I'd Love To Have Been A Fly On The Wall

Chinese President Hu Jintao had dinner with President Obama at the White House last night. I'd love to have heard the content of that discussion. His arrival at Andrews Air Force Base came complete with the Vice-President waiting for him and full state visit pomp and circumstance.

So what did they discuss? Human rights, currency de-valuation, and slave labor? Korean peninsula unrest, Tibet, and Taiwan? Afghanistan, the Indian Peninsula, and energy supply concerns? The U.S. trade deficit, mostly to China? China's inability to provide a decent standard of living for their population without us? Yao Ming's future in the NBA? I wish I knew.

What's clear is what's at stake. China is the other major voice in the world, and will continue to be such. On size and population alone, China will continue to be important for years to come. It's important to remember, China is, for the most part, a friend. The United States isn't going away either, and they need us as much as we need them. This relationship is extremely important to both nations, and should be treated as such. Hopefully, progress beneficial to both nations' workers will come out of these meetings.

Sargent Shriver

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Understanding Senator Joe Lieberman's Career

In 1988 he was the outside upstart. In 2000, he was Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee, and robbed of the job. In 2004, he was shunned Presidential candidate, out of touch with the base. In 2006, he was beaten in the primary and shunned from the party. In 2007 and 2008, he was cheerleader for, and potential Vice-Presidential running mate for Republican Presidential nominee John McCain, even speaking at his convention. In 2009 and part of 2010, he was one of the hold-ups on Health Care Reform, possibly helping to demoralize the Democratic base enough to lose the 2010 mid-terms. By the end of 2010, he was the Senator most responsible for achieving a major liberal victory, ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

All of that describes Senator Joe Lieberman, who is expected to call it a career today. The truth is, Lieberman would probably have lost his Senate race in 2012, and in fact would have only been a spoiler. By not running, he gives his former party, the Democratic Party, a very strong opportunity to replace him. If he had run and lost, it would have been the end of a stunning fall from grace, from the "new kid," to the nearly Vice-President, to failed Presidential candidate, to losing a primary, to losing his seat. Lieberman's decision to not run allows for a fair hearing of his credentials, and in fact his entire career.

For me at least, his Senate career has several very key points in it. First off, the fact that he won a Republican seat in a Presidential year that his party lost in 1988. Second off, that he was considered a solid Democratic vote at the time, but gained national recognition for his 1998 criticism of President Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. Third, that he very nearly became President of the Senate (to be read Vice-President of the United States), but instead had to sit on the floor of the Senate and go through the agony of narrowly watching the electoral votes go against him and Al Gore in 2000. Fourth, and probably his most damnable career point, his leadership on pushing the Iraq War Resolution through Congress in 2002. Fifth, his pushing the repeal of DADT through the Congress in 2010. Oh yeah, and don't forget, prior to 2000, his career was best known for his opposition to violent video games.

There are several things unknown to most about Lieberman. First, he was the State Senate's Majority Leader from 1975-1980 in Connecticut. Second, he was an Attorney General for his state from 1983-1989. Senator Lieberman was also the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Oversight Committee in the U.S. Senate as the Department of Homeland Security was being designed after 9/11.

It's hard to assign a grade to Lieberman's career. On the one hand, you have a Senator with wonderful achievements for progress in this nation. On the other hand, you have the guy who pushed through the Iraq War in the Senate. On the one hand, you have the guy who was the popular vote winner for Vice-President in 2000, and on the other hand you have the guy who tried to get "Swift Boat Veteran's for Truth" major donor Sam Fox the Ambassador to Belgium job. On the one hand, you have the guy who fought against violent video games for our youth, on the other hand you have the guy who threatened to filibuster Health Care Reform to stop the Public Option. He's a walking contradiction of a Senator.

Lieberman essentially traded in his political popularity and respect in his later years for increased influence in the Senate, and he got it. I don't know why, but he seemed to grow bitter towards his former party after 2004 Primary defeat for President. He used that bitterness to broker better deals for his positions. Even more interesting though is his choice to retire just days after becoming the senior U.S. Senator from Connecticut.

I suppose my final assessment of Lieberman is a bit harsh. Lieberman's overall performance as a U.S. Senator was very good, and very representative of his state. Amongst his achievements for his state included his saving of the New London Submarine base. With that said, you cannot overlook his weakness in the most important moments. His Iraq War advocacy, and his fight against the Public Option stand out. A young man who went to the south during the Civil Rights movement supported John McCain instead of the African-American candidate making history, Barack Obama, with whom he shared probably 75% of policy positions. Lieberman was as smart, and capable of a U.S. Senator as there is anywhere in America over the past 30 years, his tone deafness at the great moral moments of his day are disappointing though, to say the least.

