Bullets and Ballots

NPR's Linton Weeks reports that guns are very big with politicians in both parties this year.

I find that stunning, and I'm not really sure why. I mean, I know that conservatism is enjoying something of a revival in America. Poll after poll, after all, has suggested that there is considerable backlash against Democrats/liberals/progressives — and that seems likely to be confirmed when the votes are counted in November.

But guns aren't political props for Republicans only.

Some Democrats, as Weeks observes, are using guns to make the case that they are in touch with their constituents' concerns. Of course, macho posturing doesn't always work. Just ask Michael Dukakis.

Others — those who, presumably, can't bring themselves to hold a gun even when posing for a publicity photo — are already busily pointing their fingers at potential fall guys in anticipation of what is to come.

And many in the media are enabling them by coming up with scapegoats well ahead of time. Heck, it isn't even Labor Day yet.

"The country is having some weird mass nervous breakdown," writes Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, "with the right spreading fear and disinformation that is amplified by the poisonous echo chamber that is the modern media environment."

She then goes on to defend Barack Obama against the religious prejudice that has been stirred up by the mosque near ground zero controversy — never once acknowledging that Obama, as he tends to do, jumped into an argument that really is not something to which a president with a bad economy, soaring unemployment and two unpopular wars to resolve should devote even a fraction of his attention.

Of course, the same thing could have been said of Obama's so–called "beer summit" a year ago. Or his highly publicized NCAA tournament selections a little more than a month after he took office. Diversions at best. Distractions at worst.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that, even in the best of times (which these clearly are not), a president doesn't need to be weighing in on this kind of an issue. In fact, I would think that the last thing a president whose religious affiliation is, at best, confused by many Americans — and whose middle name has an ominously Muslim sound for Western ears — would want to do is wade into a no–win argument like this in the middle of a bleak midterm election campaign.

Obama, Dowd writes, is "[t]oo lofty to pay heed to the daily bump and grind of politics." That may be, but he'd better develop more of a taste for it — and an appreciation for how the game is played — if he really wants to be more than a one–termer.

I get the sense that Dowd is beginning to understand this, however grudgingly. In Dowd's world, it's all a big misunderstanding, and I guess it will stay that way, even after November, whatever those midterms may bring.

"Obama has failed to present himself as someone with the common touch," Dowd writes. "And to the extent that people don't know him or don't get him, he becomes easier to demonize."

So, apparently, we're back to blame again — but not blame for Obama. Nothing is ever his fault. The blame is for those who "don't get him." Maybe they're stupid. Maybe the problem is that they "cling" to guns and religion because they feel they've been abandoned by their leaders.

Voters do understand guns and religion. Those two things have been winning elections for candidates in both parties for many years. A good political strategist knows there are more votes to be gained than lost when you whip up a frenzy over either one.

As much as Dowd and other Obama defenders may want to believe that this demonizing is racist or, perhaps, the result of religious bigotry, demonization has been part of American politics for a long, long time.

If Mo didn't know that, where the heck has she been?

Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to calm a frightened nation by telling it that the only thing it had to fear was fear itself. But fear comes in many packages, and the politicians who can exploit it the best, particularly during bad times, are usually the ones who are the most successful.

Americans are fearful today. Politicians in both parties understand this. Why else would they incorporate guns into their campaigns?

Changing Time(s)

On the "fall back" weekend, when we get an extra hour to sleep (at least, that is how it is supposed to work — theoretically), I usually think of my mother. She taught first grade, and she used to say she liked this weekend better than any other.

This year was no exception. I was again reminded of my mother, although I had a little help. When I got up this morning, I logged on to Facebook and found the following entry from a woman who once was one of my editing students. She is now raising a 4–year–old boy.

"Extra hour of sleep? Yeah right. Nobody told my 4 year old."

I imagine that my mother would have sympathized. She raised two boys, and I suspect that she didn't look forward to the arrival of the "fall back" weekend until we were past the stage in our lives when we were prone to coming into her bedroom at the crack of dawn ready to begin the day.

I have no children of my own, but I haven't spent my adult years in a vacuum. Most of my friends are parents, and I have observed something in their children that I passed along to Laura.

"Even after they learn to tell time," I wrote, "children really only know two times of day for quite awhile — 'now' and 'not now.' "

A short time later, she reponded, "Sounds about right."

I left Facebook at that point and proceeded to the New York Times website — mostly to read its article on last night's World Series game between the Yankees and the Phillies.

But I got sidetracked by Maureen Dowd's column, which was about Barack Obama and one of the ways he distinguishes himself from his predecessor — by saluting the coffins of the casualties of war as they arrive in the United States.

