab-Israeli conflict is one that our new president will inherit. Obama’s approach to the conflict is pretty much in line with past American policy, which by itself is not problematic. It would be a mistake for him to invest in trying to solve the dispute at this stage, however.

Paradoxically, outside actors (e.g., the United States) tend to hold more influence over the course of events in the Middle East when Israeli and Arab leaders are stronger. They are more able to take risks towards peacemaking instead of defaulting towards war. Any resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian question (and also the Israeli-Syrian question) necessitates strong leaders who can corral their publics into the risky art of concession. The next Israeli government (following elections in February 2009), whether it is led by Tzipi Livni or Binyamin Netanyahu, will likely not be in a very strong position to negotiate a peace. It goes without saying that the Palestinian leadership is in an even worse situation.

The best thing Obama can do now is let the Israelis and Mahmoud Abbas do what they are doing now — helping to build political infrastructure in the West Bank, such as the new Palestinian police forces in Nablus and Hebron. Gaza is a lost cause for the moment, but the West Bank has a chance to become an eventual model for its sister territory.

Obama’s appeal to unity has its limits. There is really very little he can do to change the facts on the ground in the Middle East, and he knows that. I’m pretty confident that his pledges to be ever more involved in the process of creating a Palestinian state are more wishful thinking than a pragmatic reading of the status quo. Soon he will lose interest in solving the issue, as well he should (for now).