A Blue View

Finally: Obama To Address The Muslim World From Egypt

From the NY Times:

The White House finally revealed on Friday the country from which President Obama will make his much anticipated speech to the Muslim world: Egypt.

Though White House officials would not say exactly where in Egypt the speech would be given, the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said on Friday that Mr. Obama would deliver the speech there on June 4, two days before he goes to Normandy, France, for events commemorating the 65th anniversary of D-Day.

“I think having spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, I think all of this gives the president the opportunity, hopefully, to extend a hand to those that, in many ways, are like us but just simply have a different religion,” Mr. Gibbs said. Mr. Obama promised during the campaign that he would make a speech from a Muslim capital in the first 100 days in office, so the speech would fall slightly outside that time frame. However, White House officials would not confirm on Friday that the speech would be in Cairo.

In making such a high-profile address to the Muslim world from Egypt, Mr. Obama is wading straight into the center of the storm of the United States’ turbulent relations with the Muslim world.

Egypt, under President Hosni Mubarak, has a fractured democratic process; opponents of Mr. Mubarak have been imprisoned, and some democracy advocates have been harassed. But the country is also the traditional intellectual center of the Arab world, as well as an important barometer of Arab street sentiment. Because of the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned but tolerated social and political movement that has been embraced by much of the Islamic world, Egypt is also a place where Mr. Obama can try to woo disenfranchised and disaffected young Arabs.

Egypt is a “country that in many ways represents the heart of the Arab world, and I think it will be a terrific opportunity for the president to address and discuss our relationship with the Muslim world,” Mr. Gibbs said. Mr. Obama’s father was a Muslim, although Mr. Obama has been a practicing Christian for years.

Mr. Obama took his first attempt at addressing a Muslim population last month in Ankara, Turkey, making a well-received speech to the Turkish Parliament in which he drew on his own background.

“The United States has been enriched by Muslim-Americans,” Mr. Obama said in the speech. “Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because I am one of them.”

He told the Turkish legislators that America’s relationship with the Muslim world had to be about more than just opposition to terrorism.

Egypt will give him an opportunity to do the same thing, except on a much larger scale.

Administration officials said Secret Service agents were already on the ground in Egypt, preparing for the trip. The country has been the scene of several terrorist attacks in recent years.

Maddow Expands On The GOP's Scare Tactics

Rachel liked the videos shown in GOP Wing Nuts At It Again, so she goes to town on the idea: 

The GOP Is, Amazingly, Using The Truth To Stop Torturemeister Investigations

The GOP has found an effective strategy for pushing back on any effort to punish the torturemeisters: charging Democrats with hypocrisy, suggesting that the counterterrorism policies of President Bill Clinton (such as rendition) violated human rights and claiming that moving Guantanamo detainess to the US is dangerous. Surprising for the GOP, the first two charges are largely true and will, I think, be largely effective; the third is ridiculuous, right-wing fearmongering, as GOP Wing Nuts At It Again makes clear. From the NY Times:

Congressional Republicans on Friday accused Democrats of full complicity in the approval of the Bush administration’s brutal interrogations, citing a new accounting that shows briefings for some top Democrats on waterboarding and other harsh methods starting in 2002.

The new chart of briefings [see it], prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, was the first full listing of briefings to members of Congress and their aides. It appears to call into question the longstanding assertion of Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she was never told that waterboarding and other methods were actually used, only that the Central Intelligence Agency believed they were legal and could be used.

The chart said that at the first briefing, on Sept. 4, 2002, Ms. Pelosi, then the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and Representative Porter J. Goss, the committee’s Republican chairman, were given a “description” of the interrogation methods that “had been employed” against a prisoner, Abu Zubaydah.

On Friday, the speaker issued a statement defending her previous account.

“Of the 40 C.I.A. briefings to Congress reported recently in the press, I was only briefed once, on Sept. 4, 2002, as I have previously stated.” She said she was “briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future” and that the techniques were determined to be legal.

Ms. Pelosi also noted that Leon E. Panetta, the director of the C.I.A., had warned lawmakers that the descriptions of briefings provided in the new report were based on notes and recollections of C.I.A. officers. “In the end, you and the committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened,” Mr. Panetta wrote to several members of Congress.

The chart shows that in addition to Ms. Pelosi, Democrats briefed on the methods included former Senator Bob Graham of Florida in 2002 and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Representative Jane Harman of California in 2003.

Republicans also unveiled legislation aimed at curbing any effort to move prisoners from the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, prison to the United States as part of President Obama’s order to close the Cuban detention center by early next year. The name of the bill, the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act, succinctly explained the Republican line of attack [watch video that completely destroys their silly argument] ...

Republicans are now mounting an aggressive pushback on several fronts: highlighting evidence that at least some Democrats in Congress failed to speak out against the harsh methods; accusing the Obama administration of endangering Americans by emptying Guantánamo; and suggesting that the counterterrorism policies of President Bill Clinton violated human rights.

At a hearing on Thursday, Republican senators pressed Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. about the practice in the Clinton administration of rendition, in which terrorism suspects captured abroad were delivered to prisons in other countries, including some that routinely use torture.

“If we’re going to ask lawyers who were asked to give legal opinions, we’re going to investigate them, jeopardize their careers, second guess them, look back, then where does that stop?” Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, asked Mr. Holder. He suggested that if Bush administration lawyers were to be investigated, perhaps those from the Clinton administration should get similar treatment.

Weekly Address

Thank You Activist Judges

Richard Just raises an interesting point about the historical role "activist" judges play:

I am late to this, but Maine Governor John Baldacci's explanation of why he changed his mind on gay marriage was fascinating--and shed some light on a question that has been hotly debated in liberal circles over the past few years: When it comes to gay marriage, does judicial activism help or hurt? From The New York Times:

Gov. John Baldacci of Maine signed a same-sex marriage bill on Wednesday minutes after the Legislature sent it to his desk, saying he had reversed his position because gay couples were entitled to the state Constitution's equal rights protections.

"It's not the way I was raised and it's not the way that I am," Mr. Baldacci, a Democrat, said in a telephone interview. "But at the same time I have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution. That's my job, and you can't allow discrimination to stand when it's raised to your level."