"As Obama comforted families at a tragic moment, he also had to contemplate a tragic dimension of his own presidency: It's nice to talk about change, but you can't wipe away yesterday," Dowd wrote.

"Obama wants to be the cosmopolitan president of the world, and social engineer at home to improve the lives of Americans.

"But what he had in mind for renovating American society hinged on spending a lot of money on energy, education, the environment and health care. Instead, he has been trapped in the money pits of a recession and two wars.

"For now, the man who promised revolution will have to settle for managing adversity."

Just as parents would like to fast forward to the day when their children can understand the concept of time — and appreciate the value of an extra hour of sleep — I have no doubt that Obama would like to fast forward to the day when he has the freedom to focus on his higher objectives.

But that isn't how it works.

It's not that the unemployed or those who are deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan are not concerned about things like energy, education, the environment and health care. And it isn't that those things are not important.

But putting millions of Americans back to work and bringing American troops home safely are more urgent.

Maybe that sounds elementary, like things that are so basic that it should be assumed that they are priorities. But that's not the impression that is being left by the numbers; otherwise, NBC would not have devoted so much of an interview with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to it.

In some ways, I guess, adult Americans are like that 4–year–old boy I mentioned. They're focused on now. They may understand long–term goals. They may believe in long–term objectives. But those are concepts for many, word games for some.

It's fine to say that the recession is over — technically. But it won't be over for the unemployed until they have jobs.

And it's fine to say that America is winding down its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that won't be a reality until sometime next year.

This may not be what Obama had in mind when he decided to seek the presidency. But it is what must be confronted.

Now.

A Fool's Paradise

---

"A national survey of jobless workers by a pair of professors at Rutgers University shows just how traumatized the work force has become in this downturn. Two–thirds of respondents said that they had become depressed. More than half said it was the first time they had ever lost a job, and 80 percent said there was little or no chance that they would be able to get their jobs back when the economy improves.

"The 1,200 respondents were jobless at some point over the past year, and most — 894 — are still unemployed. More than half said that they had been forced to borrow money from friends or relatives, and a quarter have missed their mortgage or rent payments.

"The survey found that affluent, well–educated workers, who had traditionally been able to withstand a downturn in reasonably good shape, were being hit hard this time around."

Bob Herbert
New York Times

---

On Sunday, I wrote about Maureen Dowd's New York Times column that spoke of her grudging acknowledgement that racism still exists in America, sparked by Joe Wilson's now famous outburst during Barack Obama's speech to Congress.

I didn't approve of Wilson's outburst, as I wrote last week, but I haven't been the least bit surprised by the reaction from Dowd and others on the left. It reminds me of Claude Rains in "Casablanca."

I'm shocked — shocked! — to find that there is racism here!

As vehemently as they will deny it, the folks on the left have become pretty good at their own version of playing the race card. They've been trying to perfect it for years, and they've been practicing this particular form since it became clear that Obama was a legitimate contender for the Democratic nomination.

Simply put, someone is a racist, in their eyes, if that person asks questions about any of Obama's policy positions.

I'm not saying that justifies shouting "You lie!" during a presidential speech. In fact, given South Carolina's history and the mentality of many of its political leaders, I think it's probably a safe bet that racism plays a role in much of the opposition to Obama in that state.

But I honestly felt that Dowd went too far when she wrote, "[F]air or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!"

I didn't hear that unspoken word. I didn't even think of it until Dowd mentioned it. I did think, as I wrote last week, that Wilson had been discourteous. I defended his right — the same right every American has — to believe what he wanted to believe. But, if he felt absolutely compelled to express it, he picked an unacceptable time and place to do so.

And, if I had been in Wilson's shoes, I think I would have chosen a less confrontational way to express my objection than calling the president a liar.

But perhaps that isn't as out of line as it may seem, considering the current political climate.

Those on the left seem to believe that they are so obviously correct on every issue — perhaps because they believe (and, more importantly, many in the center and even some on the right also appeared to believe on Election Day) that George W. Bush's policies were so obviously proven to be wrong — that anyone who disagrees or has questions must be motivated by something else.

This prospect seems to be causing considerable angst among those who apparently believed that the election of a black president was proof beyond any doubt that racism had been overcome and that we were living in a post–racial society.

Rubbish.

You know what this reminds me of?

This actually happened. It involved what is probably my favorite book in the world. But I know that a lot of people don't read much anymore so, if it makes it more relevant to you, as you read this, mentally substitute your favorite movie or your favorite TV show or your favorite CD. Something you love with all your heart.

My story involves the book "Advise and Consent," a Pulitzer Prize–winning political novel written by Allen Drury. My mother introduced me to it when I was a teenager. I was so taken with it that I went on to read the five sequels he wrote and about half a dozen additional books he authored as well.

