I was among many in the netroots who worked hard on behalf of a certain group of candidates last year. One of those candidates was our presidential nominee (and now President of the United States) Barack Obama. The netroots, since 2006, has worked hard to elect Democrats and bring a progressive majority to the United States after decades-long rule by conservatives. We had hoped that Obama winning in 2008 would bring that change we need (after all, that was his campaign slogan).
But as we have seen in the health care debate and other issues, progressives are being pushed around and told that they should cave to conservative Democrats. As Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York said recently, we have "compromised our compromised compromise." We asked for a compromise (the public option) from the start and somehow that got whittled away to expanding Medicare. But now both aren't options in the Senate because of one member of the Democratic caucus - Joe Lieberman - who campaigned against Obama last year.
That's right: The Democratic President is caving to a man who supported the Republican candidate.
I know. It doesn't make sense to me either.
But here is another point I will make on this issue. Chris Bowers puts it in intelligent context, but I'm going to make it a much simpler and condensed point.
Conservative Democrats can be replaced. Progressive Democrats cannot.
The reason I say that is based on common knowledge. If a progressive Democrat is in office, chances are that Democrat is in no less than a moderate district and more than likely a progressive one. So the chances of electing a Republican (look at the many congressional districts in the New York City area) are slim to none.
But the districts where there are conservative Democrats tend to be conservative-leaning (or full-blown conservative) and they tend to have Republican enrollment advantages. So where there are conservative Democrats, there could be a conservative Republican to replace them. You aren't going to install a conservative Republican in a progressive district or a progressive Democrat in a conservative district. It's rare and highly unlikely. So where progressive Democrats are in place, it is very hard for them to lose. But conservative Democrats are walking on egg shells and, in the right election, can be swept from office.
The point is not so much about Lieberman but about conservative Democrats. The President and the congressional leadership has caved to these conservatives. Why? To try and call any sort of reform "victory" in hopes that it leads to gains and not losses in 2010.
But the President and the congressional leadership is making a mistake. A huge mistake.
If you lose progressives (and by extension, the netroots), you lose the people fighting most passionately for you. You lose the people doing the work. President Obama and other Democratic leaders owe progressives a lot.
But who gets caved to? The guy who campaigned against Democrats (and progressives) in 2008 and who has vowed to do so again.
But I am not going to go into a tirade like conservatives and attack Obama for receiving an award he had no control over. This wasn't a presidential election. He did not campaign for this. I have heard conflicting accounts about whether or not he even knew that he was nominated. (I read in one location that he didn't know about his nomination, but later I heard that he knew.) The account that said he knew added that Obama didn't think he would win. It wasn't on his mind. That was clear, as his win caught the White House off guard and certainly served as a pleasant surprise.
The prize has meaning though. The committee saw, if not potential, a desire from Obama to make this world a peaceful place. He inherited two wars that need to be ended. He inherits a Middle East peace process that has been a routine piece of the foreign policy puzzle for past presidents. He also became President at a time when the world wasn't too fond of the United States. As we saw on the campaign trail and as president, Obama has made it a priority to fix America's image abroad. Conservative critics say that it his celebrity, not substance, which has helped improve this image. I say it is the opposite. The world, as evidenced by other nations' willingness to embrace health care as a right and not a privilege (among other issues), is much different from the United States. They value intelligence over ignorance. So when you have a president that is willing to sit down with leaders from most, if not all nations and treats them with respect while also improving the United States' standing as a world leader, that is a good thing and the world acknowledges that. It is that principle that was key to the committee. Not necessarily what Obama has accomplished, but how he has approached the world.
(Photo credit: White House photographer Pete Souza. In photo, President Obama joined by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in New York City for trilateral talks.)
In his remarks today, President Obama made it clear that while he was humbled being the recipient of this great honor, he didn't feel as if he was deserving. He added, however, that he sees this as an opportunity not only for himself and his administration, but for our country:
He also sent out an e-mail today that shared similar sentiments. The subject of the e-mail? A call to action.
But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.
This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.
So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.
There is a lot for Obama to accomplish. There are two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) which will be two of several defining moments of his presidency. Also on the list is tackling peace in the Middle East. The Nobel Peace Prize should help him with those things while also being a guiding light. And we should also take our President's accomplishments and lead by example as citizens.
"Yes We Can" rings true. That cannot be forgotten. "Hope" and "Change" are not impossible.
