Sign joins Nativity scene as Capitol fray goes on

Protesting the fact that the big evergreen erected each December in the state Capitol was known as a “holiday tree” rather than a Christmas tree, state Rep. John Ahern, R-Spokane, in 2005 added a “Merry Christmas” sign and a menorah. The Spokesman-Review (File The Spokesman-Review ) ‘Religion is but myth’ Text of the sign that a Wisconsin atheist group will soon post opposite a Nativity scene in the Washington state Capitol: “At this season of the winter solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

Richard Roesler
Staff writer
November 29, 2008

OLYMPIA – On Monday in the Washington state Capitol, Christians on one side of the rotunda will erect a Nativity scene, with a 3 1/2-foot-tall Joseph and Mary and a baby Jesus in a manger.

On the other side of the echoing dome, members of an atheist group will post their own display: a 4 1/2-foot-tall sign declaring that there is no God and that “religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

Welcome to the latest chapter in the annual tussle to stake out a piece of holiday real estate in what lawmakers like to call “the people’s house.”

Things were simpler in 2005, before state Rep. John Ahern, R-Spokane, decided to launch a protest against the long-standing offend-no-one practice of declaring the annual evergreen towering inside the Capitol a “holiday tree.” (The 30-foot trees, surrounded by gifts, are donated by the Association of Washington Business.)

Ahern objected, saying the thing was clearly a Christmas tree. In protest, he gathered with a few dozen supporters on the steps of the Capitol to sing carols that year. Then he tucked a little “Merry Christmas” sign at the base of the tree, along with a shiny cardboard cutout of a Jewish menorah.

And so it began. The next year, bearded orthodox rabbis gathered with Gov. Chris Gregoire to light a large menorah in the rotunda. That triggered a request by Olympia real-estate agent Ron Wesselius to erect the Nativity scene.

State officials balked. Wesselius sued. The state settled, and Wesselius last year was allowed to prop up the figures on the Capitol’s third floor.

As a result, Capitol officials now say they’ll honor virtually any request for a religious or political display.

As long as it’s not disruptive, costs taxpayers nothing and is not seen as the state endorsing any viewpoint, “it’s pretty much wide open,” said Steve Valandra, spokesman for General Administration, the state agency that issues the permits. “It’s free expression.”

After all, he pointed out, state officials had to let about a dozen uniformed neo-Nazis use the Capitol steps for a white-separatist rally in July 2006. Hundreds of state troopers spent the afternoon keeping the Nazis and hundreds of counter-demonstrators separated.

Still, some think the religious expressions go too far.

The Olympian newspaper recently decried the competing displays as “an out-of-control struggle for religious superiority” and “escalating nonsense.”

“How long will it be before the Capitol is filled with competing displays?” the paper asked. “Goat sacrifices?”

Ahern said religion is under attack in popular society, and all major religions should be free to have a display in the Statehouse.

“We are a Judeo-Christian nation, and we need to honor the different times of year for Christians, Jews and even Muslims,” he said.

Christmas trees, menorahs and displays for Ramadan should all be welcomed, Ahern said. But the atheist sign, he said, is a step too far.

“This is bizarre,” he said. “Atheism is not a religion. It doesn’t belong there. And I would definitely not want to see Satanism up there at all.”

The request for the atheists’ display came from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based group that says a local member asked it to put it up. For years, the group has erected a nearly identical sign in the Wisconsin state Capitol in Madison. To protect the sign, the group tapes to it a little note: “Thou shalt not steal.”

Valandra said that so far, things have worked out pretty well. Wesselius erected his Nativity display last year on the third floor, with no complaints.

This year, the only applications for displays were for the Nativity scene and the atheist sign. Both will remain up until Dec. 29.

The closest the state has gotten to turning someone down, Valandra said, was last December, when a Tacoma truck driver announced plans to torch a Mexican flag on the Capitol steps. But as officials mulled it – Would it pollute? Does that require a burn permit? – the man dropped the idea.

As for the specter of some religious group slaughtering goats before horrified tourists and schoolchildren, Valandra said that scene is unlikely.

“I don’t think slaughtering animals on the Capitol campus would be permitted, and you can quote me on that,” he said.

NOTE:  If you read this article after Thursday 12/4 at 9:45, you must use something other than the “Mass Paradox of Politics” as your connection – you have been warned! – Kautzman

Kathleen Parker
Orlando Sentinel
November 28, 2008

So much for the wisdom of The People.

A new report from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute on the nation’s civic literacy finds that most Americans are too ignorant to vote.

Out of 2,500 American quiz-takers, including college students, elected officials and other randomly selected citizens, nearly 1,800 flunked a 33-question test on basic civics. In fact, elected officials scored slightly lower than the general public with an average score of 44 percent compared to 49 percent.

Only 0.8 percent of all test-takers scored an “A.”

America’s report card may come as little surprise to fans of Jay Leno’s man-on-the-street interviews, which reveal that most people don’t know diddly about doohickey. Still, it’s disheartening in the wake of a populist-driven election celebrating joes-of-all-trades to be reminded that the voting public is dumber than ever.

The multiple-choice quiz wouldn’t deepen the creases in most brains, but the questions do require a basic knowledge of how the U.S. government works.

Think fast: In what document do the words “government of the people, by the people, for the people” appear? More than twice as many people (56 percent) knew that Paula Abdul was a judge on “American Idol” than knew that those words come from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (21 percent).

In good news, more than 80 percent of college graduates gave correct answers about Susan B. Anthony, the identity of the commander in chief of the U.S. military and the content of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

But don’t pop the cork yet. Only 17 percent of college grads understood the difference between free markets and centralized planning.

Then again, we can’t blame the children for what they haven’t been taught. Civics courses, once a staple of junior and high school education, are no longer considered important in our quantitative, leave-no-child-behind world. And college adds little civic knowledge, the study found. The average grade for those holding a bachelor’s degree was just 57 percent – only 13 points higher than the average score of those with only a high school diploma.

Most bracing: Only 27 percent of elected officeholders in the survey could identify a right or freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Forty-three percent didn’t know what the Electoral College does. And 46 percent didn’t know that the Constitution gives Congress power to declare war.

What’s behind the dumbing down of America?

The institute found that passive activities, such as watching television (including TV news) and talking on the phone, diminish civic literacy.

Actively pursuing information through print media and participating in high-level conversations – even, potentially, blogging – makes one smarter.

The institute insists that higher-education reforms aimed at civic literacy are urgently needed. Who could argue otherwise?

But historian Rick Shenkman, author of “Just How Stupid Are We?” thinks reform needs to start in high school. His strategy is both poetic (to certain ears) and pragmatic: Require students to read newspapers, and give college freshman weekly quizzes on current events.

Did he say newspapers?! Shenkman even suggests government subsidies for newspaper subscriptions, as well as federal tuition subsidies for students who perform well on civics tests. They could be paid from a special fund created by, say, a “Too Many Stupid Voters Act.”

Not only would citizens be smarter, but also newspapers might be saved. Announcements of newsroom cuts, which ultimately hurt quality, have become routine.

In his book, Shenkman, founder of George Mason University’s History News Network, is tough on everyday Americans. Why, he asks, do we value polls when clearly The People don’t know enough to make a reasoned judgment?

The Founding Fathers, Shenkman points out, weren’t so enamored of The People, whom they distrusted. Hence a Republic, not a Democracy. They understood that an ignorant electorate was susceptible to emotional manipulation and feared the tyranny of the masses.

Both Shenkman and the institute pose a bedeviling question, as crucial as any to the nation’s health: Who will govern a free nation if no one understands the mechanics and instruments of that freedom?

