AAC Blog

Why History Can't Wait http://www.time.com/time/specials/2008/personoftheyear/article/0,31682,1861543_1865068,00.html Obama named 'Person of the Year' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7787887.stm Obama: Time's Person of the Year http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008533322_obamadig18.html Obama named TIME’s 2008 Person of the Year First black U.S. president trumps Clinton, Palin, Paulson, Phelps and others http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28271716/ Obama: Time's "Person of the Year" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/obama-times-person-of-the_n_151672.html Time Cover Sure Looks a Lot Like a Campaign Image http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/22/business/media/22time.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Obama inspires a national naming craze and a holiday http://www.andhranews.net/Intl/2008/December/5/Obama-inspires-77412.asp US President-elect Barack Obama has yet to take office, but his candidacy has generated a national naming craze and a holiday in one Alabama county. Washington, Dec.5 : US President-elect Barack Obama has yet to take office, but his candidacy has generated a national naming craze and a holiday in one Alabama county. In his 2004 keynote address at the Democratic Convention, Obama had called himself a "skinny kid with a funny name." Now, four years later, that funny name is appearing on public buildings and birth certificates, reports Fox News. It's not unusual for senior lawmakers in Congress to have buildings named after them back home, on account of the money they bring back to their districts. But Obama, who will not assume the presidency until January 20, is the first living politician to have a holiday declared in his name. Two weeks ago, Perry County in Alabama approved a paid holiday, on which public employees will celebrate the historic nature of his victory as the first African-American president. In Alabama, the county-wide holiday -- known as "The Barack Obama Day" -- will be observed on the second Monday in November and will require that all county offices -- as well as public schools -- be closed. "In America, we celebrate historic events with holidays," said Commissioner Albert Turner Jr., who was the sponsor of the resolution passed in a 4-1 vote by the Perry County Commission. American flags will be flown on The Barack Obama Day, Turner said, and the Perry County Civic League will hold a "unity breakfast" to bring together people of "all races and nationalities." "Never again will this event occur in which a person of African-American descent will be the first African-American to assume the office," Turner told FOX News. Obama also has inspired the Ludlum Elementary School in Hempstead, N.Y., to change its name to Barack Obama Elementary School. School officials say the idea originated with the school's 466 students, the majority of whom are black or Hispanic. Another school, in Portland, Oregon, has also changed its name to Obama. And the prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda said he has considered changing the name of its highest mountain -- Boggy Peak -- to Mount Obama. A couple in Florida was the first to give the president-elect's name to their child -- Sanjae Obama Fisher -- but before Obama had won the presidency. In response to criticism that Obama has not assumed office yet and hasn't had a chance to follow through on any campaign promises, Turner said, "He has done something. He won the election. Regardless of how his presidency goes, we're not celebrating his presidency. We're celebrating the event that put him there." "I don't care what he does. He can't do worse than what Bush has done," Turner said. He added: "I'm hoping his administration won't let America down."

Students can't talk about President-Elect Obama http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=9315082&nav=2CSf By Julie Straw PEARL, MS (WLBT) - Teachers are prohibiting students from talking about President-Elect Barack Obama. WLBT's newsroom has been flooded by calls and emails from angry parents in several cities. These parents say their children were threatened with suspension if they said Obama's name or wore clothing that supports him. A historic presidential election leading to the appointment of the United State's first African American President Barack Obama has everyone talking, but students at some Mississippi schools are being prohibited from doing just that. "It's like they've taken their rights way," said Natalie Taylor. She decided not to show her face because she is afraid of retaliation against her son who attends Pearl Junior High School. "He told me he was warned by one of the teachers before school started that he could not mention the name because he would get in trouble," said Taylor. Taylor's calls to the school principal have gone unanswered. "I thought Mississippi had come a long way and for this to happen? It is unbelievable," added Taylor. We received this statement from Superintendent John Ladner; "As adults and professionals we are not going to deprive anyone of their excitement over the current election of President-Elect Obama, or any other candidate. The whole nation was excited, and in no way and at no time will children be disciplined for saying the name of the President-Elect of the United States. Any employee who would attempt to do that would be corrected and disciplined. We expect professional behavior, respect and demeanor of staff and students. It is unfortunate that some employees mishandled this situation, but they have been disciplined and I have spent the day clarifying our policies." "Racism at its best, that's really what it is," said Paula Loften of Magee. She has two children in the Simpson County School District in Magee. She is angry that students are not allowed to wear any clothing that supports the new President-Elect. "One student was sent home to change because she had on a Barack Obama T-shirt and on the back it said "yes we can," said Loten. Magee High School teachers read a memorandum in class the day after the election. It stated, "Seeing history in the making and being a part of that process is a wonderful thing. Many of you are excited because of this. Others are not. It is absolutely critical that we not use this election as a divisive event. We should respect one another by not saying or doing things in the wrong way that would take away from this historical event and possibly cause a disruption here at school. Celebrations at school that cause disruptions are not acceptable and against the law therefore, this should not occur. Please by mindful of this and respect one another regardless of differences in opinion." Simpson County school officials say a disruption on campus led to the statement. The American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi is also expressing concern over violations of students' ffree speech. The ACLU is encouraging students and parents to contact the group if they are subjected to or witness any form of restrictions on speech, discipline, or santions in response to protected speech activities. Call (601) 354-3408 or 888-354-ACLU (2258).

