WASHINGTON — Republicans, out of power and divided over how to get it back, are finding even the most basic questions hard to answer.
Here's one: Who speaks for the GOP?
The question flummoxes most Americans, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, which is among the reasons for the party's sagging state and uncertain direction.
A 52% majority of those surveyed couldn't come up with a name when asked to specify "the main person" who speaks for Republicans today. Of those who could, the top response was radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh (13%), followed in order by former vice president Dick Cheney, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former House speaker Newt Gingrich. Former president George W. Bush ranked fifth, at 3%.
So the dominant faces of the Republican Party are all men, all white, all conservative and all old enough to join AARP, ranging in age from 58 (Limbaugh) to 72 (McCain). They include some of the country's most strident voices on issues from Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court to President Obama's policies at home and abroad. Two are retired from politics, and one has never been a candidate.
Only McCain holds elective office, and his age and status as the loser of last year's presidential election make him an unlikely standard bearer for the party's future.
"It's a problem," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an adviser to McCain's 2008 presidential campaign who this month is filing the papers to create a think tank aimed at generating new ideas for conservatives. "We need the perceived leadership of the party to be those who are the future."
"We cannot be a party of balding white guys," says former Republican Party national chairman Ed Gillespie, a White House counselor for George W. Bush. "We have to have a broader appeal, but there's time for us to make that change."
Republicans have seen an erosion of support across almost all demographic groups — the steepest decline since World War II, even bigger than in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s. Since 2004, Republicans have gone from a 3 percentage point advantage in party identification over Democrats in USA TODAY polls to a 7 point disadvantage.
In that time, the GOP has lost control of the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is struggling to forge a united response to the popular new Democratic president. The result has been to give Obama "an extension" to his political honeymoon, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg says.
No surprise, then, that a debate rages over what to do next.
The annual Congressional Republican fundraising dinner Monday prompted weeks of political drama over who would deliver the keynote address. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's name was announced, but when questions arose over her schedule Gingrich was tapped. Then a last-minute kerfuffle developed over whether Palin, McCain's running mate, would attend after all.
In the end, she showed up at the Washington Convention Center, walked across the stage and waved but didn't speak. He delivered an hour-long, policy-laden address that castigated Obama for having "already failed" on the economy and called for a "majority Republican Party" that would tolerate disparate views.
In recent days, the party's divisions over Sotomayor have played out in public.
At one end of the spectrum, Limbaugh labeled the appellate judge a racist and Gingrich said she should be forced to withdraw, although he later backed away from his harshest words. At the other, Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, praised the nominee's judicial philosophy and defended Sotomayor's temperament after meeting with her last week.
"We're undergoing, obviously, an identity problem, both in terms of the issues and what we represent as Republicans, what the Republican brand is all about," Snowe says. One of the few moderate Republicans left in the Senate — their ranks shrank when Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched to the Democrats — she worries her party has "lost its way."
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who declined to be interviewed about the GOP's future, has been caught in the crossfire between Limbaugh and others. (In the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, only 1% said Steele spoke for the GOP.)
USA TODAY asked whether Republicans, to succeed, should either do a better job arguing for conservative views or change positions on some issues to appeal to moderates — an ongoing debate within the party. Cheney sparked headlines last month when he said on CBS' Face the Nation that he would rather have a GOP defined by the conservative Limbaugh than the moderate former secretary of State, Colin Powell.
A majority of those surveyed said the party should make changes to draw moderates. Among Republicans, however, nearly two-thirds said the party would be better off by holding a conservative line and advocating it more effectively — as Limbaugh advocates.
"They're disorganized, they don't have a leader, and they're trying to be too moderate," Kim Lowe, 43, of Charlotte, says. The conservative stay-at-home mom and interior designer, who was among those surveyed, predicts that a message of fiscal responsibility ultimately will prevail with voters.
"I believe they'll come back once America sees what Obama is doing," she says.
'Politics is self-correcting'
Political fortunes are cyclical, of course. Republicans were crushed in Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide but regained the White House four years later amid turmoil over civil rights and the Vietnam War. In the 1980s, Democratic liberals and centrists faced off, sometimes bitterly, over welfare, crime and other issues until Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992.
"When you have a party out of power, especially after you've lost an election, it's not surprising there would be many voices competing to speak," says Frank Donatelli, who was political director in the Reagan White House and helped run the Republican National Committee for the McCain campaign last year.
Republican opportunities will come in response to Democratic excesses, Donatelli says: "Politics is self-correcting."
In time, the GOP will be defined and led by its presidential nominee, he says. Several prospects are laying the groundwork for potential runs in 2012.
Last week, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced he wouldn't seek a third term, stoking speculation that he is interested in the White House. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Gingrich have been making appearances in key primary states.
Republican candidates also are competitive in this year's two gubernatorial races, in New Jersey and Virginia, for seats now held by Democrats. Winning either would help Republicans argue they are making a comeback.
Still, some see the GOP's immediate plight as perilous.
"We're in the basement of a 100-story building," says Ed Rollins, a Republican strategist who advised the presidential campaigns of Ronald Reagan in 1984, independent Ross Perot in 1992 and Huckabee in 2008.
Rollins says next year's congressional and state legislative elections are crucial. If Republicans don't make significant gains in the House, he says, the redrawing of congressional district lines after the 2010 Census could lock in Democratic advantages for a decade.
Then there are the demographics of the GOP's decline.
From Bush's inauguration in 2001 to Obama's inauguration in 2009, Republicans lost significant support among nearly every major demographic group, according to a Gallup analysis — among men and women, Americans at all income levels, residents of every region and those ages 18-64.
The losses were particularly steep among those under 30, the rising Millennial generation. Support for the GOP among college graduates fell by about 10 percentage points. Surveys of voters as they left polling places also showed a significant decline among Hispanics, the nation's fastest-growing ethnic group.
Republicans maintained support among seniors, conservatives and frequent churchgoers.
To win elections, Gillespie says, the party needs to make more inroads among the rapidly expanding parts of the population. "I was not a math major, but I know that getting an increasing share of a decreasing percentage of the overall vote is not a good thing," he says. "That's what we're doing now."
"The world has changed, and they cannot be staying in the same place where they've been for the last 200 years," says Erika Quinteros, 63, an independent from suburban Philadelphia who was called in the survey. The retired doctor sometimes votes for Republicans — she liked former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge— but says the current GOP seems "too radical" for her.
In the poll, 34% had a favorable impression of the Republican Party, matching the lowest level in more than a decade. In comparison, 53% had a favorable impression of the Democratic Party.
Dissatisfaction with the GOP extends to within its own ranks. Among Republicans, 33% had an unfavorable impression of their own party. In contrast, 4% of Democrats had an unfavorable impression of their party.
The GOP's electoral setbacks, policy divisions and image problems make it harder for the party to influence the national debate.
"It's as if the Republican Party is in a time-out chair," says Charlie Cook, editor and publisher of the non-partisan Cook Political Report. "Nobody's really listening to them. Nobody's caring what they think. The question is when they're asked to rejoin the class, are they going to have something new or different to say?"
"I don't think people know what they stand for," says Troy Collett, 39, a Republican from Shelbyville, Ind., who was surveyed. In the 2008 election, he says, "all they knew was there was a war in Iraq that most people disagreed with, and spending was out of control, and gas prices were high."
A GOP 'wilderness'
Asked by Gallup "what comes to mind when you think of the Republican Party," 25% said "unfavorable" and another 1 in 4 offered negative assessments including "no direction," "close-minded" and "poor economic conditions." Sixteen percent said "conservative" and 7% "favorable."
For the Democratic Party, the most dominant impression was "liberal," mentioned by 15%. One in 3 used positive phrases such as "for the people" and "socially conscious." The most prevalent negative judgments saw the Democrats as "big spending" (8%) and "self-centered" (4%).
The survey of 1,015 adults, taken by land line and cellphone May 29-31, has a margin of error of +/– 3 percentage points.
Like the Democrats or not, there was a broad consensus about who speaks for the party. Obama was named by 58%. He was followed by 11% who cited House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and 3% who cited Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Twenty-one percent couldn't come up with a name.
And Obama's popularity — 67% had a favorable opinion of him — is boosting his party. Even the 14-year-old daughter of Rollins, the Republican strategist, has put up posters of the president in her bedroom.
Some analysts say a stumble by the president and the Democrat-controlled Congress would give Republicans their best opportunity to recover.
"Republicans are counting on the Obama administration to disintegrate, to disappoint, very rapidly and very spectacularly, and a big popular movement of unhappiness with the administration to coalesce," says David Frum, a speechwriter in the Bush White House.
Frum, who says the party hasn't yet come to terms with its problems, has launched a website called newmajority.com to encourage a debate.
"There's a lot of time and nothing wrong with the Republican Party that health care reform or the cap-and-trade (energy plan) or something like that blowing up wouldn't help fix," Cook says.
At the moment, though, "Republicans are going through a wilderness period, and it may take a while to come out of it."
SUSAN PAGE - USA Today.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
MAUREEN DOWD Can The One Have Fun?
The fun police are patrolling Pennsylvania Avenue.
Given the serious times, the chatter goes, should Barack Obama be allowed to enjoy date night with Michelle in New York, sightseeing in Paris, golf outings in D.C., not to mention doing a promotion for Conan O’Brien and a video cameo for Stephen Colbert’s first comedy show from Iraq?
With two wars and G.M. in bankruptcy proceedings, shouldn’t the president be glued to the grindstone, emulating W.’s gravity when he sacrificed golf in 2003 as the Iraq insurgency spread?
“I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” the former president explained later. “I think, you know, playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”
Actually, what sends the wrong signal is going to war with a phony justification, inadequate troop levels, insufficient armor, an inept Defense secretary and an inability to admit for years, deadly ones, that you needed counterinsurgency experts.
The right signal is Michelle and her daughters being charming ambassadors, “gobsmacking” the town, as a British tabloid put it, by scarfing down fish and chips at a London pub for £7.95 (about $13), like regular tourists.
As a taxpayer, I am most happy to contribute to domestic and international date nights. As Arthur Schlesinger noted in his diaries, the White House tends to drive its occupants nuts. So some respite from the pressure is clearly a healthy thing. Not as much respite as W. took, bicycling and vacationing through all the disasters that President Obama is now stuck fixing — spending a total of 490 days in the tumbleweed isolation of Crawford and rarely deigning to sightsee as he traveled the world.
Some White House officials fretted that the Obamas’ Marine One and Gulfstream magic-carpet ride to dinner in Greenwich Village and a play on Broadway was too showy. Others thought it helped show a softer side of the often dispassionate Obama.
Interestingly, Dr. No, Dick Cheney, declined to tut-tut with other Republicans, saying “I don’t know why not,” when he was asked about the propriety of the president’s getaway to Broadway. A far more mature response than Senator Chuck Grassley’s nit-twit tweets grumbling about the president urging progress on health care “while u sightseeing in Paris.”
I loved the “Pretty Woman” romance of the New York tableau, the president, who had not lived an entitled life where he could afford such lavish gestures, throwing off his tie and whisking his wife, in a flirty black cocktail dress, to sip martinis in Manhattan, as Sasha hung over a White House balcony and called out goodbye.
When the president and first lady walked to their seats in the Belasco for “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone,” the theater-goers went nuts. And why not?
What a relief to have an urbane, cultivated, curious president who’s out and about, engaged in the world. Not dangerously detached, as W. was, or darkly stewing like Cheney. Not hanging with the Rat Pack like J.F.K. or getting bored and up to mischief like Bill Clinton.
It was lame of critics on Capitol Hill to carp that the Obamas could have taken in a play in D.C. I’m a native, but it’s not the same. And it’s nice to see them tending to their marriage. According to Richard Wolffe in “Renegade,” his new book about the Obama campaign, it has taken effort to get the relationship this strong.
“She hated the failed race for Congress in 2000, and their marriage was strained by the time their youngest daughter, Sasha, was born a year later,” Wolffe writes. “There was little conversation and even less romance. She was angry at his selfishness and careerism; he thought she was cold and ungrateful. Even as he ran for the United States Senate in 2004, she still harbored very mixed feelings about her husband’s love of politics. ... So she had played no part in Barack’s previous contests and preferred to keep her distance.”
Wolffe limns what those of us who traveled with Obama could see: He was often grumpy on the campaign. He missed his family. He disdained what he saw as superficial, point-scoring conventions of politics, like debates and macho put-downs and public noshing. The Chicago smarty-pants was a Michael Jordan clutch player who grew bored if he was not challenged.
Being president, by contrast, suits him much better. He has not lapsed into his old ambivalence. He is intellectually engaged by sculpting history. The trellis of hideous problems is a challenge that lures him to be powerfully concentrated. And, as his aides say, he loves living above the family store.
Mixing play with intense work is not only a good mental health strategy; it’s a good way to show the world that American confidence and cool — and Cary Grant romantic flair — still thrive.
Date on and tee it up, Mr. President. It’s O.K. if they’re teed off.
Given the serious times, the chatter goes, should Barack Obama be allowed to enjoy date night with Michelle in New York, sightseeing in Paris, golf outings in D.C., not to mention doing a promotion for Conan O’Brien and a video cameo for Stephen Colbert’s first comedy show from Iraq?
