99% Spring Disrupts Verizon Shareholder Meeting
Six Times

post from Crooks and Liars on 08 May 2012 09:00:24 AM. © Crooks and Liars

Activists who are a part of the 99 percent Spring attended the Verizon Shareholders meeting on Thursday and disrupted the 1 percent six times as they continued to exploit the company's workers. Crooks and Liars has reported extensively on the problems with Verizon and its demands for massive concessions from its workers. Activists used great strategy to draw attention to Verizon and its greedy tactics.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a better example of corporate greed than Verizon, a company making billions and tripling its CEO's pay while demanding givebacks from its workers. Today the 99% Spring movement let Verizon know that 99% of us are trying to bring big corporations back under democracy's control. Today?s Verizon shareholder meeting in Huntsville, Alabama was disrupted six separate times by members of the 99% Power coalition, part of the 99% Spring movement.
The Verizon shareholder meeting comes as the company is in negotiations with the Communication Workers of America (CWA) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). The highly-profitable company -- the 16th largest corporation in America -- is asking its workers for givebacks amounting to as much as $20,000 each, while tripling the compensation of CEO Lowell McAdam from $7.2 million to $23.1 million. The company made $22.5 billion in profits over the past four years while paying its top five executives $283 million over that period. Because of this the company has earned the nickname ?Verigreedy."
You'd be hard-pressed to find a better example of corporate greed than Verizon, a company making billions and tripling its CEO's pay while demanding givebacks from its workers. Today the 99% Spring movement let Verizon know that 99% of us are trying to bring big corporations back under democracy's control. Today?s Verizon shareholder meeting in Huntsville, Alabama was disrupted six separate times by members of the 99% Power coalition, part of the 99% Spring movement.
The Verizon shareholder meeting comes as the company is in negotiations with the Communication Workers of America (CWA) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). The highly-profitable company -- the 16th largest corporation in America -- is asking its workers for givebacks amounting to as much as $20,000 each, while tripling the compensation of CEO Lowell McAdam from $7.2 million to $23.1 million. The company made $22.5 billion in profits over the past four years while paying its top five executives $283 million over that period. Because of this the company has earned the nickname ?Verigreedy."

Dave Johnson has much more about the protests at CAF.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/99-spring-disrupts-verizon-shareh

Digg this

Signed, Sealed, Delivered-- Wall Street Knows
They Dpn't Have To Worry About Scott Brown's Loyalties

post from DownWithTyranny! on 08 May 2012 09:00:15 AM. © DownWithTyranny!

Wall Street has many favorites in Congress-- and the banksters are careful to buy a piece of rising politicians on both sides of the aisle. If there's one thing banksters understand, it's hedging bets. Wall Street banksters made huge bets on Rahm Emanuel-- who wound up as head of the DCCC (where he was able to recruit Wall Street-friendly conservatives for Congress) and then Chief of Staff-- and Harold Ford, Jr and they help finance the entire Blue Dog caucus which works diligently to water down every bill that would regulate bankster criminals. As for he GOP... they now own the entire party, lock, stock and barrel.

Right now they're certainly grooming Paul Ryan to run for higher office. They've pumped $2,722,122 into his career and he's served their interests much to the detriment to his own constituents back in Wisconsin. Their dream is to see Ryan as a senator or, God forbid, in the White House. So far in the current election cycle there are only 7 Members of Congress, 5 senators and 2 congressmen, who Wall Street is funding above the million dollar level:

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is running for reelection as a senator... with virtually no opposition. Wall Street sees her as a presidential contender for 2016 and, along with Chuck Schumer, she literally represents Wall Street in the Senate. She's gotten the most money from the banksters this cycle. #2 is John Boehner, the Speaker of the House and #3 is a freshman senator from Massachusets, Scott Brown. Why Brown? He's been one of Wall Street's biggest advocates on Capitol Hill. And... he's not Elizabeth Warren, the political figure Wall Street fears most in the whole country. Brown wants it both ways-- and routinely talks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to Wall Street:

Facing a potential electoral challenge from consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren next year, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) appears to be trying to portray himself as a stronger Wall Street reformer than she, telling NECN this month that he ?worked very hard? to ensure the passage of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law:

BROWN: I worked very hard to make sure that banks didn?t act like casinos with our money. So the bill that she was apparently working on, I mean was able to work through as a result of [Warren's] position, you know, I worked on it, I voted on it, I pushed it through. [...] So, who doesn?t want to protect the Middle class? But there?s a big difference between talking and actually doing it.

As the Boston Globe?s Alex Katz notes today of the comments, ?By painting himself as a strong supporter of Wall Street reform, Brown appears to be trying to neutralize Warren,? who was a leading advocate of Dodd-Frank and went on to help establish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which the law created.

Contrary to ?push[ing] it through,? Brown dragged his feet on supporting Dodd-Frank and only did so after his demands to water down the bill were met. After his upset election in January 2010, he became the key vote on the bill and leveraged that position to extract big concessions favored by banks, who had given generously to his campaign. First, Brown forced Democrats to strip from the bill a $19 billion bank tax. He also successfully pushed to water down a key reform-- the so-called ?Volcker rule?-- that was aimed at preventing banks from making risky trades with dollars backed by the government. The carve out helped large mutual funds in his state.

In fact, Brown initially opposed the entire Wall Street reform bill and threatened to join the Republican filibuster of the legislation, which would have prevented it from even getting an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

Meanwhile, as ?Brown and his Senate staff were working both publicly and behind the scenes to scuttle? these reforms, the senator took in $140,000 from financial firms-- 400 percent more than the average received by other GOP senators over the same time period-- according to the Boston Globe. A ThinkProgress analysis revealed that during his campaign, banks and their allies gave Brown?s campaign huge 11th hour contributions and helped with a significant get-out-the-vote effort. He was also supported by outside groups friendly to Wall Street like the Club for Growth. Overall, the financial industry is Brown?s second largest contributor.

Right wingers are noticing the game and seem grumpy that Brown uses Democratic Party talking points against Wall Street, even though their big donors are aware he doesn't mean a thing he says and they're keeping the money spigots wide open.

Brown bragged today that he is responsible for the Senate?s passage of the controversial Dodd-Frank bill that was opposed by his Republican colleagues.

?I was the supporter. I worked on that,? he said on MSNBC?s Morning Joe on Friday, referring to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

?It never would have passed if it wasn?t for me. I was tired of having banks and Wall Street act like casinos with our money. But [without] me being involved, that never would have passed.?

The bill introduced by Democrats Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, imposing new regulations on the financial services industry, passed the Senate in July 2010 by a margin of 60-39. It was opposed by all but three Republicans, and without Brown?s vote, the bill would have been subject to a Republican filibuster.

Republicans have warned that Dodd-Frank with its onerous regulations will have a devastating effect on the economy, and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal it if he is elected, calling the bill an ?848-page behemoth.?

...Brown told Morning Joe that he is proud to be a moderate Republican-- a ?bipartisan senator,? he said-- during his appearance on Morning Joe.

He touted the fact that he has voted along with his fellow Republicans in the Senate only 54 percent of the time, becoming one of President Barack Obama?s strongest allies in the GOP caucus.

?The only parts of the jobs packages of the president that have passed [are] the ones I was involved in,? he said.

?I was in the White House two weeks ago [for the signing of] the insider trading bill. And then the jobs bill. And you throw in the three percent withholding, the Arlington Cemetery bill, the 1099 fix. I could go on and on. The only reason we are getting things done is because I?m there and we?re working hard across the aisle.

Brown also raised the ire of conservatives when he backed the president by voting in favor of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) reducing American and Russian nuclear arsenals, which was ratified in December 2010.

