New York Times Leader

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, “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 The New  York Times today is titled, “Democrats Wary as Two Senators Decide to Retire.” It describes the resignations of Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and discusses the implications for the November election.

The article notes that the Democrats are likely to lose their 60-vote majority in the Senate and about 20 to 25 seats in the House but quotes Democratic party officials and analysts who predict the Democrats will maintain their overall majority in both chambers. However, losing the 60-vote majority in the Senate could affect the ability to pass controversial legislation, such as the healthcare bill, in the future.

In my opinion, the Democrats should be slightly worried, but it’s not time to panic yet. Senator Dodd will be replaced by Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal who will be a popular candidate. And, as the article notes, there will be more open seats available through Republican resignations than Democratic ones.

One day can be like a year in politics, and events are unpredictable, especially for 11 months into the future. If the healthcare bill passes, unemployment dips slightly, and the President learns his job better (yes, we now have a President who is capable of learning!), the atmosphere could change in a matter of weeks.

For the sake of our country, I’m hoping all that occurs.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “G.O.P. Wins Two Key Governors’ Races; Bloomberg Prevails in a Close Contest.” It describes the results of Election Day yesterday and also notes that the Democrat won in an unusual Congressional race in upstate New York.

Although the results could be interpreted as a doubleheader Republican win in the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, most voters expressed little connection with President Obama in making their decision. However, the race in New York did have national implications; it was the first step in a civil war among Republicans between the far right and more moderate branches of the Party.

One other concerning aftereffect could involve the moderate Senators considering the healthcare bill. If they interpret the election on a national basis, it could affect their willingness to support a public option and other more liberal planks in healthcare legislation, including planks on immigrants and abortion.

The election results, combined with a possible delay in healthcare legislation until 2010, does not bode well for the Democratic Party. Delay is more corrosive than anything in stopping healthcare reform as was illustrated during the town halls meetings over the summer.

So, here’s the takeaway from the elections. Don’t draw conclusions where they don’t exist, but be very worried about the conclusions that get drawn.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Aggressive Push in White House in States’ Races.” It describes a hands-on political strategy by President Obama and his strategist, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, in intervening in State political campaigns, most recently their request for New York State Governor, David Paterson, to forego a reelection bid.

The article also notes other White House interventions, such as the Senate race in Pennsylvania where they are supporting Senator Arlen Spector in a primary, and another endorsement in a Democratic primary for Senator of Colorado. The New York State intervention, however, is noteworthy because it involves a Governor’s race and the candidate they are trying to beat is Rudy Guiliani, a potential opponent in 2012.

In my opinion, the intervention was most definitely mishandled. Sure, this sort of thing goes on in politics all the time, but it is rare for it to be displayed in the front pages of The New York Times. The timing, just before a visit by President Obama to New York State, was particularly inauspicious. In fact, if the situation was just left alone to play out by natural causes, Andrew Cuomo would have easily defeated Governor Paterson in a primary and gained strength in the effort. Now, the results of any primary will just look like the result of the stereotypical “smoke-filled room.”

So, yes, the intervention by the White House is not surprising or shocking. The poor execution by its operatives most definitely is.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Minnesota Court Rules Democrat Won Senate Seat.” It describes the election of Al Franken to the U.S. Senate and the concession (at last!) of Norm Coleman. The final denoument came about after a 5-0 vote by the Minnesota Supreme Court and the refusal of Norm Coleman to appeal to federal court to overrule it.

The election of Al Franken gives the Democrats a 60-vote total in the Senate, thus making it possible for them to overrule any Republican filibuster. Despite the Party’s attempt to lower expectations, and the Republicans’ attempt to raise them, the margin makes real change possible in this country. As Bill Maher might say, “It’s time for the Democrats to stand up to the plate and deliver.”

Reining in healthcare costs and providing clean energy jobs for American citizens are among the most noble goals of President Obama and his administration. And it’s exciting to think that with responsible legislating and just a little Party unity, they are now within sight.

If the Democrats’ are unable to deliver on these legislative promises, it would be a sad day for the nation and would raise the specter of permanent gridlock for the foreseeable future.

Every patriotic American should be rooting for the Democrats to succeed.

The lead story in The New York Times this morning is titled, “Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats.” It describes the switch of Senator Arlen Specter to the Democratic Party and all its implications, especially creating a filibuster-proof Congress for President Obama.

The Republicans deserve it. They have refused to heed the decision of American voters and have tried to block President Obama’s initiatives at every turn, despite his efforts to reach out to them. They have chosen to avoid policy negotiations on issues of real concern to the American people, and in so doing, they have contributed to their own marginalization.

The American people have moved past their petty viewpoint, their support of the rich, their efforts to block healthcare reform and a refusal to re-tool their party in any way. They have heaped scorn on Senator Arlen Specter and must now face the results of their actions.

In fact, I would suggest an element of divine intervention in their refusal to show any compassion for suffering Americans. God puts people in power and takes them out, and there could be no justice greater than stripping Republicans of their ability to say “No” and block efforts to help real people.

So, God Bless Senator Arlen Specter for his bold and courageous act. May he live long and prosper.