Answer: Maybe one day, a demagogue.

Michael Smerconish
November 28, 2008

Every election season seems to introduce us to a slew of new pundits, even if many have resumes that don’t add up to the title on the screen underneath their television images.

Take, for example, Martin Eisenstadt, a self-described neoconservative who found his opinions in demand during the presidential campaign. Eisenstadt, identified on his blog “a senior fellow at the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy,” made waves by outing himself as the source of the rumor that Sarah Palin thought Africa was a country, not a continent. That Eisenstadt would know such information would not seem unusual given that the “bio” section of his blog identifies him as “an expert on Near Eastern military and political affairs” who “works alongside Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign, offering advice and liaising with the Jewish community in particular.”

And it wasn’t the first time Eisenstadt had achieved mainstream recognition. A Los Angeles Times blog had picked up on his July comments after the McCain campaign’s portrayal of Barack Obama as a celebrity akin to Paris Hilton.

There was just one problem: Eisenstadt is the Borat of the campaign season, a fictitious character created by a pair of aspiring filmmakers, Eitan Gorlin and Dan Mirvish, in their quest to get a TV show. Now, plenty of media outlets have egg on their faces.

“I think we’ve learned that often in the 24-hour news cycle, bloggers and even mainstream media work so quickly that they don’t really have the chance to check,” Gorlin told me last week. “I think also where news has become entertainment … where I think political news is almost following, now, celebrity news … where it doesn’t matter what you say about Britney Spears, as long as something was said. Basically, gossip posing as news.”

This incident is bigger than Gorlin and Mirvish. It speaks to a larger problem of what happens in an age of newsroom downsizing. It reminded me of something I read months ago in the entertainment bible Variety about the “domino” nature of today’s media.

There, columnist Brian Lowry observed: “Shrinking print coverage threatens to trigger a ‘domino effect’ as news operations downsize, feeding the strange Internet age conundrum where there’s more information — courtesy of blogs and the Web — but less real news, especially as it pertains to backyard issues.”

I am one such domino.

My day begins every morning at a local convenience store, where at 3:40 I greet a truck arriving to deliver the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News. Two hours, 20 minutes later, I begin a live, current-events-driven radio show that lasts three hours. Although about half of the content for my show is determined the day before, I will use those newspapers and a variety of other news sources available in the studio to plan the remainder of the morning. If something leads the local newspaper, it most certainly makes my broadcast. I always offer attribution, and I attempt to expand on a given story with personal opinion. As a radio or television talking head, I don’t do reporting. I repeat. I analyze. I offer my opinion and I gauge the opinions of others. There are many like me in today’s media world.

But what happens if we remove newspapers from that equation?

It seems like hardly a week goes by without a headline about a major publication trimming newsroom staff. Earlier this year, the New York Times succumbed to “growing financial strain” by cutting 100 newsroom jobs – despite reported earnings of $209 million last year. This month it was Time Inc. beginning the process of cutting 600 jobs.

Unfortunately, those who report the news are a dying breed, even in the Internet world. The dearth of hard news and investigative journalism leaves the always-expanding number of outlets – 24-hour cable networks, satellite radio stations, blogs, podcasts – scrambling for anything they can parrot to a hungry audience.

The result? People eager for the next piece of news are easily taken in by characters such as Martin Eisenstadt. And those bad habits will continue to inch their way into cash-strapped, understaffed traditional news-gathering outlets where legitimate reporting is falling by the wayside.

MUMBAI, India — Coordinated terrorist attacks struck the heart of Mumbai, India’s commercial capital, on Wednesday night, killing dozens in machine-gun and grenade assaults on at least two five-star hotels, the city’s largest train station, a Jewish center, a movie theater and a hospital.

Even by the standards of terrorism in India, which has suffered a rising number of attacks this year, the assaults were particularly brazen in scale and execution. The attackers used boats to reach the urban peninsula where they hit, and their targets were sites popular with tourists.

The Mumbai police said Thursday that the attacks killed at least 101 people and wounded at least 250. Guests who had escaped the hotels told television stations that the attackers were taking hostages, singling out Americans and Britons.

A previously unknown group claimed responsibility, though that claim could not be confirmed. It remained unclear whether there was any link to outside terrorist groups.

Gunfire and explosions rang out into the morning.

Hours after the assaults began, the landmark Taj Mahal Palace & Tower Hotel, next to the famed waterfront monument the Gateway of India, was in flames.

Guests banged on the windows of the upper floors as firefighters worked to rescue them.

Fire also raged inside the luxurious Oberoi Hotel, according to the police. A militant hidden in the Oberoi told India TV on Thursday morning that seven attackers were holding hostages there.

“We want all mujahedeen held in India released, and only after that we will release the people,” he said.Some guests, including two members of the European Parliament who were visiting as part of a trade delegation, remained in hiding in the hotels, making desperate cellphone calls, some of them to television stations, describing their ordeal.

Alex Chamberlain, a British citizen who was dining at the Oberoi, told Sky News television that a gunman had ushered 30 or 40 people from the restaurant into a stairway and, speaking in Hindi or Urdu, ordered them to put up their hands.

“They were talking about British and Americans specifically,” he said. “There was an Italian guy, who, you know, they said, ‘Where are you from?’ and he said he’s from Italy, and they said, ‘Fine,’ and they left him alone.”

Sajjad Karim, 38, a British member of the European Parliament, told Sky News: “A gunman just stood there spraying bullets around, right next to me.”

Before his phone went dead, Mr. Karim added: “I managed to turn away and I ran into the hotel kitchen and then we were shunted into a restaurant in the basement. We are now in the dark in this room, and we have barricaded all the doors. It’s really bad.”

Attackers had also entered Cama and Albless Hospital, according to Indian television reports, and struck Nariman House, which is home to the city’s Chabad-Lubavitch center.

A spokesman for the Lubavitch movement in New York, Rabbi Zalman Shmotkin, told the Associated Press that attackers “stormed the Chabad house” in Mumbai.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry said it was trying to locate an unspecified number of Israelis missing in Mumbai, according to Haaretz.com, the Web site of an Israeli newspaper.

Several high-ranking law enforcement officials, including the chief of the antiterrorism squad and a commissioner of police, were reported killed.

The military was quickly called in to assist the police.

Hospitals in Mumbai, a city of more than 12 million that was formerly called Bombay, have appealed for blood donations. As a sense of crisis gripped much of the city, schools, colleges and the stock exchange were closed Thursday.

Vilasrao Deshmukh, the chief minister for Maharashtra State, where Mumbai is, told the CNN-IBN station that the attacks hit five to seven targets, concentrated in the southern tip of the city, known as Colaba and Nariman Point. But even hours after the attacks began, the full scope of the assaults was unclear.

Unlike previous attacks in India this year, which consisted of anonymously planted bombs, the assailants on Wednesday night were spectacularly well-armed and very confrontational. In some cases, said the state’s highest-ranking police official, A. N. Roy, the attackers opened fire and disappeared.

Indian officials said the police had killed six of the suspected attackers and captured nine.

A group calling itself the Deccan Mujahedeen said it had carried out the attacks. It was not known who the group is or whether the claim was real.

Around midnight, more than two hours after the series of attacks began, television images from near the historic Metro Cinema showed journalists and bystanders ducking for cover as gunshots rang out. The charred shell of a car lay in front of Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, formerly Victoria Terminus, the mammoth railway station. A nearby gas station was blown up.

The landmark Leopold Café, a favorite tourist spot, was also hit.