Baldacci is being very specific: He shifted his view because he decided that the status quo wasn't constitutional. This struck me as a noteworthy, and unusually clear, piece of evidence in the debate over the efficacy of judicial activism. Those of us who favor an active role for courts hardly see them as the only, or the primary, way of pushing liberal goals. We simply argue that progress in a liberal democracy is a complicated enterprise involving multiple players and multiple branches of government--and that, when it is clear history is headed in a certain direction, courts can often play a role in nudging forward other branches, not to mention public opinion. This is arguably what happened during the civil rights movement. Is the process working again? Ten years ago, I doubt any governor, especially one who was skeptical of gay marriage, would have been inclined to read his state's constitution as containing a right to gay marriage. What Baldacci's comment suggests is that, as judges across the country reinterpret equal protection clauses in light of our culture's changing understanding of homosexuality, they are not merely persuading themselves or their peers in other courts; they are also persuading those outside the judicial system.

Of course, it's just one governor, and it's just one comment. Still, it's a heartening development. So: Good for Governor Baldacci. And good for the judges who laid the intellectual groundwork for his decision.

Obama Loves Dijon Mustard

Did you see this video: Obama And Biden Make A Burger Run? This cartoonist apparently did:

 

"Sojourner Truth would be proud to see me, a descendant of slaves, serving as" FLOTUS

From Michelle Obama Watch:

Joined by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, First Lady Michelle Obama unveils the bust of Sojourner Truth in Emancipation Hall of the US Capitol today.

Sojourner Truth, the first Black woman to be honored with a bust at the Capitol, was a an abolitionist and crusader for women’s rights to vote. Truth met presidents Abraham Lincoln in 1864 and Ulysses S. Grant in 1870, and delivered her signature “Ain’t I a Woman?” speech at a women’s rights convention in Akron, Ohio, in 1851.

To a loud and resounding applause, the First Lady said:

[O]ne can only imagine what Sojourner Truth, an outspoken, tell-it-like-it-is kind of woman—and we all know a little something about that, right—just to imagine what she would have to say about this incredible gathering, just looking down on this day, and thinking about the legacy she has left all of us—because we are all here because, as my husband says time and time again, we stand on the shoulders of giants like Sojourner Truth.

And just as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott would be pleased to know that we have a woman serving as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, I hope that Sojourner Truth would be proud to see me, a descendant of slaves, serving as the First Lady of the United States of America.

And just as many young boys and girls have walked through this Capitol—I see them now, and they see the bust of suffragists and hear the stories of the struggles of women, what they had to endure to gain the right to vote—now many young boys and girls, like my own daughters, will come to Emancipation Hall and see the face of a woman who looks like them.

Jeff Sessions Could Support Court Nominee With "Gay Tendencies"

Jonathan Chait reacts:

I'm trying to figure out what exactly Jeff Sessions meant when he said he could support a Supreme Court justice who had "gay tendencies." Clearly he is making a concession of sorts. But precisely what he is conceding is not clear. Here is Sessions' exact formulation:

"I don't think a person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified per se for the job.” 

It's as if Sessions wandered into his answer intending at first to say that a justice's sexual orientation shouldn't matter, but then thought better of it and tried to walk back the sentiment in mid-sentence. The "per se" is a telling qualifier. Being gay does not disqualify you per se, but, you know, it's two strikes against you.

And, of course, Sessions is only willing to allow "gay tendencies." This of course is not the same thing as being willing to vote for a justice who's actually gay. Just gay-ish. So, for instance, some bigots might refuse to seat somebody like Jennifer Granholm, who is heterosexual but has suspiciously short hair. Sessions would not disqualify her on that basis. Per se. But perhaps a prospective justice who evinced extremely strong gay tendencies, such as outright non-heterosexuality, might be a different story.

GOP Wing Nuts At It Again

The Republican Party is promoting its "Keep Terrorists Our of America Act," which is based on the silly premise that supermax prisons on American soil cannot hold terrorists, with a "scary" video (hat tip Jonathan Chait):

Hilzoy has responded with her own clever video (the final screen is hiliarious):

 

Ridge Bows Out Of Pa Senate Race

From the Wall St Journal:

The Republicans’ best hope of defeating Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter in 2010 announced today that he would not seek the Republican nomination. “After careful consideration and many conversations with friends and family and the leadership of my party, I have decided not to seek the Republican nomination for Senate,” former Gov. Tom Ridge said in a statement. Ridge, who was also a cabinet official in the Bush administration, immediately rose to the top of the prospective GOP candidate list after Specter switched parties and became a Democrat last week.

A recent Quinnipiac University poll showed Ridge trailing Specter by just three points, 46%-43% in a general election match-up. Former lawmaker Pat Toomey and conservative activist Peg Luksik are running in the April 2010 primary, but Specter is the odds-on favorite in a match-up with either candidate. The Quinnipiac poll gave Specter a 20-point, 53%-33%, advantage over Toomey.

Graduation 2009

 

Torture: What Did Pelosi Know & When Did She Know it?

From the Wash Post:

Intelligence officials released documents yesterday saying that  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda suspects, seeming to contradict her repeated statements that she was never told the techniques were actually being used.

In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress briefed on the tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House intelligence committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The memo, issued to Capitol Hill by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency, notes that the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs" on Abu Zubaida. EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique, and Abu Zubaida, whose real name is Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured. He also was the first to have the controversial tactic of simulated drowning, or waterboarding, used against him.

The issue of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it has become a tussle on Capitol Hill. Republicans have accused her of knowing for years about the interrogation techniques CIA agents were using and of objecting only when the tactics became public and antiwar activists protested.

In a carefully worded statement, Pelosi's office said yesterday that she had never been briefed about the use of waterboarding, only that it had been approved by Bush administration lawyers as a legal interrogation technique.

"As this document shows, the speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002. The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used," said Brendan Daly, Pelosi's spokesman.

New MoveOn Ad: "Out of business"

Advocating for Obama's public health care option:

Conservatives Uphill Fight Over Nominee Shows How Much Has Changed In 4 Years

From the Wash Post:

Conservative groups concede that they have little chance of derailing Obama's choice, barring a scandal. But Supreme Court nominations have long been a rallying point and a fundraising opportunity for interest groups, particularly on the right. And now, at a time of ideological drift among Republicans, a loose coalition of conservative organizations has begun mapping strategies.

The goal, they say, is to fire up supporters and shake up the debate in the Democratic-controlled Senate, in part as preparation for other court fights to come.

