Obama receives praise for call to end "don't ask, don't tell"

Gay rights activists are praising President Obama for his call to end the military's 15 year "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding the service of gays and lesbians. In Wednesday's State of the Union address, Obama said "[We must] repeal the law that denies gay and lesbian Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do." This statement was met with approval by Alexander Nicholson, founder and executive director of Servicemembers United, who said "Tonight, President Obama stepped up to the plate and made a firm commitment to work to finally end 'don't ask, don't tell' in 2010. Although brief, his language was plain, his message was clear, and the outline of his strategy was smart." If Obama follows through with this statement, he is likely to come into better regard from the gay and lesbian community, which has so far been critical of the president's negligence on some of the policies he advocated during his 2008 campaign. Obama received mixed reactions about this issue from those who attended the address, with Republicans such as Sen. John McCain claiming that now is not the time to change the policy while former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili agreed with Obama's stance. I agree with the idea to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy because at present, it prohibits some Americans from serving in the armed forces. Any American citizen should be allowed to serve his/her country if he/she desires, as their service is only helping protect freedom at home and oversees. We have gone through this debate in the past regarding the service of minorities and women - now is the time to finally extend the same right to serve one's country to the gay and lesbian community. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/28/obama.dadt.react/index.html?hpt=Sbin.

Clinton in London for State of the Union Address

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton missed tonight's State of the Union address given by President Barack Obama because of a busy schedule of international conferences. Clinton is currently in London, discussing options on policies toward Afghanistan and Yemen with other world leaders. As State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said this afternoon "He (President Obama) made it clear given the importance of these issues that her place tonight was in London, rather than here in Washington. " Clinton was scheduled to attend a conference on Yemen today and meet with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai tomorrow. This is obviously the right decision, as it's more important for Clinton to attend to her duty of foreign relations than it is for her to see Obama's speech. This might also be sending a message to the other countries Clinton is negotiating with that the U.S. means business when it comes to Afghanistan. As Crowley said, it's been a while since a Secretary of State missed the State of the Union, but Clinton has more pressing concerns right now than listening to our president speak for and hour. Read more at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/27/secretary-clinton-misses-state-of-the-union-speech/.

2010 Census Begins in Remote Alaskan Village

The 2010 United States Census officially began yesterday when Census Bureau Director Robert Groves traveled to Noorvik, Alaska for the ceremonial first polling. The first person polled was World War II veteran and village elder Clifton Jackson, who invited Groves into his house for the 10 question inquiry. Said Groves after he exited Jackson's house "It's all downhill from now," referring to the fact that there was one person down and over 309 million to go. Noorvik is an Inuit community with around 650 residents and can only be reached by plane or dogsled. After arriving at the airport, Groves was brought into the village in a convoy of dogsleds and was treated to a feast of whale, caribou, and moose meat. The U.S. Census has began its survey in remote Alaskan villages not accessible by roads since 1990. The paperwork for the census will be sent out to all U.S. residents in March, with the Census wrapping up on April 1. I think tallying these remote Inuit communities first is a good idea for two reasons. First, it gets the difficult places to reach done earlier in the process so that census officials don't have to scramble and be hindered by the complicated logistics of reaching these people when time is running short in March. Also, events like this provide good publicity for a sector of the American population that is often forgotten - the Alaska natives, otherwise known as the Inuits. As we learned in government class, the census is required by the Constitution to be conducted every 10 years to help determine how to allocate federal funding and to help in the reapportionment process for seats in the House of Representatives. Read more at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122938726.

S.C. Republican Apologizes for Animal Remark

South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer apologized on an interview with CNN for his comment Friday that needy people are like "stray animals" because "they breed" and "don't know any better." Said Bauer "I wish I had used a different metaphor...I never intended to tie people to animals." The important part of this story is not necessarily what Bauer said, but rather his opinions on welfare and other programs that assist the needy. Bauer wants to end what he terms the "culture of dependency" by requiring people on welfare to undergo drug testing or be mandated to attend parent-teacher conferences. Bauer claims that many voters in his state agree with him that government assistance needs to be modified. If you are a particularly overachieving student or teacher, you will read more at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/25/south-carolina-republican-regrets-stray-animal-metaphor/?hpt=Sbin. This is a typical Republican view regarding social issues. While I agree that the government shouldn't be fostering a "culture of dependency," the fact of the matter is that there are millions of people throughout the country who legitimately need some help, especially in these times when the economy is down. I sense that Bauer wants to cut some of the programs that help the needy and the elderly, but I think that just isn't appropriate for the situation our country is in now. Maybe once the recession ends we can discuss making governmental aid programs more efficient, but cutting them should not be an option. Hey, stray animals need your help.