With two wars and G.M. in bankruptcy proceedings, shouldn’t the president be glued to the grindstone, emulating W.’s gravity when he sacrificed golf in 2003 as the Iraq insurgency spread?
“I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” the former president explained later. “I think, you know, playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”
Actually, what sends the wrong signal is going to war with a phony justification, inadequate troop levels, insufficient armor, an inept Defense secretary and an inability to admit for years, deadly ones, that you needed counterinsurgency experts.
The right signal is Michelle and her daughters being charming ambassadors, “gobsmacking” the town, as a British tabloid put it, by scarfing down fish and chips at a London pub for £7.95 (about $13), like regular tourists.
As a taxpayer, I am most happy to contribute to domestic and international date nights. As Arthur Schlesinger noted in his diaries, the White House tends to drive its occupants nuts. So some respite from the pressure is clearly a healthy thing. Not as much respite as W. took, bicycling and vacationing through all the disasters that President Obama is now stuck fixing — spending a total of 490 days in the tumbleweed isolation of Crawford and rarely deigning to sightsee as he traveled the world.
Some White House officials fretted that the Obamas’ Marine One and Gulfstream magic-carpet ride to dinner in Greenwich Village and a play on Broadway was too showy. Others thought it helped show a softer side of the often dispassionate Obama.
Interestingly, Dr. No, Dick Cheney, declined to tut-tut with other Republicans, saying “I don’t know why not,” when he was asked about the propriety of the president’s getaway to Broadway. A far more mature response than Senator Chuck Grassley’s nit-twit tweets grumbling about the president urging progress on health care “while u sightseeing in Paris.”
I loved the “Pretty Woman” romance of the New York tableau, the president, who had not lived an entitled life where he could afford such lavish gestures, throwing off his tie and whisking his wife, in a flirty black cocktail dress, to sip martinis in Manhattan, as Sasha hung over a White House balcony and called out goodbye.
When the president and first lady walked to their seats in the Belasco for “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone,” the theater-goers went nuts. And why not?
What a relief to have an urbane, cultivated, curious president who’s out and about, engaged in the world. Not dangerously detached, as W. was, or darkly stewing like Cheney. Not hanging with the Rat Pack like J.F.K. or getting bored and up to mischief like Bill Clinton.
It was lame of critics on Capitol Hill to carp that the Obamas could have taken in a play in D.C. I’m a native, but it’s not the same. And it’s nice to see them tending to their marriage. According to Richard Wolffe in “Renegade,” his new book about the Obama campaign, it has taken effort to get the relationship this strong.
“She hated the failed race for Congress in 2000, and their marriage was strained by the time their youngest daughter, Sasha, was born a year later,” Wolffe writes. “There was little conversation and even less romance. She was angry at his selfishness and careerism; he thought she was cold and ungrateful. Even as he ran for the United States Senate in 2004, she still harbored very mixed feelings about her husband’s love of politics. ... So she had played no part in Barack’s previous contests and preferred to keep her distance.”
Wolffe limns what those of us who traveled with Obama could see: He was often grumpy on the campaign. He missed his family. He disdained what he saw as superficial, point-scoring conventions of politics, like debates and macho put-downs and public noshing. The Chicago smarty-pants was a Michael Jordan clutch player who grew bored if he was not challenged.
Being president, by contrast, suits him much better. He has not lapsed into his old ambivalence. He is intellectually engaged by sculpting history. The trellis of hideous problems is a challenge that lures him to be powerfully concentrated. And, as his aides say, he loves living above the family store.
Mixing play with intense work is not only a good mental health strategy; it’s a good way to show the world that American confidence and cool — and Cary Grant romantic flair — still thrive.
Date on and tee it up, Mr. President. It’s O.K. if they’re teed off.
Auto plan hits potholes
LAWMAKERS WANT TO OVER MANAGE THE AUTO INDUSTRY!
Pork! Micro managers?
VOTE against any Reps who vote FOR restricting auto dealers from closings!
There are just too many with sales down and brands eliminated. Hk
Auto plan hits potholes
President Obama’s plan to save GM and Chrysler through forced bankruptcy got blindsided on Monday by the other two branches of the federal government.
On Monday afternoon the Supreme Court agreed to delay the sale of Chrysler’s assets to Italian carmaker Fiat in order to further consider the argument of three Indiana bondholders who claim they were shortchanged by the prepackaged bankruptcy organized by the Obama administration.
But the court decision was only the half of it. On Capitol Hill, hundreds of lawmakers threw another wrench into the works when they formally asked the Obama administration to get Chrysler and General Motors to put the brakes on plans to close hundreds of local dealerships across the country.
The Supreme Court will now consider, in closed session, whether or not to grant a hearing to the Indiana bondholders. Four justices would have to vote to hear the bondholders’ appeal of a federal court ruling approving the sale.
A spokesman for the Supreme Court said late Monday that the justices could meet anytime to determine whether or not to grant a writ of certiorari, or order oral arguments on the issue.
The court’s action creates a test for Obama, whose Auto Task Force worked to structure a deal between Fiat, Chrysler, organized labor and Chrysler’s debt holders before the company filed for bankruptcy.
A senior administration official downplayed the court’s action.
“We understand this to be an administrative extension designed to allow sufficient time for the Court to make a determination on the merits of the request for a stay,” the official said.
Meanwhile, lawmakers took the matter into their own hands with a strongly worded letter to the president, arguing against the closing of dealerships.
At the same time that the letter, from over 100 House members — the lion’s share of whom were Democrats — was traveling from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other, two Democratic freshmen introduced legislation that would force the bankrupt car companies to abandon their plans for mass dealership closings.
That bill, introduced by Reps. Dan Maffei (D-N.Y.) and Frank Kratovil (D-Md.), had a list of original co-sponsors that was “growing by the minute” as members were racing back to Washington on Monday afternoon, according to a spokeswoman for Maffei.
In a sign of just how serious members have gotten about preventing the closings, the letter to Obama was spearheaded by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), while the legislation was shepherded by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the chairman of House Democrats’ reelection efforts.
“Closing these dealerships will put over 100,000 jobs at risk at a time when our country is shedding jobs at an alarming rate,” Hoyer and a significant portion of the Democratic Caucus wrote to the president. “We also question the criteria being used to determine which dealerships should be closed and the fundamental fairness involved in this effort.
“It is our view that the market should make these decisions rather than leaving it up to the manufacturers whose poor leadership contributed to their demise,” they wrote.
The White House did not have an immediate reaction to the letter.
Maffei and Kratovil’s legislation would seem to take the ball out of Obama’s court altogether, though, by forcing the government-backed auto companies to halt the closing of dealerships, a process that the bill sponsors criticized as “arbitrary.”
“Forced, arbitrary closure of dealers by manufacturers will not necessarily be financially beneficial to automakers, and it certainly will not help the local economies where dealers are integral to the business community,” Maffei said in a statement.
The efforts from lawmakers on Monday point to the perilous line the administration must walk in trying to save companies responsible for millions of American jobs. The government’s intervention is having the effect of forcing those companies to enact necessary cost-saving measures that threaten jobs in hundreds of backyards across the country.
Just last week, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the powerful chairman of the Financial Services Committee, was able to get GM to undo a planned parts distribution center closure in his district.
Frank’s staff said the lawmaker spoke with GM CEO Fritz Henderson and convinced him to keep the Norton, Mass., plant open for at least 14 months.
When GM announced its post-bankruptcy plan last week, it noted that plants in at least 12 congressional districts would be on the chopping block.
So far, though, only Frank has been successful in getting a local plant saved. But other fights are already brewing.
Yet the dealer network presents a much more significant political problem for the former auto giants and for Obama’s Auto Task Force.
“There’s not a congressional district that doesn’t have a car dealership in it somewhere,” said a Democratic aide.
That fact was reflected in the signatures placed on the letter to Obama, which came from representatives from Hawaii to Maine, from urban and rural areas, and from safe and vulnerable districts alike.
Critics of the dealership-closing plan argue that the goal of the auto bailout should be the creation of jobs, not the elimination of them. They further argued that the absence of enough dealers to sell GM and Chrysler vehicles will hamper their efforts to return to profitability.
“Our efforts to revitalize the auto industry in America must include a vibrant dealer network to sell and service first-rate GM and Chrysler products,” said Van Hollen, who signed the letter to Obama and backed Maffei and Kratovil’s bill. “These small businesses employ hundreds of thousands of people and are an integral part of local communities all across this nation.”
Michael O’Brien contributed to this article.
Pork! Micro managers?
VOTE against any Reps who vote FOR restricting auto dealers from closings!
There are just too many with sales down and brands eliminated. Hk
Auto plan hits potholes
President Obama’s plan to save GM and Chrysler through forced bankruptcy got blindsided on Monday by the other two branches of the federal government.
On Monday afternoon the Supreme Court agreed to delay the sale of Chrysler’s assets to Italian carmaker Fiat in order to further consider the argument of three Indiana bondholders who claim they were shortchanged by the prepackaged bankruptcy organized by the Obama administration.
But the court decision was only the half of it. On Capitol Hill, hundreds of lawmakers threw another wrench into the works when they formally asked the Obama administration to get Chrysler and General Motors to put the brakes on plans to close hundreds of local dealerships across the country.
The Supreme Court will now consider, in closed session, whether or not to grant a hearing to the Indiana bondholders. Four justices would have to vote to hear the bondholders’ appeal of a federal court ruling approving the sale.
A spokesman for the Supreme Court said late Monday that the justices could meet anytime to determine whether or not to grant a writ of certiorari, or order oral arguments on the issue.
The court’s action creates a test for Obama, whose Auto Task Force worked to structure a deal between Fiat, Chrysler, organized labor and Chrysler’s debt holders before the company filed for bankruptcy.
A senior administration official downplayed the court’s action.
“We understand this to be an administrative extension designed to allow sufficient time for the Court to make a determination on the merits of the request for a stay,” the official said.
Meanwhile, lawmakers took the matter into their own hands with a strongly worded letter to the president, arguing against the closing of dealerships.
At the same time that the letter, from over 100 House members — the lion’s share of whom were Democrats — was traveling from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other, two Democratic freshmen introduced legislation that would force the bankrupt car companies to abandon their plans for mass dealership closings.
That bill, introduced by Reps. Dan Maffei (D-N.Y.) and Frank Kratovil (D-Md.), had a list of original co-sponsors that was “growing by the minute” as members were racing back to Washington on Monday afternoon, according to a spokeswoman for Maffei.
In a sign of just how serious members have gotten about preventing the closings, the letter to Obama was spearheaded by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), while the legislation was shepherded by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the chairman of House Democrats’ reelection efforts.
“Closing these dealerships will put over 100,000 jobs at risk at a time when our country is shedding jobs at an alarming rate,” Hoyer and a significant portion of the Democratic Caucus wrote to the president. “We also question the criteria being used to determine which dealerships should be closed and the fundamental fairness involved in this effort.
“It is our view that the market should make these decisions rather than leaving it up to the manufacturers whose poor leadership contributed to their demise,” they wrote.
The White House did not have an immediate reaction to the letter.
Maffei and Kratovil’s legislation would seem to take the ball out of Obama’s court altogether, though, by forcing the government-backed auto companies to halt the closing of dealerships, a process that the bill sponsors criticized as “arbitrary.”
“Forced, arbitrary closure of dealers by manufacturers will not necessarily be financially beneficial to automakers, and it certainly will not help the local economies where dealers are integral to the business community,” Maffei said in a statement.
The efforts from lawmakers on Monday point to the perilous line the administration must walk in trying to save companies responsible for millions of American jobs. The government’s intervention is having the effect of forcing those companies to enact necessary cost-saving measures that threaten jobs in hundreds of backyards across the country.
Just last week, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the powerful chairman of the Financial Services Committee, was able to get GM to undo a planned parts distribution center closure in his district.
Frank’s staff said the lawmaker spoke with GM CEO Fritz Henderson and convinced him to keep the Norton, Mass., plant open for at least 14 months.
When GM announced its post-bankruptcy plan last week, it noted that plants in at least 12 congressional districts would be on the chopping block.
So far, though, only Frank has been successful in getting a local plant saved. But other fights are already brewing.
Yet the dealer network presents a much more significant political problem for the former auto giants and for Obama’s Auto Task Force.
“There’s not a congressional district that doesn’t have a car dealership in it somewhere,” said a Democratic aide.
That fact was reflected in the signatures placed on the letter to Obama, which came from representatives from Hawaii to Maine, from urban and rural areas, and from safe and vulnerable districts alike.
Critics of the dealership-closing plan argue that the goal of the auto bailout should be the creation of jobs, not the elimination of them. They further argued that the absence of enough dealers to sell GM and Chrysler vehicles will hamper their efforts to return to profitability.
“Our efforts to revitalize the auto industry in America must include a vibrant dealer network to sell and service first-rate GM and Chrysler products,” said Van Hollen, who signed the letter to Obama and backed Maffei and Kratovil’s bill. “These small businesses employ hundreds of thousands of people and are an integral part of local communities all across this nation.”
Michael O’Brien contributed to this article.