Just hours after news of Souter's retirement broke last week, more than four dozen conservative activists hastily put together a conference call to plot their attack. Among other things, they divvied up the jobs of conducting background research on potential candidates ... The Committee for Justice and other organizations have issued new fundraising appeals. The Family Research Council, along with other abortion foes, is gearing up to oppose a nominee who, like Obama, is likely to favor abortion rights. The National Rifle Association says it will examine Obama's choice in light of the high court's recent ruling weakening gun laws in the District ...

The looming battle provides a striking example of the sea change that has swept over Washington in the past three years, with Obama in the White House and Democrats close to controlling 60 seats in the Senate.

Liberal groups such as People for the American Way and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights -- which were part of the opposition on judicial fights during the Bush years -- now find themselves ramping up in favor of a nominee who will have the backing of the White House and Senate leaders. Democrats also have a number of new groups, including the Obama-backed Organizing for America project at the Democratic National Committee, that can throw weight behind a nominee.

"The tables are turned, and their side has lost the bully pulpit," said Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice. "For us at the moment, it's a chance to reintroduce the courts as an issue and to offer a vision of the kinds of judges we want and that are best for America."

 Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who played a lead role in promoting the Roberts and Alito nominations, acknowledged that Republicans "have our work cut out for us," saying: "We have fewer senators. We have fewer staff. We have fewer resources, without the White House or the Department of Justice" ...

Conservative groups cheered the elevation this week of conservative  Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.) to the top GOP seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, replacing moderate  Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), who favors abortion rights and just announced his switch to the Democratic Party.

Manny Ramirez

Even A Tiny 0.5% Budget Cut Will Be Hard To Get From The Democratic Congress

It's going to take real Presidential leadership to get even tiny budget recutions through Congress as the instutional & special/parochial interests fiercely resist any cut, no matter how logical. From the Wash Post:

President Obama's modest proposal to slice $17 billion from 121 government programs quickly ran into a buzz saw of opposition on Capitol Hill yesterday, as an array of Democratic lawmakers vowed to fight White House efforts to deprive their favorite initiatives of federal funds.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she is "committed" to ... Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) said he would oppose ... Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.) vowed to force the White House to accept ....

The news releases began flying as Obama unveiled the long-awaited details of his $3.4 trillion spending plan, including a list of programs he wants to trim or eliminate. Though the proposed reductions represent just one-half of 1 percent of next year's budget, the swift protest was a precursor of the battle Obama will face within his own party to control spending and rein in a budget deficit projected to exceed $1.2 trillion next year.

As small as it is, the list of reductions highlights Obama's first effort to reshape priorities that were tilted heavily toward defense and national security under President George W. Bush. While the Pentagon would get a significant increase overall, more than half Obama's projected savings -- $8.8 billion -- would come out of 14 defense programs, the most from any agency. And for the first time since 2003, the budget would devote more money to the war in Afghanistan than to the one in Iraq.

Stephen Ellis, vice president of the nonprofit Taxpayers for Common Sense, said the budget proposal presents "a real test of presidential leadership."

"What all this is going to come down to is whether this administration is willing to put the political capital and shoe leather into holding Congress to these cuts. Because every one of these programs has some special interest and some lawmaker that thinks it's the greatest thing since sliced bread," Ellis said. "The previous administration had a very long track record of putting up decently thought-out cuts that they basically abandoned the day after the budget came out" ...

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee in charge of agriculture spending, said lawmakers' lists may wind up replacing the president's list, which she said has a number of worrisome ideas. She cited a plan to eliminate an early childhood education program called Even Start, which the Obama administration has called ineffective.

"There may be some similar. There may be some different. There may be new ones added to the list," DeLauro said. "But we're all on the same wavelength. We know we've got to take a look at where we cut back on spending."  

The budget documents released yesterday total more than 1,500 pages and fill in details of the broad outline that Obama released in February and that Congress approved last week. A massive appendix lists program-by-program requests for the roughly 40 percent of the budget controlled by Congress, and a separate tome details programs targeted for elimination.

The volume of cuts is weighted heavily toward the Pentagon, where Obama is asking Congress to cancel seven programs and to reduce seven others. In his final budget, Bush didn't touch the Pentagon, though he targeted some programs earlier in his presidency.

View budget by agency

Michelle Obama On Work Life Balance

Republicans In The Wilderness: Is The Party Over?

An excellent article from Michael Grunwald that refutes the CW about the GOP being out of ideas.  As Grunwald states below, "Republicans actually have plenty of ideas. That's the problem. The party's ideas — about economic issues, social issues and just about everything else — are not popular ideas."

These days, Republicans have the desperate aura of an endangered species. They lost Congress, then the White House; more recently, they lost a slam-dunk House election in a conservative New York district, then Senator Arlen Specter. Polls suggest that only one-fourth of the electorate considers itself Republican, that independents are trending Democratic and that as few as five states have solid Republican pluralities. And the electorate is getting less white, less rural, less Christian — in short, less demographically Republican. GOP officials who completely controlled Washington three years ago are vowing to "regain our status as a national party" and creating woe-is-us groups to resuscitate their brand, while Democrats are publishing books like The Strange Death of Republican America and 40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation. John McCain's campaign manager recently described his party as basically extinct on the West Coast, nearly extinct in the Northeast and endangered in the Mountain West and Southwest.

So are the Republicans going extinct? And can the death march be stopped? The Washington critiques of the Republican Party as powerless, leaderless and rudderless — the new Donner party — are not very illuminating. Minority parties always look weak and inept in the penalty box. Sure, it can be comical to watch Republican National Committee (RNC) gaffe machine Michael Steele riff on his hip-hop vision for the party or Texas Governor Rick Perry carry on about secession or Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann explain how F.D.R.'s "Hoot-Smalley" Act caused the Depression (the Smoot-Hawley Act, a Republican tariff bill, was enacted before F.D.R.'s presidency), but haplessness does not equal hopelessness. And yes, the Republican brand could benefit from spokesmen less familiar and less reviled than Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich, but the party does have some fresher faces stepping out of the wings.

The Democratic critiques of the GOP — that it's the Party of No, or No Ideas — are not helpful either. It's silly to fault an opposition party for opposition; obstructionism helped return Democrats to power. Republicans actually have plenty of ideas.