Mr. Obama, who made United States history by becoming the first African-American president, made repairing the fractured relations between the United States and the rest of the world a major theme of his campaign for the presidency. Since taking office as president he has pursued a range of policies intended to fulfill that goal. He has vowed to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, as he did in a speech in Prague earlier this year; reached out to the Muslim world, delivering a major speech in Cairo in June; and sought to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said in its citation. "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."
What an honor for the President. It was a surprise to him and his staff this morning, but he did say he was humbled by the decision.
The poll found that 62 percent of those surveyed did not support Obama's involvement in the governor's race. Only 27 percent believed it was the right thing to do. In a separate question, 60 percent believe the White House should not get involved in the primary even if it impacts other Democrats.
These facts from the poll are good indicators of where people are at on the White House's involvement.
Not surprisingly, Democrats are more worried about Paterson's impact on the 2010 Democratic ticket than are Republicans. Still, only 42% of Democrats agree with the White House based on this rationale, and 48% report the White House was incorrect in urging Paterson not to run. Looking across the aisle, 75% of Republicans overwhelmingly believe the Obama Administration overstepped its bounds while 18% think the move was a right one. Non-enrolled voters are more in line with Republicans on this issue. Regardless of the potential impact Paterson's run may have on other Democratic candidates, 68% report the White House's action was wrong while 21% think it was right.
Few New York State voters are surprised by the White House's interest in next year's New York State elections. Just 25% are surprised while 73% are not.
I am in the minority on this. I believe it was the right thing to do. I also think the interest in New York has a lot to do with Patrick Gaspard (a New Yorker) being the White House political director. If the political director was someone else from another state, there might not be such an interest in New York.
Paterson's approval rating didn't make any gains in the polls. His approval rating is at a new low for the Marist poll and is at 17 percent.
One final stat: 63 percent of voters don't want Paterson to run next year. That tells the story right there. Whether you agree with the President or not, you have to realize that he had a point. Paterson isn't the greatest candidate for governor at this point.
I try to avoid singling out commenters, but a number of commenters have been asking the same question that I thought deserved a response: Why is President Barack Obama getting involved in our politics?
The answer (or another question) is simple: If President Obama doesn't, who would? Or better yet, who has the fortitude to do so?
In New york,
I don't consider his involvement in the U.S. Senate race to be anything New York-specific. He did the same in Pennsylvania with Sen. Arlen Specter and Congressman Joe Sestak. He tried to talk Sestak out of running, but Sestak decided on his own that he would run. There are those who see the President talk to Congressman Steve Israel and ask him not to run against Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Keep in mind, however, that Obama did not force Israel out. Israel could have done what Sestak did. And while the President did talk to others, like Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, they all have decided on their own not to run against Gillibrand. Israel wasn't any different.
The question I asked earlier (if Obama doesn't, who would?) has an answer: No one. The state party is behind Paterson, mostly because he is the party leader in New York. The state party's website proudly displays Paterson's 2010 logo and the party is supporting him. So they aren't going to stand up and say that even though Paterson's poll numbers are hovering around 30 percent that he should not run in 2010. And with Paterson saying that he intends on seeking re-election even with his approval rating down to Bush-esque levels, someone needs to step in. It wasn't going to be Paterson. It wasn't going to be the party.
So if it's no one at the state level, who better than the Democratic Party's leader and our President?
I am glad President Obama did this. It was a much needed dose of reality for the state Democratic Party and Governor Paterson. I cannot share the same view of those who see this as "meddling" in our politics. Sorry, but this was needed.
We need a real leader and a strong candidate at the top of the ticket. The person that comes to mind is Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. We also need someone who is going to energize Democrats in New York to not only come out and vote in the gubernatorial race, but also to support candidates for Assembly and Senate, as well as the congressional races that are obviously of interest to Obama. Having Paterson at the top of the ticket would be a detriment to us and any candidate running.
That is the reality. You can not like it. You can say that Obama should mind his own business. But if there is anything you can say about Obama, it's that he is a leader and that he is a great political mind. I would much rather take his advice than (no offense) some of the people here who think this is the wrong move and those in the state party who would rather back a 30 percent candidate.
I'm with President Obama here. And believe me, you will be thanking him for it.
The reaction here at TAP and in New York has been mixed. The views range from agreeing with the President to concerns about the President's involvement in New York politics.