Anyway, I had this friend, and I wanted to share this book with him. I know, not everyone likes political novels, but this guy had shown an interest in more contemporary works in that genre, and I thought this was something special. I thought he would appreciate it as much as I did, that it might be something that we could bond over.

To my great shock, he didn't care for it. There were a number of reasons why he didn't care for it. In hindsight, I appreciate his honesty. But, at the time, I admit, I was sad. I felt let down. In an odd kind of way, I felt rejected.

In most instances, I think, the initial reaction would be to take steps to protect yourself psychologically. You might say to yourself something like, "He doesn't know a good book when he reads one, after all!" But you reassure yourself that you have exquisite taste. And that makes you feel better. You are clearly right. And anyone who disagrees, to whatever extent, is clearly wrong.

The same thing, I think, is applicable to the attitude many people have about Obama. Some people just don't like him or what he stands for or what they think he's trying to change. As Americans, they are entitled to their opinion. You may think they are wrong, but they are entitled to be wrong.

But that won't suffice for people who have invested heavily of their emotions in the success of the Obama presidency. Their book has been rejected, the one they love with all their hearts. More than that. It's the greatest book ever written. A negative response is a rejection of not just Obama but also the relationship his supporters have with him.

Because what has been rejected means so much to them, they must find a way to explain the negative reaction. Is it enough to say that rejecting any of Obama's policies is evil or stupid? No. This transgression is so bad, such a betrayal, that the only way to explain it is to label it racism.

I guess it is the only way to explain why anyone couldn't love the president they love so much. They can't understand the beliefs or the fears that others have. Therefore, they must be racists. It makes Obama's supporters feel better.

But it doesn't make it so.

I have frequently criticized Obama for not doing more to encourage job creation. Because I have written this sort of thing many times, I have been accused of racism by some of my friends on the left. Well, today I noticed that Bob Herbert, a black columnist for the New York Times, complained that Obama "took a bit of a victory lap on Wall Street" yesterday, on the anniversary of the Lehman Brothers "implosion," and reminded him how much remains to be done.

"We're hurtin' and there ain't much healin' on the horizon," he wrote.

"It's eerie to me how little attention this crisis is receiving. The poor seem to be completely out of the picture. ... The recession may be ending for some. Tell that to the unemployed."

Now, if I had written what Herbert wrote, would I have been accused of racism? Probably. But, because Herbert is black, will he be given a pass? And, if he is, isn't that an example of reverse racism?

Absence of Logic

When I was in college, I was required to take a course called "Logic."

I was a teenager from a small town (well, it was small, at the time — it is larger now) in Arkansas. I didn't realize that logic was something that was studied in a class. I thought it was something that was applied as a result of accumulated life experiences, something along the line of "if you go out in the rain and you don't wear a raincoat or use an umbrella, you will get wet."

There is a certain amount of truth in that, but I discovered that there is more to it, a lot more. As the class progressed, and even in the years since I took that class, I came to regard it as the study of the application of absolutes. I know I'm oversimplifying here, but within all the talk of validity and fallacies and empiricism, it still came down to things like this:

• All A are B.


• All B are C.


• If all A are B and all B are C, then all A are C.

The truth of that conclusion depends on the values that are given to A, B and C. For example, if A represents turkeys and B represents birds and C represents the ability to fly, we can argue, logically, that

• all turkeys are birds, which is true, and


• all birds can fly, which is not true, then


• all turkeys can fly, which definitely is not true.

Anyway, I've been thinking about logic today after reading Maureen Dowd's column in the New York Times.

Dowd was one of the first to climb aboard the Barack Obama bandwagon. I remember, in 2006, the year before Obama announced his candidacy (when everyone, it seemed, assumed Hillary Clinton would be the 2008 Democratic nominee), Dowd covered an Obama speaking engagement and, with an open microphone nearby, made a comment about the size of his ears. Obama told her that he had been sensitive about the size of his ears since his childhood, when other kids teased him. Dowd replied that she was trying to "toughen you up."

It seems to me that Dowd needed some toughening up as well. But, apparently, she didn't get it because, today, she suggests that racism is at the heart of Obama's problems with enacting his agenda.

"I've been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer ... had much to do with race. I tended to agree with some Obama advisers that Democratic presidents typically have provoked a frothing response from paranoids," she writes. "But [Joe] Wilson's shocking disrespect for the office of the president ... convinced me: Some people just can't believe a black man is president and will never accept it."

Dowd concedes that she reached this conclusion based on a word that was never uttered when Wilson shouted "You lie!" during Obama's speech to Congress.

"[F]air or not," she writes, "what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!"