Reached by phone, some guests who had been trapped in the Taj said about 1 a.m. that they had heard an explosion and gunfire in the old wing of the hotel.

A 31-year-old man who was in the Taj attending a friend’s wedding reception said he was getting a drink around 9:45 p.m. when he heard something like firecrackers — “loud bursts” interspersed with what sounded like machine-gun fire.

A window of the banquet hall shattered, and guests scattered under tables and were quickly escorted to another room, he said. No one was allowed to leave.

Just before 1 a.m., another loud explosion rang out, and then another about a half-hour later, the man said.

At 6 a.m., he said that when the guests tried to leave the room early Thursday, gunmen opened fire. One person was shot.

The man’s friend, the groom, was two floors above, in the old wing of the hotel, trapped in a room with his bride. One explosion, he said, took the door off its hinges. He blocked it with a table.

Then came another blast, and gunfire rang out throughout the night. He did not want to be identified, for fear of being tracked down.

Rakesh Patel, a British businessman who escaped the Taj, told a television station that two young men armed with a rifle and a machine gun took 15 hostages, forcing them to the roof.

The gunmen, dressed in jeans and T-shirts, “were saying they wanted anyone with British or American passports,” Mr. Patel said.

He and four others managed to slip away in the confusion and smoke of the upper floors, he said. He said he did not know the fate of the remaining hostages.

Clarence Rich Diffenderffer, of Wilmington, Del., said after dinner at the hotel he headed to the business center on the fifth floor.

“A man in a hood with an AK-47 came running down the hall,” shooting and throwing four grenades, Mr. Diffenderffer said. “I, needless to say, beat it back to my room and locked it, and double-locked it, and put the bureau up against the door.”

Mr. Diffenderffer said he was rescued hours later, at 6:30 a.m., by a cherrypicker.

Among those apparently trapped at the Oberoi were executives and board members of Hindustan Unilever, part of the multinational corporate giant, The Times of India reported.

Indian military forces arrived outside the Oberoi at 2 a.m., and some 100 officers from the central government’s Rapid Action Force, an elite police unit, entered later.

CNN-IBN reported the sounds of gunfire from the hotel just after the police contingent went in.

The Bush administration condemned the attacks, as did President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team. The White House said it was still “assessing the hostage situation.”

Reporting was contributed by Michael Rubenstein and Prashanth Vishwanathan from Mumbai; Jeremy Kahn and Hari Kumar from New Delhi; Souad Mekhennet from Frankfurt, Germany; Sharon Otterman and Michael Moss from New York; and Mark Mazzetti from Washington.

Indian forces hunt for missing

Government blames foreigners for attacks

The wife of Balasaheb Bhosale cries at his funeral in Mumbai, India, on Thursday. Balasaheb Bhosale was a police official who died in the antiterrorism operation at a railway station. Associated Press (Associated Press )

Mark Magnier and Sebastian Rotella
Los Angeles Times
November 28, 2008

MUMBAI, India – Indian commandos rooted through two smoldering luxury hotels here this morning, searching for survivors, the dead, and the last of the gunmen whose choreographed rampage of terror through this cosmopolitan city spawned a mystery about their identities and motive.

The brazen attacks that also targeted transportation centers, a hospital and a Jewish community center killed at least 125 people and wounded another 325. Sporadic gunfire and occasional explosions continued to be heard in parts of Mumbai early today, and an unknown number of people remained missing.

Eight foreigners were among the dead, and the U.S. State Department said three Americans had been wounded. But most of those killed and injured were Indian.

By midmorning today, officials estimated that possibly 10 militants remained at large – one in the Taj Motel and four others in the Oberoi hotel, with another five holed up in the Jewish center.

They said 15 hotel guests, mostly foreigners, remained trapped inside a 21-floor wing of the Oberoi.

Ten hostages believed to be Israeli citizens were held at the Jewish center, where Indian security forces launched a counterattack as the city awoke. Black-clad commandos descended from helicopters, and sharpshooters opened fire from surrounding buildings. The outcome of the firefight was not immediately clear.

“We watched 24 commandoes surround the building,” said Bharat Phulsunge, a 28-year-old insurance agent. “We can hear gunfire and explosions from inside. It’s still very tense.”

Even as troops moved floor to floor through the besieged hotels liberating trapped guests, the Indian government was blaming foreign elements for the mayhem. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh went on national television Thursday, asserting that the organizers of the attacks were “based outside the country.”

In what was seen as a thinly veiled indictment of Pakistan, he warned India’s neighbors “that the use of their territory for launching attacks on us will not be tolerated.” Other government officials were quoted in Indian media alleging that the squads of gunmen had charged ashore from rubber boats that fanned out from an unidentified mother ship.

In response, Pakistan’s defense minister condemned the Mumbai attacks and warned India to refrain from accusing its longtime rival of involvement. And some security experts warned that India has plenty of homegrown extremists who could be behind the violence.

Whatever their origin, it was clear the squads of attackers were well-prepared. The militants struck after months of reconnaissance during which they set up “control rooms” in the targeted hotels, according to Indian officials and an owner of one of the targeted hotels.

“It’s the opening of a new front, a strike in a place that causes surprise,” said Louis Caprioli, a former French counterterrorism chief. “And it is unique because it’s a military operation that leaves the security forces confused and disorganized.

“For the first time in the long time, you see the use of combatants who take hostages, like the Palestinians in the 1970s,” he said. “They were ready to die, but they were not suicide attackers.”

Past attacks on Indian targets here and abroad have been the work of an evolving, interconnected array of murky Pakistani extremist groups tied to al-Qaida and, sometimes, current or former Pakistani security officials. They include Lashkar e Toiba, which took part in a bloody siege of the Indian Parliament in 2001 and seems a prime suspect in this case, according to officials and experts.

“This is a group affiliated with al-Qaida,” said Sajjan Gohel of the London-based Asia-Pacific Foundation.

“There are eerie similarities to the Parliament attacks.”

But Lashkar e Toiba has reportedly denied involvement. And antiterrorism officials warned against speculation because the evidence is limited. India has a history of violence by Hindus and criminal mafias as well as Muslim extremists.

Most of Mumbai remained in shock Thursday. Once known as Bombay, the city is home to India’s commodities and stock exchanges, which remained closed Thursday despite fears about the effect of the terrorist attacks on foreign investment.

In many neighborhoods, 80 percent of the businesses remained closed as police warned residents to stay home, where many followed the unfolding drama on television.

Simone Ahuja, an Asia Society associate fellow and founder of a video production house in Mumbai, said the choice of targets favored by foreigners was clearly a blow aimed at dislodging closer U.S.-India ties. And she said the damage done to the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, a waterfront landmark that suffered bomb damage and whose giant towers were licked by flames, may leave emotional scars on the city.

“People are in tears watching their city fall,” said Ahuja, who shares her time between Mumbai and Minneapolis.

“This is like what happened to the World Trade Center. This will fundamentally change the mental and visual landscape.”

Meanwhile the attacks appeared to be petering out. Although occasional explosions and gunfire were heard through the night Thursday, military officials said that most, if not all, of the hostages at the Taj Hotel had been freed.

Benjamin Wittes

November 23, 2008

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates came into office wanting to close the American detention operation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Nearly two years later, Guantanamo is still there. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said she wants to close it. Guantanamo will outlast her. Yet, to watch the post-election Democratic triumphalism, you’d think that Guantanamo is as good as shuttered. President-elect Barack Obama has reiterated his campaign promise to close it, and some self-described advisers talk as though he’ll wave a magic wand on Jan. 20 and a problem that has bedeviled this country for seven years will evaporate.