In order to understand why the President would do this, we need to look at the big picture. In 2006, we took back the Governor's mansion and that gave Democrats the upper hand in legislative manners: The governor was a Democrat, the Assembly was still ruled by Democrats and the State Senate wasn't too far off. In 2008, Democrats took over the New York State Senate, only to have that disrupted in a matter of months by Republicans and Pedro Espada Jr. looking for more power. Espada eventually came back, giving Democrats the Senate again.
The reality is that, in 2010, we could go back to what we had before the gubernatorial and state senate wins. We could go back to having a Republican governor and a Republican state senate all because of who is at the top of the ticket in New York State.
The poll numbers show that Governor Paterson is not in a strong position to run for re-election in 2010. His approval rating at the end of August was 32 percent. That is a quick decline from where he was at in late January, when his poll numbers stood at 54 percent and an even more dramatic drop from the 60 percent favorable ratings he had in late 2008 and early 2009. We are a year out from the Democratic primary (if one does take place) and we are less than 14 months away from the general election. Unless Paterson makes a huge turnaround (which, at this point, is unlikely) he is not in a position to be a strong candidate for governor.
President Obama is a smart man. He is also a political genius. He sees New York as an important piece to the Democratic Party. His involvement in the U.S. Senate race is well documented. He has tried to clear the field for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand so that she can run a strictly general election campaign instead of having to run a possibly damaging primary election that would leave her vulnerable for the general.
In the case of Paterson, he sees the opposite.
He sees a candidate who is weak and would not serve the party well in a general election. He sees a candidate that is not well received in this state and is not someone New Yorkers support. Trying to support him for governor would be tough, not only for Obama and national Democratic leaders, but also for leaders in New York at the local and state levels.
On Paterson's end, he has made some missteps in forging a good relationship with the Obama administration.
From the New York Times:
In addition, the relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Paterson has been shaky, dating to the governor's selection of a replacement for Hillary Rodham Clinton, who resigned from the Senate to become secretary of state. White House officials had received assurances from Mr. Paterson that he would not pick Kirsten E. Gillibrand, then a little-known Democratic congresswoman from a heavily Republican district outside of Albany, according to a prominent Democrat who discussed the matter with a senior White House official.
The White House and Democratic House leaders were concerned that her sudden departure from the House would give Republicans a prime opportunity to reclaim the seat. Aides to the president conveyed those concerns to the governor, according to Democrats who have discussed the matter with Mr. Obama's aides.
In the end, Mr. Paterson selected Ms. Gillibrand anyway, infuriating White House officials and Democratic leaders in Washington. Making matters worse, the governor also publicly snubbed Caroline Kennedy, a close personal friend and ally of Mr. Obama's, who announced in December her wish to be chosen as Mrs. Clinton's replacement, but then withdrew her name from consideration in January, citing personal reasons.
The concerns of Obama aides deepened last month, when the governor, speaking on a radio talk show in New York, suggested that criticism of him was racially motivated and that Mr. Obama would soon suffer similar attacks. Mr. Obama's advisers, who have long sought to defuse the issue of race, found the comments inflammatory and expressed their displeasure directly to the Paterson camp.
As it stands right now, Paterson doesn't give New York Democrats the best chance to win in 2010. While I don't think he will drag down the whole ticket, including congressional candidates in upstate districts that will be running for re-election next year, I do think he will have a negative impact on state senate candidates specifically. In order to turn that around, we will need a different candidate at the top of the ticket. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo would be a great option. But Paterson, at this moment, is not our guy.
Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) crossed a line tonight. While President Barack Obama was debunking some myths about health care, including the claim by some Republicans that health care reform will apply to illegal immigrants.
When President Obama was setting the record straight, Congressman Wilson decided he couldn't contain himself.
Apparently, Wilson's actions weren't tolerated by many, if anyone.
He has issued an apology and has called the White House to offer an apology.
"This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President's remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility."
When I heard it, I was shocked. I couldn't believe that someone would yell out during a presidential address in Congress like that. It's one thing to do it in these town halls. It's another to do it, as a member of the House of Representatives, to the President of the United States.
The President deserves better than that. The House of Representatives deserves better too.
The President's speech was strong. While I would have loved to see him state, unequivocally, that he supports a public option and is a must for any health care legislation, in the end, that's not his job. If a public option is included in health care reform legislation, President Obama will sign it. Period. So it is not his job to make guarantees. It is the job of the Congress to make sure the public option is in the bill.
I am glad Obama highlighted the fact that this is not a new battle. Many presidents before, both Democrats and Republicans, have attempted to reform the health care system in this country. He was smart to address the myths being pushed even if he did get heckled for it. Not the first Democrat to be heckled by a conservative at a town hall meeting or speech. But heckling the President of the United States really means we have reached new lows.