That's the problem. The party's ideas — about economic issues, social issues and just about everything else — are not popular ideas. They are extremely conservative ideas tarred by association with the extremely unpopular George W. Bush, who helped downsize the party to its extremely conservative base. A hard-right agenda of slashing taxes for the investor class, protecting marriage from gays, blocking universal health insurance and extolling the glories of waterboarding produces terrific ratings for Rush Limbaugh, but it's not a majority agenda. The party's new, Hooverish focus on austerity on the brink of another depression does not seem to fit the national mood, and it's shamelessly hypocritical, given the party's recent history of massive deficit spending on pork, war and prescription drugs in good times, not to mention its continuing support for deficit-exploding tax cuts in bad times.

As the party has shrunk to its base, it has catered even more to its base's biases, insisting that the New Deal made the Depression worse, carbon emissions are fine for the environment and tax cuts actually boost revenues — even though the vast majority of historians, scientists and economists disagree. The RNC is about to vote on a kindergartenish resolution to change the name of its opponent to the Democrat Socialist Party. This plays well with hard-core culture warriors and tea-party activists convinced that a dictator-President is plotting to seize their guns, choose their doctors and put ACORN in charge of the Census, but it ultimately produces even more shrinkage, which gives the base even more influence — and the death spiral continues. "We're excluding the young, minorities, environmentalists, pro-choice — the list goes on," says Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of two moderate Republicans left in the Senate after Specter's switch. "Ideological purity is not the ticket to the promised land."

Rachel Maddow & Ron Paul Discuss The State Of The GOP

It's Time For Obama To Come Out Of The Closet & Actively Support Gay Rights

From the NY Times:

President Obama was noticeably silent last month when the Iowa Supreme Court overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

But now Mr. Obama — who has said he opposes same-sex marriage as a Christian but describes himself as a “fierce advocate of equality” for gay men and lesbians — is under pressure to engage on a variety of gay issues that are coming to the fore amid a dizzying pace of social, political, legal and legislative change.

Two of Mr. Obama’s potential Supreme Court nominees are openly gay; some advocates, irked that there are no gay men or lesbians in his cabinet, are mounting a campaign to influence his choice to replace Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring. Same-sex marriage is advancing in states — the latest to allow it is Maine — and a new flare-up in the District of Columbia could ultimately put the controversy in the lap of the president.

Mr. Obama’s new global health initiative has infuriated activists who say he is not financing AIDS programs generously enough. And while the president has urged Congress to pass a hate crimes bill, a high priority for gay groups, he has delayed action on one of his key campaign promises, repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule.

Social issues like same-sex marriage bring together deeply held principles and flashpoint politics, and many gay activists, aware that Mr. Obama is also dealing with enormous challenges at home and overseas, have counseled patience.

But some are unsettled by what they see as the president’s cautious approach. Many are still seething over his choice of the Rev. Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor who opposes same-sex marriage, to deliver the invocation at his inaugural, and remain suspicious of Mr. Obama’s commitment to their cause.

In the words of David Mixner, a writer, gay activists are beginning to wonder, “How much longer do we give him the benefit of the doubt?” Last weekend, Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay issues, published an opinion piece in The Washington Post headlined, “Where’s our fierce advocate?”

The White House, aware of the discontent, invited leaders of some prominent gay rights organizations to meet Monday with top officials, including Jim Messina, Mr. Obama’s deputy chief of staff, to plot legislative strategy on the hate crimes bill as well as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Among those attending was Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, who said afterward that while the gay rights agenda might not be “unfolding exactly as we thought,” he was pleased.

“They have a vision,” Mr. Solmonese said. “They have a plan.”

Better Quickly Start Acting Like You Switched Teams Specter

This past Sunday on MTP, Arlen Specter was not speaking like a Democrat when discussing health care reform:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The repercussions of this kind of behavior are mounting for Specter.  Here's Chris Cizzilla:

A series of odd incidents that have proceeded from Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter's party switch last week have raised questions about whether the newest Democrat has permanently damaged himself in the eyes of the state's voters.

The White House is concerned enough about the developments that deputy chief of staff Jim Messina and Ron Klain, a senior adviser to Vice President Biden, traveled to Capitol Hill on Wednesday and huddled with Specter to try to iron out the problems, according to informed Democratic officials ...

For Pennsylvania voters -- especially Democratic primary voters -- this triptych of recent events is likely to be deeply troubling.

"His actions over this past week have done nothing to curry favors with either party," said Penny Lee, a former senior adviser to Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) and now a Democratic consultant. "He needs to show some willingness to be a Democrat."

Another Democratic strategist who follows Senate races closely was more blunt about the damage Specter has done to himself over the last week. "Do you think that any right-minded local Democratic elected official is going to stick his neck out for Arlen?" the source asked rhetorically. "Or any member of the Democratic Senate caucus?"

Even those Democrats who believe that Specter has done himself no real long-term electoral harm with his actions over the past week don't exactly give him rave reviews. "The pride swallowing can't be easy but he had no choice if he wants to get reelected, and he was honest about that," said one senior Democratic strategist.

Despite all of that criticism, Specter still has a number of things going for him heading into next year -- most importantly the support of an exceedingly popular president who commands massive loyalty particularly among the Democratic base and a campaign war chest bulging with nearly $7 million.

And, average voters are not likely to be following every jot and tittle of the Specter saga -- especially so far from an election. Still, insiders are paying very close attention and, if Specter's stumbles over the past week encourage Rep. Joe Sestak to run in the primary, then the damage will have been done.

What once looked like a huge coup for the White House -- and from a governing standpoint remains one assuming Al Franken eventually wins in Minnesota -- has quickly morphed into a gigantic political headache that almost no one saw coming.

Another Hypocritical Palin

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The March To Marriage Equality: Maine Joins Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont & Iowa

From the Wash Post:

Gay rights advocates celebrated swift and unexpected twin victories in New England on Wednesday when Maine became the fifth state to legalize same-sex marriage and New Hampshire's legislature shortly afterward sent a marriage equality bill to the governor.

If Gov. John Lynch (D) signs the New Hampshire bill or allows it to become law without his signature, New Hampshire will become the sixth state to legalize marriages of same-sex couples, leaving Rhode Island as the only New England holdout.