Economic upheaval creates virtual parallel presidency http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-te.twofer26nov28,0,3041483.story Obama grabs mantle of national leadership in unprecedented ways By Paul West WASHINGTON - President-elect Barack Obama is grabbing the mantle of national leadership in unprecedented ways, creating what has emerged as a virtual parallel presidency just three weeks after his election. Obama indicated this week that he felt he had no choice. During one of three nationally televised events on the economy in as many days, he said "extraordinary circumstances" had forced his hand. His actions have drawn the attention of the public, the news media and financial markets, which appear to be responding at least as much to the decisions of the incoming administration as to the one still in power. Since Obama began to reveal the members of his economic team last week, the stock market has rallied by about 15 percent. The Dow Jones industrial average closed up a fourth day in a row Wednesday for the first time since May. Obama is attempting to reassure a country struggling with the worst economic downturn in decades that "we don't intend to stumble into the next administration," he said. "People should understand that help is on the way," he said Wednesday in announcing the creation of an Economic Recovery Advisory Board to be led by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul A. Volcker. Since late last week, Obama's statements and public appearances have been designed to fill a leadership vacuum and generate public confidence in his abilities as a crisis manager. The moves represent an abrupt shift from a hands-off approach he had announced two weeks earlier. "It's rather like George Bush has checked out, and if Obama doesn't take more drastic action than he originally promised, he gets blamed for whatever happens," said Paul Light, a New York University professor who specializes in presidential transitions. New presidents "have tried to stay away from the outgoing administration's policies as much as possible," Light added. "They want to start with a clean slate, and Obama is clearly not starting with a clean slate." Obama's early focus on the economy, the most difficult issue he is likely to face when he takes office, comes with an unusual twist. His Treasury secretary-designate, Timothy Geithner, is also a high-level player in the Bush administration's financial-rescue deliberations, as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. That gives the incoming administration a rare opportunity to participate directly in the current government's decisions. Because Geithner has a seat at the table, "this is not an entirely arms-length transaction" between the Bush and Obama teams, said William Galston, a Clinton White House domestic policy adviser. "This is a complicated and somewhat murky area, and the president-elect is going to have to proceed deliberately. But that seems second nature to him." Also blurring the line: Obama's widely reported intention to keep Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in office to oversee U.S. military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama began shifting to a take-charge approach last weekend, when he announced a plan for creating 2.5 million jobs. This week, he indicated that he is preparing a major economic stimulus package that the new Congress, which takes office in early January, could act on even before he is sworn in as president. On Tuesday, he plans to meet with governors of both parties in Philadelphia to discuss the worsening financial squeeze that most states are experiencing. Obama's leadership efforts provide a counterpoint to those of the current administration, which has nearly two months left. Treasury Secretary Henry M Paulson Jr. has largely been the face of the Bush response to the economic crisis, and Bush's efforts to spur public confidence in his ability to deal with the crisis have been notably unproductive. Bush said this week that there was close cooperation between his administration and his successor's and that he was keeping Obama informed of any big decisions he makes. While Obama was introducing the latest members of his economic team in Chicago this week, Bush was on a pre-Thanksgiving holiday visit to an Army base in Kentucky. Two days ago, Bush altered his schedule to let Obama's economic announcement take precedence over his ceremonial pardoning of a turkey at the White House. Obama had hoped to remain in the background during the transition. In his first postelection news conference, he emphasized that the United States has only one president, a ritualistic statement widely applauded as appropriate for a newly elected president. Obama repeated the axiom this week, after a reporter asked him to square his recent high-profile approach with his earlier remark. Referring to himself in the third person, Obama said it was "important, given the uncertainty in the markets and given the very legitimate anxiety that the American people are feeling, that they know that their new president has a plan and is going to act swiftly and boldly." Many, including members of the incoming and outgoing administrations, have likened the current economic upheaval to the plight that Franklin D. Roosevelt faced when took office in the depths of the Great Depression. Roosevelt adopted a strict hands-off approach to the policies of his predecessor, Herbert Hoover, during the transition period. By the time Roosevelt became president, in March, the economic situation had become more dire. The 20th Amendment, drafted largely to shrink the four-month transition to fit modern government needs, advanced the inauguration to Jan. 20, beginning in 1937. The risks for Obama in maintaining a remote stance from the government's actions are complicated by the demands of 24-hour communications worldwide and a tightly woven global financial system. As president-elect, "you continually have to send signals that you know what you're doing," said Martha Kumar, a Towson University professor who directs the scholarly White House Transition Project.