CANTOR complains PELOSI refuses to meet with him!
Molly K. Hooper and Bob Cusack THE HILL
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) says he has requested to meet privately with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) this year, but has been repeatedly rebuffed.
In an interview with The Hill, the minority whip said, “I have been told that Speaker Pelosi doesn’t like to meet with Republicans … I would say that is the case in my instance. I have put in requests to meet with her and have yet to be responded to.”
Hours later, Cantor would be on the House floor, questioning whether the Speaker should continue to receive intelligence briefings.
In his floor comments, Cantor grilled Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), claiming that Pelosi should no longer receive briefings in the wake of her accusation that the CIA lied to her about the use of torture in 2003.
The Hoyer-Cantor exchange became testy, with Hoyer asserting that he is confounded by Cantor’s logic, calling it “incomprehensible.”
Pelosi’s office did not comment for this article.
The five-term lawmaker doesn’t mind making creating uncomfortable moments for Democrats. And when he throws partisan bombs at his political adversaries, he rarely raises his voice.
He gets under the skin of congressional Democrats effectively, whether it be on tax policies, climate change or the International Monetary Fund. Love him or hate him, Cantor keeps the pressure on the majority party.
As a result, five months into his leadership job, Cantor has become a prime target for the left. With Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) on the back nine of his political career, liberals have gone after the 46-year-old Cantor, labeling him “Mr. No.”
Cantor says he knows it comes with the territory: “Who said this thing was easy? ... There is give and take, there is room for public discourse and sometimes it gets a little more vehement than other times, and that’s what’s to be expected.”
Few, if any, political analysts believe that Republicans will retake the House next year. But Cantor, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, is undeterred: “We’ve got a shot of taking back this House. … I think that prospect is largely based on the American people’s desire for a check and balance of power here in Washington. When you’ve got a situation where there’s an unfettered ability to run the table and the direction in which they’re heading is far outside the mainstream, I think that that creates an environment for Republican takeover in the House.”
There has been friction between Cantor and Boehner in the 111th Congress, but Cantor laughs off the “palace intrigue.”
“John Boehner and I have a great relationship,” Cantor said, adding, “We’re together; we’re a team.”
Cantor scored a huge win earlier this year when he rallied the entire GOP conference against the $787 billion economic stimulus package. Cantor acknowledges it was not easy, but he won over skeptical GOP lawmakers by mastering the details of the legislation.
Unlike former GOP Whip Tom DeLay (Texas), Cantor favors reason over strong-arm tactics.
Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), who has bucked Republican leaders on many high-profile issues, said, “Eric will try to get you to rethink your position, but he respects your opinion when you tell him your mind is made up.”
“I have always found him to be very reasonable,” Jones said. “That’s the kind of image this party needs.”
Cantor has experienced bumps in the road in 2009. After his colleagues in leadership called the AIG bonus bill “a sham,” Cantor unexpectedly voted to back the legislation. At the time, lawmakers questioned his ability to stand up to what they called popular but seriously flawed legislation.
With the spotlight on him brighter than ever, some say he will learn from his missteps.
Still, Cantor is widely respected by his Republican peers in Congress. He is an avid fundraiser and comfortable talking about policy, a key skill that has helped him climb the leadership ladder.
President Obama called out Cantor during a meeting with lawmakers in February, saying he can’t wait for the day when Cantor praises one of his ideas.
Cantor says he admires the president and has little interest in rebuking him personally. He is more than willing to take on Democratic policies, and anxious to talk about other Democratic personalities, most notably Pelosi.
Pressed on why voters should embrace the GOP and where its new ideas are, Cantor gets a bit animated, saying, “It’s not about new ideas/old ideas. It’s about delivering. It’s about what works here, OK?”
He also rejects the notion that the public wants more government intervention in the wake of the financial meltdown, saying that the regulations in place “didn’t make sense…the emphasis on the means, rather than the ends I think it’s sometimes misplaced.”
Cantor faces the challenging task of getting the Republican Party better positioned on the economy, stressing that Americans are worried about the bottom line, their jobs and the nation’s fiscal future.
Like the president and congressional Democrats, Cantor faces huge tests in keeping his party in line on healthcare reform and climate change.
He rattles off talking points on each issue, but appears most eager to tackle energy, the Speaker’s flagship issue.
“The Speaker intends there to be a broad discussion [on energy] by July 4,” a smiling Cantor said. “Let’s have it. Let’s have it.”
Katelyn Ferral contributed to this article.
Excerpts of The Hill’s interview with Minority Whip Eric Cantor
Q: After the 2008 elections, a lot of people thought that you could have had the votes to become minority leader. Did you consider jumping into that race, as opposed to the whip?
A: I’ve always been a supporter of John Boehner to be minority leader and continue to support him in that role, and I’m working very hard so that he can become Speaker.
Q: Another 2008 issue that we’d love to put to bed — were you vetted by the McCain campaign to be vice president? Your name came up a bit in that context.
A: You know, I consistently say to that: Ask Sen. McCain — he’s the one that would be able to best communicate to you a response to that.
Q: Is the Earth warming or cooling? Is the problem man-made?
A: Well, I think that everybody — well, I don’t know if everybody, but most people have sort of come to the point at which the fact of carbon emissions is not something that is a good thing, necessarily, in excess. So I think we can all agree on that principle, and so … we all agree that we need to basically clean up our mess.
Q: The Capitol, as you know, is a place of relationships, and there has been a lot of chatter about your relationship with Leader Boehner. How often do you talk to Mr. Boehner, and what about all this chatter that there is friction?
A: You know, what’s amazing to me is this fascination with what goes on between John Boehner and I. We have a great relationship. We speak every day, and our staffs speak every day … I mean, we’re together; we’re a team. Look at what’s going on the other side — they have divisions galore. Where is the focus on … the differences that exist between Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer?
Q: On the national stage, some Republicans have been getting a lot of attention, including Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. Is that taking away from your microphone, from the microphone of Republicans in Congress?
A: These are individuals who are formally elected officials, some who’ve not been in office. They have a right to a voice and a part of the debate.
Q: Do you think it’s beneficial that Republicans are using terms like “racist” or “reverse racist” for the Supreme Court nominee? Doesn’t that hurt your party?
A: Listen, I don’t use those terms and I don’t think that they should be used. I think the proper focus on [Sonia] Sotomayor is her opinions rendered from the bench.
Q: You said earlier this year that Republicans can win back the House in 2010. Do you still believe there’s a chance?
A: I think that we’ve got a shot of taking back this House this time and I think that prospect is largely based on the American people’s desire for a check and balance of power here in Washington. When you’ve got a situation where there’s an unfettered ability to run the table, and the direction in which they’re heading is far outside the mainstream, I think that that creates an environment for Republican takeover in the House.
Q: But if you look at the president’s poll numbers, the Republican loss in the 20th district in New York earlier this year, Sen. [Arlen] Specter (D-Pa.) leaving the party, how can you make that argument?
A: In 1994 we picked up 50 seats; we need 40 seats [in 2010]. It is my sense that the popularity of the president won’t necessarily translate into success … in congressional seats. It is much more what this Congress has done, what it can show it has done.
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) says he has requested to meet privately with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) this year, but has been repeatedly rebuffed.
In an interview with The Hill, the minority whip said, “I have been told that Speaker Pelosi doesn’t like to meet with Republicans … I would say that is the case in my instance. I have put in requests to meet with her and have yet to be responded to.”
Hours later, Cantor would be on the House floor, questioning whether the Speaker should continue to receive intelligence briefings.
In his floor comments, Cantor grilled Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), claiming that Pelosi should no longer receive briefings in the wake of her accusation that the CIA lied to her about the use of torture in 2003.
The Hoyer-Cantor exchange became testy, with Hoyer asserting that he is confounded by Cantor’s logic, calling it “incomprehensible.”
Pelosi’s office did not comment for this article.
The five-term lawmaker doesn’t mind making creating uncomfortable moments for Democrats. And when he throws partisan bombs at his political adversaries, he rarely raises his voice.
He gets under the skin of congressional Democrats effectively, whether it be on tax policies, climate change or the International Monetary Fund. Love him or hate him, Cantor keeps the pressure on the majority party.
As a result, five months into his leadership job, Cantor has become a prime target for the left. With Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) on the back nine of his political career, liberals have gone after the 46-year-old Cantor, labeling him “Mr. No.”
Cantor says he knows it comes with the territory: “Who said this thing was easy? ... There is give and take, there is room for public discourse and sometimes it gets a little more vehement than other times, and that’s what’s to be expected.”
Few, if any, political analysts believe that Republicans will retake the House next year. But Cantor, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, is undeterred: “We’ve got a shot of taking back this House. … I think that prospect is largely based on the American people’s desire for a check and balance of power here in Washington. When you’ve got a situation where there’s an unfettered ability to run the table and the direction in which they’re heading is far outside the mainstream, I think that that creates an environment for Republican takeover in the House.”
There has been friction between Cantor and Boehner in the 111th Congress, but Cantor laughs off the “palace intrigue.”
“John Boehner and I have a great relationship,” Cantor said, adding, “We’re together; we’re a team.”
Cantor scored a huge win earlier this year when he rallied the entire GOP conference against the $787 billion economic stimulus package. Cantor acknowledges it was not easy, but he won over skeptical GOP lawmakers by mastering the details of the legislation.
Unlike former GOP Whip Tom DeLay (Texas), Cantor favors reason over strong-arm tactics.
Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), who has bucked Republican leaders on many high-profile issues, said, “Eric will try to get you to rethink your position, but he respects your opinion when you tell him your mind is made up.”
“I have always found him to be very reasonable,” Jones said. “That’s the kind of image this party needs.”
Cantor has experienced bumps in the road in 2009. After his colleagues in leadership called the AIG bonus bill “a sham,” Cantor unexpectedly voted to back the legislation. At the time, lawmakers questioned his ability to stand up to what they called popular but seriously flawed legislation.
With the spotlight on him brighter than ever, some say he will learn from his missteps.
Still, Cantor is widely respected by his Republican peers in Congress. He is an avid fundraiser and comfortable talking about policy, a key skill that has helped him climb the leadership ladder.
President Obama called out Cantor during a meeting with lawmakers in February, saying he can’t wait for the day when Cantor praises one of his ideas.
Cantor says he admires the president and has little interest in rebuking him personally. He is more than willing to take on Democratic policies, and anxious to talk about other Democratic personalities, most notably Pelosi.
Pressed on why voters should embrace the GOP and where its new ideas are, Cantor gets a bit animated, saying, “It’s not about new ideas/old ideas. It’s about delivering. It’s about what works here, OK?”
He also rejects the notion that the public wants more government intervention in the wake of the financial meltdown, saying that the regulations in place “didn’t make sense…the emphasis on the means, rather than the ends I think it’s sometimes misplaced.”
Cantor faces the challenging task of getting the Republican Party better positioned on the economy, stressing that Americans are worried about the bottom line, their jobs and the nation’s fiscal future.
Like the president and congressional Democrats, Cantor faces huge tests in keeping his party in line on healthcare reform and climate change.
He rattles off talking points on each issue, but appears most eager to tackle energy, the Speaker’s flagship issue.
“The Speaker intends there to be a broad discussion [on energy] by July 4,” a smiling Cantor said. “Let’s have it. Let’s have it.”
Katelyn Ferral contributed to this article.
Excerpts of The Hill’s interview with Minority Whip Eric Cantor
Q: After the 2008 elections, a lot of people thought that you could have had the votes to become minority leader. Did you consider jumping into that race, as opposed to the whip?
A: I’ve always been a supporter of John Boehner to be minority leader and continue to support him in that role, and I’m working very hard so that he can become Speaker.
Q: Another 2008 issue that we’d love to put to bed — were you vetted by the McCain campaign to be vice president? Your name came up a bit in that context.
A: You know, I consistently say to that: Ask Sen. McCain — he’s the one that would be able to best communicate to you a response to that.
Q: Is the Earth warming or cooling? Is the problem man-made?
A: Well, I think that everybody — well, I don’t know if everybody, but most people have sort of come to the point at which the fact of carbon emissions is not something that is a good thing, necessarily, in excess. So I think we can all agree on that principle, and so … we all agree that we need to basically clean up our mess.
Q: The Capitol, as you know, is a place of relationships, and there has been a lot of chatter about your relationship with Leader Boehner. How often do you talk to Mr. Boehner, and what about all this chatter that there is friction?
A: You know, what’s amazing to me is this fascination with what goes on between John Boehner and I. We have a great relationship. We speak every day, and our staffs speak every day … I mean, we’re together; we’re a team. Look at what’s going on the other side — they have divisions galore. Where is the focus on … the differences that exist between Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer?
Q: On the national stage, some Republicans have been getting a lot of attention, including Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. Is that taking away from your microphone, from the microphone of Republicans in Congress?
A: These are individuals who are formally elected officials, some who’ve not been in office. They have a right to a voice and a part of the debate.
Q: Do you think it’s beneficial that Republicans are using terms like “racist” or “reverse racist” for the Supreme Court nominee? Doesn’t that hurt your party?
A: Listen, I don’t use those terms and I don’t think that they should be used. I think the proper focus on [Sonia] Sotomayor is her opinions rendered from the bench.