Right-wingers don't like that and Democrats aren't buying into Brown's two-faced approach to his job. If his hopes for retaining his seat are pinned on the idea that he somehow acts independently of the rest of the Republicans in Washington, ProgressMass and yesterday's Boston Globe opened up a big hole in his armor as he scrambles to show how "bipartisan" he is.

ProgressMass identified 53 bills that had the support of at least 50 senators but lacked the 60 needed to break Republican filibusters and bring the measures to up-or-down votes.

On these bills, the study found, Brown sided with his party 76 percent of the time [like he did when it came to voting on the Buffett Rule, which he opposed].

?On the votes where he could have displayed true bipartisan leadership, Republican Scott Brown overwhelmingly supported his right-wing Republican colleagues, choosing partisan obstruction over getting something accomplished for the American people,? ProgressMass spokesman Mathew Helman said in a statement.

Blue America has only endorsed 3 candidates for the Senate-- Bernie Sanders, Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren. We have tough standards. Elizabeth has noted that Brown received ?an award from Forbes magazine for being one of Wall Street?s favorite senators. I don?t even think I get nominated for that one." And Elizabeth wants to make Democrats and independents in Massachusetts understand the game Brown is playing. "All I can do is look at how he voted,? she said. ?He has voted to protect the richest and most powerful among us, and he has voted against working families... ?We had a quarter of a million people unemployed here in Massachusetts last fall-- he voted against three jobs bills in a row, he voted against extensions in unemployment. Me, I?ve been out there all this time, I mean this is all I?ve ever done is fighting to try to give working families, middle-class families, a real shot. And you just keep watching year after year it?s getting tougher for them, and if we don?t make changes, we?ve got a real problem.?

This is the single most important Senate race in the country-- at least if you define it as a campaign for real leadership on behalf of progressive solutions to the problems facing ordinary working families in this country. That's how Elizabeth Warren ended up on this page; I hope you will too.

Read The Full Article:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2012/05/signed-sealed-delivered-wall-street.h
tml

Digg this

The Morning Pride: May 8, 2012

post from ThinkProgress on 08 May 2012 09:00:04 AM. © ThinkProgress

Welcome to The Morning Pride, ThinkProgress LGBT?s daily round-up of the latest in LGBT policy, politics, and some culture too! Here?s what we?re reading this morning, but please let us know what stories you?re following as well. Follow us all day on Twitter at @TPEquality.

- Several top donors may be withholding funds from the Obama campaign because of the President’s refusal to sign an executive order protecting LGBT employees of federal contractors.

- Over 10,000 have signed a petition condemning the sermon by Pastor Sean Harris promoting violence against gender non-conforming children.

- Lincoln, Nebraska held nearly seven hours of hearings yesterday about a proposed LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance.

- PHOTOS: Catholics hold a “rosary march” in favor of Minnesota’s marriage inequality amendment.

- Just after speaking at a Global LGBT Summit, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren will now appear with notoriously homophobic pastor John Hagee.

- UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay speaks out against homophobia and transphobia.

- ABC’s What Would You Do? documents how restaurant customers respond to a transphobic customer:

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/08/479884/the-morning-pride-may-8-2012/

Digg this

Small Decrease In Nation’s Rising Obesity
Rate Could Save Billions In Health Care Costs

post from ThinkProgress on 08 May 2012 09:00:04 AM. © ThinkProgress

A new study shows that roughly 42 percent of all Americans are expected to be obese by 2030 if the nation’s obesity rate continues to rise at the same rate. But if the rate stays where it is instead of increasing by 33 percent, the U.S. would save $550 billion in health care costs over the next 20 years. Even a 1 percent decrease in the obesity rate would save $85 billion, according to the analysis released today at the Weight of the Nation conference. The Centers for Disesase Control and Prevention sponsored the conference and helped with the research that highlights the financial consequences of the obesity epidemic, according to NPR:

That rapidly growing group of severely obese people, who have the most medical problems and incur the highest health care costs, will rise from about 5 percent of the population now to 11 percent by 2030, researchers suggest.
The findings are meant to be a call to action, as experts gathered at the CDC conference consider how best to to combat obesity, a public health problem that affects about 78 million adults and 12.5 million children and adolescents.