From that, she determined that racism — gasp! — did not disappear when Obama was elected last November.

My goodness, what will she debunk in her next column — the myth of Santa Claus' existence, perhaps?

Well, in fairness to Dowd, a lot of people seemed to think that the election signaled the end of racism in America. I don't know what was behind this logic. Was it because of Obama's gift for public speaking? Was it because he possessed an easy and reassuring smile, an athletic build, a nonthreatening manner? I don't know. But I never bought into the utopian notion. And, now, many people seem to be disappointed that the "post–racial America" has not emerged.

Why is that?

I grew up in the South. I lived through a period of phenomenal change in racial attitudes. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the South of today is different, more enlightened — in many ways — than the South of my childhood so I know that change is possible. When I was growing up, I knew that, one day, it would come to pass that a black man could run for president and the color of his skin would not be a factor.

(And, in fact, Obama's race was rarely mentioned in the general election campaign, but that had a lot to do with the economic meltdown.)

But never for a minute did I believe that the first black president (or the first female president) would be able to overcome generations of apprehension and distrust. It will take a series of such leaders, each building on and expanding the work of those who came before, to accomplish that.

Jackie Robinson would have been quick to tell you that the first of anything is precisely that — the first. Not necessarily the best or the most influential. When Robinson broke baseball's color barrier, he made it possible for others to achieve great things. He made it possible for first Hank Aaron and then Barry Bonds to become the all–time leader in home runs.

When Hattie McDaniel broke the color barrier at the Oscars by winning best supporting actress for her performance as Mammy in "Gone With the Wind," she made it possible for other talented black actresses — Cicely Tyson, Diana Ross, Diahann Carroll, Whoopi Goldberg, Angela Bassett, Halle Berry, Alfre Woodard, Margaret Avery and Oprah Winfrey — and black actors — Sidney Poitier, James Earl Jones, Paul Winfield, Denzel Washington, Laurence Fishburne, Morgan Freeman, Will Smith, Jamie Foxx, Don Cheadle, Howard Rollins and Cuba Gooding Jr. — to be nominated.

In the years after McDaniel won her Oscar, most black nominees did not win. But, eventually, some of them did.

Obama is a trailblazer, the first black president. Whether he wins a second term, whether the candidates in his party can succeed without him at the top of the ticket in the midterm elections are the kinds of challenges every first–term president must face. Obama's task is complicated by both the severity of the problems he inherited and the fact that everything he does is evaluated under a different microscope than the one that was used for his predecessors.

Perhaps that was the main lesson I learned when I was growing up — that laws may be changed by a single legislative roll call and the stroke of a pen, but changing attitudes takes time. In some cases, it takes a lot of time.

To believe otherwise simply defies logic.

Smoke Gets in Your Eyes

I've come to a conclusion today.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is blinded by her adoration for Barack Obama. And that colors (if you'll pardon the expression) how she feels about everything else.

I will admit, there was a time when I was a regular reader of Dowd's columns. In addition to agreeing with many of the things she said, I admired her way with words. But I've felt myself growing more distant from her in the last couple of years, and I have wondered why that was so.

Today's column brought a lot of things into focus for me.

In that column, she writes critically of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's apparent infidelities. This is not a new topic for her. She has written similarly critical columns about Democrats Bill Clinton and John Edwards, but Republicans have not been left out. On the eve of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, she obsessed about John McCain's "dalliances" that led to the breakup of his first marriage — and I presume she will write about John Ensign, too, when she gets around to it. And she'll probably have something to say about Mark Sanford after she's had a chance to absorb the news.

In fact, based on some of the things she wrote about President Clinton, I really thought she would be a supporter of Hillary Clinton during last year's campaign — if only out of sympathy. But she pretty much disabused me of that notion long before she wrote about a "duel of historical guilts" between misogyny and racism around the time of last year's Texas primaries.

Now, in case I haven't made this point clear in my previous writings, I don't approve of anyone, male or female, cheating on a spouse. I believe marriage is a commitment, and I was brought up to believe that you honor your commitments. In fact, it is for that reason that I have supported proponents of same–sex marriage. I am not gay, but I do not believe that two people who want to make a public commitment to each other should be prevented from doing so.

I believe that people who are in the public eye have a responsibility to set a good example. I don't believe that responsibility is confined to the bedroom. I'm not so sure how Dowd feels about it.

Dowd apparently watched Obama's press conference yesterday. She may have been one of the reporters who was there. I don't know. I didn't see her there, but that doesn't mean she wasn't there.

For that matter, she may well have been on hand when Obama signed the tobacco bill into law on Monday.

Whether she was or not, she seems far too eager, in today's column, to give Obama a free pass on smoking.