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washigntonpost.com
Friday, November 21, 2008; 12:41 PM

When and if the curtain is fully pulled back on President Bush's "war on terror," how much of what he said will turn out to be true, and how much of it will turn out to be fantasy and lies?

The more we learn, the more it seems the appeals to fear that Bush used to rally the nation behind him were unfounded.

The latest example came yesterday in a federal courtroom in Washington, where a Bush-appointed judge ordered the release of five Algerian men who had been held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp for almost seven years.

The president showcased the men in his seminal, bellicose 2002 State of the Union speech as part of a litany of alleged threats -- some averted, some not -- facing the nation. "Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy," Bush said at the time.

But once detainees were given the right to challenge their detention, the government dropped the embassy allegation.

This was presumably because there was even less evidence to support it than the remaining charges -- which the judge yesterday disclosed consisted of one unsubstantiated allegation by an unnamed source of undetermined credibility.

The Coverage


William Glaberson writes in the New York Times: "A federal judge issued the Bush administration a sharp setback on Thursday, ruling that five Algerian men have been held unlawfully at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp for nearly seven years and ordering their release.

"It was the first hearing on the government's evidence for holding detainees at Guantánamo. The judge, Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court in Washington, said the government's secret evidence in the case had been weak: what he described as 'a classified document from an unnamed source' for its central claim against the men, with little way to measure credibility.

"'To rest on so thin a reed would be inconsistent with this court's obligation,' Judge Leon said."

The men were "among a group of Guantánamo inmates who won a 5-to-4 Supreme Court ruling in June that the detainees had a constitutional right to seek their release in federal court. The decision said a 2006 law unconstitutionally stripped them of their right to contest their imprisonment in habeas corpus lawsuits. . . .

"Robert C. Kirsch, one of the six detainees' lawyers from the law firm Wilmer Hale, said the case showed 'the human cost of what can happen when mistakes are made at the highest levels of our government, and no one has the courage to acknowledge those mistakes.' . . .

"'The decision by Judge Leon lays bare the scandalous basis on which Guantánamo has been based -- slim evidence of dubious quality,' said Zachary Katznelson, legal director at Reprieve, a British legal group that represents detainees."

Del Quentin Wilber writes in The Washington Post: "In an unusual moment, [Leon] also pleaded with Justice Department lawyers not to appeal his order, noting that the men have been imprisoned since shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"'Seven years of waiting for a legal system to give them an answer . . . in my judgment is more than enough,' he said. He urged the government 'to end this process.' . . .

"Legal scholars and lawyers representing detainees said the ruling is the latest setback for the Bush administration's legal battle over the rights of the detainees. Leon, an appointee of President Bush, had been viewed by many as sympathetic to government arguments. He ruled in 2005 that the detainees did not have grounds to contest their detentions in his court. That was the decision the Supreme Court reversed in June.

"'For a judge like Leon to order their release from detention is significant because the government has long maintained the evidence it had was more than sufficient to justify the detentions,' said Scott L. Silliman, a national security law professor at Duke University. 'This is a clear warning shot to the government. . . . These are probably not the last detainees to be ordered released.'"

David G. Savage writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Civil libertarians said Thursday's decision confirmed what the Bush administration's critics had long assumed -- that the cases against the Guantanamo prisoners would not stand up if they were examined by an independent judge.

"'For seven years, the Bush administration sought to avoid the courts because it had no evidence and sought instead to create a lawless prison,' said Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. 'We must note that justice here, however, comes seven years too late.'"

It's also worth noting that just last month, Laura Rozen blogged for Mother Jones about what she called a "potentially explosive" court filing by the lawyers for the Algerians, suggesting "that the Bush administration ordered the Bosnian government to arrest and hold the men after an exhaustive Bosnian investigation had found them innocent of any terrorism related activity and had ordered their release, in order to use them as props in Bush's January 2002 State of the Union speech."

Opinion Watch

Glenn Greenwald blogs for Salon: "The five men ordered released today have been imprisoned in a cage by the Bush administration for 7 straight years without being charged with any crimes and without there being any credible evidence that they did anything wrong. If the members of Congress who voted for the Military Commissions Act had their way.., or if the four Supreme Court Justices in the Boumediene minority had theirs, the Bush administration would nonetheless have been empowered to keep them encaged indefinitely, for the rest of their lives if desired, without ever having to charge them with any crime or allow them to step foot into a courtroom to petition for habeas corpus. "

"Enough," says the Washington Post editorial board. "Judge Leon . . . delivered a forceful indictment of the administration's detention decisions and provided indisputable proof of the importance of allowing federal judges to evaluate the secret evidence the government used to justify detentions. . . .

"[W]hat Judge Leon revealed in his ruling is the utter travesty that is holding people with virtually no evidence -- and certainly no evidence that can reasonably be considered reliable.