Farewell Address of President Bill Clinton

Farewell Address of President George W. Bush

I Guess I Should Sign On Too

Well, here I am, signing onto my own site. Welcome to a new political site. As I write this, it is my hope that we are exiting an era of lunacy- comparing Presidents to Hitler, calling national leaders names, even the shooting of a Congresswoman. Perhaps the era of demonization is ending, perhaps we can have serious discussions. Perhaps not though. We'll try to have serious conversations, about serious issues here, but let's not forget that the House is getting ready to vote tomorrow on the "Repeal of the Job-Killing Health Care Law." Ok, maybe seriousness isn't possible.

Let's treat it serious for a second though. We already know what they say. The bill will raise the deficit, cost jobs, and not cut costs. First off, we'll find out about cost-cutting over the long haul. The other two, we have answers that at least work for now. Yes, the Wall Street Journal editorial page says repealing the Health Care Law won't add to the deficit. That's great, but in the U.S., we use the CBO scoring to determine that, at the time of a bill's passage. While there's a debate about it's accuracy, the CBO says repeal will cost us hundreds of billions. While there are some decent arguments about why CBO is wrong, there are just as good arguments shooting down their arguments. Let's also remember that CBO is our "neutral referee" here. So let's not throw it into the political arena. Even if we take the arguments of pro-repeal folks seriously, all of their arguments are about THIS decade of the bill. They are not disputing the TRILLION dollars plus of savings from the deficit NEXT decade. A forgotten key in this.

So then, let's take a look at the final point the GOP makes, the point it NAMED the repeal act on. Does this bill kill job creation? Apparently not.  Apparently the AP says so. Apparently, the GOP is using some faulty math. See, some people who do not need to work for income at this point (think retirement age folks), do so for the sake of getting employer based health care. They would likely leave the work force if they didn't need to be in it for care. The GOP counted them as "job losses." Oops.

We'll try to keep this very policy and factually based here, and less on simple emotion. Now I know, facts are disputable in today's politics, I understand. Facts are even capable of being marginalized these days. That's fine. We'll do our best to cut through it, and to get to the answers. 

President Bill Clinton's First Inaugural

President George W. Bush's First Inaugural Speech

Two Years Ago Now

Signing On

Greetings. I'm happy to be joining this new blog, and adding my two cents about the nation we live in. Let me get this out there from the get go: I'm on the political left of the center. I will almost certainly cast a vote for President Obama in 2012. Now that that's out of the way, on to the blogging.

Let's try to make sense of things as they are for a minute. In November of 2008, the Democrats were unbeatable. In November of 2010, the Republicans had rolled up insurmountable majorities. Just like that! Amazing how fast things can change. True to form, we all assumed deep meanings from the election results. The President was dead, done for legislatively, incapable of getting anything more. Well, suddenly the Lame-Duck Congress comes to town and passes previously impossible things, like tax compromises and Don't Ask Don't Tell. Suddenly, the impossible was possible.

Now, John Boehner is the Speaker of the House. The GOP is voting in the House to repeal the Health Care Law, but people seem less enthusiastic than they were. The President's approval, which had been dropping throughout 2010, suddenly appears to be back at 50% levels. Does any of this make sense? No. None of it does. Welcome to the day of eye-blink speed political winds, and change being a permanent part of campaigns.

So what should we know right now? Welcome back to a Presidential cycle, the "fun" stuff. By now, I think we all expected a Republican to have entered the Presidential race by now, and yet, even after November's victories, none have. I think that's the most important thing we should know about the current state of political affairs. Clearly, either the GOP thinks it cannot beat President Obama, or it is trying to figure out how to avoid nominating the least viable candidate for President in the Tea Party Era. Neither is overly exciting for conservatives.

There's a second thing to watch though- Senate retirements. Last cycle, the Republicans saw massive retirements, from swing state Senators, early on. Retirements in Ohio, New Hampshire, Florida, and Missouri, as well as Kentucky and Kansas, had the political class talking about potential irrelevance for the GOP. It didn't play out that way. Today, Senators Conrad (D-ND) and Lieberman (I-CT) announced they were not running again. Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison is also calling it quits. While the "wisdom" will say this means the Senate has gone "red," remember, it's really early. Also, remember that the Democrats are likely to hold Connecticut, and the GOP the same in Texas. So basically, let's all resist knee-jerk reactions.

Well, that's all for now. As I said, we're signing on here.