My grassroots fundraising page for President Obama

I watched President Obama's job speech last night, and it inspired me. Seeing the Republicans refuse to show support for the very reasonable measures the President is proposing to get this economy moving again was appalling. We must get out in force in 2012 and not only re-elect President Obama but sweep the Republicans and their obstructionism out of Congress. To combat big money unleashed by Citizens United, we must start building a grassroots organization now. That's why I started my own grassroots fundraising page today for Obama For America 2012. Here is what I said:

In the fall of 2008, I was inspired to start a blog - Working Mom, Democrat, Patriot - to share my thoughts on the presidential campaign. The 2008 election was extremely important, but 2012 is even more critical. We must re-elect President Obama so that he can continue his efforts to dig us out of the mess created by the previous administration. We must send a strong message to the other side that obstructionism and putting politics above country is unacceptable. If President Obama is going to win, we need to build a grassroots campaign that's bigger and stronger than anything we've built before. He will need donations from real people like you and me to compete against the special interest and corporate money unleased by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. Please help me reach my fundraising goal by donating today. Thank you!

I hope you can check out my page and perhaps even donate.

Ending the Year on a High Note

After the election on November 2nd, I was understandably pessimistic about what progress, if any, would be made during the lame duck session of Congress before the new crop of elected Congresspeople and Senators take office. The Republicans made clear their priorities when they promised to block any legislation until all of the Bush tax cuts were extended. In other words, the top priority for the Republicans was to ensure that wealthiest Americans would not see the marginal tax rate for amounts made over $250,000 (for families) increased approximately 4%. (Please note that any amounts earned under that $250,000 would be taxed at the lower tax rates that would be extended for everyone, so the wealthy would have gotten a tax break no matter what.) Nuclear arms treaty with Russia? Health care for the heroes who were the first responders on September 11th? Tax breaks for those making under $250,000? Nope, not as important.

So, then came the big tax compromise. Liberals gnashed their teeth and whined and moaned about President Obama being weak and giving in to the Republicans. It turned into a circular firing squad with liberal radio talk show hosts like Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Miller being criticized by others for their pragmatism and support of the compromise the President had made. Just like health care reform and the slow progress on Don't Ask Don't Tell, the liberals were furious and disappointed but misdirected this anger at President Obama rather than the Republicans who presented a united front and blocked and obstructed what the President wanted to do.

Things were looking pretty bleak for Democrats at this point. Then, however, we started to see a string of victories. The START nuclear treaty with Russia was approved by the Senate. The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell first passed in the House of Representatives and then the Senate. Jon Stewart aired a brilliant episode dedicated to the 9/11 First Responders bill, shedding light on the hypocrisy of the Republicans and the complicity of the media in ignoring the story. The Republicans caved and the bill passed. Other less publicized legislation also passed, including new food safety regulations and the Child Nutrition Act. Yes, there were still some disappointments, biggest of all the success of Republicans in blocking the DREAM Act, but overall, it was an amazing set of victories for the President and more importantly, for the country.

My pure speculation is that there are two reasons it was such a successful lame duck session for President Obama. First, I think there was more to the tax compromise than we were told. I think it was broader than just the tax cuts, and President Obama was tougher in these negotiations than it first appeared. Second, I think the Republicans may have started to hear backlash from voters. Their glee after the election was due to the mistaken notion that they were victorious because the people agreed with them philosophically. I think the election results were more a result of anger at the status quo and the anti-incumbent sentiment. In reality, the majority of Americans agree with Democrats more often than Republicans on the issues. For example, the majority of Americans did not support extending the tax cuts for the wealthy. And I am sure the vast majority of Americans support taking care of the 9/11 heroes. It is now becoming clear what the Republicans stand for, and I think they are hearing that people don't like it.

So, the year ended on a high note. I would like to point out, however, that the entire 111th session of Congress was amazing. For all of those who declare that nothing happened, that President Obama hasn't accomplished anything and that you are disappointed in him, please check out this summary of the 111th Congress from outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi's website. It is a truly impressive list. If you think back to the terrible shape the country was in when President Bush left office, in the midst of a severe recession and on the precipice of a depression, it is abundantly clear that this President and this Congress saved this country and accomplished a hell of a lot. I would like to thank President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for their tireless work the last two years.

The next two years will be extremely challenging, The right has the better messaging and a powerful media machine. Let's not waste any time arguing amongst ourselves. We progressives must push forward and lend our full and complete support to the President to help him combat the Republicans and their obstructionism.

Republican Partisanship and Hypocrisy: Reaction to the Christmas Day Bombing Attempt

OK. The blogging hiatus is officially over. I was waylaid by a combination of busy work, busy holiday preparations, and disillusionment over the course of health care reform. It became too depressing to observe Democrats rolling over time and again to a few traitorous Republicans in Democrats' clothing (I'm looking at you, Joe Lieberman!)