By contrast, Benjamin Wittes writes in a Washington Post op-ed that the decision to close Guantanamo shouldn't be made in haste. He says the issues raised are complex and involve a "tension between America's needs and her values." Anyone who doesn't agree, he writes, "does an injustice to the outgoing administration, many current and former members of which have struggled with these questions over seven long years."

And in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Attorney General Michael Mukasey deplores yesterday's verdict, while obliquely suggesting that "lacking clear protections for classified information, we have found at times that we are simply unable to provide our best evidence to the court."

Vacuum of Leadership

Paul Krugman writes in his New York Times opinion column about the "power vacuum" at the height of a serious economic crisis -- the product of an outgoing administration with "no credibility," and incoming administration with "no authority" and an "ideological chasm between the two sides . . . too great to allow concerted action. . . .

"How much can go wrong in the two months before Mr. Obama takes the oath of office? The answer, unfortunately, is: a lot. Consider how much darker the economic picture has grown since the failure of Lehman Brothers, which took place just over two months ago. And the pace of deterioration seems to be accelerating. . . .

"[E]conomic policy, rather than responding to the threat, seems to have gone on vacation. In particular, panic has returned to the credit markets, yet no new rescue plan is in sight. On the contrary, Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary, has announced that he won't even go back to Congress for the second half of the $700 billion already approved for financial bailouts. And financial aid for the beleaguered auto industry is being stalled by a political standoff.


"How much should we worry about what looks like two months of policy drift? At minimum, the next two months will inflict serious pain on hundreds of thousands of Americans, who will lose their jobs, their homes, or both. What's really troubling, however, is the possibility that some of the damage being done right now will be irreversible."

Joe Klein blogs for Time: "The problem is that nothing of significance can or will happen until the new President takes office in January, even though there is -- finally -- a great appetite for action in Washington. This is going to be a very frustrating few months. All of a sudden we understand how our grandparents felt in the winter of 1932-3, waiting for Franklin Roosevelt -- and why the inauguration was moved up from March 4 to January 20 thereafter.

"Barack Obama's desire to keep a low profile while he fleshes out his Administration is understandable, but frustrating all the same. And George W. Bush's blatant diffidence is annoying, too--not that he has even the tiniest shred of credibility left, but it would be nice if he sort of tried to say or do something comforting in these bleak days. Stripped of bluster, he has become a cipher. So we're left with a void at the top at a moment of real national anxiety. History has resumed, but time seems to have frozen to a dead stop. 2009 can't come soon enough."

William Neikirk blogs for Tribune: "The time has come to take another look at the 20th amendment to the U.S. constitution that established Jan. 20 as the date for newly elected presidents to take office.

"President-elect Barack Obama is having to wait more than two months before taking charge as the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression rages. . . .

"Before the 20th amendment was adopted in the 1930s, presidents took office in March. That was clearly too long. Now, in a 24-hour news cycle and a globalized world where communications flash around the planet in seconds, the Jan. 20 date seems obsolete, too."

University of Texas law professor and blogger Sandy Levinson has been making that argument for a while now.

What do you think? What's the optimal amount of time to pass between Election Day and Inauguration Day? And in the meantime, should Bush volunteer to turn over any of his powers to Obama before January 20? Come share your views here. (I've got a new discussion group called White House Watchers.)

Nothing Doing

Jennifer Loven writes for the Associated Press: "The White House says President Bush signed into law a bill that Congress approved to keep unemployment checks flowing to jobless Americans through the holiday season.

"Bush signed the bill at the White House just before boarding Marine I Friday morning for a short trip to Andrews Air Force Base and a flight to Lima, Peru, to attend the 21-nation Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. . . .

"Earlier in the year, Bush expressed doubts about further benefit extensions, but he came to support the legislation as new figures showed new claims for jobless aid had reached a 16-year high."

The Lame Duck Trip

Bush is off to Lima for what could be his final overseas trip as president. Expectations are low.

David Alexander writes for Reuters: "Experts said the meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Lima, Peru, was unlikely to produce any major breakthroughs, but U.S. officials rejected characterization of the session as a swan song for a lame-duck president with low approval ratings.

"'This is a serious meeting,' said Daniel Price, Bush's adviser on international economic affairs, noting that the president's long advocacy of free trade and open markets meshed well with APEC's core mission. 'I don't think this is a farewell . . . but rather an opportunity for the president to continue to carry forward an affirmative agenda.'"

Martin Crutsinger writes for the Associated Press that "the White House insists that it is pursuing the right course and believes that enlisting more countries' endorsement of the G-20 action plan will eventually work at restoring market stability."

State of Denial

Asked about his relations with Latin America in an interview with Peruvian television reporter Raul Tola yesterday, Bush simply denied there were any problems.

Tola: "Sometimes it's said that at the beginning of your administration you were very interested in building up a strong relationship with Latin America, but 9/11 changed the priorities for the United States."

Bush: "Yes."

