Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have been raising questions about the efforts of the Obama administration when it comes to fighting for minority issues. Congressman Donald Payne isn't keep his opinions a secret:
Several prominent caucus members have expressed doubts about the interest of administration officials in black American issues, referring to figures including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and senior adviser David Axelrod. They "haven't had much involvement with minority communities in their careers," said Rep. Donald Payne (N.J.). "They've been in suites and boardrooms."
This is the kind of comment you generally see without attribution. I can't imagine that Rahm and Axelrod will be pleased when they see it.
First up, President Barack Obama is at a 53% job approval rating (an improvement on the sub-50 showing last time). Disapproval is at 38%, so the the net +15 matches the margin he beat McCain by in 2008. His numbers with independents are 53-33.
On the other hand, the right track/wrong track numbers for the country are at 38-52, hardly surprising with 10% unemployment, massive deficits, and victory-less wars.
Democrats lead the generic ballot for U.S. Congress 47-39 with leaners. That doesn't exactly suggest many Democratic incumbents will be swept away, though I don't doubt NJ3 is a battlefield.
If the election were held today, Senator Bob Menendez would get 38%, a (hypothetical candidate) Tom Kean Jr would get 39%, Someone else gets 6%. Not the numbers we'd like to see, but not unfamiliar either. The pollster notes that Menendez did worse with the subgroup that was asked about him closer to the questions about health care reforms.
Senator Menendez is at 29-25, favorable-unfavorable, and Senator Frank Lautenberg is at 42-29. The negative ads of 2006 have been forgotten as Kean Jr is at 28-11. Kean was at 33-32 at the end of the last campaign, so you can see that campaigns matter.
As for health care reform, the numbers are lousy but not disastrous, as you know if you follow it in national polls. 37% think they will be better off and 42% think they will be worse off if health care reform passes. On the other hand, for the "country as a whole," "better" leaads "worse" 45-40. No doubt the numbers are dragged down by strong Republican opposition, but the two sets for independents are 31-35 and 41-33. The numbers are very striking by race, because only 28% of "Whites" think they'll be better off. Overall, 35% say they'd advise their memver of Congress to vote for a health care reform bill, 40% against, and 25% don't know. That 25% is more Democrats and Independents, so they need to be won over, perhaps by the reality of the bill helping them. (Cough, cough, too bad some genius designed most of the benefits to start years from now.)
The grassroots movement that swept Obama into office sat back and relaxed following 2008's historic presidential victory, wrongly believing the job was done.
Oh ... really? I will acknowledge some post-election exhale, which I imagine they both enjoyed themselves. But, really, who sat back here? We elected a President who told us if we brought the hope, he'd deliver change. And yet, who sat back? Obama, and his people did. The activists have been calling for public option for months - hosting public forums, writing letters, lobbying. And the president is walking on the sticky paper of bi-partisanship, unwilling or unable to lead a majority-Dem Congress to reform, unable to inspire, unable for most of the time even to articulate his position. Or worse, making stirring public option speeches while undermining the effort by sending Rahm Emanuel and Kathleen Sebelius to whisper to legislators, No worries, he doesn't really mean it. The prez gets a partial-save for deftly maneuvering the truculent GOP into the party of NO wall recently. But it's too little, too late.
We called for repeal of ENDA and DADT, and he has not used his power.
A smart friend of mine said of this, The activists used their tools and power, to identify issues that need reform and elect those in support. The President has to use his tools and power - which is to make like LBJ and twist arms and drive strong legislation. We did our part, he didn't.
The players: President Obama, Vice-President Obama, and members of the House & Senate from both parties, including Rep. Rob Andrews, who chairs the House Education and Labor subcommittee on health.
The Location: Blair House, across the street from the White House, significantly at the President's end of the national Mall.
Interesting analysis of what the President's after today, from Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic.
Donor information for all the speakers is at Sunlight Foundation (info changes depending on who's at the microphone - turn off the sound at their site, if you're listening to our stream here).
Meeting started 10am, but I just grabbed the feed. Click the arrow to go LIVE.
Overall, 55% of New Jersey residents approve of the job President Obama is doing while 36% disapprove. This is better than the national average of 48% approve to 49% disapprove according to the Pollster.com website. The president garners approval from 83% of Democrats, 49% of independents, and just 15% of Republicans in the Garden State. Obama's job rating is down somewhat from the 59% approve to 29% disapprove numbers he received from Garden State voters in July 2009... The poll also found that Barack Obama as a person is viewed favorably by 61% of New Jerseyans and unfavorably by 26%.
Given such better scores, it seems unlikely that New Jersey will be a battleground at the Presidential level next time, though it should be noted that Obama probably does better among "adults" than 2010 or 2012 "likely voters." Republicans in Congress and Democrats score equally poorly in terms of "making the right decisions for the country's future." Still, if an incumbent can get the votes of those who have "just some" confidence in Congress he'd win overwhelmingly. New Jerseyans think the middle class (or for that matter, the poor and the wealthy) have not benefited much yet from Obama's policies so far, but Wall Street bankers have. If unemployment improves the way the stock market has those numbers will improve. That's "if."