Closing Guantanamo won’t be easy, at least not if Obama means to change the substance of American detention policy rather than merely altering its geography. Obama could, to be sure, fulfill his promise simply by moving detainees to a different facility while continuing to hold them as “enemy combatants.” The challenge of closing Guantanamo would then come down to a series of logistical and administrative questions.

Solving the Guantanamo problem means making important decisions about detention policy in combating terrorism more generally: When, if ever, should the United States engage in preventive detention of terrorism suspects? If and when it does, should it treat them as enemy combatants under the laws of war or under some other body of law, perhaps a new detention statute? What rights should they have? What should the government have to prove about them, to what standard of proof, and in what sort of forum?

Notwithstanding the idea projected by some members of his camp that closing Guantanamo is simply a matter of will, Obama cannot just wish these questions away. They defy answers in the absence of a systematic and rigorous review of the detainee population itself, including the classified information about each prisoner. This process, carried out properly, will not take place instantly.

There are three major groups of detainees at Guantanamo, each presenting distinct policy problems. For starters, there are detainees who could face trial. Most people regard criminal prosecution as the best means of neutralizing terrorism suspects and justifying their long-term detention, and some people regard trial as the only legitimate means of locking up America’s enemies. But how big is the group that might plausibly face charges? And to what extent does its size depend on which forum the government uses for prosecution? Is it a much smaller group if America tries these people in federal courts or courts-martial than if it continues using President Bush’s much-derided military commissions? Without knowing the answer to these questions, one cannot accurately assess the costs and benefits of America’s trial options.

Second, roughly 60 detainees have been cleared for release or transfer from Guantanamo but are stuck there because of fears of mistreatment at the hands of their own governments. Will Obama have an easier time than Bush in persuading third countries to accept these detainees, particularly if he accepts a few of them into the United States? That may well be the case, but without serious diplomatic engagement over the question, we simply can’t know how intractable this problem will prove to be. The ruling Thursday by a federal judge in Washington that five of six detainees in one case were held unlawfully raises the additional question of how many detainees should simply be released.

Third and most troublesome are the detainees too dangerous to be released but who cannot face criminal charges. How many this group contains, if any, will ultimately shape Obama’s policy. Detainees who pose a grave national security threat might be unprosecutable for a variety of reasons: because of deficiencies in the criminal law as it stood in 2001, because evidence against them would not stand up in court, because the government might not have enough evidence to convict or because it obtained key evidence under coercive conditions.

If there are only a few such detainees, and the danger they pose seems manageable, those of us who have advocated a preventive detention system should reconsider our position. On the other hand, some human rights advocates acknowledge privately that they may reconsider their categorical opposition to preventive detention if the group proves substantial and the danger it poses too significant to ignore. Right now, we can only guess at this group’s size.

It matters enormously, in short, who each detainee really is. Only a true ideologue – and Obama shows no sign of being that – would develop a policy concerning Guantanamo without studying the population carefully and thinking these questions through.

It’s reassuring simply to assert that these cases present no tension between America’s needs and her values. But that judgment is at least premature and may well prove dead wrong. In the short term, it does an injustice to the outgoing administration, many current and former members of which have struggled with these questions over seven long years. It also disserves the incoming administration, which will soon inherit detainees who defy such sloganeering and whose handling will require wrenching choices with no easy answers.

Leonard Pitts Jr.
November 23, 2008

We should be ashamed of how poorly we have treated President Bush.

That, believe it or not, is the thesis of a bizarre opinion published the day after the election in the Wall Street Journal by one Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, described as an investigative reporter, a lawyer and a former intern for, of all people, John Kerry. It’s one of two rather eye-opening Journal pieces, actually; the second, following just days later, was by a former presidential aide named Jim Towey. Under the headline, “Why I’ll Miss President Bush,” he sang hosannas to the decency and compassion of W., even going so far as to invoke Mother Teresa.

Which is, shall we say, a rather novel take. But it is Shapiro’s piece that will give you whiplash. In his view, Bush has struggled manfully in the service of an ungrateful nation, reached out in a spirit of true bipartisanship and received for his efforts nothing but “crushing resistance” and constant scorn.

Shapiro writes: “The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.”

And reading that, you wonder … well, you wonder a few things.

First, you wonder how old Shapiro is. Because he sounds very young. I’m talking smudge-of-acne- cream-on-the-cheek, fake-ID-at-the-club young. Which, presumably, he is not, given his pedigree.

Then you wonder – fear, might be the better word – if this is but the vanguard of a new wave of revisionism, a pre-emptive strike against history, if you will, to impose a sunnier, more forgiving view on the last eight years than the facts will support. If so, we should gird for a very long rest of our lives.

Finally, you wonder, wearily, if it is really necessary to tally yet again the sins of this president. If George W. Bush’s approval ratings sink any lower, they will emerge in China. That’s not accidental. And when his reign of error ends on Jan. 20, it will come eight years too late and not a millisecond too soon.

For my money, of all the things he has done that have damaged this nation – we’re talking lies and alibis, torture, the loss of American prestige, watching passively as New Orleans drowned, censoring science, politicizing the Justice Department, a ruinous war of choice in Iraq, spending with all the discipline of an 8-year-old in a candy store – arguably the most damaging legacy this president leaves is that he has undermined truth itself. After eight years of Bush/Rove politics, we live now in a nation where fact doesn’t mean a whole lot, where it is OK to believe the “truth” that serves your political ends and jettison any that does not.

Because these days, truth comes in two flavors. We have red truth and blue truth, but we are fresh out of the truth, the facts, unimpeachable and inarguable. Instead, President Bush has overseen a government of legendary intellectual incoherence, where ideology is valued above competence, accountability is valued not at all and one is daily dared to believe the evidence of one’s lying eyes. Bush seems to agree with Stephen Colbert: Reality has a liberal bias.

Now, we are offered one last single-digit salute to our collective intelligence in the form of this grotesque suggestion that we should be ashamed of how we have treated President Bush. If anyone should feel shame, it is Bush and the cadre of sycophants that has enabled him for eight long years.

Of course, as young Mr. Shapiro so vividly reminds us, they don’t know the meaning of the word.

Public works projects at heart of plan he outlines on radio

Lori Montgomery
Washington Post
November 23, 2008

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama is developing a plan to create or preserve 2.5 million jobs over the next two years by spending billions of dollars to rebuild roads and bridges, modernize public schools, and construct wind farms and other alternative sources of energy.

The plan, which Obama announced Saturday during the weekly Democratic radio address, is more expansive – and undoubtedly more expensive – than anything proposed so far to revive the nation’s deteriorating economy. Obama said the darkening economic outlook demands that Washington act “swiftly and boldly” to diminish the risk that the nation “could lose millions of jobs next year.”

“The news this week has only reinforced the fact that we are facing an economic crisis of historic proportions,” Obama said, citing chaotic financial markets, rising jobless claims and the specter of a “deflationary spiral that could increase our massive debt even further.”

He provided few details and no price tag, but said his economic team is working on “a plan big enough to meet the challenges we face that I intend to sign soon after taking office.”

While cast as a response to a rapidly worsening crisis, the plan could enable Obama to shift massive sums to domestic priorities that Democrats say have long been neglected, such as health care and education. It also could provide seed money to reshape major U.S. industries, hastening the production of wind and solar energy and fuel-efficient cars, for example. Obama said the plan would be “a down payment on the type of reform my administration will bring to Washington.”

Obama has scheduled his second formal news conference since the election for Monday to introduce his economic team, including Federal Bank of New York President Timothy Geithner, Obama’s nominee for Treasury secretary, and Harvard economist Lawrence Summers, a Clinton administration Treasury chief who is expected to serve as a top Obama White House economic adviser.