"Sneaking a smoke now and again is not the worst presidential flaw imaginable," she writes. (I think I can guess, from reading her column over the years, what she does think is the worst presidential flaw imaginable. If infidelity isn't at the top of her list, my guess is that appearing to be weak and indecisive might be, and I'm sure there are those who would agree.)

She goes on to make observations like this: Obama is "positively monkish" compared to Berlusconi. What does the word "monkish" imply to you?

Then, after reciting Berlusconi's transgressions at length, she writes that she finds it "interesting" that Obama, with his "daunting discipline," is unable to "apply his willpower to cigarettes."

She proceeds to turn the rest of her column into a defense of Obama's style. She never takes him to task for the mixed signals he sends to "the next generation of kids" that both Obama and Dowd insist the legislation is designed to help.

Perhaps that is because she fails to recognize that her own language belittles the effort it takes to quit smoking. She falls back on the word "willpower," which tends to imply that anyone who is unable to give up smoking lacks discipline or self–control.

"Willpower," to me, is as misleading, when one is discussing smoking, as the word "habit." Nicotine, as Dowd's own New York Times has been telling people for more than two decades, is tougher to shake than "heroin, cocaine or amphetamines, and for most people more addictive than alcohol."

"Addiction" is the appropriate word. How else can you explain why millions of Americans continue to smoke in spite of the clear evidence of the death and disease smoking causes?

For many people, giving up smoking may require someone's help. It may require medication. It is not simply a bad habit that can be broken by the sheer force of "willpower." It is not a moral shortcoming.

The tobacco companies have known this for a long time. It is why they manipulated the nicotine content in their products.

One of the things this new law is designed to do is allow the feds to monitor the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. That's good, but it isn't enough to deter young would–be smokers.

When I began smoking as a teenager, I didn't read the warning labels on cigarette packages. Tobacco companies might have been manipulating nicotine in those days as well. I don't know. I didn't check whatever such information was printed on cigarette packages when I was in high school.

But I did observe what the adults — the famous and the ordinary — said and did.

What's the message that Barack Obama is sending to the young people he would like to discourage from smoking when he calls himself a "former smoker," yet admits he still smokes from time to time?

Because I have been what I call a "recovering smoker" for more than two years, some of my friends who are trying to shake their addictions have sought my advice. A friend of mine, who lives in another state, called me a few weeks ago to tell me she had gone a month without smoking. I congratulated her, but I knew from experience that it wasn't over.

And it wasn't. About a week later, she sent me an e–mail telling me that she had been on vacation for a week. She visited a cousin who, unaware that she was giving up tobacco, had purchased a carton of cigarettes for her before her arrival.

"I only smoked a couple each day," she said, apparently proud of her "accomplishment." Sorry, but, if you smoked at all, you're still a smoker.

Smokers have a way of rationalizing these things. And that's what Obama is doing when he claims to be a former smoker but he admits that he still smokes from time to time. He rationalizes it by telling people that he doesn't smoke every day, that he doesn't chain smoke.

Mr. President, this isn't about volume or frequency.

The truth is, you aren't an ex–smoker until you've purged your body of nicotine completely. And, even if you do that, you may prefer to continue to think of yourself as a "recovering smoker," as I do. As I wrote yesterday, asserting that you are a former smoker implies that you believe you have won the struggle with tobacco.

I respect this adversary far too much to assume that.

And, for Ms. Dowd's benefit, what does it say about Obama's marital commitment? Before he entered the 2008 presidential race, he made a deal with his wife. In exchange for her support for his decision to run, he would give up smoking.

Obama announced his candidacy on Feb. 10, 2007. That was more than 28 months ago. His wife held up her end of the bargain. Has Obama held up his?

Infidelity isn't the only way someone can betray a spouse's trust.

Blaming Bush

I think the first time I was exposed to the word "scapegoat" was during the Watergate scandal. Former White House lawyer John Dean claimed he was being made the scapegoat for Richard Nixon's woes.

I didn't know what the word meant. The Random House Dictionary sheds some light on that, telling us that the word "scapegoat" means "a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place."

Apparently, the word has biblical origins. Leviticus, in the Old Testament, describes the ritual. As a part of Yom Kippur ceremonies, a goat was driven into the wilderness to die, symbolically carrying the sins of the people on its back.

Christian theology sees the story of the scapegoat as the foreshadowing of the story of Jesus and his sacrifice for humanity.

I don't know about that. In my life, most of the scapegoats I've known of were athletes who, fairly or unfairly, were blamed for their teams' failures — Bill Buckner, whose error was said to cost the Boston Red Sox the 1986 World Series against the New York Mets, or Scott Norwood, whose missed field goal led to the first of four consecutive Super Bowl defeats for the Buffalo Bills.