Q: You said earlier this year that Republicans can win back the House in 2010. Do you still believe there’s a chance?
A: I think that we’ve got a shot of taking back this House this time and I think that prospect is largely based on the American people’s desire for a check and balance of power here in Washington. When you’ve got a situation where there’s an unfettered ability to run the table, and the direction in which they’re heading is far outside the mainstream, I think that that creates an environment for Republican takeover in the House.
Q: But if you look at the president’s poll numbers, the Republican loss in the 20th district in New York earlier this year, Sen. [Arlen] Specter (D-Pa.) leaving the party, how can you make that argument?
A: In 1994 we picked up 50 seats; we need 40 seats [in 2010]. It is my sense that the popularity of the president won’t necessarily translate into success … in congressional seats. It is much more what this Congress has done, what it can show it has done.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Foods to Help You Feel Better
6 ways to add mood-boosting foods to your diet.
By Elaine Magee, MPH, RD
Are you feeling down in the dumps? Are you irritated at how often you’ve been irritable?
Perhaps it’s time to look at the foods and drinks you consume to see if they are trashing your mood. Nutrition experts say that the foods you eat can help you feel better -- or feel worse -- in the short-term and the long-term.
Meal-to-meal and day-to-day, keeping your blood sugars steady and your gastrointestinal (GI) tract running smoothly will help you feel good and energetic. If your blood sugars are on a roller-coaster ride -- hitting highs and lows from too much sugar and refined flour – you are more likely to feel out of sorts. This is also true if your gastrointestinal system is distressed due to intense hunger from a fad diet or constipation because you aren’t getting enough fiber and water.
Week-to-week and month-to-month, keeping your body healthy and disease-free makes good moods more likely. For example, key nutrients you get in certain foods can influence the levels of feel-good hormones such as serotonin. Other nutrients can help prevent inflammation so blood circulates well to all of your organs.
“Eating a heart healthy diet -- high in fiber and low in saturated fat -- is a great place to start to boost your mood. There isn’t any question about it, says Diane M. Becker MPH, ScD, director of the Center for Health Promotion at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
Conversely, “a high-fat, high-glycemic load meal can make you physically feel dysfunction in your body. People who eat this type of meal tend to feel bad and sleepy afterwards,” she says.
6 Tips for Foods and Beverages That Help You Feel Good
1. Seek out foods rich in vitamin B12 and folic acid (folate).
What’s special about chili made with kidney beans and lean beef? Or a light chicken Caesar salad made with skinless chicken breast and romaine lettuce? Or grilled salmon with a side of broccoli?
All these dishes feature one food that is rich in folic acid (folate) and another that is rich in vitamin B12. These two vitamins appear to help prevent disorders of the central nervous system, mood disorders, and dementias, says Edward Reynolds, MD, at the Institute of Epileptology, King’s College, London.
The link between higher food intakes of folate and a lower prevalence of depressive symptoms crosses cultures, too. A recent study confirmed this association in Japanese men.
Folic acid is usually found in beans and greens. Vitamin B12 is found in meats, fish, poultry, and dairy.
Other dishes that feature B-12 and folic acid-rich foods include:
A burrito or enchilada made with black beans plus beef, chicken, or pork
A spinach salad topped with crab or salmon
An egg white or egg substitute omelet filled with sauteed spinach and reduced-fat cheese
2. Enjoy fruits and vegetables in a big way.
Fruits and vegetables are packed with key nutrients and antioxidant phytochemicals, which directly contribute to your health and health-related quality of life.
In a one study, eating two more servings of fruits and vegetables a day was associated with an 11% higher likelihood of good functional health. People who ate the highest amount of fruits and vegetables felt better about their health.
3. Eat selenium-rich foods every day.
Selenium is a mineral that acts like an antioxidant in the body. What do antioxidants have to do with feeling better and minimizing bad moods? Research suggests that the presence of oxidative stress in the brain is associated with some cases of mild to moderate depression in the elderly population.
One study evaluated the depression scores of elderly people whose daily diet was either supplemented with 200 micrograms of selenium a day or a placebo. Although more research is needed to confirm the findings, the group taking selenium had higher amounts of selenium circulating in their blood and significant decreases in their depression symptoms.
Try to get at least the recommended daily allowance for selenium: 55 micrograms a day for men and women.
Whole grains are an excellent source of selenium. By eating several servings a day of whole grains such as oatmeal, whole-grain bread, and brown rice, you can easily get 70 micrograms of selenium. Other foods rich in selenium include:
Beans and legumes
Lean meat (lean pork or beef, skinless chicken or turkey)
Low-fat dairy foods
Nuts and seeds (especially Brazil nuts)
Seafood (oysters, clams, crab, sardines, and fish)
4. Eat fish several times a week.
Several recent studies have suggested that men and women have a lower risk of having symptoms of depression if they eat a lot of fish, particularly fatty fish like salmon, which is high in omega-3 fatty acids.
Omega-3s from fish seem to have positive effects on clinically defined mood swings such as postpartum depression, says Jay Whelan, PhD, head of the department of nutrition at the University of Tennessee.
Good sources of omega-3 fatty acids include:
Herring
Rainbow trout
Salmon
Sardines
Tuna
5. Get a daily dose of vitamin D.
Does a little time in the sun seem to make you feel better? The sun’s rays allow our bodies to synthesize and regulate vitamin D.
Four recent studies showed an association between low serum levels of vitamin D and higher incidences of four mood disorders: PMS, seasonal affective disorder, nonspecified mood disorder, and major depressive disorder.
Researcher Pamela K. Murphy, PhD, at the Medical University of South Carolina says people can help manage their moods by getting at least 1,000 to 2,000 IU of vitamin D a day.
That’s significantly more than the RDA for vitamin D, which is 200 IU for adults under 50, 400 IU for ages 51 to 70, and 600 IU for people over 70.
Very few foods naturally contain vitamin D. So she recommends we get vitamin D from a variety of sources: short periods of sun exposure, vitamin D supplements, and foods.
Vitamin D can be found in:
Fatty fish such as salmon, tuna, and mackerel
Beef liver
Cheese
Egg yolks
But our primary source of dietary vitamin D is fortified foods, such as breakfast cereals, breads, juices, and milk.
6. Treat Yourself to 1 oz of Chocolate
“Small amounts of dark chocolate can be a physical upper,” says Becker at Johns Hopkins. “Dark chocolate has an effect on the levels of brain endorphins,” those feel-good chemicals that our bodies produce. Not only that, but dark chocolate also seems to have a heart-healthy anti-clogging effect in our blood vessels.
In one study from the Netherlands, Dutch men who ate 1/3 of a chocolate bar each day had lower levels of blood pressure and lower rates of heart disease. The chocolate also boosted their general sense of well-being.
How Foods and Beverages May Make You Feel Bad
Just as some foods can help you feel better, others can make you feel down. Here are ways to reduce the harmful effects of three foods that can drag you down.
1. Reduce foods high in saturated fat.
Saturated fat is well known for its role in promoting heart disease and some types of cancer. Now researchers suspect saturated fat also play a role in depression.
The link was found in a study called the Coronary Health Improvement Project, which followed 348 people between the 24 and 81. A decrease in saturated fat over a six-week period was associated with a decrease in depression.
2. Limit alcohol carefully.
That “feel-good” drink, alcohol, is actually a depressant. In small doses, alcohol can produce a temporary feeling of euphoria. But the truth is that alcohol is a chemical depressant to the human brain and affects all nerve cells.
Depending on the amount of alcohol consumed, people can go quickly from feeling relaxed to experiencing exaggerated emotions and impaired coordination.
It’s no coincidence that depressive disorders often co-occur with substance abuse, and one of the main forms of substance abuse in this country is alcohol.
3. Don’t go crazy with caffeine.
Caffeine can increase irritability a couple of ways.
If the caffeine you consume later in the day disrupts your nighttime sleeping, you are likely to be cranky and exhausted until you get a good night’s rest.
Caffeine can also bring on a burst or two of energy, often ending with a spiral into fatigue.
Some people are more sensitive than others to the troublesome effects of caffeine. If you are sensitive to caffeine, decrease the amount of coffee, tea, and sodas you drink to see if this helps uplift your mood and energy level, particularly in the latter part of the day.
By Elaine Magee, MPH, RD
Are you feeling down in the dumps? Are you irritated at how often you’ve been irritable?
Perhaps it’s time to look at the foods and drinks you consume to see if they are trashing your mood. Nutrition experts say that the foods you eat can help you feel better -- or feel worse -- in the short-term and the long-term.
Meal-to-meal and day-to-day, keeping your blood sugars steady and your gastrointestinal (GI) tract running smoothly will help you feel good and energetic. If your blood sugars are on a roller-coaster ride -- hitting highs and lows from too much sugar and refined flour – you are more likely to feel out of sorts. This is also true if your gastrointestinal system is distressed due to intense hunger from a fad diet or constipation because you aren’t getting enough fiber and water.
Week-to-week and month-to-month, keeping your body healthy and disease-free makes good moods more likely. For example, key nutrients you get in certain foods can influence the levels of feel-good hormones such as serotonin. Other nutrients can help prevent inflammation so blood circulates well to all of your organs.
“Eating a heart healthy diet -- high in fiber and low in saturated fat -- is a great place to start to boost your mood. There isn’t any question about it, says Diane M. Becker MPH, ScD, director of the Center for Health Promotion at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
Conversely, “a high-fat, high-glycemic load meal can make you physically feel dysfunction in your body. People who eat this type of meal tend to feel bad and sleepy afterwards,” she says.
6 Tips for Foods and Beverages That Help You Feel Good
1. Seek out foods rich in vitamin B12 and folic acid (folate).
What’s special about chili made with kidney beans and lean beef? Or a light chicken Caesar salad made with skinless chicken breast and romaine lettuce? Or grilled salmon with a side of broccoli?
All these dishes feature one food that is rich in folic acid (folate) and another that is rich in vitamin B12. These two vitamins appear to help prevent disorders of the central nervous system, mood disorders, and dementias, says Edward Reynolds, MD, at the Institute of Epileptology, King’s College, London.
The link between higher food intakes of folate and a lower prevalence of depressive symptoms crosses cultures, too. A recent study confirmed this association in Japanese men.
Folic acid is usually found in beans and greens. Vitamin B12 is found in meats, fish, poultry, and dairy.
Other dishes that feature B-12 and folic acid-rich foods include:
A burrito or enchilada made with black beans plus beef, chicken, or pork
A spinach salad topped with crab or salmon
An egg white or egg substitute omelet filled with sauteed spinach and reduced-fat cheese
2. Enjoy fruits and vegetables in a big way.
Fruits and vegetables are packed with key nutrients and antioxidant phytochemicals, which directly contribute to your health and health-related quality of life.
In a one study, eating two more servings of fruits and vegetables a day was associated with an 11% higher likelihood of good functional health. People who ate the highest amount of fruits and vegetables felt better about their health.
3. Eat selenium-rich foods every day.
Selenium is a mineral that acts like an antioxidant in the body. What do antioxidants have to do with feeling better and minimizing bad moods? Research suggests that the presence of oxidative stress in the brain is associated with some cases of mild to moderate depression in the elderly population.
One study evaluated the depression scores of elderly people whose daily diet was either supplemented with 200 micrograms of selenium a day or a placebo. Although more research is needed to confirm the findings, the group taking selenium had higher amounts of selenium circulating in their blood and significant decreases in their depression symptoms.
Try to get at least the recommended daily allowance for selenium: 55 micrograms a day for men and women.
Whole grains are an excellent source of selenium. By eating several servings a day of whole grains such as oatmeal, whole-grain bread, and brown rice, you can easily get 70 micrograms of selenium. Other foods rich in selenium include:
Beans and legumes
Lean meat (lean pork or beef, skinless chicken or turkey)
Low-fat dairy foods
Nuts and seeds (especially Brazil nuts)
Seafood (oysters, clams, crab, sardines, and fish)
4. Eat fish several times a week.
Several recent studies have suggested that men and women have a lower risk of having symptoms of depression if they eat a lot of fish, particularly fatty fish like salmon, which is high in omega-3 fatty acids.
Omega-3s from fish seem to have positive effects on clinically defined mood swings such as postpartum depression, says Jay Whelan, PhD, head of the department of nutrition at the University of Tennessee.
Good sources of omega-3 fatty acids include:
Herring
Rainbow trout
Salmon
Sardines
Tuna
5. Get a daily dose of vitamin D.
Does a little time in the sun seem to make you feel better? The sun’s rays allow our bodies to synthesize and regulate vitamin D.
Four recent studies showed an association between low serum levels of vitamin D and higher incidences of four mood disorders: PMS, seasonal affective disorder, nonspecified mood disorder, and major depressive disorder.
Researcher Pamela K. Murphy, PhD, at the Medical University of South Carolina says people can help manage their moods by getting at least 1,000 to 2,000 IU of vitamin D a day.
That’s significantly more than the RDA for vitamin D, which is 200 IU for adults under 50, 400 IU for ages 51 to 70, and 600 IU for people over 70.