The movement in Maine and New Hampshire came faster than even gay rights advocates had expected and with bipartisan support in both places, suggesting that the question of same-sex marriage is losing some of its resonance as a divisive societal and political issue, at least in the Northeast.

"There is no doubt there is a shift in attitudes and opinions," said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Massachusetts-based Family Equality Council, which advocates legalization of gay marriage. "We're seeing it in poll after poll. We're seeing it at lunch counters and over kitchen tables."

Star Trek Cartoons

 

Threefer, “Cash for Clunkers” Program Advances In House

Very good news from the House, as reported by the NY Times (to understand why this is such a great idea, see The Unexpected Brilliance Of The Threefer Idea: Why Removing The Clunkers Is Amazingly Helpful):

In a major advance for the so-called “cash for clunkers” program, House negotiators reached a tentative agreement on a plan that would award vouchers of up to $4,500 to vehicle owners who trade in their old cars for more fuel efficient models.

Under the House plan, a car trade-in that improves fuel efficiency by at least 10 miles per gallon would qualify for a $4,500 voucher, as would the trade-in of a small truck that improves efficiency by 5 miles per gallon. The new vehicle must have a minimum fuel efficiency rating of 22 miles per gallon for cars and 18 miles per gallon for small trucks.

A car trade-in that improves fuel efficiency by at least four miles per gallon would qualify for a $3,500 voucher, as would a small truck trade-in with a two mile per gallon improvement.

Democrats had engaged in some intense behind-the-scenes negotiations over the program, which will likely be included in a much broader package of energy legislation to address climate change ...

Supporters of the struggling American automobile industry, as well as many environmental groups, have been pushing for the adoption of a cash-for-clunkers program. Similar programs in Europe have helped lift car sales even during the recession ...

Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, and chairman of the energy and environment subcommittee, issued a statement praising the House programs. “This deal is a triple play for our country,” he said. “Consumers can trade in their old gas-guzzlers for a new, more efficient vehicle, we can reduce our dangerous dependence on imported oil, and help the struggling American auto industry get back on its feet. This deal is about saving American consumers money both at the pump and at the dealership.”

Their Big Tent

Obama And Biden Make A Burger Run

The Wash Post's writeup of their adventure:

Their standing weekly lunch is served by butlers on the finest china in a private White House dining room. President Obama and Vice President Biden sit at opposite ends of a polished mahogany table, a golden chandelier hanging overhead and a cerebral John Quincy Adams staring down at them from a portrait.

Yesterday, however, Barack and Joe wanted to show they're still in touch with the people -- and what better way than waiting in line for a big juicy burger. An aide knew just the spot. So at 12:26 p.m., they hopped in their motorcade, zoomed across the Potomac River into Virginia, and pulled up outside 1713 Wilson Blvd. The popular joint in a plain Arlington strip mall has no sign, but neighbors know it as the home of Ray's Hell Burger, and the spot is beloved as much for its premium aged 10-ounce hamburgers as for its bare-bones decor.

The world's most powerful man, and the guy a heartbeat away, waited patiently in a single-file line as the lunch crowd gawked -- and as two customers in front of them at the counter pondered the menu leisurely, apparently oblivious to whom they were holding up. Then it came time to order ...

"Are your fries pretty good? Can you vouch for your fries?" Obama asked.

Ray's doesn't do fries, said the guy behind the counter, Tim Murray. But Murray suggested the president try "Cheesy Tater Puffs," which are pureed potatoes with cheddar cheese and chives flash-fried like Tater Tots. Obama looked skeptical, but asked for one order for him and Biden to share.

Obama and Biden went Dutch -- basic cheeseburgers cost $7.95 -- as each pulled a wad of cash from his wallet to pay. But Obama bought burgers for reporters, cameramen and staff, including personal aide Reggie Love. "We're paying, or these people are gonna write about how we're freeloading," Obama said, pointing to members of the press corps, whom he dismissed as "cheap dates."

The president left $5 in the tip jar.

Murray said he was impressed the two carried cash -- and thankful, too, since the burger joint is cash-only. "I didn't want to say, 'I'm sorry, Mr. President, we can't take your credit card. You've got to use the ATM.' "

Yolanda Pineda, 29, manned the grill and cooked the burgers with special care. "For Obama," she said, "especial!" ...

The lunch date lasted 34 minutes and by the time Obama and Biden stepped back into their motorcade, after posing for cellphone pictures with the restaurant's staff, dozens of people had gathered outside the restaurant to cheer. The outing was broadcast on national television. And as a public relations move, it appeared to be a success:

Bonnie Cosby, 51, a technology consultant who picked up burgers on her way home from work, opined: "It shows that he's in touch with the people, that he's not up in the ivory tower. He's a real person -- with a burger."

The raw video. Notice how he speaks so deliberately, seemingly thinking deep thoughts, even when ordering a burger!

Remarkable Progress On Making New England A Marriage Equal Region

From the NY Times:

Gay-rights advocates moved remarkably close to their goal of making same-sex marriage legal throughout New England on Tuesday, when the Maine House of Representative voted to legalize such unions.

Supporters of same-sex marriage have won victory after victory this spring, with the legislatures of Vermont, New Hampshire and now Maine embracing it. The region is close to offering such marriages full support; Massachusetts was the first state in the nation to let gay couples marry in 2004, and Connecticut began allowing same-sex marriage last fall.

But in Maine and New Hampshire, the governors, both Democrats, will be pivotal in determining whether same-sex marriage proponents succeed in winning over an entire region of the country. Neither Gov. John Baldacci of Maine nor Gov. John Lynch of New Hampshire has made his intentions public. Both men opposed same-sex marriage in the past but have indicated they might be reconsidering ...

Supporters of the measures probably do not have enough support to override a veto in Maine or New Hampshire.

With the movement enjoying momentum from the string of recent victories — including the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision last month that same-sex marriage should be legal there — Mr. Baldacci and Mr. Lynch are facing considerable pressure from advocates and from their own party, which increasingly supports same-sex marriage. Mr. Lynch will have five days to make a decision after the bill reaches his desk; Mr. Baldacci will have 10 ...

The next state to debate same-sex marriage will probably be New York. Gov. David A. Paterson, a Democrat, introduced a marriage bill last month and the State Assembly, which strongly supports it, will probably take it up next week. The bill’s fate in the Senate is less certain.