A far more serious example of scapegoating occurred before I was born — when Nazi propaganda blamed the Jews for Germany's problems after World War I.

I guess it is a tendency of human nature to look for someone to blame when things go wrong. Perhaps that is why Barack Obama has insisted that Americans should look to the future and not look back as they seek to deal with the many problems facing the nation and the world. It is a sentiment I agree with, to a certain extent, although I still believe, as I have written on this blog before, that Congress should investigate the decisions that were made that led to the invasion of Iraq and the use of torture techniques in affiliated interrogations.

I have advocated such an investigation not because I want to punish anyone (notably the former president and vice president) but because there are lessons to be learned from how those decisions were made, and I believe we can benefit from that knowledge.

But, lately, I've been sensing a real bloodlust on the part of the public, and the previous administration is at the heart of it. As I have pointed out on many occasions, I am a Democrat, and I was never a Bush–Cheney supporter. But, as I have also stated in this blog, economies are massive, complex things. Presidents can give direction from the bully pulpit, but it is unfair and inappropriate to give them excessive credit or blame for the millions of decisions that business owners must make.

And the same thing applies to the people in their administrations.

But some people are adamant about finding someone to blame.

For example, I was looking at the New York Times' website today. For the third straight time, Maureen Dowd wrote a column about former Vice President Dick Cheney. Granted, Cheney's activities recently have been unseemly, to say the least, for a former vice president, but Dowd's columns seem to be particularly vitriolic.

Dowd made no secret of her support for Obama during the campaign, even before Obama's bid for the nomination took hold with the rank and file. Well, Dowd's candidate won, and Cheney's out of office now. Cheney may be in the spotlight by his own choice, but he has no authority to speak of. It seems, to me, that it would be a good idea for Dowd to ease up now.

Dowd isn't the only one, though. On Facebook lately, members have had the option of joining a group that constantly urges people to revel in "not having George Bush as president." Recently, this group has been encouraging people to celebrate the six–month anniversary of the end of the Bush presidency on July 20. From this group's perspective, I suppose it would be expected that parties on that date — which also happens to be the 40th anniversary of the first walk on the moon — would include piñatas in the shape of Bush and Cheney's heads.

More recently, this group has been polling people, asking them whether they would prefer to have Bush back as president ... or be impaled. The latest "results" I saw indicated that 225,000 people would rather be impaled while about 1,000 would opt to have Bush back in the White House.

Talk about a push poll.

Actually, I suspect the results would be different if the choices were real rather than hypothetical.

I understand the temptation to hold Bush and Cheney responsible for all the problems America must deal with now. And, even with all the things that are on the current administration's plate, I still believe there are valuable lessons to be learned from how the previous administration made decisions that determined how foreign policy was conducted, especially regarding how a war was launched.

But some of these other things seem counterproductive to me. They may be psychologically satisfying, but they do little, if anything, to help us find our way out of this wilderness.

The Balance of Power

Last week, as the Obama administration marked its 100th day with bunches of people awarding the president high grades, and Arlen Specter left the Republicans, it dawned on me that national politics really does resemble a poker game.

Mind you, I wasn't a great poker player when I played. But I did learn a few things — particularly about wagering and bluffing.

In the aftermath of Specter's switch to the Democratic Party, I've been seeing a lot of articles discussing the need for checks and balances — even articles by those who supported Barack Obama and the Democrats in 2008.

Specter's defection seems to elicit mixed reactions. As I wrote earlier this week, Specter, along with Al Franken finally becoming the senator from Minnesota, should be welcome news for Democrats. Technically, it will give them a "filibuster–proof" 60–seat majority — assuming, of course, that they can keep all the members of their caucus in line.

Of course, that is the tricky part for Democrats. It wasn't too difficult for Republicans, when George W. Bush occupied the Oval Office and Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress.

But the tide has turned. And Democrats have always been — dare I use the word? — mavericks. They couldn't work together when Bill Clinton took office, and it cost them control of Congress for more than a decade. They couldn't work together when Jimmy Carter took office with his party holding that "filibuster–proof" majority in the Senate, and control of that chamber flipped to the Republicans four years later.

And with a membership that includes two senators who are independents and one who, until a few days ago, had been a Republican for more than 40 years, it doesn't seem likely to me the majority will demonstrate the kind of unity of purpose their Republican colleagues displayed when they controlled the chamber — but if they stick together, they probably can bring some items to a vote that might not otherwise reach that point.

Does that mean they will be able to pass whatever they wish? Hmmmm, that's another matter.