Tola: "Is it true?"

Nothing Doing

Jennifer Loven writes for the Associated Press: "The White House says President Bush signed into law a bill that Congress approved to keep unemployment checks flowing to jobless Americans through the holiday season.

"Bush signed the bill at the White House just before boarding Marine I Friday morning for a short trip to Andrews Air Force Base and a flight to Lima, Peru, to attend the 21-nation Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. . . .

"Earlier in the year, Bush expressed doubts about further benefit extensions, but he came to support the legislation as new figures showed new claims for jobless aid had reached a 16-year high."

The Lame Duck Trip



Bush is off to Lima for what could be his final overseas trip as president. Expectations are low.

David Alexander writes for Reuters: "Experts said the meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Lima, Peru, was unlikely to produce any major breakthroughs, but U.S. officials rejected characterization of the session as a swan song for a lame-duck president with low approval ratings.

"'This is a serious meeting,' said Daniel Price, Bush's adviser on international economic affairs, noting that the president's long advocacy of free trade and open markets meshed well with APEC's core mission. 'I don't think this is a farewell . . . but rather an opportunity for the president to continue to carry forward an affirmative agenda.'"

Martin Crutsinger writes for the Associated Press that "the White House insists that it is pursuing the right course and believes that enlisting more countries' endorsement of the G-20 action plan will eventually work at restoring market stability."

State of Denial


Asked about his relations with Latin America in an interview with Peruvian television reporter Raul Tola yesterday, Bush simply denied there were any problems.

Tola: "Sometimes it's said that at the beginning of your administration you were very interested in building up a strong relationship with Latin America, but 9/11 changed the priorities for the United States."

Bush: "Yes."

Tola: "Is it true?"

Local Newspapers Cover Rising Number of Racist Anti-Obama Actions in Small Towns http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003890511 By Dexter Hill Many conservative pundits and Republican officeholders on the national stage have reacted to the election of Barack Obama as a promising step forward in the history of race relations and democracy in the U.S. But gaining much less coverage from the national media are local reactions that are far less accepting and positive. Away from the spotlight, many local newspapers around the country have covered recent incidents of racially motivated reactions to last week's election, from flags hung upside-down to the dangling of nooses and cross burnings. As we noted last week, a couple in northern New Jersey who had an Obama sign on their front lawn woke up to find the charred remains of a cross. Local residents today announced a "unity march" to protest the still-unsolved incident. Now come these fresh reports. In Midland, Mich., a man dressed in full Ku Klux Klan regalia walked around toting a handgun and waving an American flag. Initially denying it, the man eventually admitted to police that the display was a reaction to the Obama victory. “[The man] had a concealed weapon permit and was walking up and down the sidewalk in front of a vehicle dealership while some motorists shouted obscenities at him and others shouted accolades," police told The Saginaw News. Parents in Rexburg, Idaho, contacted school officials this week after they learned that 2nd and 3rd graders on a school bus were chanting, "Assasssinate Obama!" The Associated Press revealed on Wednesday, "Police on eastern Long Island are investigating reports that more than a dozen cars were spray painted with racist graffiti, reportedly including a message targeting President-elect Barack Obama. The graffiti included racist slurs and sexually graphic references. At least one resident in the quiet Mastic neighborhood told Newsday her son's car was scribbled with a message threatening to kill Obama." From the Staten Island Advance this week: "The NYPD yesterday confirmed they are treating the Election night beating of a black Stapleton teen by a group of whites as a hate crime. Ali Kamara, 17, a black Muslim and immigrant from Liberia, said he was beaten with a baseball bat Tuesday night by four white men who shouted 'Obama,' before beginning