Very few foods naturally contain vitamin D. So she recommends we get vitamin D from a variety of sources: short periods of sun exposure, vitamin D supplements, and foods.
Vitamin D can be found in:
Fatty fish such as salmon, tuna, and mackerel
Beef liver
Cheese
Egg yolks
But our primary source of dietary vitamin D is fortified foods, such as breakfast cereals, breads, juices, and milk.
6. Treat Yourself to 1 oz of Chocolate
“Small amounts of dark chocolate can be a physical upper,” says Becker at Johns Hopkins. “Dark chocolate has an effect on the levels of brain endorphins,” those feel-good chemicals that our bodies produce. Not only that, but dark chocolate also seems to have a heart-healthy anti-clogging effect in our blood vessels.
In one study from the Netherlands, Dutch men who ate 1/3 of a chocolate bar each day had lower levels of blood pressure and lower rates of heart disease. The chocolate also boosted their general sense of well-being.
How Foods and Beverages May Make You Feel Bad
Just as some foods can help you feel better, others can make you feel down. Here are ways to reduce the harmful effects of three foods that can drag you down.
1. Reduce foods high in saturated fat.
Saturated fat is well known for its role in promoting heart disease and some types of cancer. Now researchers suspect saturated fat also play a role in depression.
The link was found in a study called the Coronary Health Improvement Project, which followed 348 people between the 24 and 81. A decrease in saturated fat over a six-week period was associated with a decrease in depression.
2. Limit alcohol carefully.
That “feel-good” drink, alcohol, is actually a depressant. In small doses, alcohol can produce a temporary feeling of euphoria. But the truth is that alcohol is a chemical depressant to the human brain and affects all nerve cells.
Depending on the amount of alcohol consumed, people can go quickly from feeling relaxed to experiencing exaggerated emotions and impaired coordination.
It’s no coincidence that depressive disorders often co-occur with substance abuse, and one of the main forms of substance abuse in this country is alcohol.
3. Don’t go crazy with caffeine.
Caffeine can increase irritability a couple of ways.
If the caffeine you consume later in the day disrupts your nighttime sleeping, you are likely to be cranky and exhausted until you get a good night’s rest.
Caffeine can also bring on a burst or two of energy, often ending with a spiral into fatigue.
Some people are more sensitive than others to the troublesome effects of caffeine. If you are sensitive to caffeine, decrease the amount of coffee, tea, and sodas you drink to see if this helps uplift your mood and energy level, particularly in the latter part of the day.
Analysis: Obama woes no match for other presidents
By BARRY SCHWEID
AP Diplomatic Writer
It felt, the new president told reporters the day after he took office, "like the moon, the stars and all the planets had fallen on me."
President Barack Obama's lament about the financial, international and domestic crises bearing down on him? Wrong time, wrong president.
The speaker was Harry S. Truman, telling White House reporters in 1945 about the overwhelming and lonesome responsibility confronting a new president. His remarks said it all.
He had succeeded Franklin D. Roosevelt after FDR's death that year and immediately faced monumental decisions: how to end World War II; whether to order the atomic bombing of Japan, which would save American lives but kill tens of thousands of Japanese civilians; and how to build a peaceful world, including feeding the same German nation that had caused so much of the world's misery.
Immense challenges have confronted Obama, too, early in his presidency.
The economic meltdown was tough enough by itself. But there's no time to catch his breath; too many other matters require his attention.
Guantanamo detainees. Health care. North Korea's nuclear program. Iran's nuclear program. The Israelis and the Palestinians.
"This fellow was dealt an incredibly difficult hand, both foreign and domestic," said Stephen P. Hess, senior follow at the Brookings Institution. "But maybe if you compare him to Lincoln or to FDR, it is not such a mountain to climb."
History shows that other presidents have taken on bigger challenges, according to Hess and other presidential scholars.
"On the scale of being confronted with truly major problems on taking office, I think I would have to put it in the top 10 percent," Hess said. "Lincoln took over on the verge of a civil war that was going to divide the country. Americans were slaughtering Americans. Roosevelt faced the worst depression the United States ever had."
Roosevelt did not have a big foreign policy problem early on, said Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.
Obama's economic test has been severe. Banks teetered, homes foreclosed, stocks plunged and millions lost their jobs. But for Roosevelt, the economy literally collapsed.
Troubles at the outset of a presidency also roiled the incoming administration of a president often compared with Obama, John F. Kennedy.
Taking office in 1961, Kennedy inherited a bungled plan to train and support Cuban exiles to invade their homeland. The plan was aimed at inspiring Cubans to rise against Communist leader Fidel Castro, who was drawing on support from the Soviet Union.
The Bay of Pigs invasion and much of what followed, including an air attack of CIA planes from Nicaragua, ended as a colossal failure. The invasion was crushed. Kennedy was embarrassed.
But his administration did not cease economic and other operations against Cuba. This led up to the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962.
"We were at the brink of nuclear war. I don't think we are at the brink of war with the North Koreans," said G. Calvin Mackenzie, professor of government at Colby College.
So perhaps it's best for now to call Obama's trials daunting, but not overwhelming.
The financial markets and home starts are showing signs of life. North Korea is the foreign conundrum of the moment. But even Iran and Cuba, which seemed equally intransigent in recent years, have shown small signs they may be willing to come out of their diplomatic shells.
Is there daylight ahead for the new president?
___
EDITOR'S NOTE — Barry Schweid has covered diplomacy for The Associated Press since 1973.
AP Diplomatic Writer
It felt, the new president told reporters the day after he took office, "like the moon, the stars and all the planets had fallen on me."
President Barack Obama's lament about the financial, international and domestic crises bearing down on him? Wrong time, wrong president.
The speaker was Harry S. Truman, telling White House reporters in 1945 about the overwhelming and lonesome responsibility confronting a new president. His remarks said it all.
He had succeeded Franklin D. Roosevelt after FDR's death that year and immediately faced monumental decisions: how to end World War II; whether to order the atomic bombing of Japan, which would save American lives but kill tens of thousands of Japanese civilians; and how to build a peaceful world, including feeding the same German nation that had caused so much of the world's misery.
Immense challenges have confronted Obama, too, early in his presidency.
The economic meltdown was tough enough by itself. But there's no time to catch his breath; too many other matters require his attention.
Guantanamo detainees. Health care. North Korea's nuclear program. Iran's nuclear program. The Israelis and the Palestinians.
"This fellow was dealt an incredibly difficult hand, both foreign and domestic," said Stephen P. Hess, senior follow at the Brookings Institution. "But maybe if you compare him to Lincoln or to FDR, it is not such a mountain to climb."
History shows that other presidents have taken on bigger challenges, according to Hess and other presidential scholars.
"On the scale of being confronted with truly major problems on taking office, I think I would have to put it in the top 10 percent," Hess said. "Lincoln took over on the verge of a civil war that was going to divide the country. Americans were slaughtering Americans. Roosevelt faced the worst depression the United States ever had."
Roosevelt did not have a big foreign policy problem early on, said Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.
Obama's economic test has been severe. Banks teetered, homes foreclosed, stocks plunged and millions lost their jobs. But for Roosevelt, the economy literally collapsed.
Troubles at the outset of a presidency also roiled the incoming administration of a president often compared with Obama, John F. Kennedy.
Taking office in 1961, Kennedy inherited a bungled plan to train and support Cuban exiles to invade their homeland. The plan was aimed at inspiring Cubans to rise against Communist leader Fidel Castro, who was drawing on support from the Soviet Union.
The Bay of Pigs invasion and much of what followed, including an air attack of CIA planes from Nicaragua, ended as a colossal failure. The invasion was crushed. Kennedy was embarrassed.
But his administration did not cease economic and other operations against Cuba. This led up to the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962.
"We were at the brink of nuclear war. I don't think we are at the brink of war with the North Koreans," said G. Calvin Mackenzie, professor of government at Colby College.
So perhaps it's best for now to call Obama's trials daunting, but not overwhelming.
The financial markets and home starts are showing signs of life. North Korea is the foreign conundrum of the moment. But even Iran and Cuba, which seemed equally intransigent in recent years, have shown small signs they may be willing to come out of their diplomatic shells.
Is there daylight ahead for the new president?
___
EDITOR'S NOTE — Barry Schweid has covered diplomacy for The Associated Press since 1973.
Reproductive rights are civil rights
The murder of Dr. George Tiller, who provided medical care for women seeking abortions, was an act of domestic terrorism because it was meant to threaten and intimidate women who seek safe and legal abortions, their families, and the healthcare professionals who assist them.
Tiller's murder created yet another touchstone for an issue that has received new urgency since President Obama's recent commencement speech at Notre Dame and the nomination of pro-choice Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet, amazingly, in the days after the attack, I am struck by how few black voices have stepped into the storm to condemn anti-choice violence and rhetoric. That's unfortunate, because being pro-choice shouldn't be just a white feminist thing. It's a black thing, too.
Reproductive rights are civil rights, and we only have to look at the numbers to see how we are disproportionately affected by race, class and gender inequality. For instance, Black women have abortions at three times the rate of white women. Our rates of infant mortality are nearly double than for white newborns. Black women are four times more likely to die from pregnancy complications than white women. Reproductive justice means closing those gaps through the advocacy of healthy reproductive options for black women, including the right to safe abortion.
I know the fear of walking into a women's clinic with friends and as a patient myself, and I know the anguish of terminating a pregnancy. These sorrows can be minimized by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies in our communities. However, the answer does not lie in the racialized rhetoric of sexual respectability. You know the argument that demonizes unmarried black mothers as promiscuous and simply tells women to "close their legs." Let's be clear about the hypocrisy perpetrated in the name of sexual respectability. Those who would condemn black and brown women for out-of-wedlock sex celebrate Bristol Palin with a cover story in People magazine. No disrespect to young Bristol, but it has never been the case that this nation championed the life choices of a black teenage mother because she chose to keep her child rather than have an abortion.
The politics of pregnancy, birth and motherhood have racial implications, and the more we engage these complexities the more effective we will be in addressing the realities of our sexual and reproductive lives. What we need is real sex education, not abstinence-only programs for young people, and easy access to multiple forms of contraception, including the increased availability and affordability of the morning-after pill. Our community leaders and religious leaders should fight for reproductive justice by advocating these solutions, because "close your legs" is not choice, it is not activism, and it is not justice.
One my heroes, Fannie Lou Hamer, joined the Civil Rights movement in Mississippi after suffering at the hands of a "Mississippi appendectomy," a euphemism for the practice of state-sanctioned sterilization that was forced on women of color throughout the 20th century. Her outrage over this abuse was critical to her development as an activist, and for her, civil rights included the right to control her fertility.
For black women, choice has meant protection from sterilizations and court-ordered birth control enforcement. Choice has also meant access to superior prenatal health care, safe housing and nutrition that would allow us to raise healthy, happy children if we desire. And, in many cases, it has also meant the choice to terminate unwanted pregnancies.
Too often, the mainstream pro-choice movement sidelines our multiple ideas about choice, which may contribute to our relative silence when abortion rights are violently threatened. Even so, we must not be deterred. Faye Wattleton understood this, and as the first black woman to head Planned Parenthood, she brought our interests to prominence and risked her life doing it. Members of groups like Sister Song Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective understand this, and they organize with groups of women to fight for reproductive health and sexual rights.
Our desire for real choice must continue to include our vocal support for abortion rights. If we stand up and tell our stories, join forces with others, express our outrage at Dr. Tiller's murder and share our support for pro-choice jurists, Black women can redefine the meaning of reproductive justice.
By MARIO DAVID www.thegrio.com
Tiller's murder created yet another touchstone for an issue that has received new urgency since President Obama's recent commencement speech at Notre Dame and the nomination of pro-choice Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet, amazingly, in the days after the attack, I am struck by how few black voices have stepped into the storm to condemn anti-choice violence and rhetoric. That's unfortunate, because being pro-choice shouldn't be just a white feminist thing. It's a black thing, too.
Reproductive rights are civil rights, and we only have to look at the numbers to see how we are disproportionately affected by race, class and gender inequality. For instance, Black women have abortions at three times the rate of white women. Our rates of infant mortality are nearly double than for white newborns. Black women are four times more likely to die from pregnancy complications than white women. Reproductive justice means closing those gaps through the advocacy of healthy reproductive options for black women, including the right to safe abortion.
I know the fear of walking into a women's clinic with friends and as a patient myself, and I know the anguish of terminating a pregnancy. These sorrows can be minimized by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies in our communities. However, the answer does not lie in the racialized rhetoric of sexual respectability. You know the argument that demonizes unmarried black mothers as promiscuous and simply tells women to "close their legs." Let's be clear about the hypocrisy perpetrated in the name of sexual respectability. Those who would condemn black and brown women for out-of-wedlock sex celebrate Bristol Palin with a cover story in People magazine. No disrespect to young Bristol, but it has never been the case that this nation championed the life choices of a black teenage mother because she chose to keep her child rather than have an abortion.
The politics of pregnancy, birth and motherhood have racial implications, and the more we engage these complexities the more effective we will be in addressing the realities of our sexual and reproductive lives. What we need is real sex education, not abstinence-only programs for young people, and easy access to multiple forms of contraception, including the increased availability and affordability of the morning-after pill. Our community leaders and religious leaders should fight for reproductive justice by advocating these solutions, because "close your legs" is not choice, it is not activism, and it is not justice.