The Flu & The Media

The Boston Globe & Its Unions Reach A Deal

From the Boston Globe:

The Boston Globe's largest union reached a tentative deal with the New York Times Co. shortly after 3 a.m. this morning, agreeing to a substantial pay cut, unpaid furloughs, and modifications to the lifetime job guarantee provisions that protect almost 200 employees in the Boston Newspaper Guild, according to sources familiar with the deal.

With the agreement, the guild, representing more than 600 editorial, advertising, and business office employees, became the last of the newspaper's major unions to agree to concessions with the Times Co. The Globe's parent company now has the $20 million in concessions that it demanded a month ago. And perhaps more importantly, the Times Co. succeeded in changing the job guarantee language, which was widely considered a roadblock to any potential sale of New England's largest newspaper ...

The Newspaper Guild was the last major union without a tentative agreement after more than a month of high-stakes bargaining to wring $20 million and major contract concessions ...

Advertising revenues for the Times Co.'s New England Media Group, dominated by the Globe, plunged more than 30 percent in the first three months of this year from the same period in 2008.

As negotiations had unfolded, though, contract concessions, particularly on job guarantees, have become as important as the financial givebacks to the Times Co. Eliminating lifetime job guarantees would give management more flexibility in shrinking its staff through layoffs.

Unions have resisted giving up the guarantees, arguing they paid for them with major concessions in years past. For example, the guild gave up a no-layoff clause to get the lifetime guarantees in a contract ratified in 1994.

The issue, however, had divided guild members, creating tensions between young and old, advertising and editorial, union leadership and members. Some guild employees had argued that company is going back on a promise made in exchange for significant concessions by the guild. Others, including some of those with guaranteed positions, thought everything should be on the table to save the paper.

DNC Web Ad: GOP Survivor

Obama Dines With Critics. Again.

From the NY Times:

President Obama told The Times’ David Leonhardt in an April 14 interview that he wanted to have critics of his financial policies, like economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, “in for ongoing discussion.”

Less than two weeks later, Mr. Obama shared roast beef at the White House with pointed liberal opponents of his banking policies, including Mr. Stiglitz, Times columnist Paul Krugman and other left-leaning economists.

Few details from the dinner party have leaked out, though Newsweek’s Evan Thomas, who first reported the meeting, said the president “listened and questioned” while his guests pushed for the government to be more active in the banking system.

The dinner’s impact, both on the president and his guests, is still unknown.

Mr. Krugman, at least, has been no less critical of the president’s policies since their meeting on April 27. On his blog Monday, he wrote that he wished the administration would address his fears that recent leaks about the latest round of bank stress tests were trial balloons to see how the public would react.

For his part, Mr. Stiglitz had called the bank rescue plan “very badly flawed” in March.

The dinner party on April 27 was the latest attempt by the president to seek out the opinions of those sympathetic and critical of his policies.

A week before his January inauguration, Mr. Obama attended a dinner party at the house of conservative Washington Post columnist George Will. (Other attendees included David Brooks of the Times, William Kristol of the Weekly Standard and Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post.)

Do You Believe In Science GOP Rep Pence?

Not so much ... while Mathews can often be annoying, he was quite diligent in getting his [good] point across no matter how much Pence evaded.

Specter Loses Seniority

At least in this Congress (the seniority in the next one is TBD). From the Wash Post:

The Senate last night stripped  Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) of his seniority on committees, a week after the 29-year veteran of the chamber quit the Republican Party to join the Democrats.

In announcing his move across the aisle last week, Specter asserted that  Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) had assured him he would retain his seniority in the Senate and on the five committees on which he serves. Specter's tenure ranked him ahead of all but seven Democrats.

Instead, though, on a voice vote last night, the Senate approved a resolution that made Specter the most junior Democrat on four committees for the remainder of this Congress. (He will rank second from last on the fifth, the Special Committee on Aging.) Reid himself read the resolution on the Senate floor, underscoring the reversal.

Democrats have suggested that they will consider revisiting Specter's seniority claim at the committee level only after next year's midterm elections. "This is all going to be negotiated next Congress," Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman, said last night.

Specter's office declined to comment ...

The loss of seniority could prove costly to Specter in his campaign to win reelection in 2010, denying him the ability to distinguish himself from a newcomer in his ability to claim key positions.

Meanwhile, Specter backtracked yesterday from comments he made to the New York Times Magazine in an interview to be published Sunday. He had joked about how  Norm Coleman of Minnesota could possibly win his legal contest and reclaim his Senate seat, ensuring that there would still be at least one Jewish Republican in the chamber.

Specter told Congressional Quarterly yesterday: "In the swirl of moving from one caucus to another, I have to get used to my new teammates. I'm ordinarily pretty correct in what I say. I've made a career of being precise. I conclusively misspoke."

A Blue View's Audience: Not The Largest, But Quite Loyal

Like most blogs, most visitors only come once (typically as a result of a search for something specific they were interested in). 37% of A Blue View's visitors (9,800+), however, have come back repeatedly. And of those who come back, most come back pretty often. In fact, 2,100+ of you have visited this blog more than 200 times since it began about 400 days ago.

I'd love to know what you think, what you like, what you don't, what you want to see more of, etc. ...

Meet The New Ranking Minority Member Of The Judiciary Comm: Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R-AL)

First, Rachel provides some background on his failed nomination to the Federal bench 23 years ago for being a racist (yes, before the very committee he's now going to the ranking member of):

Then Katie Koch updates the backgrounder:

The Hill brings word today that Senator Jeff Sessions will likely replace Arlen Specter as the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, with a full GOP vote on the Alabama senator expected as early as tomorrow afternoon. Sessions leapfrogged more-senior member Chuck Grassley for the top spot, The Hill reports, because conservative groups "viewed Sessions as the better spokesman, and more likely to lead the Republican charge in questioning the [next Supreme Court] nominee."

Observers are already making reference to Sessions's contentious statements on race, which first surfaced when Reagan tapped him for the U.S. District Court in Alabama (the nomination ultimately never made it out of the GOP-controlled Judiciary Committee to the Senate floor). But for a more thorough history of Sessions's pesky habit of saying some pretty outlandish stuff, it's worth checking out Sarah Wildman's 2002 piece for TNR:

Since his election as a senator, Sessions has not done much to make amends for his past racial insensitivity. His voting record in the Senate has earned him consistent "F"s from the NAACP. He supported an ultimately unsuccessful effort to end affirmative action programs in the federal government (a measure so extreme that many conservatives were against it), he opposed hate-crimes laws, and he opposed a motion to investigate the disproportionate number of minorities in juvenile detention centers. Says Hillary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau, "[Sessions's] voting record is disturbing. ... He has consistently opposed the bread-and-butter civil rights agenda."