the attack." From The Republican in Springfield, Mass.: "Community leaders including area clergy gathered Wednesday to show support and offer help to congregation members whose new church on Tinkham Road was destroyed last week by arson....The predominantly black congregation's new church was under construction in the Sixteen Acres neighborhood when it was consumed in an early morning blaze on Nov. 5, a few hours after the election of Barack Obama as the nation's first black president. The timing prompted the church pastor, Bishop Bryant Robinson Jr., to question whether the fire was set and a hate crime." Employees at Hampel's Key and Lockshop in Traverse City, Michigan, flew an American flag upside down last Wednesday protesting of the new president-elect, the Traverse City Record-Eagle reported. One worker used a racial slur during an interview with the Record-Eagle: "(The inverted flag is) an international signal for distress and we feel our country is in distress because the n----- got in," said Hampel’s employee Rod Nyland, who later apologized for the comment, according to the Record-Eagle. One North Carolina man who flew his flag upside-down claimed that voters were racist, electing Obama because of his skin color, according to the Winston-Salem Journal. “The flag is stretched upside-down between two poles in a field, with a black X running from end to end. The X is a reference to the Confederate flag, said flag-owner Tony Heath. It reflects his belief that the Confederate flag has been unfairly targeted for protest by people trying to be politically correct,” the Journal reported. In Pennsylvania, an interracial couple in Apolacon Township discovered the remains of a burned cross in their front yard. “The couple discovered the remnants of the cross about 8:15 a.m. Wednesday (Nov. 5) when a man knocked at their door. Johnson looked out the front window and noticed charring on the utility pole, then discovered two charred 1-by-3-inch planks, each about 4 feet in length, beneath it,” according to the Star-Gazette. The woman, who is Jewish, lives with her husband, who is black. "The Little Meadows area was the site of KKK rallies several decades ago, and a local woman who worked on Obama's campaign said Wednesday she heard tales of racist remarks directed at supporters," the story concludes. Just today, two men were arrested there: 19-year-old Forrest Ashcraft and 22-yearold Stephen Barret of Friendsville. They're charged with ethnic intimidation and trespassing. Authorities in Temecula, Calif., found spray-painted graffiti on a city sidewalk containing a swastika and anti-Obama slogan. From today's Los Angeles Times: "Vandals spray-painted swastikas and racial slurs on a house and several cars in Torrance that displayed campaign signs or bumper stickers for President-elect Barack Obama, authorities said Tuesday. The incidents occurred Saturday night in the Hollywood Riviera section of the city, said Sgt. Bernard Anderson. Four separate incidents were reported the next day, he said. No arrests have been made. "At one house, the phrase 'Go Back to Africa' was spray-painted across the wall, in addition to a racial epithet on the garage door, Anderson said. Several parked vehicles on the streets were spray-painted with racial slurs, he said." Today, the NAACP called on North Carolina State University to expel four students who spray painted racist messages about Obama. Two of the messages said: "Let's shoot that (N-word) in the head" and "Hang Obama by a noose." Students at Baylor University woke up on Election Day to a rope tied like a noose hanging from a tree outside of Morrison Hall, according to college newspaper The Lariat: “Later, verbal altercations occurred outside of Penland Residence Hall. A group of Obama supporters were walking around shouting 'Obama' and then passed a group of white men outside who made threatening and racist remarks, said Emmanuel Orupabo, Arlington senior,” according to the Lariat. Another post-election noose incident happened in Maine. “More than 75 people rallied Sunday against an incident last week in which black figures were hanged by nooses from trees on Mount Desert Island the day after Barack Obama won the presidential election,” according to the Bangor Daily News. At a high school in Gray, a student was suspended after standing up in class, making a racist comment, and saying Obama should not be president, the News reported. Later that day, graffiti making a similar statement was found in a boys’ restroom.