But now, we are on the verge of a new year and a new decade (if you believe the decades start with "0" and not "1" -- a whole other debate). Too bad it's the same old business for Republicans: putting politics over country, bringing hypocrisy to new levels, and epitomizing the meaning of the phrase "double standard." I'm talking, of course, about the Republican reaction to the failed terrorist attempt aboard a Northwest flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day.

The Republican response to this frightening attempted act of terrorism was not a swift denouncement of terrorism, extremism, or Al-Qaeda. Nor was it an inspiring rallying of the citizens of this country around a common cause or praise for the swift actions of heroes aboard the airplane who helped prevent a tragedy. No, the Republicans are using this incident as a way to, you guessed it, attack and denounce our President, his staff and the White House handling of the situation.

The hypocrisy of the Republicans is amazing considering that the airport security measures in place to prevent terrorist attacks are what Bush and Cheney put in place during their administration. Weren't they supposed to have fixed the problems of agencies not talking to each other and red flags not being picked up by the creation of the Department of Homeland Security? And wasn't the terrorist (alleged) in Amsterdam and not the U.S. when he boarded that fateful flight?

And finally the double standard. Let's put aside the 9/11 occurred on Bush and Cheney's watch and they ignored very specific warnings of such an attack and then pleaded ignorance. Let's examine a situation very much in parallel to what happened on Christmas Day this year -- Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, and his failed attempt to blow up a plane. Sam Stein of Huffington Post has put together a point-by-point comparison of how the Bush Administration and Bush himself responded to that incident versus how the Obama Administration and President Obama himself have responded to this incident. Bottom line, Bush only mentioned the incident six days later, and then only in passing. Before that there was only reference to the White House "monitoring the situation". Interesting, eh? In fact, the shoe bomb incident took place on December 22, 2001. Bush was at Camp David. He left Camp David for Crawford Ranch (where he spent a huge percentage of his presidency) on December 26th. On December 27th, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference regarding a new Osama bin Laden tape that had surfaced. According to Sam Stein's research:

In that press conference, Rumsfeld was ... asked about Richard Reid -- now five days after the incident. "That's a matter that's in the hands of the law enforcement people and not the Department of Defense," he said. "And I don't have anything I would want to add."

It would be another day before Bush himself publicly mentioned the shoe bomber. In a press conference on December 28, in Crawford, the president said that incident was proof that "the country has been on alert."

In contrast, President Obama and the White House have been very active in responding to and communicating about the incident. Refreshingly, they have even been open and honest about failures that took place leading to the incident. And please note that Janet Napolitano's comments after the attack have been misquoted and misrepresented. If you read the transcript of what she said here or in other publications, it is clear that she never said "the system worked" in its entirety as she has been repeatedly lambasted for by the right. The context was clearly that once the incident occurred, the system did what it was supposed to do in response.

But I digress. The point is that there is clearly a double standard here, and that the Republicans are shameless in their hypocrisy. Their talking points are that Bush could do no wrong and Obama can do no right even to the detriment of the country and its safety.

Making Sense of the Gates Story - Two Must-Read Articles

So now that the "beer summit" is over, what can we learn from the whole Henry Louis Gates/Sergeant James Crowley arrest story? And what can we learn from the way some have reacted to it? When I see white pundits and commenters on blogs blaming Gates for the whole thing and freaking out when President Obama spoke the truth by famously saying that the Cambridge police acted stupidly by arresting Professor Gates in his own home, I just can't get over how reluctant all of these people are to put themselves in someone else's shoes for just a moment. I think it's because to do so would be to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, there is unfairness in the system and that yes, whites do have an unfair advantage. This may be a blow to the ego to realize that one's successes may not be 100% attributable to amazing abilities and talent alone. But instead, we have Glenn Beck having the audacity to call Barack Obama racist. I'm sorry, but any time you have a white male accusing someone of color of being racist, you know that guy is as racist as they come. (I find it interesting how racism is seeping out in not-so-thinly-veiled ways with the election of our first black President, e.g. the birther controversy -- but I digress.)

And why are these same pundits not finding any fault with Sergeant Crowley's actions? Aren't the police supposed to diffuse situations? Once he knew Professor Gates was in his own home, why did things escalate further? Why are there inconsistencies in his police report? Apparently, we can't bring up any of those nuances to the story.

I read two articles that helped me make sense of the whole story with clear and powerful explanations of what it is really all about for African-American people.