Obesity already accounts for 21 percent of health care spending, and experts warn that the next generation may have a shorter life span because of how many Americans are considered obese. But this research proves that a small dent in the rising obesity rate could impact rising health care costs. Now if only House Republicans would stop trying to cut prevention initiatives to help improve people’s health.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/08/479655/slow-obesity-rate-health-care-c
osts/

Digg this

May 9 News: Europe Struggles To Fulfill Green
Fund Commitments After 2013

post from ThinkProgress on 08 May 2012 09:00:04 AM. © ThinkProgress

A round-up of the top climate and energy news. Please post additional links below.

EU nations have yet to come up with a plan on how to fill a multi-billion euro fund to help tackle climate change, even as the region’s executive body hosts talks with countries likely to bear the brunt of extreme weather. [Reuters]

The effects of global warming are making it more difficult for reservoir managers to control floods and manage flows for irrigation, recreation and fisheries. [Idaho Statesman]

Disadvantaged kids not only breathe disproportionate amounts bad air, but they also can be more vulnerable to the ill effects of that bad air. [Huffington Post]

California Superior Court judge Elizabeth Allen White has dismissed most of Ben Stein’s lawsuit that claimed the Japanese company Kyocera Mita backed out of a $300,000 deal to hire him to act in commercials for a line of computer printers when it found out about his controversial beliefs on global warming. [Hollywood Reporter]

Crude oil prices slid Monday to the lowest level since February as weak economic data and high prices dampened expectations for consumption just three weeks ahead of the summer driving season. [Washington Post]

The next great hurdle for selling electric cars could be to attract new customers from among those who live in apartment complexes. [USA Today]

Smart meters eventually will be ubiquitous globally over the next few decades, but, interestingly enough, installations of smart meters in the U.S. will actually sharply decline over the next two years, before they pick back up, according to Pike Research. [Earth2Tech]

The Asian Development Bank urged countries in the Asia-Pacific region to take immediate action to reduce the negative impact of climate change. [UPI]

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/08/479851/may-9-news-europe-struggles-to
-fulfill-green-fund-commitments-after-2013/

Digg this

Econ 101: May 8, 2012

post from ThinkProgress on 08 May 2012 09:00:04 AM. © ThinkProgress

Welcome to ThinkProgress Economy?s morning link roundup. This is what we?re reading. Have you seen any interesting news? Let us know in the comments section. You can also follow ThinkProgress Economy on Twitter.

Greece is preparing to hold another election next month, after Sunday’s vote failed to produce governing majority. [Financial Times]

A new study shows that recent global efforts to crack down on tax evasion have largely failed. [The Guardian]

The U.S. government’s profit from rescuing mega-insurer AIG may reach $15 billion. [Wall Street Journal]

Senate Republicans are obstructing President Obama’s latest nominees for the Federal Reserve Board. [Reuters]

Spain is preparing to bail out Bankia, the country’s third largest bank. [Financial Times]

A committee of lawmakers charged with negotiating a new highway bill will meet for the first time today. [The Hill]

The European Union is moving forward with discussion of implementing a financial transactions tax. [The Hill]

Bank of America is planning to offer mortgage principal reductions to 200,000 homeowners. [CNBC]

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/08/479845/econ-050812/

Digg this

Cord Cutting Continues, But The Rate Is Slow

post from ThinkProgress on 08 May 2012 09:00:04 AM. © ThinkProgress

Nielsen’s latest figures are out, and 1.5 million households gave up their cable subscriptions in 2011. That’s not a tiny figure?it’s a 1.5 percent decline?but it’s also probably not enough to convince the cable companies that they should be running scared of alternatives, or that they should reexamine their pricing or anything else about their business model.