But this was perhaps one of the best points Obama made all night:
We are the only advanced democracy on Earth - the only wealthy nation - that allows such hardships for millions of its people. There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.
I found it intriguing that during a number of moments during his speech where Obama made points like the one above, the Republicans stood with the Democrats in the chamber and applauded the President. So they realize the problem. They know that we are the only wealthy nation that allows its citizens to get without insurance and without care. Yet, they choose to use this as a political wedge issue. Instead of doing anything about the health care crisis, they choose to stand in the way of reform. That's not what we need.
What I thought was the best part of the speech was when Obama took on the misinformation. This is when he got heckled, but it was a great moment to bring out the truth.
Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.
There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up - under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.
My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.
So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly - by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.
There are no death panels. There won't be coverage for illegal immigrants and there won't be federal monies used for abortions. Obama also made it clear what the goal of a public option would be. It is not, as the Republicans say, a government takeover. It is a way to provide competition where there is no competition.
The speech concluded nicely. It would have made Ted Kennedy proud that Obama used the moment to highlight the "Lion of the Senate" and his pursuit for health care reform.
When he mentioned Kennedy, Obama said he received a letter after Kennedy's death. In that letter, Kennedy discussed health care reform.
In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, and his children, who are here tonight . And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform - "that great unfinished business of our society," he called it - would finally pass. He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that "it concerns more than material things." "What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."
If that didn't resonate with the folks inside the House, I don't know what will. It is, in fact, a moral issue. It is a critical social justice issue. That is why President Obama believes we need to act. That is why progressives know we need to act.
President Barack Obama was targeted by the right-wing and presumably right-wing parents who didn't want their children to be fed "propaganda" by Obama in his speech to students that was to be broadcast to schools nationwide.
Of course, this is absurd. As much as I disagree with his politics, I would have loved to have heard President George W. Bush speak in my school. I would have loved to hear President Bill Clinton speak. It shouldn't matter. This is the President of the United States.
As promised, the White House released the remarks that will be shown to schools all across the country. Here is an excerpt:
I've talked a lot about your government's responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren't working where students aren't getting the opportunities they deserve.
But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world - and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.
And that's what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself.
Every single one of you has something you're good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That's the opportunity an education can provide.
Maybe you could be a good writer - maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper - but you might not know it until you write a paper for your English class. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor - maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine or vaccine - but you might not know it until you do a project for your science class. Maybe you could be a mayor or a Senator or a Supreme Court Justice, but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team.
And no matter what you want to do with your life - I guarantee that you'll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You're going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can't drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You've got to work for it and train for it and learn for it.
Those who attacked Obama over a speech to students throughout the country really have egg on their face. Those that said Obama was going to spread his "socialist agenda" also have egg on their face.
This speech is a speech from a president, not a politician. These are words that every student should hear and words that every parent should be saying to their children.
There is nothing more than encouragement and advice in the speech. No propaganda. No socialist agenda. No politics.
The comedy there is that while Obama's speech isn't political, Republicans chose to make it political. Even though it seems small, this is a big issue. If the GOP is willing to go so low as to make this political, how can they be taken seriously?
Phillip wrote earlier this morning about the passing of Senator Edward M. Kennedy. It is a sad day in America today and the U.S. Senate has lost a tremendous leader and the progressive movement has lost a long-time friend.
President Barack Obama issued a statement this morning upon hearing of the Ted Kennedy's passing:
Michelle and I were heartbroken to learn this morning of the death of our dear friend, Senator Ted Kennedy.
For five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance the civil rights, health and economic well being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts.
I valued his wise counsel in the Senate, where, regardless of the swirl of events, he always had time for a new colleague. I cherished his confidence and momentous support in my race for the Presidency. And even as he waged a valiant struggle with a mortal illness, I've profited as President from his encouragement and wisdom.
An important chapter in our history has come to an end. Our country has lost a great leader, who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States Senator of our time.
And the Kennedy family has lost their patriarch, a tower of strength and support through good times and bad.
Our hearts and prayers go out to them today--to his wonderful wife, Vicki, his children Ted Jr., Patrick and Kara, his grandchildren and his extended family.
In reading Phillip's post about Kennedy's last speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, I felt it necessary to post the video. There are too many great lines in there to quote individually.