Congressman sorry for likening Obama to Hitler http://thomasfortenberry.net/?p=5175 Republican Paul Broun is sorry for calling President-elect Barack Obama a ‘Marxist’ and comparing him to Adolph Hitler, the Georgia Congressman said Tuesday. “I regret putting it that way,” he told WGAC radio in Augusta, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. “I apologize to anyone who has taken offense at that.” In an interview with the Associated Press earlier this week, Broun admitted to calling the future commander-in-chief a ‘Marxist’ at a recent Rotary club meeting, and said Obama has expressed support for policies similar to those of Hitler. “It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force,” Broun told the AP. “I’m just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may– may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism.” Broun was specifically referring to a July speech by Obama, where the then-Democratic presidential nominee said he supports a civilian force helping the military when it comes to national security: “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the military],” Obama said in the speech that was largely a call to national service. Responding to those comments, Broun told the AP Monday: “That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did. When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.” “We can’t be lulled into complacency,” Broun added. “You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I’m not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I’m saying is there is the potential.” The Obama transition office did not respond to Broun’s comments, and in his interview Tuesday to WGAC, the first term congressman said, “The point I tried to make is that he is extremely liberal, he has promoted a lot of socialistic ideas, and it just makes me concerned.”

The Age of Obama Obama will need the spirits of Kennedy, FDR and Lincoln, and also a patient public. http://www.newsweek.com/id/167598 He was, once, the consummate outsider. The first time Barack Obama saw the White House was a quarter century ago, in 1984, when he was working as a community organizer based at the Harlem campus of the City College of New York. President Reagan was proposing reductions in student aid. The young Obama, just out of Columbia, got together with student leaders—"most of them black, Puerto Rican, or of Eastern European descent, almost all of them the first in their families to attend college"—to take petitions protesting the cuts to the New York delegation on Capitol Hill. Afterward, Obama wrote in "The Audacity of Hope," the group wandered down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Washington Monument and then to the White House, where they stood outside the gates, looking in. The glib literary move at this point would be to note how Obama, who will become the 44th president of the United States on Jan. 20, 2009, will now return to that house to undo the work that was unfolding inside all those years ago—the work of the Republican Party of Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush. But the story, like Obama himself, is more complicated than one might think. The Democratic Party's success in 2008 is not a straightforward revenge-of-the-left drama. Many true believers say this is the dawn of a new progressive era, a time of resurgent (and in many ways rethought) liberalism. The highly caffeinated have high hopes. At the same time, many conservatives—most, it seems, with a show on Fox News—see things the same way, and believe an Age of Obama will be a grim hour of redistribution at home and weakness abroad. But if Obama governs as he ran—from the center—then there will be disappointed liberals and conservatives. The left may feel somehow cheated, and the right, eager to launch perpetual assaults on the new administration, could well find Obama as elusive and frustrating as the opposition found Reagan. Parallels from the past risk seeming irrelevant and antique given the enormity of the historical moment. A nation whose Constitution enshrined slavery has elected an African-American president within living memory of days when blacks were denied fundamental human rights—including the right to vote. Hyperbole around elections comes easy and cheap, but this is a moment—a year—when even superlatives cannot capture the magnitude of the change that the country voted for last Tuesday. "If there is anyone out there who doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our Founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer," Obama told an adoring yet serious throng in Chicago's Grant Park. He alluded to the historic nature of the victory only indirectly. "This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations," he said. He did not need, really, to add anything to that: that he was saying the words was testament enough. Obama ran, in part, by arguing that his candidacy transcended race. Perhaps it did; many of us believed that his skin color, unusual name and unfamiliar background might well cost him the election. As it turned out, he won decisively, a rare feat for a Democratic presidential nominee. Does this mean that America is now beyond black and white? No, but we are much further ahead than we were a week ago. Obama's victory, no matter what one's politics, is a redemptive moment in the life of a nation for which race has been called, simply and starkly, "the American dilemma." John McCain is a man of honor, a patriot who has lived a life of service and devotion to country. He was, however, on the wrong side of history in 2008. Like Hillary Clinton, also a formidable American and public servant, he had the great personal misfortune to be standing in the path of an unstoppable political force. (One of the riddles of the age will be what might have happened had he survived the South Carolina primary in 2000 and defeated Bush for the Republican nomination eight years ago.) External forces, chiefly the economic collapse in the autumn and President Bush's stubbornly low approval ratings, created an environment that made a GOP victory virtually impossible. With a man of Obama's undeniable political gifts on the other side, the task became actually impossible. Like Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 and Reagan in 1980, the Obama win of 2008 marks a real shift in real time. It is early yet, but it is not difficult to imagine that we will, for years to come, think of American politics in terms of Before Obama and After Obama. Certainly many of his voters already see the world this way. Exit polls suggest that one of every 10 voters was casting a ballot for the first time, and they were overwhelmingly minority or young. Eighteen- to 24-year-olds accounted for roughly the same percentage of the electorate—17 percent—as they did in 2004, but while the split four years ago was 54-40 percent for John Kerry, it was 68-30 percent for Obama, a net swing of 24 points in Obama's favor, which was by far the biggest shift in any age group. ... [continued in Newsweek]

http://washingtonindependent.com/17813/11-hour-regulations

11/11/08 | Washington Independent

By Matthew Blake

In His Last Days in Power, George W. Bush Wants to Change Some Rules


It’s something of a tradition– administrations using their final weeks in power to ram through a slew of federal regulations. With the election grabbing the headlines, outgoing federal bureaucrats quietly propose and finalize rules that can affect the health and safety of millions.
The Bush administration has followed this tradition and expanded it. Up to 90 proposed regulations could be finalized before President George W. Bush leaves office Jan. 20. If adopted, these rules could weaken workplace safety protections, allow local police to spy in the “war on terror” and make it easier for federal agencies to ignore the Endangered Species Act.

What’s more, the administration has accelerated the rule-making process to ensure that the changes it wants will be finalized by Nov. 22.

That’s a key date, Nov. 22. It is 60 days before the next administration takes control — and most federal rules go into effect 60 days after they have been finalized. It would be a major bureaucratic undertaking for the Obama administration to reverse federal rules already in effect.

“The Bush administration has thought through last-minute regulations much more than past administrations,” said Rick Melberth, director of OMB Watch, a nonprofit group that tracks federal regulations. “They’ve said, ‘Let’s not only get them finalized; let’s get them in effect.’”

So what are the new rules?

The Washington Independent has highlighted five regulations notable for their potential effect and the way they slipped through the regulatory process. Four could to be finalized by Nov. 22. One was already — on Election Day.

1) The Dept. of Labor proposed a regulation Aug. 30 that changes how workplace safety standards are met. Labor experts contend that the administration, which previously issued only one new workplace safety standard and that under court order, is trying to make it a bureaucratic nightmare for future administrations to make workplace safety rules.

Here’s what it would do:

Currently, if the Occupational Safety and Health Admin. or the Mine Health and Safety Admin. want to introduce a new safety standard on, say, the level of exposure to toxic chemicals, it issues what is called a notice of proposed rule-making. This notice is published in the Federal Register and then debated by labor, business and relevant federal agencies.

The new regulation would add an “advanced notice of proposed rule-making,” meaning OSHA and MSHA would have prove that, say, the said chemical was seriously harming workers.