One my heroes, Fannie Lou Hamer, joined the Civil Rights movement in Mississippi after suffering at the hands of a "Mississippi appendectomy," a euphemism for the practice of state-sanctioned sterilization that was forced on women of color throughout the 20th century. Her outrage over this abuse was critical to her development as an activist, and for her, civil rights included the right to control her fertility.
For black women, choice has meant protection from sterilizations and court-ordered birth control enforcement. Choice has also meant access to superior prenatal health care, safe housing and nutrition that would allow us to raise healthy, happy children if we desire. And, in many cases, it has also meant the choice to terminate unwanted pregnancies.
Too often, the mainstream pro-choice movement sidelines our multiple ideas about choice, which may contribute to our relative silence when abortion rights are violently threatened. Even so, we must not be deterred. Faye Wattleton understood this, and as the first black woman to head Planned Parenthood, she brought our interests to prominence and risked her life doing it. Members of groups like Sister Song Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective understand this, and they organize with groups of women to fight for reproductive health and sexual rights.
Our desire for real choice must continue to include our vocal support for abortion rights. If we stand up and tell our stories, join forces with others, express our outrage at Dr. Tiller's murder and share our support for pro-choice jurists, Black women can redefine the meaning of reproductive justice.
By MARIO DAVID www.thegrio.com
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Mum lawmakers to weigh in on murders FINALLY!
THE HILL by Mike Soraghan
Members of Congress will weigh in next week on two politically-charged murders that they have been wary of commenting about.
Resolutions condemning the murder of a Kansas abortion provider and the shooting of two Army recruiters have been scheduled for Tuesday in the House.
George Tiller, a physician specializing in late term abortions, was fatally shot Sunday in the vestibule of his Lutheran church.
Private William Andrew Long was killed and Quinton I. Ezeagwula was wounded in a shooting Monday at a Little Rock recruiting station. Police say the suspect, Abdulhakim Muhammad, 23, told investigators he wanted to kill as many Army personnel as he could "because of what they had done to Muslims in the past."
Conservative commentators have criticized President Obama's statements on the two murders, saying his response to the Tiller murder was more forceful. Obama's statement about the recruiting station shooting said he was "deeply saddened." His statement on the Tiller murder said he was "shocked and outraged."
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) has introduced a resolution condemning Tiller's murder. It was co-sponsored by more than 70 Democrats.
The resolution offers condolences to Tiller's family and states "violence is never an appropriate response to a difference in beliefs."
It also highlights violence occurring at churches, noting that 38 people in the United States have been killed in places of worship in the last 10 years.
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) sponsored the resolution on the recruiting station shooting. Wording and co-sponsor information was unavailable Saturday.
Both resolutions have been placed on the suspension calendar, a fast-track procedure that requires a two-thirds vote.
Tiller's funeral was held Saturday under tight security at a United Methodist Church in Wichita.
The Justice Department Friday announced that it will conduct a federal investigation into Tiller's murder. The investigation, which is in addition to the local murder investigation, will focus on potential prosecution under federal laws that forbid blocking entry into clinics.
Few members of Congress have officially responded to either of the murders. In Kansas, Republican Sen. Sam Brownback (R), an ardent abortion opponent, is the only lawmaker in the six-member delegation to have posted a statement about the Tiller murder on his congressional website.
Brownback's four-sentence statement condemned the murder and said Brownback was "shocked and saddened."
No members of the Arkansas delegation have posted statements about the fatal shooting at the recruiting station.
But lawmakers have not been pressed hard for reaction. A press secretary for one congressional leader said the leaders' staff had prepared reaction for the Tiller murder if reporters asked, but it never came up.
Members of Congress will weigh in next week on two politically-charged murders that they have been wary of commenting about.
Resolutions condemning the murder of a Kansas abortion provider and the shooting of two Army recruiters have been scheduled for Tuesday in the House.
George Tiller, a physician specializing in late term abortions, was fatally shot Sunday in the vestibule of his Lutheran church.
Private William Andrew Long was killed and Quinton I. Ezeagwula was wounded in a shooting Monday at a Little Rock recruiting station. Police say the suspect, Abdulhakim Muhammad, 23, told investigators he wanted to kill as many Army personnel as he could "because of what they had done to Muslims in the past."
Conservative commentators have criticized President Obama's statements on the two murders, saying his response to the Tiller murder was more forceful. Obama's statement about the recruiting station shooting said he was "deeply saddened." His statement on the Tiller murder said he was "shocked and outraged."
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) has introduced a resolution condemning Tiller's murder. It was co-sponsored by more than 70 Democrats.
The resolution offers condolences to Tiller's family and states "violence is never an appropriate response to a difference in beliefs."
It also highlights violence occurring at churches, noting that 38 people in the United States have been killed in places of worship in the last 10 years.
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) sponsored the resolution on the recruiting station shooting. Wording and co-sponsor information was unavailable Saturday.
Both resolutions have been placed on the suspension calendar, a fast-track procedure that requires a two-thirds vote.
Tiller's funeral was held Saturday under tight security at a United Methodist Church in Wichita.
The Justice Department Friday announced that it will conduct a federal investigation into Tiller's murder. The investigation, which is in addition to the local murder investigation, will focus on potential prosecution under federal laws that forbid blocking entry into clinics.
Few members of Congress have officially responded to either of the murders. In Kansas, Republican Sen. Sam Brownback (R), an ardent abortion opponent, is the only lawmaker in the six-member delegation to have posted a statement about the Tiller murder on his congressional website.
Brownback's four-sentence statement condemned the murder and said Brownback was "shocked and saddened."
No members of the Arkansas delegation have posted statements about the fatal shooting at the recruiting station.
But lawmakers have not been pressed hard for reaction. A press secretary for one congressional leader said the leaders' staff had prepared reaction for the Tiller murder if reporters asked, but it never came up.
If They Can Find Time for Date Night ...
By JAN HOFFMAN
THEIRS is a seasoned marriage, 16 years and counting. They are middle-aged. Life is that modern-crazy haze: two girls in the windstorm of year-end school activities, the puppy that must be walked twice daily, the live-in mother-in-law. They both work long hours. Standard recipe for a drive-by relationship.
And yet.
At the gala celebrating the crowning achievement of his career, he showed her off to cheering throngs: “How good-looking is my wife?”
In his lock-step schedule, he sets aside daily “Michelle time.”
And last weekend, he fulfilled a promise to her. They got all gussied up and flew to New York, took a limo to dinner and a Broadway show, then flew home. Date night, just the two of them. Michelle and Barack. And their security detail.
From longtime marrieds-with-kids, the sounds of romance envy: Groan. Growl. Whimper. Sigh.
“I’m jealous,” said Emily Giffin, the Atlanta-based writer of “Love the One You’re With” and other chick-lit novels. Home stats: married seven years to a corporate executive, three children under 6.
Last date with husband? She’s thinking, she mutters. “We don’t have a date night, I have to say,” Ms. Giffin said. A lame excuse? Her husband’s beloved Pittsburgh Penguins are in the Stanley Cup finals. “But I flew to New York alone and went out with my friends while he stayed home with the kids,” she said. “Does that count?”
While some commentators were grousing about the presidential date’s undisclosed cost to the taxpayers, news of the romantic evening prompted many wives to glare across the breakfast table, trying to remember the last time their husbands made a fuss over them.
Elbowed sharply in the side, husbands felt betrayed by the commander in chief. On “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart reviewed the Obamas’ glamorous foray and screeched, “How do you compete with that?” He warned Mr. Obama, “Take it down a notch, dude!”
But relationship experts are applauding the first couple for giving life to the modern fantasy that longtime spouses can still be passionate about each other. Intentionally or not, the Obamas have become ambassadors for date night, a term that is a creature of these times. A generation ago, when Saturday night rolled around, parents simply went out. Now parents need to be prodded to date each other, as if they’re singles: take a break from the children, already!
“The Obamas really are products of the culture,” said Christine B. Whelan, a sociologist at the University of Iowa who studies the American family. The Obamas exemplify what sociologists call the “individualized marriage,” she added, where a thriving relationship is marked by love and mutual attraction, not just duty to family and social roles.
“As a society, we want to think a husband might still have his hand on his wife’s knee under the table after 15 years of marriage,” said Dr. Whelan, author of “Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women.” “That’s not necessarily bad, but it adds extra pressure.”
Joy Behar, a host on “The View,” whose marriage ended after 17 years, said nothing killed their sex drive like talking politics. So she said she understood the constraints on the first couple’s chemistry.
“And with a mother-in-law in the house?” she said. “Now that’s a real lust-corrector!” The president’s schedule posed unique marital challenges, she noted. Every day Mr. Obama has to weigh competing demands, Ms. Behar said: “Musharraf or Michelle? That’s a tougher thing for him than the average Joe. So it’s really meaningful when you watch them together.” She added, in a tone of wonderment, “He actually looks like he desires her.”
Some wives said, wistfully, that the White House also gave the Obamas restorative marital powers not available to average Joes and Josephines. Rita Rudner, the comedian, who met Mr. Obama last month at a fund-raiser for Senator Harry Reid, carped, “He just uses Air Force One to impress her. Because they usually fly Delta.”
Lisa Wolfe, a writer in New York, married for 17 years to a man named Joe, said of Mr. Obama: “He comes in like an action hero to save the country, and that’s hot. Plus, she’s got stylists and always looks great and is doing important work, too. So they’re getting each other at their best. I’d have a lot more pizzazz left for my husband, too, if we moved into the White House and my mother was on hand to baby-sit 24-7.”
Some husbands had their story and were sticking to it: emphatic cluelessness. Mark Hyman, a conservative television commentator, said his first reaction to the Obamas’ date night wasn’t envy, but bewilderment over how they managed to schedule one. He and his wife, he said, could scarcely keep up with coordinating weekend activities, scattered across Baltimore, of their three children, ages 7, 10 and 13.
“We’ve had family date nights,” offered Mr. Hyman, doing the math to figure out he has been married 15 — no, 14 — years. “A Jonas Brothers concert?”
Husband. Wife. Together. Alone? “Sometimes we talk about going to a film together,” he said, “but by the time we agree on one, it’s out on DVD.”
In some households, attention to the Obamas’ example was being paid. Eileen O’Connor, a Washington lawyer with five daughters, believes the “Yes We Can” message, marital version, is penetrating even her 19-year marriage. “Every time my husband hears about them on the news,” she said, “he looks at me out of the corner of his eye.”
So, first-class seats for two on a flight to New York? Not exactly.
“But late at night as he’s about to walk the dog, he’ll say, ‘Why don’t you come with me?’ ” Ms. O’Connor said. “That’s our Michelle time. Or maybe once a month we’ll walk to the local bistro for a glass of wine and hors d’oeuvres.”
After an hour, she said, “We look at each other and say, ‘O.K. We’re done!’ ”
She and other married friends have discussed the Obamas’ efforts to keep their marriage a priority. Ms. O’Connor’s husband, John Bilotta, seems to be taking the hint: Since Mother’s Day, he has been sending her flowers weekly.
As he was running family errands, Mr. Bilotta, a corporate media consultant, said in a phone interview: “It pops up on my BlackBerry on Tuesdays: ‘Send flowers to wife.’ ”
Although most spouses cannot create fairy-tale evenings on the order of Mr. Obama, couples could learn from his model, said Arthur Aron, a social psychologist who studies long-term relationships. Studies show that “couples who do things that are novel, challenging and exciting do a lot better,” said Dr. Aron, a professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Even a picnic could suffice, he said.
Other couples cautioned against reading too much into what could be a staging of matrimonial contentment. “You never know what couples are really like,” said Ms. Rudner, who has been married 21 years. “I used to be jealous of Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston.”
And then there are those longtime couples who, prompted by the Obamas’ date night, looked across their breakfast tables last week and liked what they saw. Tracey Ullman, who stars in the Showtime series “State of the Union,” recalled that in December, her husband took her to Paris for their 25th anniversary and gave her a special ring.
“He wanted to get me a necklace,” Ms. Ullman recalled, “but my daughter, Mabel, said, ‘You’ve been married to her for 25 years, Dad! Haven’t you noticed, she doesn’t have a neck?’ ”
True, Ms. Ullman said: “I really don’t. But Allan has never noticed. He just said to Mabel, ‘But she has a lovely neck!’ ”
THEIRS is a seasoned marriage, 16 years and counting. They are middle-aged. Life is that modern-crazy haze: two girls in the windstorm of year-end school activities, the puppy that must be walked twice daily, the live-in mother-in-law. They both work long hours. Standard recipe for a drive-by relationship.
And yet.
At the gala celebrating the crowning achievement of his career, he showed her off to cheering throngs: “How good-looking is my wife?”
In his lock-step schedule, he sets aside daily “Michelle time.”
And last weekend, he fulfilled a promise to her. They got all gussied up and flew to New York, took a limo to dinner and a Broadway show, then flew home. Date night, just the two of them. Michelle and Barack. And their security detail.
From longtime marrieds-with-kids, the sounds of romance envy: Groan. Growl. Whimper. Sigh.