Obama’s advisers are coordinating with Democrats in Congress to craft a proposal intended to spur economic activity. Congressional leaders have said they hope to pass it shortly after the new Congress convenes next year and have it on Obama’s desk soon after he takes office on Jan. 20.

Obama’s address echoed many of the same ideas Democrats on Capitol Hill have been advocating for nearly a year.

Obama said his plan would launch “a two-year nationwide effort to jump-start job creation in America and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy. We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels,” as well as producing fuel-efficient cars.

“These aren’t just steps to pull ourselves out of this immediate crisis; these are long-term investments in our economic future that have been ignored for far too long,” he said.

Economists have called on the federal government to spend at least $150 billion and as much as $500 billion to ease the effects of what is expected to be the most painful and prolonged recession since World War II. A stimulus package signed by President Bush in February cost $168 billion.

House Democrats have been talking about a new package worth at least $150 billion, and possibly much more. During the presidential campaign, Obama proposed a two-year, $175 billion stimulus package with money for cash-strapped state governments and infrastructure projects as well as a $1,000 tax credit for working families.

The campaign did not release an estimate of the number of jobs that his proposal would create. But congressional aides who have been involved in developing stimulus proposals said that any plan to create 2.5 million jobs is likely to be significantly larger – probably well over $200 billion, or between 1 percent and 2 percent of the gross domestic product.

Such a plan would be bold by historic standards. President Bill Clinton, facing a weak economy when he took office in 1993, proposed a $16 billion stimulus package, which was blocked in the Senate. Obama’s proposal would be an order of magnitude larger, even when adjusted for the larger size of today’s economy.

Some economists have compared Obama’s proposals to the spending spree President Franklin D. Roosevelt launched during his early months in office in 1933. Roosevelt offered jobs programs, such as the Civilian Conservation Corps, and cash for public-works projects, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, in hopes of easing the pain of the Great Depression.

While the stimulus plan Obama discussed on the campaign trail included tax cuts, he did not mention any changes in tax policy in his address Saturday. But House Democrats say they expect to push much of Obama’s tax-cutting agenda along with a stimulus measure in January. That could mean enacting legislation that would extend Bush tax cuts for families who earn less than $250,000 past the 2010 expiration date.

By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 19, 2008; A01

Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) defeated Sen. Ted Stevens, ending the tenure of the longest-serving Republican in Senate history, after the counting of more ballots yesterday gave him a larger lead than the number of votes still untallied, Alaska elections officials said.

Begich’s win gives Democrats control of 58 seats in the Senate, including two independents who caucus with them. That is two shy of the number needed to prevent Republicans from filibustering, with two races still undecided. Democrats have not controlled 60 seats since 1978.

Begich leads Stevens by more than 3,700 votes, according to the Alaska secretary of state. Gail Fenumiai, the head of the state’s election division, said about 2,500 absentee votes from overseas and Alaska’s most remote regions remain to be counted.

The Democrat’s lead thus far — 47.8 percent to 46.6 percent — puts him beyond the margin of victory that would allow Stevens to call for a state-funded recount of the ballots.

“I am humbled and honored to serve Alaska in the United States Senate,” Begich said in a statement declaring victory. “It’s been an incredible journey getting to this point.”

Alaska voters “wanted to see change,” he told reporters in Anchorage. “Alaska has been in the midst of a generational shift — you could see it.”

The race was closely watched, in part because Alaska had not sent a Democrat to Congress in nearly three decades, while Stevens was vying to become the first convicted felon to win election to the Senate. He was convicted last month on seven felony counts of failing to disclose more than $250,000 in gifts.

Begich is the son of Nick Begich, the House member from Alaska who disappeared in 1972 on a flight with House Majority Leader Hale Boggs (D-La.). Both were presumed dead. No Democrat has represented Alaska in its two Senate seats and one House seat since Sen. Mike Gravel was defeated by Republican Frank Murkowski in 1980.

Begich ran as a conservative Democrat, supporting gun owners’ rights and additional domestic drilling for oil production, including in wildlife areas where most Democrats have opposed drilling.

However, the race always focused on Stevens, with the campaign virtually stopping during his four-week trial. The candidates debated once, just days before the election. Begich sought to pay respect to Stevens’s long service to the state, contrasting that with the recent allegations against him.

“He’s done a lot for our state, and I’ve shared Alaska’s respect for him. The past year has been a difficult one for Alaska. With the verdict, we can put this behind us,” Begich said in an advertisement that aired the final weekend before Election Day.

Stevens, who is in Washington for this week’s lame-duck session, said yesterday that either his campaign or the Alaska Republican Party would definitely ask for a recount if the final margin fell within the needed 0.5 percent of the votes cast.

Still to be settled are races are in Minnesota and Georgia. Minnesota officials formally began a recount yesterday in the race between Sen. Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken; the Republican finished 206 votes ahead of the onetime comedian out of 2.9 million ballots cast. In Georgia, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R) faces a Dec. 2 runoff against former state representative Jim Martin. Chambliss held a 110,000-vote margin on election night, but his share of the vote did not reach 50 percent, as required by state law.

Stevens, who turned 85 yesterday and was appointed to the Senate in 1968, told reporters yesterday that he was exhausted and had not slept well since his indictment in late July. He added that he had led “three lives”: as a senator, a criminal defendant and a candidate for office.

“I wouldn’t wish what I’ve been through on anyone, [not] my worst enemy,” said Stevens, who says he is considering appealing his convictions.

Stevens, an iconic figure who helped lead Alaska to statehood in the 1950s, served as chairman of the appropriations, commerce and ethics committees in his 40-year tenure in the Senate. He was known for steering hundreds of billions of dollars to his home state for projects.

But the earmarked projects also drew the scrutiny of federal investigators.

Bill Allen Jr., the former chief executive of an oil services company, Veco, pleaded guilty in May 2007 to bribing a host of Alaskan officials. He testified at Stevens’s trial that his company oversaw a massive reconstruction of the senator’s home outside Anchorage, raising the A-frame house on stilts and building an entire new floor and wrap-around deck beneath it.

Stevens was charged with not reporting the home rebuilding and other assorted gifts from Allen and other powerful friends on his Senate financial disclosure forms.

A federal jury in the District convicted Stevens on Oct. 27, eight days before most voters would go to the polls in Alaska. He faces a potential jail term, but sentencing has not been set.

Stevens said yesterday that he could not talk about his legal battle, neither with reporters nor even in a closed-door meeting of Senate Republicans.

Outside the GOP meeting, he said he planned to tell his colleagues, “It’s a nice day. It’s a really nice day.”

The death and rebirth of American liberalism both began with flags in Grant Park. On Aug. 28, 1968, 10,000 people gathered there to protest the Democratic Convention taking place a few blocks away, which was about to nominate Lyndon Johnson’s Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, thus implicitly ratifying the hated Vietnam War. Chicago mayor Richard Daley had warned the protesters not to disrupt his city and denied them permits to assemble, but they came anyway. All afternoon, the protesters chanted and the police hovered, until about 3:30, when someone climbed a flagpole and began lowering the American flag.

Police went to arrest the offender and were pelted with eggs, chunks of concrete and balloons filled with paint and urine. The police responded by charging into the crowd, clubbing bystanders and yelling “Kill! Kill!” in what one report later termed a “police riot.” Across the country, Americans watching on television gave their verdict: Serves the damn hippies right. Democrats, who had won seven of the previous nine presidential elections, went on to lose seven of the next 10.