In fact, this is a case where the recession seems to me to be the enemy of innovation. As cutbacks go, cable is an easy and obvious thing to eliminate from your budget if times get hard. It’s a non-minor chunk of change, and you can make up a fair bit of the value around the margins or with a Netflix streaming subscription. Even if you buy a single season of a show on iTunes and parcel it out, it’s less money than a month’s subscription, and may feel like you’re spending your money in a more targeted way than you were if you splashing out for a whole cable package. Cable may be less expensive than, say, a family trip to the movies, but it is a fixed cost you can eliminate, rather than a periodic and discretionary one you can save up for as a treat.

Given all of these things, I’d imagine the cable companies view the threat to their business model as circumstantial rather than existential. If cord cutting doesn’t just continue but accelerates once the economy starts to improve dramatically rather than incrementally, and if that trend continues over several years, then they might reassess. But companies tend to feel pain that’s a spur to innovation in a lag after individual consumers feel a pinch that causes them to change their behavior.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/05/08/479675/cord-cutting-continues-but-the-
rate-is-slow/

Digg this

On This Day In History May 8

post from Docudharma - Front Page on 08 May 2012 09:00:00 AM. © Docudharma - Front Page

Cross posted from The Stars Hollow GazetteThis is your morning Open Thread. Pour your favorite beverage and review the past and comment on the future.Find the past "On This Day in History" here.Click on images to enlargeMay 8 is the 128th day of the year[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.docudharma.com/diary/29822/on-this-day-in-history-may-8

Digg this

Dreams from My President

Every president plays a symbolic, almost mythological role that?s hard to talk about, much less quantify?it?s like trying to grab a ball of mercury. I?m not referring to using the bully pulpit to shape the national agenda but to the way that the president, as America?s most inescapably powerful figure, colors the emotional climate of the country. John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan did this affirmatively, expressing ideals that shaped the whole culture. Setting a buoyant tone, they didn?t just change movies, music, and television; they changed attitudes. Other presidents did the same, only unpleasantly. Richard Nixon created a mood of angry paranoia, Jimmy Carter one of dreary defeatism, and George W. Bush, especially in that seemingly endless second term, managed to do both at once.

While Barack Obama?s election left a joyous imprint on American culture?most of us were thrilled to discover that we could sometimes be what we want to think we are?his presidency almost immediately began smudging it. Not only did his first three years leave few traces on the culture but they proved unexpectedly joyless. This is partly because he?s been buffeted by economic hardship and an extremist opposition that has drowned out or misrepresented his many achievements. Back in January, a poll showed that more than half the country thought he had done ?not very much? or ?little or nothing.? Which is bonkers. You may have a hard time swallowing what Obama?s done, but like an order at the Olive Garden, there?s undeniably a lot of it.

Still, Obama deserves his own share of blame for the emotional letdown of his first three years. Voters didn?t elect him just for his policies; they voted for him because they expected that his presidency would be, if not transcendent, at least invigorating. Yet the truth is that he has often been boring?his first answer at his first presidential press conference ran 896 words?and eager to paint himself as the only grown-up in the room, a role that smacks of the school principal, not the visionary leader. Rather than relish his time in the White House, he?s sometimes behaved like its prisoner.

At once formal and guarded, which needn?t be the same thing, he hasn?t yet forged an intimate bond with the American people (aside, that is, from those many millions who feel the distinctive intimacy of hatred). That helps explain why his favorability numbers keep roller-coastering. If Americans don?t vote for him again, it won?t simply be because of gas prices, unemployment, or conservative efforts to take him down. It will be because of something more personal. Confused by the difference between the incandescent candidate and the professorial president, they?re still not sure what to make of him.

