The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “U.S. Drops Plan for a 9/11 Trial in New York City.” It describes a reversal by the Obama administration on holding the trial of 9/11 masterminds in criminal court in Manhattan.

The change in decision came after Mayor Bloomberg changed his mind about the event, in turn influenced by the  plans presented by the New York City police commissioner, Raymond Kelly. Kelly had described a plan with multiple checkpoints, snipers on the roofs, etc., at a cost of up to $1 billion.

But, reading between the lines, the real problem came down to another form of money; the real estate agents for downtown had become extremely concerned about the fate of their businesses and the ability to lease downtown during the course of the trial, which could take years. It was their complaints and pressure that seemed to start the anti-trial ball rolling.

Of course, this just represents another form of NIMBY politics — not in my backyard. Many of these people are all for a non-military trial, just so long as they don’t have to deal with any of the repercussions. Trial at a military base may represent a possible alternative instead of the heart of Manhattan.

In any case, these terrorist trials and Guantanamo seem easy to resolve in terms of our values; it’s just the details that are slowing things down.

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “Fed Chief Wins a Second Term Despite Critics.” The vote was the weakest in history for the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, 70-30.

Ben Bernanke is simultaneously viewed as the architect and savior of today’s economy. His lax policy positions caused it, and many view his rapid bailouts as saving it.  According to the article, Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon made one of the most strident remarks, accusing Bernanke of helping to “set the fire that destroyed our economy.”

The attacks on Bernanke, in my opinion, represent a desparate attempt to find a scapegoat. It’s easier to blame the Fed than your own institution. In reality, virtually noone anticipated the bursting of the housing or credit card market bubbles.

The attacks by Senators at the confirmation hearings were mainly meant for the general public who are outraged at the enormous bonuses still being awarded at major banks. This is an election year, and after the upset by Scott Brown, no incumbent feels very much at ease about their own chances.

The alliance of nay voters included some very unusual coalitions including, for example, the only Socialist, Vermont Senator, Barry Sanders, and the Republican conservative, Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

One can only hope the renomination will become less and less important as Happy Days Come Here Again.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama, On Own, to Set Up Panel on Nation’s Debt.” It describes the failure to do so by Congress — the vote was 53 in favor in the Senate when they needed 60 votes — but the new commission will have no legal authority to force Congress to act.

The death of the commission in the Senate shows the hypocrisy of both parties in the attempt to get the budget under control. Democratic liberals were afraid of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security cuts while Republicans were afraid of an attempt to raise taxes. The Democrats were also upset by the exemption of the military from the Commission’s jurisdiction while social programs remained a prominent target.

Well, this new executive commission is a little flabergasting. It seems like a waste of time because Congress will do whatever it wants in any case. Meanwhile, the President is buffeted by two opposing forces: the pressure to create jobs in the short term, involving more spending, and the pressure to balance the budget in the long term, involving less spending. His proposed three-year freeze on 8 percent of the government’s expenditures already seems to have been discounted.

Well, let’s see how the State of the Union goes tonight. I’m still upset by the refusal of the House to pass the Senate’s healthcare bill!

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama to Seek Spending Freeze to Trim Deficits.” The article describes a topic to be covered by President Obama in tomorrow’s State of the Union address. He is plannng to call for a three-year freeze in programs in the domestic budget, but the Defense Department, Veterans Affairs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be exempt.

Most announcers are describes the impact as a drop in the ocean, though a White House adviser tried to defend it as a first step. However, the program may upset the Democratic base because of the military exemption and upset Republicans because it isn’t big enough.

This represents a continuing conundrum for President Obama. By trying to accommodate everyone, he ends up pleasing noone. The area of the budget he suggested for initial cuts represents only eight percent of the total budget.

I guess we’re now living post-national healthcare in terms of White House priorities. It seems like they’ve forgotten all their other big programs as well and are focusing on an incremental approach. This is profoundly disappointing, and one would hope that President Obama fights with the House to pass the Senate healthcare bill, with a promise of changes later. But that will require leadership and a willingness to take another major risk ….

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama to Offer Aid for Families in State of Union.” It describes some issues the President will address in his speech including initiatives designed to help middle-class families, senior citizens and students paying back college loans.

Negotiations are still ongoing regarding the healthcare bill, and it is unsure how the President will treat it. Most of the proposals are small-budget items, primarily because of the loss of the election in Massachusetts and the feeling that the people are angry about the rapidly increasing deficit. In fact, the article directly compares President Obama’s new agenda to the “go small” approach of the Clinton White House during a similar time of trouble.

As a political Obama fan, I can’t help but feel a sense of extreme disappointment and sadness while reading the article. There was so much hope for his Presidency, and the current floundering around represents a failure of what might have been. If it weren’t for the Massachusetts election, we would be finishing up healthcare and going on to the next step to help the American people.