I think it's dawning on some people that Specter will not be a garden–variety Democrat. "In the four whole days he's been a Democrat," writes Steve Benen for the moderate–to–liberal Washington Monthly, "Specter has voted against the Democratic budget, rejected a Democratic measure to help prevent mortgage foreclosures and preserve home values, announced his opposition to the president's OLC nominee, and this morning rejected a key centerpiece of the Democratic health care plan."

Even when they are of the long–term variety, though, Democrats may have a certain kind of discipline, but their DNA simply does not seem to permit the brand of discipline that made the Republicans work together.

Considering the harvest the nation has reaped from that experience, perhaps that is a good thing. But Democrats who are dreaming of unlimited legislative possibilities need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Maureen Dowd writes, in the New York Times, about the corrosive effect of power on national character. That's a serious concern — even if, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, Dowd tsk–tsks about the Republicans' "quaint" interest in checks and balances.

I don't think it's quaint at all. I think it's a legitimate worry, no matter which party holds the balance of power.

The absence of any dissenting views among the Republicans during the years they controlled everything meant that virtually nothing was discussed as completely as it needed to be. As a result, legislation like the "Patriot Act" sailed through unquestioned, and policies permitting "waterboarding" were allowed to run rampant.

But I have my doubts about whether Democrats will have a blank check to enact all the items on their wish list. What's more, I wonder if it's a good idea for any political party to have this kind of unrestricted power.

Which sort of leads me into Frank Rich's column in the New York Times about last week's hoopla surrounding Obama's first 100 days in office.

Now, let me be clear about something. In spite of what some Democrats have said to me, I do not consider myself one of the "Limbaugh–Cheney deadenders who loathe Obama" to whom Rich refers.

Yes, I am a Democrat. I consider myself a centrist — always have. I tend to reject the labels of "left" and "right." I feel I am both and, at the same time, neither.

In fact, one of the few times I found myself agreeing with Ronald Reagan was on the occasion in 1984 when he gave his acceptance speech when he was nominated for a second term by the Republican National Convention:

---

"For some time now we've all fallen into a pattern of describing our choice as left or right. ... But is that really an accurate description of the choice before us? Go back a few years to the origin of the terms and see where left or right would take us if we continued far enough in either direction. Stalin. Hitler. One would take us to Communist totalitarianism; the other to the totalitarianism of Hitler. Isn't our choice really not one of left or right, but of up or down?"

---

Well, that was Reagan's spin on it.

My spin is a little different. I consider myself an American. No matter who is president, there are times when I agree with that person. And there are times when I disagree.

I disagreed with George W. Bush far more often than I agreed with him. But I don't automatically agree with Obama simply because we have the same party affiliation.

I give Obama credit for acknowledging the existence of people like me within his party. "I've got Democrats who don't agree with me on everything," he said. "And that's how it should be."

Indeed, it is. But that could mean a lot of things. On one hand, I'm glad the Democratic Party is represented by a diverse variety of thinkers and that Obama recognizes it. On the other hand, I wonder if Obama is, for his own reasons, attempting to achieve "bipartisanship" within his own party — or if he wants the rest of us to think that's what he's trying to do.

On still another hand (and, yes, I do feel like Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof"), I wonder if it comes as a genuine shock to Obama that not everyone in his party has fallen in love with him and will scarf down the Kool–Aid on command.

And I was troubled by the glowing marks being given to Obama for his first 100 days in office.

I'm not that extreme, but neither am I as extreme as the people to whom Rich refers when he writes about those who have a "very negative" opinion of the president. Nor am I among those who are "angry" with him.

But I am worried, and the "rah–rah" stuff made me uneasy. Even Rich admits that the high grades being given to Obama were "ludicrously provisional."

In my experience, government works best when one party controls the executive branch and the other party controls the legislative branch. When given complete control of both branches, both parties will overspend. They just overspend on different things.

When Sen. Jim Jeffords left the GOP early in 2001 and became an independent who caucused with the Democrats, he gave the Democrats control of that chamber until the Republicans won enough seats to reclaim it in the midterm elections. For those 1½ years, I felt Congress was more responsive and more efficient than it was until after the midterm elections of 2006, when Democrats seized control.

The Republicans did not reassure me that single–party control was a good thing. But the pendulum has swung to the other side instead of finding a happy medium.

So now it's the task of the Democrats to prove that they can govern more wisely and more efficiently than their Republican counterparts did. And history raises more than a few doubts that the Democrats will be able to get their act together often enough to govern effectively.

One hundred days simply was not enough time to prove that, even though it seemed to me that most people were eager to proclaim their reign a success, anyway.

After only three months, if the claim is going to be made that a president — any president — has exceeded expectations, I'm going to need some proof.