“I’m jealous,” said Emily Giffin, the Atlanta-based writer of “Love the One You’re With” and other chick-lit novels. Home stats: married seven years to a corporate executive, three children under 6.
Last date with husband? She’s thinking, she mutters. “We don’t have a date night, I have to say,” Ms. Giffin said. A lame excuse? Her husband’s beloved Pittsburgh Penguins are in the Stanley Cup finals. “But I flew to New York alone and went out with my friends while he stayed home with the kids,” she said. “Does that count?”
While some commentators were grousing about the presidential date’s undisclosed cost to the taxpayers, news of the romantic evening prompted many wives to glare across the breakfast table, trying to remember the last time their husbands made a fuss over them.
Elbowed sharply in the side, husbands felt betrayed by the commander in chief. On “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart reviewed the Obamas’ glamorous foray and screeched, “How do you compete with that?” He warned Mr. Obama, “Take it down a notch, dude!”
But relationship experts are applauding the first couple for giving life to the modern fantasy that longtime spouses can still be passionate about each other. Intentionally or not, the Obamas have become ambassadors for date night, a term that is a creature of these times. A generation ago, when Saturday night rolled around, parents simply went out. Now parents need to be prodded to date each other, as if they’re singles: take a break from the children, already!
“The Obamas really are products of the culture,” said Christine B. Whelan, a sociologist at the University of Iowa who studies the American family. The Obamas exemplify what sociologists call the “individualized marriage,” she added, where a thriving relationship is marked by love and mutual attraction, not just duty to family and social roles.
“As a society, we want to think a husband might still have his hand on his wife’s knee under the table after 15 years of marriage,” said Dr. Whelan, author of “Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women.” “That’s not necessarily bad, but it adds extra pressure.”
Joy Behar, a host on “The View,” whose marriage ended after 17 years, said nothing killed their sex drive like talking politics. So she said she understood the constraints on the first couple’s chemistry.
“And with a mother-in-law in the house?” she said. “Now that’s a real lust-corrector!” The president’s schedule posed unique marital challenges, she noted. Every day Mr. Obama has to weigh competing demands, Ms. Behar said: “Musharraf or Michelle? That’s a tougher thing for him than the average Joe. So it’s really meaningful when you watch them together.” She added, in a tone of wonderment, “He actually looks like he desires her.”
Some wives said, wistfully, that the White House also gave the Obamas restorative marital powers not available to average Joes and Josephines. Rita Rudner, the comedian, who met Mr. Obama last month at a fund-raiser for Senator Harry Reid, carped, “He just uses Air Force One to impress her. Because they usually fly Delta.”
Lisa Wolfe, a writer in New York, married for 17 years to a man named Joe, said of Mr. Obama: “He comes in like an action hero to save the country, and that’s hot. Plus, she’s got stylists and always looks great and is doing important work, too. So they’re getting each other at their best. I’d have a lot more pizzazz left for my husband, too, if we moved into the White House and my mother was on hand to baby-sit 24-7.”
Some husbands had their story and were sticking to it: emphatic cluelessness. Mark Hyman, a conservative television commentator, said his first reaction to the Obamas’ date night wasn’t envy, but bewilderment over how they managed to schedule one. He and his wife, he said, could scarcely keep up with coordinating weekend activities, scattered across Baltimore, of their three children, ages 7, 10 and 13.
“We’ve had family date nights,” offered Mr. Hyman, doing the math to figure out he has been married 15 — no, 14 — years. “A Jonas Brothers concert?”
Husband. Wife. Together. Alone? “Sometimes we talk about going to a film together,” he said, “but by the time we agree on one, it’s out on DVD.”
In some households, attention to the Obamas’ example was being paid. Eileen O’Connor, a Washington lawyer with five daughters, believes the “Yes We Can” message, marital version, is penetrating even her 19-year marriage. “Every time my husband hears about them on the news,” she said, “he looks at me out of the corner of his eye.”
So, first-class seats for two on a flight to New York? Not exactly.
“But late at night as he’s about to walk the dog, he’ll say, ‘Why don’t you come with me?’ ” Ms. O’Connor said. “That’s our Michelle time. Or maybe once a month we’ll walk to the local bistro for a glass of wine and hors d’oeuvres.”
After an hour, she said, “We look at each other and say, ‘O.K. We’re done!’ ”
She and other married friends have discussed the Obamas’ efforts to keep their marriage a priority. Ms. O’Connor’s husband, John Bilotta, seems to be taking the hint: Since Mother’s Day, he has been sending her flowers weekly.
As he was running family errands, Mr. Bilotta, a corporate media consultant, said in a phone interview: “It pops up on my BlackBerry on Tuesdays: ‘Send flowers to wife.’ ”
Although most spouses cannot create fairy-tale evenings on the order of Mr. Obama, couples could learn from his model, said Arthur Aron, a social psychologist who studies long-term relationships. Studies show that “couples who do things that are novel, challenging and exciting do a lot better,” said Dr. Aron, a professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Even a picnic could suffice, he said.
Other couples cautioned against reading too much into what could be a staging of matrimonial contentment. “You never know what couples are really like,” said Ms. Rudner, who has been married 21 years. “I used to be jealous of Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston.”
And then there are those longtime couples who, prompted by the Obamas’ date night, looked across their breakfast tables last week and liked what they saw. Tracey Ullman, who stars in the Showtime series “State of the Union,” recalled that in December, her husband took her to Paris for their 25th anniversary and gave her a special ring.
“He wanted to get me a necklace,” Ms. Ullman recalled, “but my daughter, Mabel, said, ‘You’ve been married to her for 25 years, Dad! Haven’t you noticed, she doesn’t have a neck?’ ”
True, Ms. Ullman said: “I really don’t. But Allan has never noticed. He just said to Mabel, ‘But she has a lovely neck!’ ”
Saturday, June 06, 2009
MEDIA MATTERS - It does!! MediaMaters.Org WEEKLY
President Obama's trip to the Middle East and subsequent speech in Cairo were a predictable source of fodder for media conservatives. Then again, Obama's trips abroad tend to bring out the worst from the right: a complete rejection of honest self-reflection, implicit xenophobia and anti-Islamic bigotry, relentless fearmongering, and a desire to portray any critics of U.S. policy as being un-American.
In order to prove their point, the conservative media have routinely cropped Obama's statements, including his honest assessment of U.S. failures under the Bush administration while excluding his critiques of other nations. This gave rise to the "apology tour" theme that Fox News pushed heavily during Obama's trip to Europe in April. That theme was rekindled this week as Fox's Sean Hannity aired an Obama "apology tour" video montage, while Fox & Friends asked if Obama would continue his "'apology-looza'" in Saudi Arabia. This time, however, the theme had broader reach and was repeated by CNN's Lou Dobbs, as well as MSNBC's Chris Matthews. Ironically, the typically abysmal right-wing fringe radio host Neal Boortz defended the president, claiming that he "didn't see any apologia, show of weakness" in Obama's Cairo speech.
When Fox's Steve Doocy claimed that "some" commentators have referred to the trip "as President Obama's Muslim apology tour" (by "some," he apparently meant "Steve Doocy"), he found a way to link the right-wing belief that honesty equals weakness with conservatives' deathly fear of the world's largest religion, Islam, practiced peacefully by well over 1 billion people around the world, as well as millions here in America. Commentator Joe Pagliarulo joined in the fun while guest-hosting Glenn Beck's radio program. Channeling his inner 11th-grade thug, Pagliarulo showed stunning ignorance when he stated that instead of reaching out to Muslims, Obama should have said what he claimed Ronald Reagan would have: "Hey, screw you. We're big and bad, and we are the promoters of peace and independence and liberty around the world. Either get with us or you can go on hating us and we'll enjoy life and you'll live in your cave." And during a discussion of the murder of Dr. George Tiller, the always-sage Ann Coulter made perfectly clear just who the far right thinks Obama was talking to this week, claiming, "Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful." No wonder, then, that the purportedly bias-free Fox Nation website felt compelled to warn its readers that "Obama Says U.S. Is a 'Muslim Country.' "
Classic right-wing fearmongering was on constant display this week, as Fox News' Dick Morris warned of an impending Holocaust, Hannity claimed that Obama had given Iran the "go-ahead" to build nuclear weapons, Rush Limbaugh stated that Obama is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden, and radio talker Lee Rodgers held out the specter of a "few million dead Americans" finally proving that we are all under the thumb of an "anti-American president."
Rodgers really hit the nail on the head for the right, returning to the central theme of its argument over the past 18 months: The U.S.-born, Hawaii-raised, former senator from Illinois just isn't one of us. While CNN's Candy Crowley implied that the Obama administration wasn't a "stalwart defender" of Israel, numerous conservative media figures did whatever they could to prove that the president is taking orders from Riyadh, all while he is continuing his campaign to sublimate American sovereignty to the United Nations and turn America into a socialist/fascist nightmare.
It was fine with the right when President Bush held hands with the Saudi king as they walked through his palace, but ever since Obama politely bowed to the monarch, the right has been foaming at the mouth. The fixation with Obama and the king continued this week, as Fox's Gretchen Carlson and Doocy cited their initial interaction as the "most important moment" of their meeting. While CNN questioned whether shouts of admiration during Obama's Cairo address would be taken poorly "at home," a blog post at The Weekly Standard asked conspiratorially if the president secretly spoke "the language of the Koran."
When Joe Scarborough declared Obama to be "perhaps the greatest challenge Osama bin Laden has faced" since 2001, he gave the week one of its only moments of sanity and perspective. Unfortunately, he stood alone, and it was Fox News' Martha MacCallum who embodied the remarkable and dangerous lack of thought among those in the right-wing media establishment when she asked why we would "have to reach out to the Muslim population" when "we were the ones attacked on September 11th."
Other major stories this week:
The murder of Dr. George Tiller
Dr. George Tiller, a doctor whose clinic legally performed late-term abortions, was shot to death as he entered his Kansas church this past weekend. In 1985, Tiller's clinic was bombed, and in 1993, he was shot by an anti-choice activist in both arms. Following news of his murder, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry released a statement saying in part: "George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God."
As Media Matters noted, on the February 2, 1992, edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl reported: "While Terry insists he has never committed any violent acts himself, this footage, taped by the staff of the Boulder Abortion Clinic in Colorado, shows him asking his followers to pray for either the salvation or the death of the clinic's doctor." 60 Minutes then aired video of Terry stating, "But pray that this family will either be converted to God or that calamity will strike him." Stahl added, "The doctor he's talking about is Warren Hern, who runs the clinic. He's been a major target of pro-life groups for years because he's one of only three doctors in the country who specialize in late-term abortions."
Coverage this week of the murder varied.
A report in USA Today falsely suggested that Tiller indiscriminately aborted viable fetuses. Its June 1 story reported that Tiller was a "controversial figure" whose clinic "performs abortions after the point when a fetus is considered viable." But USA Today did not report that Kansas law permits the abortion of viable fetuses when the doctor performing the abortion and a second doctor agree that the "abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman" or that the pregnant woman would be irreparably harmed -- physically or mentally -- by giving birth.
The right-wing media police at the Media Research Center's NewsBusters blog complained that media reports of Tiller's death failed to describe him as "controversial," even though several outlets described him just that way, including the previously mentioned USA Today article. To make its point that Tiller was in fact "controversial," NewsBusters cited a Kansas City Star "timeline of major events in George Tiller's career." The first entry in the timeline was the 1986 bombing of Tiller's clinic. The second was the 1991 blockade of his clinic by anti-choice protesters, leading to more than 2,500 arrests. The third was the 1993 shooting in which Tiller was hit in both arms. The fourth entry was a 1998 letter Tiller received threatening to contaminate his clinic with anthrax. The fifth was another illegal protest outside Tiller's clinic. The sixth and seventh were proceedings that found no wrongdoing by Tiller. And that was it; that's the whole list. Calling Tiller "controversial" just because conservative anti-choice terrorists tried to, and finally did, kill him is insulting and suggests some justification for his murder. Calling Tiller "controversial" blames the victim. In subsequent posts to its website, NewsBusters would go on to fault the media for "do[ing] nothing to help their audience understand why [Tiller] was targeted."
Following Tiller's murder, Media Matters unearthed video of a Bill O'Reilly producer's 2007 ambush interview of Tiller and 2006 "confrontation" with Tiller's attorney. Additionally, Media Matters posted a 2006 rant from O'Reilly's radio show, in which the Fox News host said, "[I]f I could get my hands on Tiller -- well, you know. Can't be vigilantes. Can't do that. It's just a figure of speech."