When Sen. Kennedy first fell ill and suffered a seizure that, at the time, no one knew the cause of, I was just finishing up my graduation day at SUNY Fredonia. It was news that I hoped wouldn't be bad news, but days later it was revealed that brain cancer was the culprit of the tumor.
The Senate has big shoes to fill. But that can wait while we remember the life of a man who championed some of the most progressive legislation in our nation's history.
And one day, in Sen. Kennedy's honor and to achieve a goal he stated forcefully at the DNC last year, we will ensure that health care is a right and that every man, woman and child in the United States of America enjoys that right.
It wasn't too long after President Barack Obama said that his nominee for the Supreme Court would be Sonia Sotomayor that the Republicans started attacking. It is interesting that they have chosen to attack someone who was once appointed by President George H.W. Bush, a Republican, to serve on the U.S. District Court, where she served before being named by President Bill Clinton to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Conservatives have compared Sotomayor to Harriet Miers, an insult considering Miers never was a judge and didn't come close to having the educational background that Sotomayor does. Sotomayor attended undergrad at Princeton, where she graduated summa cum laude, and graduated from Yale Law School. She also served in the Manhattan District Attorney's office, private practice and ended has served as a federal judge since 1991. All Miers amounted to was a Bush friend and political hire who was not qualified to become a Supreme Court justice. The same cannot be said of Sotomayor.
The other attacks from conservatives target Sotomayor's ethnicity. This isn't new. These are the same people who have used hate against Hispanics to make the case against immigration. They have also called her dumb, even though she has the same education (and comparable experience) that Samuel Alito possessed when he was nominated by Bush for the Supreme Court.
It is one thing to oppose Sotomayor for intelligent reasons. It is another to oppose her because of some belief that she isn't intelligent or because she is a Hispanic woman. The Republicans have lost the last two elections because of their constant hate-filled politics and attacks. They will lose this fight (if you can call it a fight) if they continue down the same road.
Appointing a Supreme Court justice has never been easy. But Sotomayor has faced Senate scrutiny before. In 1998, she was confirmed by the Senate to serve on the Appeals Court. She received the support of 67 senators from both parties and was opposed by 29 senators, all of whom were Republicans. Among the Republicans that supported her in 1998 are the following senators who are still serving:
- Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT)
- Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)
- Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
- Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
- Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
- Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN)
- Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Sen. Arlen Specter, who was a Republican at the time, also voted in favor of Sotomayor.
Why is this important? Because the seven senators who are still Republicans now obviously saw something in Sotomayor that impressed them enough to promote her to the Court of Appeals. While their votes may or may not be needed (the Democrats could have the 60th vote they need this summer if Al Franken gets seated), having Republicans on board will be refreshing and show that the whole Republican Party is not hate-filled, even though the loud mouths that they put on TV and in print are.
Sotomayor is very qualified for this post. She has a very impressive resume and has been mentioned for years now as a possible pick for the Supreme Court. The Republicans will not benefit from targeting her unless they target her on issues. But if they target her because she is a woman, Hispanic and continue to claim she is dumb, they will continue to fall into a deep pit that they will not recover from.
The nomination is a historic one. Sotomayor, if confirmed by the U.S. Senate, would become the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court. Sotomayor would also become the third woman to serve on the Supreme Court, joining Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is currently serving, as the only other women to do so.
Sotomayor's resume is an impressive one. She is a 1979 graduate of Yale Law School and attended Princeton for her undergraduate studies. She started her career as a New York County Assistant District Attorney before going into private practice. She was then nominated to become a U.S. District Court judge by President George H.W. Bush with a recommendation from Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In 1998, after being appointed to the post by President Bill Clinton, Sotomayor started serving in her most recent post as a U.S. Appeals Court judge.
Sotomayor is considered a centrist, or as Jeffrey Toobin put it, "a voice like David Souter for moderate liberalism." While she has been considered a centrist, she has also been known to take liberal views on issues like the environment.
The last time she faced confirmation, Sotomayor was confirmed by a 67-29 vote. Some of the Republicans who supported her confirmation in 1998 are still in the Senate. Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sen. Richard Lugar and Sen. Olympia Snowe are examples. Sen. Susan Collins was also around at that time and voted in favor of Sotomayor.
Not that a Supreme Court justice's confirmation is ever guaranteed, but based on Sotomayor's past performance, it will be tough to see a way that she does not get confirmed. With the Democrats nearing a 60 vote majority and with a handful of Republicans on her side, it looks like Sotomayor won't have too difficult a time getting confirmed.