I don't think three months is long enough, especially in the middle of a recession. But, in this poker game, if the Democrats are going raise the wager, I'm going to call.

They might be bluffing.

The Winter (and Spring) of Our Discontent

He hasn't even reached that mythical 100–day mark in his administration, but there are signs that the "honeymoon" may be over for Barack Obama.

On a personal level, Obama still seems to be popular with the voters — his latest job approval figures range from the mid-50s (Rasmussen) to the mid-60s (CNN/Opinion Research). But his policies? Not so much.

Most of the mutterings I've read lately have been coming from abroad. For example, David Warren writes in the Ottawa Citizen that, while the majority of Americans voted for Obama last November, they did not endorse his policies.

"[T]hey wanted Obama the man, but not Obama the agenda, except for the uplifting rhetorical bits about 'hope,' 'change,' and so forth," writes Warren. "The idea that the man could not be separated from the agenda never fully fixed."

I'm inclined to agree with that, as well as Warren's assertion that Obama "was perfectly sincere in denying that he was [an ideologue], and in claiming that he would be looking for bipartisan consensus."

And, Warren continues, "I also think he is sincere in proceeding with an agenda ... that leaves most Republicans, and quite a few of the more conservative Democrats, utterly aghast."

Warren is skeptical that there will be a second term for Obama. "Sixty days into his first term (and I begin to doubt there'll be a second), he would seem already to have dug a hole from which no rhetorical skill can lift him."

It may be a little premature to be wondering about the prospects for a second term, but it isn't too early to assess the Democratic Party's chances in the 2010 midterm elections. And that's a subject Charlie Cook has been examining in the National Journal.

"Republicans have pulled even with Democrats on the generic congressional ballot test," Cook reports, citing findings from Democratic pollster Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and Republican pollster Public Opinion Strategies. The key to this good news for the GOP seems to be independent voters. As Cook writes, "[V]oters who call themselves independents gave GOP candidates the edge by 14 points, 38 percent to 24 percent."

Cook's analysis of the poll results is worth reading in full, but I find it hard to argue with his conclusion that "although Republicans still 'have their work cut out for them,' the public doesn't want to give President Obama and the Democrats in Congress a blank check."

From "across the pond," as they say in England, The Guardian urges people to give Obama some time. It has been suggested, The Guardian writes, that Obama "may be less the new Abraham Lincoln or the new Franklin Roosevelt than the new Jimmy Carter."

That seems a little unfair to me, although Obama, like Carter, is an intelligent, well-educated man who may be replicating Carter's mistake of trying to do too much at once.

"According to this arresting but surely premature argument, Mr. Obama is making Mr. Carter's mistake of giving too much priority to pushing a new social agenda and is not focusing enough on trying to fix the economy," writes The Guardian.

Much of the response from abroad appears to stem from Obama's decision to send a video message to Iran — which, I suppose, only invites comparisons to Carter, whose downfall was brought about, in large part, because of the American hostages in that country. However, as The Guardian observes, "Mr. Obama was smart enough to couch his message in cultural, rather than explicitly political, terms."

In the end, The Guardian counsels, "Mr. Obama gets some things wrong. But he is doing the big things right. Give him time."

Domestically, Obama seems to have kept most of his defenders, but their ranks are diminishing.

Perhaps one of the best examples of that is Maureen Dowd, who writes in today's New York Times about Michelle Obama's new vegetable garden on the White House lawn — and her promise that everyone in the family, including her husband, will pull weeds "whether they like it or not."

Dowd, who made no secret of her support for Obama even before he announced his candidacy, observed that the scene "left me wondering if the wrong Obama is in the Oval."

As Dowd puts it, "It's a time in America's history where we need less smooth jazz and more martial brass."

And she suggests that Obama may have "lost touch with his hole–in–the–shoe, hole–in–the–Datsun, have–not roots."

When I was a teenager in the 1970s, the economy went through some rough patches, although they certainly weren't as dire as the circumstances we face today.

Some friends of my parents owned some land in the country where they kept some livestock and a stock pond filled with fish. They made available part of their land for their friends to use for vegetable gardens to help them save money on their food bills, and my parents took them up on the offer.

For a few years, we consumed our homegrown vegetables exclusively (I was particularly fond of our turnip greens, tomatoes and corn on the cob).

And I found that weeding our garden, from time to time, gave me an opportunity to think through all sorts of things that I had been finding puzzling. Spending time in the garden like that, where it was peaceful and quiet (except for a bird's occasional burst into song), had an invigorating quality.

Perhaps the president could re–discover his roots if he put on an old pair of jeans and took a trowel out to Michelle's garden for a few hours.