Forty years later, happy liberals mobbed Grant Park, invited by another mayor named Richard Daley, to celebrate Barack Obama’s election. This time the flags flew proudly at full mast, and the police were there to protect the crowd, not threaten it. Once again, Americans watched on television, and this time they didn’t seethe. They wept. (See pictures of Obama’s Grant Park celebration.)

The distance between those two Grant Park scenes says a lot about how American liberalism fell, and why in the Obama era it could become — once again — America’s ruling creed. The coalition that carried Obama to victory is every bit as sturdy as America’s last two dominant political coalitions: the ones that elected Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. And the Obama majority is sturdy for one overriding reason: liberalism, which average Americans once associated with upheaval, now promises stability instead.

The Search for Order
In America, political majorities live or die at the intersection of two public yearnings: for freedom and for order. A century ago, in the Progressive Era, modern American liberalism was born, in historian Robert Wiebe’s words, as a “search for order.” America’s giant industrial monopolies, the progressives believed, were turning capitalism into a jungle, a wild and lawless place where only the strong and savage survived. By the time Roosevelt took office during the Great Depression, the entire ecosystem appeared to be in a death spiral, with Americans crying out for government to take control. F.D.R. did — juicing the economy with unprecedented amounts of government cash, creating new protections for the unemployed and the elderly, and imposing rules for how industry was to behave. Conservatives wailed that economic freedom was under assault, but most ordinary Americans thanked God that Washington was securing their bank deposits, helping labor unions boost their wages, giving them a pension when they retired and pumping money into the economy to make sure it never fell into depression again. They didn’t feel unfree; they felt secure. For three and a half decades, from the mid-1930s through the ’60s, government imposed order on the market. The jungle of American capitalism became a well-tended garden, a safe and pleasant place for ordinary folks to stroll. Americans responded by voting for F.D.R.-style liberalism — which even most Republican politicians came to accept — in election after election. (Read a TIME cover story on F.D.R.)

By the beginning of the 1960s, though, liberalism was becoming a victim of its own success. The post–World War II economic boom flooded America’s colleges with the children of a rising middle class, and it was those children, who had never experienced life on an economic knife-edge, who began to question the status quo, the tidy, orderly society F.D.R. had built. For blacks in the South, they noted, order meant racial apartheid. For many women, it meant confinement to the home. For everyone, it meant stifling conformity, a society suffocated by rules about how people should dress, pray, imbibe and love. In 1962, Students for a Democratic Society spoke for what would become a new, baby-boom generation “bred in at least modest comfort,” which wanted less order and more freedom. And it was this movement for racial, sexual and cultural liberation that bled into the movement against Vietnam and assembled in August 1968 in Grant Park.

Traditional liberalism died there because Americans — who had once associated it with order — came to associate it with disorder instead. For a vast swath of the white working class, racial freedom came to mean riots and crime; sexual freedom came to mean divorce; and cultural freedom came to mean disrespect for family, church and flag. Richard Nixon and later Reagan won the presidency by promising a new order: not economic but cultural, not the taming of the market but the taming of the street.

See scenes from voting day.

See the campaign in T shirts.

The Receding Right
Flash forward to the evening of Nov. 4, and you can see why liberalism has sprung back to life. Ideologically, the crowds who assembled to hear Obama on election night were linear descendants of those egg throwers four decades before. They too believe in racial equality, gay rights, feminism, civil liberties and people’s right to follow their own star. But 40 years later, those ideas no longer seem disorderly. Crime is down and riots nonexistent; feminism is so mainstream that even Sarah Palin embraces the term; Chicago mayor Richard Daley, son of the man who told police to bash heads, marches in gay-rights parades. Culturally, liberalism isn’t that scary anymore. Younger Americans — who voted overwhelmingly for Obama — largely embrace the legacy of the ’60s, and yet they constitute one of the most obedient, least rebellious generations in memory. The culture war is ending because cultural freedom and cultural order — the two forces that faced off in Chicago in 1968 — have turned out to be reconcilable after all.

The disorder that panics Americans now is not cultural but economic. If liberalism collapsed in the 1960s because its bid for cultural freedom became associated with cultural disorder, conservatism has collapsed today because its bid for economic freedom has become associated with economic disorder. When Reagan took power in 1981, he vowed to restore the economic liberty that a half-century of F.D.R.-style government intrusion had stifled. American capitalism had become so thoroughly domesticated, he argued, that it lost its capacity for dynamic growth. For a time, a majority of Americans agreed. Taxes and regulations were cut and cut again, and for the most part, the economic pie grew. In the 1980s and ’90s, the garden of American capitalism became a pretty energetic place. But it became a scarier place too. In the newly deregulated American economy, fewer people had job security or fixed-benefit pensions or reliable health care. Some got rich, but a lot went bankrupt, mostly because of health-care costs. As Yale University political scientist Jacob Hacker has noted, Americans today experience far-more-violent swings in household income than did their parents a generation ago. (See pictures of the 1958 recession.)

Starting in the 1990s, average Americans began deciding that the conservative economic agenda was a bit like the liberal cultural agenda of the 1960s: less liberating than frightening. When the Gingrich Republicans tried to slash Medicare, the public turned on them en masse. A decade later, when George W. Bush tried to partially privatize Social Security, Americans rebelled once again. In 2005 a Pew Research Center survey identified a new group of voters that it called “pro-government conservatives.” They were culturally conservative and hawkish on foreign policy, and they overwhelmingly supported Bush in 2004. But by large majorities, they endorsed government regulation and government spending. They didn’t want to unleash the free market; they wanted to rein it in.

Those voters were a time bomb in the Republican coalition, which detonated on Nov. 4. John McCain’s promises to cut taxes, cut spending and get government out of the way left them cold. Among the almost half of voters who said they were “very worried” that the economic crisis would hurt their family, Obama beat McCain by 26 points. (See pictures of Obama’s campaign.)

The public mood on economics today is a lot like the public mood on culture 40 years ago: Americans want government to impose law and order — to keep their 401(k)s from going down, to keep their health-care premiums from going up, to keep their jobs from going overseas — and they don’t much care whose heads Washington has to bash to do it.

Seizing the Moment
That is both Obama’s great challenge and his great opportunity. If he can do what F.D.R. did — make American capitalism stabler and less savage — he will establish a Democratic majority that dominates U.S. politics for a generation. And despite the daunting problems he inherits, he’s got an excellent chance. For one thing, taking aggressive action to stimulate the economy, regulate the financial industry and shore up the American welfare state won’t divide his political coalition; it will divide the other side. On domestic economics, Democrats up and down the class ladder mostly agree. Even among Democratic Party economists, the divide that existed during the Clinton years between deficit hawks like Robert Rubin and free spenders like Robert Reich has largely evaporated, as everyone has embraced a bigger government role. Today it’s Republicans who — though more unified on cultural issues — are split badly between upscale business types who want government out of the way and pro-government conservatives who want Washington’s help. If Obama moves forcefully to restore economic order, the Wall Street Journal will squawk about creeping socialism, as it did in F.D.R.’s day, but many downscale Republicans will cheer. It’s these working-class Reagan Democrats who could become tomorrow’s Obama Republicans — a key component of a new liberal majority — if he alleviates their economic fears. (See pictures of former Presidents Clinton and Bush.)

Obama doesn’t have to turn the economy around overnight. After all, Roosevelt hadn’t ended the Depression by 1936. Obama just needs modest economic improvement by the time he starts running for re-election and an image as someone relentlessly focused on fixing America’s economic woes. In allocating his time in his first months as President, he should remember what voters told exit pollsters they cared about most — 63% said the economy. (No other issue even exceeded 10%.)