But it has been on judicial nominees that Sessions has really made a name for himself. When Sessions grabbed Heflin's Senate seat in 1996, he also nabbed a spot on the Judiciary Committee. Serving on the committee alongside some of the senators who had dismissed him 16 years earlier, Sessions has become a cheerleader for the Bush administration's judicial picks, defending such dubious nominees as Charles Pickering, who in 1959 wrote a paper defending Mississippi's anti-miscegenation law, and Judge Dennis Shedd, who dismissed nearly every fair-employment civil rights case brought before him as a federal district court judge. Sessions called Pickering "a leader for racial harmony" and a "courageous," "quality individual" who was being used as a "political pawn." Regarding Shedd, he pooh-poohed the criticism, announcing that the judge "should have been commended for the rulings he has made," not chastised.

With "leaders" like this, it is no surprise that the GOP has so little appeal outside of the South.

Mr Irrelephant

Steele: Moderates Are Welcome To Join GOP -- But Not Change It

From TPM:

Michael Steele has an interesting message for moderates, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports. During a news conference at the Wisconsin GOP convention on Friday, Steele said moderates are welcome to join the Republican Party -- but not to change it.

"All you moderates out there, y'all come. I mean, that's the message," Steele said. "The message of this party is this is a big table for everyone to have a seat. I have a place setting with your name on the front."

But, he added: "Understand that when you come into someone's house, you're not looking to change it. You come in because that's the place you want to be."

He also had tough words about Arlen Specter's support for the stimulus. "That vote on the stimulus bill was the effectiveness of a party call," he said. "That was a stand-up moment for every Republican ... And so, you voted yourself out of the party. We didn't kick you out."

Hmm. Does Steele think that Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine, the two remaining pro-stimulus Republicans, voted themselves out of the party, too?

Supreme Nominee

Specter Sitting Pretty In New Pa Poll

From Karen Tumulty:

A new poll by Quinnipiac University shows that (no surprise) Arlen Specter has boosted his prospects considerably by switching to the Democratic Party, but that former Governor Tom Ridge, if he runs, could make it a pretty interesting race. He trails by only five percentage points. The poll is also bad news for former Congressman Pat Toomey--and the Club for Growth. It shows Specter beating the man who drove him from the Republican Party by 20 percentage points in a general election.

A number of our commenters have wondered whether Pennsylvania Democrats are happy with the prospect of Specter as their standard-bearer. The numbers suggest that any other Democrat would likely have an uphill climb against Specter in a primary, even without the support and resources that Barack Obama and Governor Ed Rendell have promised their new fellow Democrat. More than three quarters of the Democrats surveyed say they have a favorable impression of Specter. Fully 81% of Democrats say they approve of the way he is doing his job; that's significantly higher even than the 66% of Democrats who approve of the way that junior Senator Bob Casey is doing his.

Read more about Tom Ridge and his prospects.

The Ends Justify The Means

Maybe John McCain Had It Right: Obama Is The One

A tongue-in-cheek column from Dana Milbank:

Maybe Barack Obama really is The One.

Yesterday's news was good -- almost supernaturally so.

The economy? Recovering.

The markets? Rallying.

Swine flu? Abating.

Drought? Ending.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff declared his confidence that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are well secured. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee declared his confidence that a massive health-care overhaul will be accomplished this year. Warren Buffett declared his confidence that the economy is "out of the quicksand." And the Supreme Court was confident enough about the state of the nation to turn its attention to Janet Jackson's breasts.

Call it good policy, as Democrats do, or beginner's luck, as the last remaining Republicans do, but you can practically hear the nation collectively exhaling.

The rapid improvement in the public's mood is without precedent in modern history. Last week's Washington Post poll found that 50 percent of Americans think things are generally going in the right direction, up from only 8 percent in early October. That's the quickest change in optimism since the question was first asked by The Post in 1980. Views of President Obama, in turn, were impossibly high: Ninety percent called him willing to listen to different views, and better than 70 percent called him a strong leader, honest and trustworthy, and understanding of people's problems.

And that was before happiness started busting out all over yesterday ...

Obama may get some credit for the economy, and maybe even the response to swine flu and his orders for Navy snipers to shoot those Somali pirates. But he probably can't claim responsibility for the weather -- unless, that is, he has been sent here by a Higher Authority.

Perhaps he wasn't joking at last year's Al Smith dinner in New York when he said: "Contrary to the rumors you may have heard, I was not born in a manger. I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father, Jor-El, to save the planet Earth" ...

Gibbs should guard against getting too cocky: Even if his boss is The One, there's no guarantee the good news will continue.

Maybe that's why the government has scheduled the release of its "stress tests" of the nation's largest banks for Thursday -- the National Day of Prayer.

"Where have all the Flowers gone"

Pete Seeger's testimony before the House UnAmerican Affairs Comm on August 18, 1955.

I have sung for Americans of every political persuasion, and I am proud that I never refuse to sing to an audience, no matter what religion or color of their skin, or situation in life. I have sung in hobo jungles, and I have sung for the Rockefellers, and I am proud that I have never refused to sing for anybody. That is the only answer I can give along that line.

Seeger fans might also be interest in: PBS American Masters: Natalie Maines (of the Dixie Chicks) speaks of Pete Seeger

Yep, Wall St And Its Lobbyists Are Going To Resist This

Yesterday's preview, Something Else Wall St Is Not Going To Like: Obama's Going After Off-Shore Tax Havens, was right.  Here's the NY Times:

President Obama on Monday called for curbing offshore tax havens and corporate tax breaks to collect billions of dollars more from multinational companies and wealthy individuals. The move would appeal to growing populist anger among taxpayers but is likely to open an epic battle with some major powers in American commerce.

With the proposals he outlined at the White House, the president sought to make good on his campaign promise to end tax breaks “for companies that ship jobs overseas.”

He estimated the changes would raise $210 billion over the next decade and help offset tax cuts for middle-income taxpayers as well as a permanent tax credit for companies’ research and development costs.