One person he?s clearly not is Bill Clinton, the first president of the 24/7 media juggernaut that keeps redefining our sense of what?s public and what?s private. Clinton?s policies might break your heart (he could feel your pain while signing legislation that increased it), but as that recent PBS documentary reminded us, he was always interesting, whether parsing the is-ness of ?is,? playing ?Heartbreak Hotel? on Arsenio, or talking about his underpants on MTV?not to mention his taste for fleshy ribs and women. The Clinton presidency was an early reality show, and if most people still liked him when it ended (he would?ve won a third term), this wasn?t only because the economy went boom. It was that everyone, even those who hated him, felt they knew him. Glimpsing themselves in his strengths and luxuriantly carnal weaknesses, Americans have never had a more intimate relationship with their president.

Clinton?s life was such a circus that commentator Kurt Andersen famously dubbed him ?entertainer-in-chief.? His presidency demonstrated that the country had entered a new relationship between those in the Oval Office and those who put them there. Where the mass media once brought the public closer to their presidents than ever before?the radio ?fireside chats? made Franklin Roosevelt seem like a jaunty uncle dropping into your home?the tabloiding of American media makes the White House feel besieged by barbarians who will rip it and the country to pieces for better ratings or more hits. Small wonder that both of Clinton?s successors have treated his example as a cautionary tale, becoming obsessed with controlling (as they say) the narrative.

Obama has been suspicious, if not hostile, toward a media that, eager to love him during his rise, now find him annoyingly sniffy. In a way, this is surprising, for if anyone would seem perfect for our media age, it?s him. Like Kennedy, he has a cool, even regal, style that plays well on the cool medium of TV and a charisma that producers and editors hope to milk. But unlike Kennedy, Obama governs in a media culture that?s too fast, too intrusive, too competitive, and too many--tentacled to be anything but treacherous. We are long past the day when newsmen swooned because Jackie Kennedy invited Pablo Casals to the White House, let alone when JFK could hang out with big-time reporters who were envious of (and remained silent about) the cavalier ease with which he got all those blow jobs. Indeed, we may never again see a day when the White House treats the media as anything but its enemy. In this respect, our presidents are all Nixon now.

Such mistrust has limited Obama?s ability to create an emotional bond with the public, many of whom find him a bit, well, alien. Americans like their presidents to share themselves, at least a little, so we can sense what makes them tick. But on top of a suspicion of the media, Obama is affected by other factors. One, obviously, is race: As the first black president, he has had to be careful not to come off flip (as with his early maladroit joke about Nancy Reagan?s séances); this made it almost inevitable that he would overplay his intrinsic seriousness, especially as it was precisely this that had allowed him to thrive in a white world. The other is a cherished sense of self-possession. It?s not that Obama doesn?t want us ever to see him sweat. It?s that, paradoxical in a man who sought and won the world?s biggest job, he sometimes doesn?t want us to see him at all.

In this, he resembles a less sunny?and less popular?version of Ronald Reagan, whose own persona was so elusive that he reduced his prize-winning biographer Edmund Morris to writing a fictionalized memoir and family members to puzzling over who the heck that guy was. Obama has learned to manage, or suppress, the psychic fallout of being the brilliant, mixed-race son of two seekers, one reliable, the other vaingloriously selfish, who endowed him with a childhood of rare, unsettling fluidity. Even now, one marvels at the discipline it took for this born outsider to become the self-possessed law student in blue shirt and chinos who, thanks to YouTube, we can watch addressing a 1991 Harvard rally?even then he was a cool customer?or the young attorney who wrote Dreams from My Father, a self-exposing book that transforms his unruly background into a finely wrought creation myth that closes off as much as it opens up.

Where Clinton could shake voters? hands until the last dog died, and then give a long eulogy over Fido?s grave, Obama doesn?t seek or need the crowd?s love?though he does need its energy to bring out his best. (His worst speeches have come sitting in the Oval Office where his only audience is the camera.) Bush could repeat the same WMD falsehoods as tirelessly as a parrot. Obama, though, grows impatient with having to say the same things over and over; his America is a graduate seminar, not some remedial class for slow learners. Not one to mingle with his old colleagues on the Hill, he?s adopted a presidential style built around carefully staged public performances.