The first 100 days has become a milestone for executives at all levels of government. But no executive is scrutinized more after the first 100 days than the President of the United States.
How did those four items impact New York? According to a state-by-state spreadsheet that breaks down how many people benefited from the SCHIP expansion, the ARRA and the tax credits, New Yorkers were assisted in a big way.
The spreadsheet shows that due to the expansion of SCHIP, 267,000 more children are covered that weren't covered before. The expansion of SCHIP was something that the 110th Congress did pass, but President George W. Bush stood in the way (along with fellow Republicans) and prevented the expansion from taking place. Thanks to a stronger majority in both houses of Congress and President Obama, SCHIP expansion is reality.
The Making Work Pay Tax Credit provides a refundable tax credit up to $400 for individuals and $800 for married couples. The impact of this tax credit on New York was huge. Approximately 6,760,000 New Yorkers will be recipients of the Making Work Pay Tax Credit.
The American Opportunity Tax Credit is a provision that President Obama proposed on the campaign trail that helped Americans pay for post-secondary education. The provision allows for a $4,000 partially refundable tax credit to help individuals pay for attendance at a public college or university. For those attending community colleges, it would make community college virtually free. In return, the student must complete 100 hours of community service with a government unit, hospital or non-profit organization. Nearly 295,000 New Yorkers will be recipients of the American Opportunity Tax Credit (formerly known as the Hope Credit). And while the provision in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was only temporary, President Obama's budget called for making the provision permanent.
And has been repeated over the last few months, 215,000 jobs would be created or saved in New York through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
There are plenty of others who will look at President Obama's first 100 days from a national perspective. I chose to look at it from a New York perspective. Are we better off now than we were under President Bush? There is no doubt about it. We have made great progress over the last three months and will continue to head in the right direction under Obama's leadership. While we have a long road head, Obama has proven over the last few months that he is willing to tackle the tough challenges, not run from them. That is an admirable trait and that is why he has been nothing but successful in his first 100 days as President of the United States.
According to the conservative Republican line of thinking, one is "insensitive" and the other is what a true conservative should do with government spending and economics.
(I would like to welcome Jon Powers back to the TAP community. Jon wrote this post on national security, a critical issue that has been overshadowed by our plummeting economy. You can also read this post at The Moderate Voice and Huffington Post.)
By Jon Powers
When President Obama announced his decision to send 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, he did so with an interesting caveat. He explicitly stated that we cannot solve the problems of Afghanistan by military means alone. He's right, and he deserves credit for saying so. However, it is crucial that we apply that lesson not only to a single issue, but to a broader national security strategy. We live in a world where security has come to mean more than soldiers and submarines, but also development and diplomacy, as well as hearts and minds. Our broader security strategy needs to take that into account.
A recent story from Afghanistan drives home this point with great clarity. A few months ago, several young Afghan girls were attacked with acid by extremists for the "crime" of attending school. One of those girls, Shamsia, will remain physically scarred and partially blind for the rest of her life. Yet these girls made a heroic return to school in January, showing true bravery and rebuffing the extremists' tactics of fear. It is this courage and the courage of millions of other every day citizens around the globe that we must tap to battle extremists. If we are to live in a safer world, we must develop a national security strategy that aims to mobilize men and women in all nations to embrace Shamsia's example.
No one understands this better than Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. In a recent article in Foreign Affairs, he outlines the need for "reprogramming the Pentagon for a new age" and creating a new and balanced strategy because "the United States cannot kill or capture its way to victory." He fully understands that the military must develop more than conventional firepower to win this long war. As a veteran of the Iraq war, I believe Secretary Gates is definitely on the right track.
I saw first hand how the military became overextended in Iraq. My soldiers and I worked regularly with Iraqis to help them improve their economy and refurbish their schools. But as rewarding as that work was, it was not what we were trained to do. We were trained to fire artillery rounds and conduct checkpoint operations, not to design development projects. These are missions traditionally done by the State Department, but the Bush Administration failed to strike the right balance between the job of a soldier and the job of a civilian.
I am a huge believer that the only good government is an open government. An open and transparent government that is accountable to its people will thrive, partly due to the more open a government is, the more accessibility people have to information and providing feedback to said government.
It has been nearly a month since Governor David Paterson selected Kirsten Gillibrand to fill the vacant U.S. Senate seat. The process was, after Gillibrand's selection, over. Yet, Governor Paterson and his office refuse to turn over information regarding that process, which includes questionnaires and responses from prospective candidates for the post.