This would open the door for industry to challenge the validity of the risk assessment and then, if necessary, the actual safety standard that may come from that risk assessment.

“The purpose of this sort of rule is to require agencies to spend more time on a regulation which gives them less of a chance to actually regulate,” said David Michaels, a professor of workplace safety at George Washington University, “You’re adding at least a year, maybe two years, to the process.”

The regulation has not been finalized.

2) The administration proposed a rule that changes the employer-employee relationship laid out in the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act.

Here’s what it would do:

The Family and Medical Leave Act says that employers must give their workers 12 weeks of unpaid leave if they are sick or need to take care of a family member or newborn. The employer’s health-care staff can check the legitimacy of the family or medical leave claim with the employee’s doctor or health-care provider.

The proposed regulation would allow the employer to directly speak with the employee’s doctor or health-care provider. The employer could also ask employees to provide more medical documentation of their conditions.

Why such a rule — which may threaten an employee’s privacy– is needed is unclear. The only study the Labor Dept. has done on the act was in 2000. The department collected comments from employers before issuing the proposed regulation, but a report analyzing the comments was never issued.

The regulation also would gives employees the right to waive their rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, making it the first national labor law to be optional. A worker, for instance, cannot waive his right to earn a minimum wage or get paid more for overtime.

The regulation was finalized on Election Day.

3) The Dept. of Health and Human Services proposed a rule Sept. 26 that would expand the reasons that physicians or health care entities could decline to provide any procedure to include moral and religious grounds. The language of the regulation says the department hopes to correct “an attitude toward the health-care profession that health-care professionals and institutions should be required to provide or assist in the provision of medicine or procedures to which they object, or else risk being subjected to discrimination.”

Here’s what it would do:

The rule change seems to apply to abortion. But they are already several rules that say physicians or health-care entities can deny an abortion request. Some women’s health advocates contend that the proposed regulation’s broad language is meant to increase the number of physicians who not only don’t provide abortions but don’t provide contraception.

“Contraception is certainly the target of this rule,” contends Marylin Keefe, director for Reproductive Health at the National Partnership for Women and Families. “The moral and religious objections of health-care workers are now starting to take precedence over patients.”

The regulation is notable for another reason. A rule involving an employee’s religious rights must be referred to the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission, yet the commission was never told of this proposed regulation.

A bureaucratic battled erupted when EEOC’s legal counsel, Reed Russell, wrote a regulation comment (pdf) blasting both the substance of the proposed rule and its disregard for the rule-making process.

The regulation has not been finalized.

4) On July 31, the Justice Dept. proposed a regulation that would allow state and local law enforcement agencies to collect “intelligence” information on individuals and organizations even if the information is unrelated to a criminal matter.

“This is a continuum that started back on 9/11 to reform law enforcement and the intelligence community to focus on the terrorism threat,” said Bush homeland security adviser Kenneth L. Wainstein in a statement.

Critics say it could infringe on civil liberties.

Here’s what it would do:

“It expands local law enforcement’s ability to investigate criminal activity that it deems suspicious,” said Melberth of OMB Watch. “But what’s suspicious to you may not be suspicious to me. They could be investigating community organizations they think are two or three steps away from a terrorist group.”

The regulation has not been finalized.

5) Before a federal agency approves any construction project– anything from building a dam to a post office — government officials must consult the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. These two agencies enforce the Endangered Species Act, and they can veto any project that adversely affects an animal on the endangered species list.

Here’s what it would do:

A regulation proposed by the Interior Dept. Aug. 12 would end this approval process. “It destroys a system of checks and balances that have been in place for two decades,” claimed Bob Davison, senior scientist at Defenders of the Wildlife. “[A federal agency] wants to go forward with a project that [it wants] to do. So you need an independent agency to look at the decision.”

Davison is not the only conservation advocate up in arms. The Interior Dept. has received 200,000 public comments, which may affect the final rule.

Or not — the department shortened the comment period from 60 to 30 days in its effort to get the regulation finalized.

In May, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten vowed that the administration would propose no regulations after June 1. He and White House spokesman Tony Fratto have repeatedly stated their contempt for what they call “midnight regulations.”

Yet with the exception of the Family and Medical Leave changes, each of these regulations were proposed after June 1. And if finalized, they will effect worker’s safety, women’s health-care choices, local police powers and endangered species.

“It was a pretty resounding election,” said Keefe of the National Partnership for Women and Families. “But this administration acts like it still has a mandate.”

Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service over death threats against Barack Obama http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/3405336/Sarah-Palin-blamed-by-the-US-Secret-Service-for-death-threats-against-Barack-Obama.html Sarah Palin's attacks on Barack Obama's patriotism provoked a spike in death threats against the future president, Secret Service agents revealed during the final weeks of the campaign. The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of "palling around with terrorists", citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers. The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric. But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further. The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks. ...