In politics, crisis often brings opportunity. If Obama restores some measure of economic order, kick-starting U.S. capitalism and softening its hard edges, and if he develops the kind of personal rapport with ordinary Americans that F.D.R. and Reagan had — and he has the communication skills to do it — liberals will probably hold sway in Washington until Sasha and Malia have kids. As that happens, the arguments that have framed economic debate in recent times — for large upper-income tax cuts or the partial privatization of Social Security and Medicare — will fade into irrelevance. In an era of liberal hegemony, they will seem as archaic as defending the welfare system became when conservatives were on top.

See pictures of the world reacting to Obama’s win.

See pictures of presidential First Dogs.

A New Consensus
There are fault lines in the Obama coalition, to be sure. In a two-party system, it’s impossible to construct a majority without bringing together people who disagree on big things. But Obama’s majority is at least as cohesive as Reagan’s or F.D.R.’s. The cultural issues that have long divided Democrats — gay marriage, gun control, abortion — are receding in importance as a post-’60s generation grows to adulthood. Foreign policy doesn’t divide Democrats as bitterly as it used to either because, in the wake of Iraq, once-hawkish working-class whites have grown more skeptical of military force. In 2004, 22% of voters told exit pollsters that “moral values” were their top priority, and 19% said terrorism. This year terrorism got 9%, and no social issues even made the list.

The biggest potential land mine in the Obama coalition isn’t the culture war or foreign policy; it’s nationalism. On a range of issues, from global warming to immigration to trade to torture, college-educated liberals want to integrate more deeply America’s economy, society and values with the rest of the world’s. They want to make it easier for people and goods to legally cross America’s borders, and they want global rules that govern how much America can pollute the atmosphere and how it conducts the war on terrorism. They believe that ceding some sovereignty is essential to making America prosperous, decent and safe. When it comes to free trade, immigration and multilateralism, though, downscale Democrats are more skeptical. In the future, the old struggle between freedom and order may play itself out on a global scale, as liberal internationalists try to establish new rules for a more interconnected planet and working-class nationalists protest that foreign bureaucrats threaten America’s freedom.

But that’s in the future. If Obama begins restoring order to the economy, Democrats will reap the rewards for a long time. Forty years ago, liberalism looked like the problem in a nation spinning out of control. Today a new version of it may be the solution. It’s a very different day in Grant Park.

Beinart is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations

By Nikita Stewart and Michael E. Ruane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, November 18, 2008; A01

District and federal officials are preparing for as many as 4 million people for the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama, a crowd that would be three or four times larger than previous big events on the Mall.

Only a fraction of those people will be close enough to get a good look at the action. But officials are planning extra JumboTrons at the Mall and along the inaugural parade route so that spectators can feel a part of the historic day.

“The Mall actually may be the best seat in the house. . . . It’ll kind of be like the world’s biggest stage and auditorium on January 20th,” said Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D), adding that the crowd projections have emerged in briefings conducted by federal and local officials.

All plans are pending approval of the Presidential Inaugural Committee, to be set up by Obama, which determines the size and nature of the inaugural festivities, Fenty said. But District officials have met several times with the Secret Service and other agencies.

The Secret Service is taking the lead in overseeing security and other logistics. Even for a city that has hosted vast throngs for marches, protests, celebrations, funerals and inaugurations, this will be an unprecedented test of planning and resources. The question arises: Can the city handle it? Can millions of people fit downtown?

Or, could there be another Meltdown of ‘76?

That year, a million spectators were expected on the Mall to celebrate the Bicentennial. Transit officials urged people to take public transportation and promised special service. But there was nothing special about the Fourth of July traffic jam, which stranded cars and buses for hours.

District and federal officials blamed a flawed and smaller mass transit system for the 1976 embarrassment. They expressed confidence that they can handle this January’s events. At the same time, they know that Inauguration Day 2009 will be one of a kind.

For example, Fenty said, officials expect people to camp overnight, starting Jan. 19, to get as close as possible to the swearing-in viewing area and parade route.

The next several weeks will be spent figuring out how to change the comprehensive playbook that has been used in the past.

“We have a great blueprint from years past, and we will follow that,” the mayor said. “But we will start to make exceptions and deviations because, by everyone’s estimation, we will have crowds that will be two, three, maybe even four times as large as the largest inaugural. . . . One of the biggest exceptions would be to open up the Mall.”

Officials are talking about opening large sections of the Mall east of the Washington Monument, a space normally used for staging the many components of the inaugural parade, Fenty said. That would make the Mall a viewing area that experts said could accommodate several million people — significantly more than in the past. Officials have not said where the parade groups will gather instead.

The changes would not affect the 240,000 people who will get free tickets in the space closest to the swearing-in ceremony.

The mayor said visitors will have a difficult choice between getting the best possible views of the swearing-in or the parade.

“The parade route will be completely filled way before the inaugural speech even happens,” said Fenty, who was a D.C. Council member in 2005, the most recent inauguration. “That’s something people will have to think about, whether they want to see the parade firsthand or see the inaugural swearing-in and speech. You can’t do both.”

Obama is known for choosing venues where he can address huge crowds. In August in Denver, he accepted the Democratic Party’s nomination with a speech before 84,000 at Invesco Field. On election night, about 200,000 jammed Chicago’s Grant Park for his victory speech.

“The word we’re getting from them, nothing formal yet, is that they want to open this up to as many people as possible,” Fenty said. “We will follow their lead.”

Peter V. Ueberroth, former chairman of the U.S. Olympic Committee, said that fewer — not more — leaders should take charge in a crowd of such size. Ueberroth, who helped guide the 1984 Games in Los Angeles, said security and transportation officials must be closely coordinated, sharing a command headquarters. In this case, the Secret Service will coordinate a unified command center.

It does not appear that the 300 acres of the Mall in the two-mile stretch from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial has ever been filled with people, according to Terry Adams, a National Park Service spokesman.

The 1995 Million Man March, which drew about a million people, give or take a few hundred thousand, filled two-thirds of the one-mile section between the Capitol and the Washington Monument, according to photographs taken at the time. Farouk El-Baz, a Boston University expert who analyzed the crowd size, estimated that the entire two-mile stretch is so open that it could hold 3 million people.

“There should be no concern about the number of people. Particularly since this one will be a celebratory gathering. People will be up. They will be pleasant to each other,” El-Baz said.

The biggest inaugural crowd appears to be the 1.2 million people who are said to have attended events at the 1965 inauguration of Lyndon B. Johnson, according to police and past news accounts. In those days, the swearing-in was held in the more limited area around the east front of the Capitol, where it had taken place since 1829, according to Beth Hahn of the Senate Historical Office.

It was not until the 1981 inauguration of Ronald Reagan that the swearing-in was moved to the Capitol’s west front, where larger audiences could spread onto the Mall.

Faulty mass transit, not space, was the downfall of the July 4, 1976, Bicentennial celebration. Metro ran mostly bus service, which fell into chaos in the traffic jam. Metrorail was in its infancy, with only a 4.6-mile stretch of the Red Line functioning.

Today, with a seasoned and robust subway system, officials are again urging people to take public transit. Once downtown, however, people will face much tighter security than in 1976, as well as world-class traffic problems. Many blocks will be off limits Jan. 20.

“If we can get the doors closed, we will move,” Metro spokesman Steven Taubenkibel said. Metro’s biggest crowd, recorded July 11, was 854,638 passengers.

The fact that Jan. 20, a federal holiday in the Washington area, falls the day after the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday means that the crowd’s arrival might be spread over a four-day weekend. At the same time, the crowd will be packed with out-of-towners and many people attending their first inauguration, creating the potential for confusion.