Better at set pieces than spontaneity?nearly all his rhetorical mistakes are off-the-cuff throwaways?he thrives on the ceremonial splendor of big moments. Just as Reagan shone after disasters like the Challenger explosion, so Obama was at his best in his Tucson speech about the shootings that targeted Representative Gabrielle Giffords. You can see why he prefers making speeches to giving press conferences, for the former lets him be in charge of both his message and his self-presentation; he loves dusting off his gravitas. Then, too, he?s really, really good at it. Here?s where one can feel the difference between Obama the president and Obama the candidate. Where his stirring oratory was key to his 2008 victory, once in office, his reliance on this strength has often proved counter-productive. Having voted him in, Americans wanted an easier, more conversational relationship that would let them relate to their leader; unfortunately, even the finest public speeches can?t help but feel like performances. They inspire more admiration than personal rapport.

As competitive as he is serene, Obama clearly wants to win at everything he does, be it a pickup basketball game, re-election, or the verdict of History. But physique aside, he often reminds me of Shaquille O?Neal, the NBA center who was his era?s most dominating player yet didn?t believe it necessary to knock himself out every single game?he?d turn it on when he got to the playoffs. I followed Obama as he was running for Senate and was struck by how skillfully he paced himself on the trail, low-keying it at small stops, rousing himself to table-pounding eloquence at big-city dinners. Sitting alone, he sank into himself as if he were his own hot tub, as comfortable in his skin as the Buddha, yet when someone approached, he came to life, his killer smile exploding like a flashbulb.

Obama is one who can turn it on. Kicking into high gear as the campaign is upon us, he?s suddenly all over the news doing things that may be cold-blooded politics but suggest warm-blooded humanity?singing ?Let?s Stay Together? at the Apollo, talking hoops on Bill Simmons?s ESPN podcast (he wowed sports-talk hosts with his detailed knowledge of Blake Griffin?s jump shot), phoning Sandra Fluke after Rush Limbaugh?s noxious name-calling, and giving a ripsnorter of a speech to the United Auto Workers that had the crowd chanting ?Four more years! Four more years!? even though the event was officially nonpolitical. He?s turning into the happy, engaged President Obama we?ve been missing, the one many of us have wanted him to be all along.

Everybody has their own theory for predicting who will win a presidential race?the candidate who has the most money, the candidate who runs the best campaign, the candidate who can attract soccer moms or Nascar dads. Allow me to propose what I modestly call The Powers Principle?. It holds that, in a presidential election, the winner will be the candidate who seems like the most fun. This is something larger than the dinky (and discredited) idea elaborated during Bush v. Gore?that Dubya is the candidate you?d ?rather have a beer with.? That is (forgive me) small beer. The ?most fun? candidate is the one who, in style, attitude, and vision, will do the most to make America feel like the enjoyable and optimistic place that the world still envies.

***

Being more fun is why JFK beat Nixon in that 1960 nail-biter and why the risky but dashing Reagan trounced the familiar but be-sweatered Jimmy Carter. It?s why Papa Bush could beat gray-souled Michael Dukakis yet lose to the Boy from Hope, who would go on to swamp Bob Dole, one of the wittiest politicians of the last half-century but cursed by his resemblance to the crabby duffer who runs your neighborhood hardware store. It?s why Albert Gore?s nyah-nyah prissiness made him vulnerable to Dubya?s lack of pretension, which even in the middle of the botched Iraq War still seemed like a better time than John Kerry?s boundless stentorian maundering (?And so I say to you ??). The one counterexample might appear to be Nixon?s two victories, yet in ?68, the old ?Happy Warrior,? Hubert Humphrey, looked hemorrhoidal the whole time, while the genuinely miserable Tricky Dick pretended to be happy, and four years later, George McGovern appeared to be offering not fun but chaos.