President Barack Obama's federal budget includes no money for the planned deepening of the Delaware Bay and River shipping channel.
U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews, D-1st, asked Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag last month that Obama seek no funding for the project, which would deepen from 40 to 45 feet the channel that runs from the Delaware Bay west of Cape May to Philadelphia. Obama included no such funding in the federal budget released Monday and also called for about a 10 percent cut to Army Corps of Engineers' discretionary budget.
No doubt Ed Rendell has already been on the phone to the White House. The Corp says that they get funding through many sources, so the lack of money in the budget isn't that big of a deal. Congressman Andrews still wants the GAO to take another look:
"What you need is a neutral, competent auditor who takes a look at this," Andrews said.
I don't know if he's going to get GAO to get a separate look. He may have better luck blocking funding to finance the project as seen with this budget. The Corps still seems confident they can work money through the system from somewhere else to complete the project.
Dear Jersey Democrats - please see my following response to President Barack Obama. I'd love to hear what you think. Imagine having a governor who fights to put in single-payer healthcare. Imagine the example that Minnesota could provide for New Jersey and the other 48 states? In my 23 years in the state senate, I've fought for healthcare for all. As the prime sponsor of the Minnesota Health Plan, i've organized over 1/3rd of the legislature to co-sponsor the bill.
Senator Bob Menendez appeared on the Rachel Maddow show last night to discuss the State of the Union and the state of play going forward. Rachel started asking him about a memo regarding driving a wedge between the tea party movement and Republican party.
He said it's a question of whose side you are on. He talked about the GOP sitting on their hands over the bank fee, contributions in elections and regulatory reform. He said they don't stand with the average citizen. Rachel questioned about Blue Dog defections sapping the strength of the argument, but Menendez said that he suspects these are issues that the Blue Dogs will have to be on board with. I'd say that remains to be seen. Menendez says this election needs to be a contrast. You need to define yourself, define your opponent and give the voters a choice. He then talked about strategies for both the primary and general. You can see for yourself:
The Republicans tried to be on their best behavior last night after Joe Wilson's outburst during a Presidential speech last year. But someone didn't let the all of the Justices in on the "let's be on our best behavior game."
Check out this video as Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito shook his head no, and mouthed "not true," while President Obama criticized the Supreme Court for their recent decision permitting lobbyists and corporations to exert more influence in elections:
Way to make NJ proud Justice Alito. Congressman Anthony Weiner even said after the speech on Olberman, that he expected Alito to jump up and shout "you lie." How hard is it to know that there are cameras on you from every angle? You can say whatever you want as soon as they turn off, but put a smile on your face and act like you can take it. None of Alito's other colleagues had a problem containing themselves. Just because you're a Supreme Court Justice, doesn't mean that people can't question the rulings you hand down.
Updated by Jason Springer: The full 70 minute speech is viewable through the embed thanks to nbc. Here is the text.
I'm a little late to the party and just getting home. But here is a stream of the President's State of the Union. Are you watching? What do you think of what you hear? This is an open thread:
Let me tell you why I want you to come watch me graduate from school ...
That's the sort of letter students in Jersey City are churning out these days in an all-out effort to attract the attention of the Leader of the Free World.
Sen. Bob Menendez is working on getting the President here right now, with some of the students and administrators of the city's public schools. The ask is for graduation day in 2010.
A whopping 25,000 letters from kids grades K-12 were written, with their individual reasons for wanting to see the President come, and many of those were delivered this week to members of the NJ Congressional delegation, along with several portraits of the President by student-artists in the Jersey City schools. Senator Menendez promised all of this - the letters and artwork - will get to the President.
I participated in an on-the-record "Blogger Call" with Austan Goolsbee of the President's Council of Economic Advisers to learn more about Barack Obama's new jobs proposals. You should check the transcript of Obama's speech, the summary at the White House blog, and Chris Bowers' look at all the various job programs. The overall message is that "good management" of the TARP financial rescue money allows additional resources to be put into improving the jobs situation. The President proposed out investments in 1) Small business expansion, 2) Infrastructure, and 3) clean energy retrofits. Goolsbee warned that the programs described in the speech are not the "full enchilada" of what the Administration is doing.
Many questions asked about the details of funding: That is, there is talk of using the extra $200 billion saved in TARP, but the TARP program cannot be used on just anything. Legislation is therefore necessary and Obama is working with Congress. (Again, see Bowers.) Asked about a financial transaction tax, Goolsbee did not reject it, but argued that any such tax would have to come from international action. (Presumably because the financial trading could easily flee to a low-tax country.)
Anyway, I asked about the high unemployment numbers for the high-school (or less) educated which are far worse than the 10% overall unemployment, and even worse for minorities and for the young. I suggested that (other than unemployment benefits being extended) there wasn't much for them directly in this program.