How can the voters be so ignorant and manipulated by the Republicans? One day, they will realize they were duped, but it will be too late. Here’s a special dart aimed at you, Mr. DeMint. May it be on your conscience what you’ve truly done. Yes, you’ ve achieved the Waterloo you wished for, on the backs of the American middle class.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Bernanke’s Bid for a 2nd Term Hits Resistance.” It describes opposition in the Senate to re-appointing Ben Bernanke as head of the Federal Reserve.

Mr. Bernanke helped to shape the highly unpopular bailout of Wall Street and has also been accused of allowing the housing bubble, that helped to cause all our difficulties in the first place. There appears to be opposition to him from both the left and the right, and a vote on his renomination had to be delayed.

Eventually Harry Reid provided a tepid endorsement, but the final result remains to be seem. It appears that nothing is the same after the shocking election in Massachusetts, and the politicians are finally considering the view of Main Street, a good idea if they want to keep their jobs.

Our economic system is so complex that it probably doesn’t make sense to start looking for people to blame. It just upsets the stock market and investors (the Dow is down almost five percent over the past three days), and that really doesn’t help anyone.

The difficult renomination, however, might make Mr. Bernanke think twice when he is adopting new policies, especially with 10 percent of our population out of work, and a good chunk of them, homeless to boot.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Campaign Spending Limit.” It describes a Supreme Court ruling that overthrew two precedents to allow corporations to spend whatever and whenever they want to support a political candidate.

President Obama decried the decision as supporting oil companies and banks, and the ruling also seems to place Democrats at a disadvantage because they are not usually supported by big business, the main beneficiary of this ruling. The ruling was supported by the conservative bloc of the court with Justice Kennedy serving as the tie-breaking vote.

Previously, corporations were prevented from airing political advertisements within 30 days before a Presidential primary or 60 days before a general election. Observers had thought the court might hand down a narrow ruling instead of the encompassing proclamation in this case.

I think we’ll have to wait to see how things play out. Congress can still mandate that the source of the advertising must be revealed and make other restrictions within the scope of the ruling. The precedent may have a more shadowy effect by allowing lobbyists to threaten political advertisements rather than actually make them.

Free speech is a noble goal, but it does have its limitations. It seems the Supreme Court erred and failed to show common sensibility in this decision.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama Weighs a Paring of Goals for a Health Bill.” It describes the new reality on Capitol Hill after the election of Scott Brown as the new Senator for Massachusetts.

Democrats still seemed stunned by the result and are already trying to pivot to address jobs and the economy. While the Obama administration is still holding out hope for a comprehensive bill, it now seems dead in the water.

What a waste. A full year of national attention and work by legislators all for naught. To me the most important part always was expanding coverage to 30 million people without healthcare, people who are dying every day as a result. What have we become in this nation to be so heartless about their predicament? (Republicans, this question is addressed to you).

There is still discussion about using reconciliation, so we only need 50 votes instead of a supermajority, but items for reconciliation must be directly related to the budget. And the Senators all seem more worried about keeping their jobs at this point instead of following through on healthcare.

I am depressed about the whole thing. So much hard work. So many hard fought victories, and to have it end like this. Maybe, the next few days will allow our legislators to coalesce around some sort of solution, but I’m not holding my breath.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “G.O.P. Surges to Senate Victory in Massachusetts.” It describes the surprising win of the U.S. Senate race there by Scott Brown, previously a little-known Republican State Senator.

The race is being analyzed ad nauseum on the cable networks, so before I subscribe to any viewpoint, let me remind the readers that a day is like a year in politics. The 2010 elections are still many months away, and the Democrats have a chance, albeit diminishing, to strike back.

What to do? Well, I support the idea currently being promoted by Chris Matthews on Hardball. Let the House pass the Senate bill with the promise to include the results of any negotiation through reconciliation in the spring.

This two-step process is the only way the Democrats will get the majority of what they want, and it will at least provide them with something to run on in November. The alternative: to say, well, we tried to get a health bill passed but we were the victim of unfortunate circumstances.

So let the Republicans hoop and holler for a few days with their spin about Democratic arrogance. Then, get the real results for the American people and run on it.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Taliban Assault Rattles Capital of Afghanistan.” It describes an attack by Taliban commandos right next to the Presidential palace, Ministry of Justice and Central Bank. The battle raged for up to five hours, and there was a secondary blast a few blocks away.

The ability of the Taliban to attack at will in such a secure urban area was designed to strike fear among the residents of Kabul. Generally, the Taliban is perceived as strong in rural areas, the area where the majority of American troops are located. That’s why this situation is so troubling.

The Americans are currently undertaking a program to attract Taliban militia to their side by portraying the Taliban as inevitable losers in the struggle. Such a brazen attack by the Taliban brings them favorable publicity and makes any U.S. recruitment efforts less likely to succeed.

In my opinion, the entire Afghanistan situation could easily result in a quagmire, if it hasn’t already. We are not familiar with the terrain; the local customs are foreign to us; and our increased military footprint is sure to increase resentment.

As Vice President Biden noted, the Taliban do not represent a threat to our homeland, and we would be better off just targeting Al Qaeda, located primarily in Pakistan.