Obama Proposes Freeze in Discretionary Spending for Three Years

President Obama will announce in Wednesday's State of the Union address his plan to attack the federal budget deficit by freezing all discretionary spending at current levels for three years. The departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Veteran Affairs, and some international programs will be exempt from these budgetary stipulations. While discretionary spending constitutes only 1/6 of the federal budget and while entitlement programs such as Medicare keep growing, discretionary spending still accounts for $474 billion per year - the level at which the spending will be frozen for the next three years. This effort is predicted to alienate Obama from some of the more liberal congressional Democrats, but on the whole analysts believe that this move will give Obama more credibility on economic policy and foster relations with the Republican side. Said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio: "Given Washington Democrats' unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you're going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest." After the State of the Union address, Obama must publicly release his budget plan for the fiscal year 2011 by February 1. I think that a bigger problem with the federal budget is entitlement programs, not discretionary spending. However, this is a step in the right direction and I don't know if we're ever going to be able to cut funding for programs like Medicare without facing dire consequences. This is a first part of a long process, and we'll see where it takes the country financially. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/25/obama.spending.freeze/index.html?hpt=Sbin.

CNN Poll: 56% of Americans Oppose Stimulus Program

According to a poll released today by CNN, 56 percent of Americans oppose President Obama's stimulus bill, which was signed into law last March. The bill, officially known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, increases government spending while simultaneously cutting taxes in an attempt to stimulate the staggering economy. So far, the bill has cost the government $787 billion. These results clearly show that Americans have grown dissatisfied with the program since its initial implementation, as polls in March had 54 percent in favor and only 44 percent against the bill. The poll questioned 1021 American adults over the telephone and has a plus or minus 3 percent sampling error. This is just another indication of the popular sentiment regarding our president. It seems that many people are growing impatient with the lack of results of all this spending. I, for one, trust that the president's efforts will pay off in the long run and that the U.S. will climb out of the recession. Read more at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/24/cnn-poll-56-percent-oppose-stimulus-program/.

White House Supports Bernanke Despite Widespread Opposition

President Obama reaffirmed his confidence in Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke today, despite the growing opposition to Bernanke's policies by several Senators. The Senate must approve of Bernanke receiving another four year term by January 31 or else Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn would fill in as the head of the central bank on a temporary basis. Bernanke has been criticized for the way he handled the bailouts of several major corporations in the past year, keeping secret the identities of many of the corporations that received this aid. Additionally, the $182 billion bailout of American International Group Inc. has made many main street proponents mad. Included in this group is Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California, who said "It is time for a change — it is time for Main Street to have a champion at the Fed." Despite all of this negative sentiment, Obama is sticking by Bernanke, and believes he is "the best person for the job." I wouldn't be surprised to see Bernanke go, seeing how he presided over the Federal Reserve during one of the worst economic recessions since the Great Depression. Not that I'm saying that Bernanke was responsible for the recession, but he's kind of guilty by association and we've already seen that there are a number of Senators who want him out. Read more at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122856135.

Democrats Criticize Coakley for Lackluster Campaign

Republican Scott Brown's upset win in the Massachusetts senatorial election to replace the late Ted Kennedy has Democrats pointing fingers at their candidate, Martha Coakley. Widely considered a shoo-in before the election, Coakley ran a less-than-impressive campaign and many Democrats are criticizing her for that. One of President Obama's top advisers refuted the claim that Brown's election serves as a statement that the United States public are not happy with the proposed health care bill by saying "Campaigns and candidates matter," hinting at the fact that Coakely lost the election because she was not a strong candidate and did not campaign well. Brown's win means that it is most likely back to the drawing boards for Democrats regarding the health care plan, as Republicans now have the 41 members in the Senate required to filibuster. I tend to agree with the claims that Coakley's loss is more her fault than a statement by Massachusetts citizens. I have a hard time believing that the Democrats still would have lost this seat if they had fielded a stronger candidate. Massachusetts is, after all, one of the most liberal states in the nation. At the same time, however, the Democratic party and Democratic voters could have chosen a different candidate to run, so the blame is kind of split between Coakley and the Democratic party (as an organization). Read more of this scintillating story at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/20/coakley.brown/index.html?hpt=Sbin.