Multiple media outlets have tried to submit Freedom of Information requests with the office only to be stonewalled and told that the information won't be released to protect the personal privacy of the candidates.
When President Barack Obama officially took office, he sent this memo to heads of executive departments and agencies. In that memo, he said the following: "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government."
With Governor Paterson and his office refusing to reveal such information, he is going against what the President (and our party's leader) is doing in the highest office of the land. Also, the governor and his office aren't helping the reputation of this state's government, which has notoriously lacked transparency over the years.
It is also interesting to note that if the governor's office is withholding the information in order to protect the personal privacy of the candidates, why did Sen. Gillibrand decide to disclose her own questionnaire and responses? She did redact the personal information (Social Security Number, home addresses, etc.) but left all of the questions and responses there for everyone to see.
Of course, Gillibrand has a long record of being open and honest with her constituents. She is, after all, one of the few members of Congress that posts her schedule online. She is arguably one of the most transparent members of Congress there is.
If you want to protect personal privacy, you can redact all of the information deemed personal. We do not need Social Security Numbers. We don't need home or cell phone numbers. We don't need home addresses. All we want to see is the list of candidates, the questions they were asked and the responses provided to those questions.
It is time Albany let the sunlight in. But we need leaders who are willing to be open and transparent. In order for that to happen, there needs to be someone in the Executive Mansion who is willing to step up to the plate and open the doors on his or her administration. That means Governor Paterson should be willing to be open and transparent. If he leads by that example, maybe then we will see Albany a little more open and a little more transparent. But right now, that is not the case.
Governor Paterson, it is time to be forthright with the people of New York. Release the information and let us see the contenders. Let us see our answers. If Sen. Gillibrand believed that the information provided was valuable enough to post on her campaign website, then it should be in the best interests of this state and your administration to release the responses from all the candidates who contended for this post.
And going forward, let's be a little more open and honest with the business that is being conducted in this state.
By now, it's clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression. Millions of jobs that Americans relied on just a year ago are gone; millions more of the nest eggs families worked so hard to build have vanished. People everywhere are worried about what tomorrow will bring.
What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.
Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.
That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress. With it, we will create or save more than 3 million jobs over the next two years, provide immediate tax relief to 95 percent of American workers, ignite spending by businesses and consumers alike, and take steps to strengthen our country for years to come.
This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education. And it's a strategy that will be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability, so Americans know where their tax dollars are going and how they are being spent.
In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.
The whole thing is worth a read and I think President Obama makes a compelling case for this package.
We are at a critical moment in American history. It is bad out there. As someone who is looking for a job, I know how tough it is to find jobs and I know that there are people all around me losing theirs. This is truly a time to put politics aside and work together. Much like Sept. 11 brought us together in a matter of moments, our economy should do the same. It will take a combination of short-term and long-term solutions. We can get there. But we can't do it as a divided country.
I know Democrats that have lost their jobs. I know Republicans that have lost their jobs. There are liberals, conservatives and moderates I know that have lost their jobs. This isn't about ideology and this isn't about politics. This is about the state of our country now and the future of our country in five, 10 and 20 years. The crisis we are in now impacts all of us. We all are feeling it, no matter what our political views.
It is time for all of us to come together. President Obama did not become president using partisan rhetoric. He became president on a message of uniting this country in the tough times and making sure we are still united in the prosperous times. We need to rally behind our new leader and we need to urge our members of Congress and U.S. senators to support this important legislation.
Call your representative. Call your senators. Now is the time to act. Tell them you want them to vote for investing in America's future. Because that's exactly what this package will do.
Today, Congressman Massa commended President Obama for signing this important piece of legislation into law.
The passage of this bill initiates a four and a half year reauthorization (through FY 2013) of the Children's Health Insurance Program, which is called Child Health Plus in New York. H.R. 2 will also strengthen the program's financing, increase health insurance coverage for low-income children, and improve the quality of healthcare children receive. Currently SCHIP covers about 7.1 million children, but this expansion is projected to cover a new total of 11.2 million. In 2007, SCHIP was reported to cover about 651,853 children in New York.
With approximately 402,000 uninsured children in New York, the SCHIP expansion is estimated to cover an additional 267,000 kids - a 66% reduction in the number of uninsured children in New York.