First, is a column by Ta-Nehisi Coates that was published in Time Magazine, "When Race Matters" discussing how even the most accomplished, well-educated black men are still vulnerable to racial profiling and unfair treatment from police. Here is a particularly interesting passage:

There has been a temptation to use the Gates arrest as a metaphor for the plight of all black people. And yet much of what we think of as "black issues" doesn't really affect most black people. We too easily conflate the words disproportionate and majority. While a disproportionate number of black males are in prison, the majority of us have no experience with hard time. Black people are overrepresented in the ranks of impoverished Americans — but most of us are not poor. Affirmative action may ignite all sorts of racial tensions — but a lot of black people will never apply to a college where such a program exists. What we often term "black issues" are really "American issues" that affect an uncomfortably large number of black people. For activists looking to rally around race, this has presented a problem over the past few decades: there simply is no single issue that unites blacks with the visceral power of segregation and its accompanying "Whites Only" sign.

Mistreatment by the police, however, remains a shared experience for many African Americans. And it's members of the black upper class — people like Gates and Obama and Ford, black America's most credentialed social stratum — who are most sensitive to overzealous policing and racial profiling. When it comes to encounters with law enforcement, they are uniquely aware of how quickly their accolades can be rendered irrelevant.

The second article "Why Obama Could Relate..." is by amazing columnist, Leonard Pitts Jr., who really strikes home with the point that police mistreatment of minorities happens often and thus becomes a part of the shared experience and "baggage". What this article pointed out to me was that for white people to claim that Gates overreacted and should have just shut up or that Obama was "racist" for leaping to a conclusion that the arrest was stupid shows ignorance and a complete unwillingness to understand the background, history and context or why Obama said what he did to stand up for black people everywhere. Key passage:

Are we supposed to believe it coincidence that the men this happens to always happen to be black?

Some of us do. Some of us have the luxury of never connecting the dots, seeing instead one discrete incident over here and tsk tsk, how terrible that is, and another discrete incident over there and tsk tsk again. And then move on and leave it behind.

But others don't have that luxury, don't get to move on and leave it behind. Others carry it like luggage, wear the residue like sweat, into every encounter with every cop, both good and bad: not always memories of what did happen, but fear of what could.

Unnecessary fear? Sometimes; there are many great cops out there. Perfectly valid fear? All too often.

Here, then, is the take-away of the Gates affair: apparently every black man knows what that fear is like, be he professor, preacher, pundit.

Or president.

I don't pretend to have a perfect understanding of what it's like to be black in America. I have a closer view than most white people, but I still have eye-opening moments. I just hope others can open their eyes, hearts and minds enough to hear the other side and try to make sense of what happened.

Jon Stewart Takes on the "Birther" Controversy

Jon Stewart is now the most trusted newsperson, and here is an example of why. Jon Stewart calls other supposed journalists on their utter and complete bullshit. Case in point: the birther controversy. Watch how he very easily debunks the whole thing while holding Lou Dobbs and CNN accountable for basically ignoring facts and airing extreme, fringe crap:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Born Identity
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

Letter I Wrote to CNN re: Lou Dobbs

I am disappointed that CNN's President has backed off on criticism of Lou Dobbs for giving legitimacy to the so-called "birther" movement, which questions President Obama's U.S. citizenship. These allegations have been thoroughly debunked, and this movement is a racist attempt to undermine the first Black president. To give it any airtime at all on what is considered a serious news channel gives it an air of legitimacy that is completely inappropriate. Lou Dobbs has no place in journalism.

Revisiting Ridiculous Rumors - The So-Called "Birther" Movement

Amazingly, the rumor that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen still persists. These people even have a moniker: "birthers" and supposedly respectable Republicans are working hard to legitimize these ridiculous rumors. In honor of the birthers, I am re-posting my (well-researched, I might add) rebuttal:


Remember during the campaign when Republicans were spreading those "Obama is not a U.S. citizen" rumors? I actually had a debate in my kitchen with a family member who bought into this crap. Well apparently, Alan Keyes and Senator Richard Shelby are still trying to cast doubt on President Obama with this tired, desperate story. According to Shelby:

"Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven’t seen any birth certificate,” Shelby said. “You have to be born in America to be president.”

Well, let's see. The Obama campaign posted his birth certificate on their website during the campaign. According to www.snopes.com, this rumor is categorically false. The State of Hawaii officially verified the validity of the birth certificate. There is even a birth announcement from the Hawaii paper in 1961! What I find hilarious when reading about some of these conspiracy theories, these conspiracy theorists act like this was some scam perpetrated starting back with his birth! Yes, I am sure that in 1961, President Obama's mother and grandmother knew that he would be running for president in 2008 and would need proof of his natural-born citizenship! It is absolutely ridiculous, barely worthy of response.

Another argument I have heard is that because President Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen, President Obama could not be one. These people need to just read the law. If you are born in the United States, you are a natural-born citizen, regardless of your parents' citizenship. And despite its "foreign", "exotic" feel according to Cokie Roberts, Hawaii is one of the fifty United States of America and has been since 1959. Case closed.

Give it up, people, and move on!