Salon.com's Gabriel Winant wrote regarding O'Reilly that there was "no other person who bears as much responsibility for the characterization of Tiller as a savage on the loose, killing babies willy-nilly thanks to the collusion of would-be sophisticated cultural elites, a bought-and-paid-for governor and scofflaw secular journalists. Tiller's name first appeared on 'The Factor' on Feb. 25, 2005. Since then, O'Reilly and his guest hosts have brought up the doctor on 28 more episodes, including as recently as April 27 of this year. Almost invariably, Tiller is described as 'Tiller the Baby Killer.' "
Responding to the widespread criticism, O'Reilly falsely claimed he had only "reported what groups" were calling Tiller. Reading an email from a viewer who asked, "Mr. O'Reilly, how can you be sure that reciting 'Tiller the baby killer' over and over again did not inflame the assassin?" O'Reilly responded, "The doctor was involved in a criminal case. I reported what groups were calling him. I reported accurately." In fact, O'Reilly has not only "reported" on the term's usage by "pro-life groups," but also repeatedly referred to Tiller as "the baby killer" himself. To put a finer point on the criticism, during a June 2 broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor, Patricia Ireland caught O'Reilly red-handed referring to Tiller as "Dr. Killer."
Fanning the flames further, O'Reilly referred to his critics as "pro-abortion zealots and Fox News haters" who "attempt[ed] to blame us" for Tiller's murder. He also hosted a panel of anti-choice guests asking whether "the far left is exploiting this, trying to shut guys like me up."
BREAKING NEWS: Michael Savage tells the truth!
Well, for about a third of a sentence, anyway. Still, it's a start. Here's right-wing radio host Michael Savage, as quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle:
"I'm going to make an allegation that I can't support: these out of context soundbites came from Media Matters, funded by George Soros, whose goal is to wipe out conservative voices in America,'' he told the Chronicle. "If it turns out they're continuing to do this, they're next on my list. I'm not going to tolerate them trying to get me killed."
What has Savage, the third-highest-rated radio host in America, so upset this time? He thinks Media Matters is responsible for his being banned from the United Kingdom.
Savage is now threatening to sue Media Matters, which would be consistent with his history of suing his critics. His lawsuits don't tend to be successful in court, but maybe they help him feel like he has regained the "manhood" that he says the government "stole" from him. In any case, Savage has a long and despicable history of making baseless and false allegations; it's nice to see that, for once, he admits he's making things up.
Previously:
Savage claims Media Matters is "trying to get me killed"
Savage advocated "kill[ing] 100 million" Muslims; called alleged Duke rape victim a "drunken slut stripping whore"
Is Fox News making money off of its Al Gore lies?
On Thursday, Fox News began promoting a segment on "Gore's green money" for The O'Reilly Factor, asking: "Is Al making tons of cash off global warming fears?"
Given The O'Reilly Factor's track record on the subject, one could guess what to expect from the teased segment.
Just last month, while guest-hosting the Factor, Laura Ingraham said: "It seems that being green does pay big time -- just ask Al Gore. Mr. Global Warming was worth about $2 million or so when he left office in 2001, but after eight years of tirelessly working to save the world, the planet, he's now reportedly -- get this -- worth a whopping $100 million. His financial windfall came up at last week's Capitol Hill hearing."
Ingraham then aired clips of Gore's April 24 congressional testimony that had been edited to remove his statements that he donates the money he makes from his climate-related work to a nonprofit organization.
So, how did the Factor's latest segment on Gore's "tons of cash" turn out?
True to form, O'Reilly smeared the former vice president by stating that Gore has profited from his advocacy of renewable energy and climate change mitigation, while Fox's Megyn Kelly misrepresented congressional testimony Gore gave to suggest that he had lied when he said otherwise.
In order to prove their point, the conservative media have routinely cropped Obama's statements, including his honest assessment of U.S. failures under the Bush administration while excluding his critiques of other nations. This gave rise to the "apology tour" theme that Fox News pushed heavily during Obama's trip to Europe in April. That theme was rekindled this week as Fox's Sean Hannity aired an Obama "apology tour" video montage, while Fox & Friends asked if Obama would continue his "'apology-looza'" in Saudi Arabia. This time, however, the theme had broader reach and was repeated by CNN's Lou Dobbs, as well as MSNBC's Chris Matthews. Ironically, the typically abysmal right-wing fringe radio host Neal Boortz defended the president, claiming that he "didn't see any apologia, show of weakness" in Obama's Cairo speech.
When Fox's Steve Doocy claimed that "some" commentators have referred to the trip "as President Obama's Muslim apology tour" (by "some," he apparently meant "Steve Doocy"), he found a way to link the right-wing belief that honesty equals weakness with conservatives' deathly fear of the world's largest religion, Islam, practiced peacefully by well over 1 billion people around the world, as well as millions here in America. Commentator Joe Pagliarulo joined in the fun while guest-hosting Glenn Beck's radio program. Channeling his inner 11th-grade thug, Pagliarulo showed stunning ignorance when he stated that instead of reaching out to Muslims, Obama should have said what he claimed Ronald Reagan would have: "Hey, screw you. We're big and bad, and we are the promoters of peace and independence and liberty around the world. Either get with us or you can go on hating us and we'll enjoy life and you'll live in your cave." And during a discussion of the murder of Dr. George Tiller, the always-sage Ann Coulter made perfectly clear just who the far right thinks Obama was talking to this week, claiming, "Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful." No wonder, then, that the purportedly bias-free Fox Nation website felt compelled to warn its readers that "Obama Says U.S. Is a 'Muslim Country.' "
Classic right-wing fearmongering was on constant display this week, as Fox News' Dick Morris warned of an impending Holocaust, Hannity claimed that Obama had given Iran the "go-ahead" to build nuclear weapons, Rush Limbaugh stated that Obama is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden, and radio talker Lee Rodgers held out the specter of a "few million dead Americans" finally proving that we are all under the thumb of an "anti-American president."
Rodgers really hit the nail on the head for the right, returning to the central theme of its argument over the past 18 months: The U.S.-born, Hawaii-raised, former senator from Illinois just isn't one of us. While CNN's Candy Crowley implied that the Obama administration wasn't a "stalwart defender" of Israel, numerous conservative media figures did whatever they could to prove that the president is taking orders from Riyadh, all while he is continuing his campaign to sublimate American sovereignty to the United Nations and turn America into a socialist/fascist nightmare.
It was fine with the right when President Bush held hands with the Saudi king as they walked through his palace, but ever since Obama politely bowed to the monarch, the right has been foaming at the mouth. The fixation with Obama and the king continued this week, as Fox's Gretchen Carlson and Doocy cited their initial interaction as the "most important moment" of their meeting. While CNN questioned whether shouts of admiration during Obama's Cairo address would be taken poorly "at home," a blog post at The Weekly Standard asked conspiratorially if the president secretly spoke "the language of the Koran."
When Joe Scarborough declared Obama to be "perhaps the greatest challenge Osama bin Laden has faced" since 2001, he gave the week one of its only moments of sanity and perspective. Unfortunately, he stood alone, and it was Fox News' Martha MacCallum who embodied the remarkable and dangerous lack of thought among those in the right-wing media establishment when she asked why we would "have to reach out to the Muslim population" when "we were the ones attacked on September 11th."
Other major stories this week:
The murder of Dr. George Tiller
Dr. George Tiller, a doctor whose clinic legally performed late-term abortions, was shot to death as he entered his Kansas church this past weekend. In 1985, Tiller's clinic was bombed, and in 1993, he was shot by an anti-choice activist in both arms. Following news of his murder, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry released a statement saying in part: "George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God."
As Media Matters noted, on the February 2, 1992, edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl reported: "While Terry insists he has never committed any violent acts himself, this footage, taped by the staff of the Boulder Abortion Clinic in Colorado, shows him asking his followers to pray for either the salvation or the death of the clinic's doctor." 60 Minutes then aired video of Terry stating, "But pray that this family will either be converted to God or that calamity will strike him." Stahl added, "The doctor he's talking about is Warren Hern, who runs the clinic. He's been a major target of pro-life groups for years because he's one of only three doctors in the country who specialize in late-term abortions."
Coverage this week of the murder varied.
A report in USA Today falsely suggested that Tiller indiscriminately aborted viable fetuses. Its June 1 story reported that Tiller was a "controversial figure" whose clinic "performs abortions after the point when a fetus is considered viable." But USA Today did not report that Kansas law permits the abortion of viable fetuses when the doctor performing the abortion and a second doctor agree that the "abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman" or that the pregnant woman would be irreparably harmed -- physically or mentally -- by giving birth.
The right-wing media police at the Media Research Center's NewsBusters blog complained that media reports of Tiller's death failed to describe him as "controversial," even though several outlets described him just that way, including the previously mentioned USA Today article. To make its point that Tiller was in fact "controversial," NewsBusters cited a Kansas City Star "timeline of major events in George Tiller's career." The first entry in the timeline was the 1986 bombing of Tiller's clinic. The second was the 1991 blockade of his clinic by anti-choice protesters, leading to more than 2,500 arrests. The third was the 1993 shooting in which Tiller was hit in both arms. The fourth entry was a 1998 letter Tiller received threatening to contaminate his clinic with anthrax. The fifth was another illegal protest outside Tiller's clinic. The sixth and seventh were proceedings that found no wrongdoing by Tiller. And that was it; that's the whole list. Calling Tiller "controversial" just because conservative anti-choice terrorists tried to, and finally did, kill him is insulting and suggests some justification for his murder. Calling Tiller "controversial" blames the victim. In subsequent posts to its website, NewsBusters would go on to fault the media for "do[ing] nothing to help their audience understand why [Tiller] was targeted."
Following Tiller's murder, Media Matters unearthed video of a Bill O'Reilly producer's 2007 ambush interview of Tiller and 2006 "confrontation" with Tiller's attorney. Additionally, Media Matters posted a 2006 rant from O'Reilly's radio show, in which the Fox News host said, "[I]f I could get my hands on Tiller -- well, you know. Can't be vigilantes. Can't do that. It's just a figure of speech."
Salon.com's Gabriel Winant wrote regarding O'Reilly that there was "no other person who bears as much responsibility for the characterization of Tiller as a savage on the loose, killing babies willy-nilly thanks to the collusion of would-be sophisticated cultural elites, a bought-and-paid-for governor and scofflaw secular journalists. Tiller's name first appeared on 'The Factor' on Feb. 25, 2005. Since then, O'Reilly and his guest hosts have brought up the doctor on 28 more episodes, including as recently as April 27 of this year. Almost invariably, Tiller is described as 'Tiller the Baby Killer.' "
Responding to the widespread criticism, O'Reilly falsely claimed he had only "reported what groups" were calling Tiller. Reading an email from a viewer who asked, "Mr. O'Reilly, how can you be sure that reciting 'Tiller the baby killer' over and over again did not inflame the assassin?" O'Reilly responded, "The doctor was involved in a criminal case. I reported what groups were calling him. I reported accurately." In fact, O'Reilly has not only "reported" on the term's usage by "pro-life groups," but also repeatedly referred to Tiller as "the baby killer" himself. To put a finer point on the criticism, during a June 2 broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor, Patricia Ireland caught O'Reilly red-handed referring to Tiller as "Dr. Killer."
Fanning the flames further, O'Reilly referred to his critics as "pro-abortion zealots and Fox News haters" who "attempt[ed] to blame us" for Tiller's murder. He also hosted a panel of anti-choice guests asking whether "the far left is exploiting this, trying to shut guys like me up."
BREAKING NEWS: Michael Savage tells the truth!
Well, for about a third of a sentence, anyway. Still, it's a start. Here's right-wing radio host Michael Savage, as quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle:
"I'm going to make an allegation that I can't support: these out of context soundbites came from Media Matters, funded by George Soros, whose goal is to wipe out conservative voices in America,'' he told the Chronicle. "If it turns out they're continuing to do this, they're next on my list. I'm not going to tolerate them trying to get me killed."
What has Savage, the third-highest-rated radio host in America, so upset this time? He thinks Media Matters is responsible for his being banned from the United Kingdom.
Savage is now threatening to sue Media Matters, which would be consistent with his history of suing his critics. His lawsuits don't tend to be successful in court, but maybe they help him feel like he has regained the "manhood" that he says the government "stole" from him. In any case, Savage has a long and despicable history of making baseless and false allegations; it's nice to see that, for once, he admits he's making things up.
Previously:
Savage claims Media Matters is "trying to get me killed"
Savage advocated "kill[ing] 100 million" Muslims; called alleged Duke rape victim a "drunken slut stripping whore"
Is Fox News making money off of its Al Gore lies?
On Thursday, Fox News began promoting a segment on "Gore's green money" for The O'Reilly Factor, asking: "Is Al making tons of cash off global warming fears?"
Given The O'Reilly Factor's track record on the subject, one could guess what to expect from the teased segment.
Just last month, while guest-hosting the Factor, Laura Ingraham said: "It seems that being green does pay big time -- just ask Al Gore. Mr. Global Warming was worth about $2 million or so when he left office in 2001, but after eight years of tirelessly working to save the world, the planet, he's now reportedly -- get this -- worth a whopping $100 million. His financial windfall came up at last week's Capitol Hill hearing."
Ingraham then aired clips of Gore's April 24 congressional testimony that had been edited to remove his statements that he donates the money he makes from his climate-related work to a nonprofit organization.
So, how did the Factor's latest segment on Gore's "tons of cash" turn out?
True to form, O'Reilly smeared the former vice president by stating that Gore has profited from his advocacy of renewable energy and climate change mitigation, while Fox's Megyn Kelly misrepresented congressional testimony Gore gave to suggest that he had lied when he said otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)