Goolsbee did not agree with my assessment. He first pointed to the proposed construction jobs, in infrastructure and in energy retrofitting, which particularly benefit the young and less well educated. (He had earlier noted that unemployment in construction is around 35%!) He then pointed to the small business provisions, arguing that younger people are more likely to start their own businesses or work for small businesses. He noted a statistic he was told (which, however, he admitted he has not verified) that half of Fortune 500 companies originally started during recessions. Small business creation and growth is very important to how the nation recovers from recessions -- this is the upside of recessions -- but the "credit contraction" is preventing that normal process from working. Hence, the Administration's small business proposals. I think it is fair to say that Goolsbee's answer focuses on unemployment and the young rather than minorities.
In seeking a range of informed and varied opinions and taking the time to carefully work through them, it is clear that President Obama understands the meaning of war, the lives that are at stake and the impact it has on thousands of families here at home. I know that he thought deeply about those risks and weighed them against the risk posed by threats to our homeland that remain in Afghanistan before coming to his decision.
I will not make a final judgment on this plan until I have had a chance to reflect upon it fully and, just as importantly, draw critical information from Admiral Mullen, Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton, who we will have in front of the Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday. From the time I voted against authorizing the Iraq War, I have said that our focus should have instead remained on the base of operations for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda - the terrorists who killed 3,000 people on our homeland in 2001 and are eager to kill more innocent Americans. That base is now the area along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. I believe if we had not lost our focus by diverting troops and resources to Iraq, we could have captured or killed bin Laden and exterminated al Qaeda by now.
Though we lost precious strategic advantages and international support in the years since, I still believe today that we must finish the job by capturing or killing bin Laden and dismantling al Qaeda. I do not, however, believe that acting as a national police force for Afghanistan on an indefinite basis is worthwhile - American troops will be killed unnecessarily and it will further drain our national budget during an economic recession. Therefore, my preference has been toward a targeted military operation that emphasizes counter-terrorism and focuses on routing al Qaeda, rather than engaging in other flare-ups around Afghanistan. This strategy goes hand-in-hand with what I have insisted upon in our Pakistan policy, which is more pressure on the Pakistanis to go after the terrorists on their side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
I will measure the president's plan and the testimony that will be presented before the Foreign Relations Committee on the basis of these principles, and based on that, I will make a final assessment of the plan. As always, our thoughts and prayers are with our troops currently serving in harm's way.
Text as prepared for delivery, of tonight's televised speech, live beginning 8pm from West Point. Consider this an Open Thread, as you watch the President's speech - Rosi Efthim
Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan - the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here - at West Point - where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
The President's speech on Afghanistan and Pakistan begins in a few minutes. This thread is for anyone who wants to discuss the speech, the plan, or what New Jersey's Senators and Representatives should do.
Actually, thanks to the White House press office, I can tell you it is a well-written speech. What I am not convinced of is that it is a good policy. I hope the President really begins to withdraw in July 2011.
President Obama took a trip to Capitol Hill on Saturday afternoon before the healthcare vote to rally hesitant House democrats to support the bill and according to Congressman Andrews, it worked:
Many in the room credited Obama with swaying the last of the fence sitters. "A few members that were leaning no told me afterward that they'd been moved to vote yes," Representative Rob Andrews, a New Jersey Democrat, told reporters after the meeting.
With how close the vote was, they needed every pep talk they could get. If those few that were leaning no remained in opposition, we would have had a completely different story. The President may want to pencil in time to motivate and hold hands when the reconciled bill comes back to the House eventually.
Let me preface this conversation by stating that I supported Senator Frank Lautenberg's re-election campaign during both the primary and general elections last year, but...
1) ...after seeing him speak in public numerous times at a dramatically reduced level of performance than in the past...
...and...
2) ...after last week's gubernatorial election results...
...and...
3) ...assuming that the aspiring Governors that are currently serving in the State Senate and State Assembly are not going to be willing to rescind the power that the Governor currently has to fill vacated U.S. Senate seats, I think that Democratic Party leaders, electeds, and rank-and-file members should reach out en masse to Senator Frank Lautenberg and ask him to resign his seat.
SNL's cold open last night was a send-up of how Greta Van Susteren, Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox News misfits in their hyper need to make Tuesday's election mean the end, the very end of Barack Obama. (30-second commercial precedes the clip):
Organizing for America (OFA), the DNC-ruled "grassroots" organization formed from the massive Obama '08 email list, is asking people in NJ-2 & NJ-7 to drop what they're doing and call Frank LoBiondo and Leonard Lance and ask them to vote Yes on the public option. The debate has been going on all day on the floor of the House. Watch LIVE.
Obama voters in 31 other districts got the same email, districts Obama won but have GOP congressmen. But it's a complete waste of time to call Republicans, and the DNC/OFA knows it. This is a muscle-flex for the GOP. They've spent all day, in some ridiculous, dramatic and even toddler-juggling vignettes, telling you they're voting no. So why is OFA trying to get you to waste your time on Lance & LoBiondo when you could be calling an actual Democrat who plans to vote no on Public Option?
In fact, our friends at AFSCME have an easy tool for you Adler constituents to call him now. Just click the green flashing ad to the right of this diary.