This historical trend is good news for Obama, who already lucked out once in getting to run against superannuated John McCain. This fall, the Republicans are going to put forward a candidate who is no fun at all, be it Mitt Romney, who never seems more animatronic than when trying to prove he?s a regular, good-time guy, or Father Santorum, whose campaign would doubtless pass out rulers so we can whack our own knuckles whenever we have impure thoughts. Obama should outshine either of these sour America-in-declinesters unless he relapses and starts believing that voters want someone dead serious who will approach every issue with detached sobriety. Sure, we?re voting for the man who will hold the world?s fate in his hands, but never forget, we?re also inviting someone into our inboxes for the next four years. We want him to be good company.

Read The Full Article:
http://prospect.org/article/dreams-my-president

Digg this

Today in Congress: Wabbit season! Duck season!
Appropriations season! Veto season!

Recapping yesterday's action:

As is usually the case in the House, the first work day of the week was all about the suspension bills. Seven were scheduled. Six made it to the floor. Only three required roll call votes, and each of those three passed without a single vote cast against them. The odd man out from the schedule: a motion to concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2297, a bill to promote the development of the Southwest waterfront in the District of Columbia.

The Senate, in addition to continuing the debate on the motion to proceed to consideration of the student loan bill, confirmed the three federal judges slated for approval today, two by voice vote, and one by roll call. In addition, they slipped two FCC commissioners through.

Looking ahead to today:

The House picks up its first regular appropriations bill of the year, and you know, it struck me yesterday that it was the Commerce, Justice, Science bill, which is a little unusual to see come up first. Lately, I think it's almost always been a defense or veterans-related appprops that makes it to the floor first, probably because there's generally less disagreement among the appropriators about those subjects. Military construction is always a popular starting point.

But I think the shenanigans with the "Sequester Replacement Act" is screwing that up this year. House Republicans want to repeal the so-called "automatic, across-the-board cuts" agreed to last August as part of the debt ceiling deal, at least with respect to defense spending. So that's probably got to be addressed first, before they can actually move a defense-related appropriations bill.

And of course, they'll be looking to make up that extra spending with cuts elsewhere, and they'll be doing it at the expense of accounts and programs already cut to the bone by the rest of the August agreement. Balking at the defense cuts is throwing everything else into disarray, too. And as a result, you've got the first appropriations bill of the year coming to the floor under a veto threat.

So they'll spend all day, and maybe a good part of the night, on this one, even though it sounds like the President isn't interested in letting this go anywhere. Not that the Senate is likely to send it on to him in its present form, anyway. And maybe it's with that knowledge that the leadership has opted to bring the bill to the floor under an open rule, meaning anyone can bring any amendment they like. I'm sure the Republican plan is pretty much to crap on all of them if they're written by Democrats, and maybe give a sidelong glance at the ones coming from their fellow Republicans. They can keep that up all night, especially knowing none of it is likely to matter.

In the Senate, the order of the day is a noon cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the student loan bill.

By the way, how are we doing with the whole filibuster and cloture thing this year, thanks to our "gentleman's agreement?" For a while there, it sort of did seem like we were seeing fewer cloture motions made. But the deal on reining in filibusters of motions to proceed fell apart pretty early in the first session, and now we're really beginning to see the numbers rack up. Today's vote is on the 83rd cloture motion filed during the 112th Congress, and really, that's not all that far off the record and near-record-setting paces of the previous two Congresses. Today's motion was filed on April 26th, and by the same date in the last two Congresses, there had been 90 filed in the 111th, and 99 in the 110th. So there's been some slack in the pace, but this 83rd filing in the 112th has already claimed the title of the third all-time highest total for an entire Congress.

So, yeah, that whole thing is kind of sucking wind right now.

Today's floor and committee schedules appear below the fold.