"We fought hard for this moment and now we can celebrate a great victory for America's children," said Congressman Eric Massa. "After spending years fighting for this expansion to children's health care, with one stroke of the President's pen, we have raised the standards for America. We absolutely must take care of our children first, and today we have made a commitment to do just that. Right here in New York, we can provide an additional 267,000 children with access to healthcare. This will help us reduce the number of uninsured children in New York State by 66%."
Massa also showed his gratitude by writing a piece on Huffington Post, calling this a "day to celebrate." In that post, he discusses the importance of SCHIP and the importance of this expansion becoming law.
As a freshman member of Congress that made the expansion of children's healthcare a cornerstone of my campaign, this is a truly powerful and emotional moment for me. I have debated this issue for years and the bottom-line has remained the same - If we don't take care of our children, then what do we stand for? I believe in an America that makes our children's health and safety a top priority and now it's not just a belief, it's law.
"As a 24-year Navy veteran, I welcome the opportunity to continue serving and protecting our great country. My placement on the Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee as well as the Transportation Security and Infrastructure Subcommittee ensures that I will be deeply involved in Homeland Security issues," stated Rep. Massa. "Homeland Security is an environment in which I am very familiar and I welcome the opportunity to share my knowledge and expertise in this area in service to my country. I can think of nothing more important than serving to protect my country."
A lot of news from Massa today. And remember, Massa will be holding a telephone town hall meeting tonight from 6 to 7 p.m. If you are interested in taking part, call (877) 229-8493 and use the code "14608" when prompted.
In response to President Obama signing the SCHIP expansion into law, Governor David Paterson issued this statement:
"Today we celebrate a huge step forward in our efforts in New York State and across this nation to ensure that all children get the opportunity to grow up healthy. I applaud President Obama and Congress for working quickly to achieve consensus on bipartisan legislation reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). I also want to thank the members of the New York Congressional Delegation for working so diligently to ensure that the bill meets the needs of New York's uninsured children.
"Nothing is more important than the health of our children. That is why, in 2008, my administration worked with the State Legislature to ensure that all of New York's uninsured children would be eligible for low-cost or moderate health care coverage by increasing the income eligibility threshold for Child Health Plus from 250 to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. We took these important steps to protect our children, fully covering the federal funding share of the expansion after President Bush twice vetoed federal legislation that would have provided increased financial support for Child Health Plus. These actions ensured that nearly every one of the 400,000 uninsured children in New York State have access to health insurance.
"The Child Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 is a good bill for children and for New York. New York will be able to obtain federal funding for our expansion to 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($70,000 for a family of three). This bill creates incentives for enrolling the lowest income children, provides stable funding for state SCHIP programs at a time when New York and other states are facing historic fiscal challenges, and will also help the State continue to cover our most vulnerable children - like those losing coverage because their parents have lost their job or those who live in low-income families.
"New York State stands ready to utilize this legislation to cover our children. As of January, Child Health Plus, the State's SCHIP program, covered 375,000 children statewide. Since the expansion to 400 percent of the federal poverty level in September, an additional 10,000 children have been enrolled. Two-thirds of these newly enrolled children are in families with incomes between 250-300 percent of the poverty level ($44,000-$52,000 for a family of three), the fastest growing segment of uninsured children.
"New York also focused on reducing barriers to enrollment to make it easier for families to get and keep their coverage, as well as increased outreach to spread the word about the availability of affordable health insurance for all uninsured children. This legislation provides additional funds for states like New York that have been national leaders on the issues of health care outreach and enrollment."
This is a great day all around the country. The SCHIP with a Bush White House was a tough one. Now with a president who has health care on his mind, it is great to see SCHIP expanded.
The prize has meaning though. The committee saw, if not potential, a desire from Obama to make this world a peaceful place. He inherited two wars that need to be ended. He inherits a Middle East peace process that has been a routine piece of the foreign policy puzzle for past presidents. He also became President at a time when the world wasn't too fond of the United States. As we saw on the campaign trail and as president, Obama has made it a priority to fix America's image abroad. Conservative critics say that it his celebrity, not substance, which has helped improve this image. I say it is the opposite. The world, as evidenced by other nations' willingness to embrace health care as a right and not a privilege (among other issues), is much different from the United States. They value intelligence over ignorance. So when you have a president that is willing to sit down with leaders from most, if not all nations and treats them with respect while also improving the United States' standing as a world leader, that is a good thing and the world acknowledges that. It is that principle that was key to the committee. Not necessarily what Obama has accomplished, but how he has approached the world.