A Republican winning Massachusetts??? Did I just see a pig fly?

The election to replace deceased Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy is getting a lot more attention than expected, mostly because Republican candidate Scott Brown is now leading in the polls. This turn of events comes as a shock to Massachusetts, widely considered the most Democratic of states, where Democratic candidate Martha Coakley now trails Brown in the polls. Massachusetts has not had a Republican senator since 1972. President Obama has been forced to campaign for Coakley because loosing a Democratic seat in the Senate would mean that the Democrats would lose the 60 percent filibuster-proof majority, which would greatly threaten the health care bill's passing. Through Sunday, Brown was leading Coakely 52 to 45 percent in the polls, with a 4 percent sampling error. In these same polls, voters responded that their top two concerns for the election were the economy and the health care plan. Said Brown "Massachusetts wants real reform and not this trillion-dollar Obama health care that is being forced on the American people." Election day is tomorrow and we will soon find out if the unthinkable has indeed occurred. That the most Democratic state in the nation is in danger of losing a Democratic seat should be a sign of the times. It seems that the people of Massachusetts are sending a message to Obama that they do not approve of his heath care plan or the way he is handling the economy. I have a feeling that this election, regardless of which way it falls, will make the Democrats seriously reconsider the health care bill. Once again, another unexpected turn in the health care debate. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/18/massachusetts.senate/index.html.

Gingrich Could Run in 2012

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Thursday at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference that he is considering running for president in 2012 as a GOP candidate. In Gingrich's time in the House from 1995 to 1999, he led Republican opposition to President Clinton. Gingrich also said that he expects Republicans Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee to be among those competing for the 2012 party nomination. Said the Newt about the need for a change in direction in Washington, "We have a lot of people around the country who would like to have somebody who represents a commitment to replace the current failed programs and to develop a set of solutions that are practical and workable." Sounds good at first, but a closer inspection reveals that this quote really says nothing about what Gingrich plans to do if he were to win the election. Vague quotes like these are all too typical of politicians these days. Yes, they can point out problems, but do they have specific, workable solutions to these problems? Maybe I'd have more faith in this guy if he had a more solid platform. But the 2012 election is more that 2 years away; the old wily Newt has some time to come up with a strategy. Read more at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/14/gingrich-says-hes-a-potential-2012-contender/?hpt=Sbin.

Ritter Withdraws from Colorado's Governor Race

Last week, Colorado governor Bill Ritter announced he will not seek reelection in next year's race, a prospect that has the Democrats searching for a candidate to run against Republican Scott McInnis. Ritter cited the increasing toll on his family as the primary reason for withdrawing from the race and he says that he could not be a good father and husband while running for governor. One of the aspects of this decision (albeit a small one) was that his family was not happy in the governor's mansion, as Ritter pointed out last year "We moved into the Governor's Residence. It's a lovely place, but it's not a community." Read more at http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14130197. At the moment, it appears that Denver mayor John Hickenlooper will be the Democratic candidate for the governor position. The race between Hickenlooper and McInnis should be quite interesting, seeing how Hickenlooper is popular in Denver and McInnis has past experience to draw on (he has served as a Colorado Senator). While it's a shame Ritter isn't running for another term (nothing bad happened while he was governor), I think he has his priorities straight, as family should come first no matter how high-profile the job. No we'll just hope McInnis doesn't win so we don't have to name another one of our wonderful conservation areas after him.

Palin Signs TV Deal with Fox News

Sarah Palin is once again in the news, this time for joining it. Today a source with knowledge of the agreement confirmed to CNN that Palin will appear as a guest on some Fox News shows but that she will not host her own show. By doing so, Palin joins a long line of former politicians (both Democrat and Republican) who have transitioned careers to the news media. This move most likely means that Palin will not run for president in 2012, putting a damper on the spirits of Democrats nationwide who were confident that Obama could defeat Palin for reelection. As CNN contributor Paul Begala put it "I do think maybe it suggests, sadly for Democrats, that she might not be running." In my opinion, this is just another method of self-promotion for Palin. As all smart politicians seek to do, she is becoming a household name, and being on national TV will either hurt or help her popularity. This seems to be some strategic move to help her future political career, so I'm not convinced that she's done with politics yet. If you would like more information, the good folks at CNN are all knowing, test their knowledge by going to http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/11/palin.fox/index.html. Over and out.