The changes, if enacted, would take effect in 2011, when administration officials presume the economy will have recovered from the recession. But business groups were quick to condemn the White House for proposing tax increases amid a global downturn ...

The proposals would especially hit pharmaceutical, technology, financial and consumer goods companies — among them Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Pfizer and Procter & Gamble — that have major overseas operations or subsidiaries in tax havens like the Cayman Islands.

They have some of the mightiest lobbying armies in Washington, as well as influential patrons in Congress. That combination will test Mr. Obama’s ability to stand up to powerful interests and marshal support among lawmakers at the same time that he is trying to win passage of major health and energy measures.

At issue are tax laws that were originally intended to prevent multinational corporations from being double-taxed, by the United States and by foreign countries, by allowing companies to defer reporting their foreign income to the Internal Revenue Service and to get tax credits in the United States for foreign taxes paid ...

The top corporate tax rate is 35 percent, but the Treasury Department estimated that in 2004, the most recent year for which data is available, American multinationals paid $16 billion in taxes on $700 billion in foreign income — an effective rate of 2.3 percent.

The Latest From The Paranoid Right

The White House press corps stands for Obama but not Bush:

Our Post-Feminist President

Roger Cohen is echoing my analysis of Obama's post-feminist approach to politics and statecraft:

Amazing what happens when you cast aside the testosterone.

I know bristling Dick Cheney believes America’s enemies now perceive “a weak president,” as do sundry Republican senators, but the truth is that foes of the United States have been disarmed by Barack Obama’s no-drama diplomacy.

Call it the mellow doctrine. Neither idealistic nor classic realpolitik, it involves finding strength through unconventional means: acknowledgment of the limits of American power; frankness about U.S. failings; careful listening; fear reduction; adroit deployment of the wide appeal of brand Barack Hussein Obama; and jujitsu engagement.

Already the mellow doctrine has brought some remarkable shifts, even if more time is needed to see its results.

The Castro brothers in Cuba are squabbling over the meaning of Obama’s overtures. Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez has gone gooey-eyed over the Yanqui president. Turkey relented on a major NATO dispute, persuaded of the importance of Obama’s conciliatory message to Muslims.

From Damascus to Tehran, new debate rages over possible rapprochement with Washington. In Israel, I understand Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is about to drag his Likud party kicking and screaming to acceptance of the idea of a two-state solution because he knows the cost of an early confrontation with Obama.

Not bad for 105 days. 

An Examination of Republican Talking Points

Fundamental Change Comes To College Aid

We learned recently that President Obama is going to use his "speak softly but carry a big stick strategy" to get all 3 of his key policy goals enacted by Congress. Now, new details are emerging to show just how truly radical a change the President is envisioning for higher education. From the Wash Post:

President Obama's health-care goals may be garnering attention, but his higher-education proposals are no less ambitious. If adopted, they could transform the financial aid landscape for millions of students while expanding federal authority to a degree that even Democrats concede is controversial.

At stake is a plan to expand the Pell Grant program, making it an entitlement akin to Medicare and Social Security. Key to the effort is a consolidation of student lending that would give the U.S. Department of Education a near monopoly over the practice -- a proposal that has mobilized the private loan industry, which lent $55.3 billion to 6.4 million students in the 2007-2008 school year.

Obama outlined his initiatives, which also include incentives for colleges to cut costs and to raise graduation rates, in the fiscal 2010 budget that Congress approved Wednesday, and Democratic leaders said they hope to make them law by October.

The aim is to improve access to post-secondary school for those who need it most: lower-income students for whom college or vocational training can be the decisive factor in their economic future. The president has said he wants the United States to lead the world by 2010 in the proportion of college graduates, a position the country had long held; it now ranks seventh for the 25 to 34 age group. He has also called for every American to attend a post-secondary institution.

Neither goal will be met if students can't afford the cost.

The administration's plans are "the most fundamental rewriting of federal student aid policy in 35 years," said Terry Hartle, senior vice president of the American Council on Education. "These are big changes. They are painted with a broad brush. . . . It's easy for this to be overshadowed by health-care proposals, but for many families, these discussions will be equally important" ...

The Modern World

Agree or Else, Boston Globe Tells Its Unions

Today, the Boston Globe (and NY Times) told it's unions agree or else:

Boston Globe management was continuing to negotiate concessions with its major unions well past a midnight deadline, but said it was prepared to file a plant closing notice with the state today if they failed to reach agreement. That would allow the paper's owner, the New York Times Co., to follow through on its threat to shutter the 137-year-old newspaper ...

Talks had intensified after Globe management, just before 10 p.m., issued an ultimatum to its four major unions: Agree to major financial and contract concessions, including the abolition of lifetime job guarantees for some workers, or the Times Co. would begin the shutdown process ...

If the notice is filed, Powers said, the paper would continue to publish through the 60-day period. In addition, according to state labor officials, such a notice is not irrevocable. At times, financial conditions change during the 60-day period and companies don't go through with the plant closing.

The ultimatum, issued shortly before 10 p.m., came after just over a month of intense negotiations with unions over $20 million in financial givebacks and concessions on contract language, particularly the elimination of the job guarantees that apply to about 450 union workers. It was issued after Globe management summoned union leaders to the offices of the Labor Guild of the Archdiocese of Boston, where negotiations had been underway with the paper's largest union, the Boston Newspaper Guild.

The Guild, in a statement, decried the management move: "This tactic, while expected, is representative of the bullying manner in which the Times Company has conducted itself during these negotiations. Despite the Company's hostile tactics, we continue to negotiate in good faith and work diligently toward an acceptable outcome."

An official of one of the Globe's unions summed up the situation bluntly: "Do or die" ...

The Globe is projected to lose $85 million this year without significant cost reductions, according to the Times Co. Like many newspapers, the Globe has been hit hard by the migration of readers and advertisers to the Internet, and by the nation's deep recession ...

The key issue still dividing management and unions was the elimination of the lifetime job guarantees, a step that management has sought since the start of the bargaining, and which would give management substantially more flexibility in reshaping the newspaper and shrinking its staff in the face of declining advertising revenues. Advertising revenues for the Times Co.'s New England Media Group, dominated by the Globe, declined by more than 30 percent in the first three months of this year from the same period in 2008.

Unions have resisted giving up the guarantees, arguing they paid for the guarantees with major concessions in years past.