Those who dare to drive downtown on Inauguration Day will face a monumental parking challenge.

The security zone, which has not been determined, could eat up much of the parking downtown, said Andrew Blair, vice president and secretary of the Washington Parking Association and president of Colonial Parking. The industry is preparing for caravans of buses, he said, adding that the Colonial-run parking lot at Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium will have well over 800 buses.

For those who are making their plans ahead of time, there are 95,000 hotel rooms in the metropolitan area, tourism officials say, in addition to the thousands of basements, spare rooms and sublet homes and apartments that will be available for inauguration-goers. The city is accustomed to hosting 15 million visitors annually.

Security, emergency and logistical crews will be bolstered by about 5,000 members of the military and 4,000 additional officers from 93 law enforcement agencies across the country, officials have said.

Presidential inaugurations aren’t just logistical challenges. They shape the start of an administration and provide a chance for the District to shine before a worldwide audience. A major mishap could tarnish the image of the city, the mayor and the organizers, and much is riding on success.

“This is a once-in-a-lifetime” experience, Fenty said.

Staff writer Eric M. Weiss contributed to this report.

“I make no excuses, I only wear them.” Remember that? It was the pitch made by Donna Rice for a pair of tight-fitting stonewashed jeans some 20 years ago. Too bad the brand is long gone, since we’re at yet another No Excuses moment in American politics.

Corbis

RFK

Specifically: a liberal No Excuses moment. With the election of Barack Obama and huge Democratic majorities in Congress, liberals must now practice something other than the politics of nostalgia and what-if.

This is a politics that has been in the making since at least 1968, though its real origins probably go back to 1944 and the first great liberal what-if: What if an ailing FDR had died nine months earlier, and been succeeded by the great progressive icon and polymath (and original moonbeam), then Vice President Henry Wallace?

In that case, perhaps, desegregation would have happened sooner, universal health care would be with us today, and the “century of fear” that Wallace predicted as the outcome of the Truman Doctrine would have been avoided by means of a more conciliatory policy toward the Soviet Union.

From that moment on, the liberal what-ifs multiply in dizzying profusion. What if John F. Kennedy had dodged the bullet in Dallas and lived to get the U.S. out of Vietnam before it fully got into it? What if Robert F. Kennedy had dodged the bullet in L.A. five years later? What if Jimmy Carter hadn’t been so earnest, truthful and unlucky? What if Ronald Reagan hadn’t proved such an adept political mythmaker? What if Donna Rice hadn’t been pictured on Gary Hart’s lap? What if Willie Horton hadn’t been given a furlough? What if Bill Clinton hadn’t squandered his political gifts with cheap trysts? What if Bush v. Gore had gone 5-4 the other way? What if 9/11 hadn’t intervened to give the Bush administration its mandate for another bout of the politics of fear? What if John Kerry hadn’t been sandbagged by Osama bin Laden’s last-minute video intervention?

This liberal narrative of its own near-misses, bad luck and tragic interventions of fate is supplemented by a parallel liberal tale of unbridled conservative malevolence. Republicans may be the stupid party, but they’ve been fortunate in their evil political geniuses — Lee Atwater, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove — all of whom have succeeded in bamboozling the public into voting against its own economic interests.

As for conservative electoral successes, these are explained almost entirely as a function of political dirty tricks (cf. “October Surprise”) jingoism (Star Wars, Grenada et al.) and racism (”Southern strategy”). “The legacy of slavery, America’s original sin, is the reason we’re the only advanced economy that doesn’t guarantee health care to our citizens,” writes Nobel laureate Paul Krugman in “The Conscience of a Liberal.” Who knew that a straight line connects the ideas of Jefferson Davis and Milton Friedman?

(Only lately has this history been turned on its head, so that liberal pundits now bemoan the passing of those great conservative ideas men who presumably are crying tears in heaven over the GOP’s capture by the likes of Sarah Palin.)

The upshot of all this has been an amazing lack of introspection among the frequently wronged, but never wrong, liberal American hard core. Politically, this hasn’t yielded such great results: The number of Americans who self-identify as liberals continues to fall, to 21% in 2008 from 22% in 2004, according to CNN. (The number of self-identified conservatives held steady at 34%.) Then again, without that hard core Mr. Obama’s primary triumphs would never have been possible.

Now the long wait is over, and the liberal ship has come in. In Mr. Obama, liberals have a president who seems to have stepped out of the last episodes of the West Wing. He has the Congress in his left pocket, the news media in his right pocket (or is it the other way around?), and he floats on a tide of unprecedented international enthusiasm. The Republican Party has no obvious standard-bearer, as it did in Ronald Reagan after Gerald Ford’s defeat in 1976. It could well spend the next four years, or eight, tearing itself to pieces.

Instead, the only things that stand in Mr. Obama’s path are what Marxists like to call “objective factors”: the financial crisis, the mess in Detroit, the disposing of Guantanamo detainees, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russian hostility, Chinese assertiveness, maybe the disintegration of Pakistan.

Mr. Obama will get, and deserves, a period of political grace. Let’s say a year. After that, it will become increasingly difficult to attribute whatever mistakes he makes to the legacy of his predecessor. American liberalism, such as it is, is finally being put to the test that fate has denied it these last many decades.

Succeed or fail, this time there can be no excuses.

Watch the video.  What are your thoughts on this issue?

The Roundtable

SAN FRANCISCO — In one of the nation’s largest displays of support for gay rights, tens of thousands of people in cities across the country turned out in support of same-sex marriage on Saturday, lending their voices to an issue that many gay men and lesbians consider a critical step to full equality.

The demonstrations — from a sun-splashed throng in San Francisco to a chilly crowd in Minneapolis — came 11 days after California voters narrowly passed a ballot measure, Proposition 8, that outlawed previously legal same-sex ceremonies in the state. The measure’s passage has spurred protests in California and across the country, including at several Mormon temples, a reflection of that church’s ardent backing of the proposition.

On Saturday, speakers painted the fight over Proposition 8 as another test of a movement that began with the riots at the Stonewall Inn in New York in 1969, survived the emergence of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, and has since made enormous strides in societal acceptance, whether in television shows or in antidiscrimination laws.

“It’s not ‘Yes we can,’ ” said Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco city supervisor, referring to President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign mantra. “It’s ‘Yes we will.’ ”

Carrying handmade signs with slogans like “No More Mr. Nice Gay” and “Straights Against Hate,” big crowds filled civic centers and streets in many cities. In New York, some 4,000 people gathered at City Hall, where speakers repeatedly called same-sex marriage “the greatest civil rights battle of our generation.”

“We are not going to rest at night until every citizen in every state in this country can say, ‘This is the person I love,’ and take their hand in marriage,” said Representative Anthony D. Weiner of Brooklyn.

In Los Angeles, where wildfires had temporarily grabbed headlines from continuing protests over Proposition 8, Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa addressed a crowd of about 9,000 people in Spanish and English, and seemed to express confidence that the measure, which is being challenged in California courts, would be overturned.

“I’ve come here from the fires because I feel the wind at my back as well,” said the mayor, who arrived at a downtown rally from the fire zone on a helicopter. “It’s the wind of change that has swept the nation. It is the wind of optimism and hope.”

About 900 protesters braved a tornado watch and menacing rain clouds in Washington to rally in front of the Capitol and on to the White House. “Gay, straight, black, white; marriage is a civil right,” the marchers chanted.

In Las Vegas, the comedian Wanda Sykes surprised a crowd of more than 1,000 rallying outside a gay community center by announcing that she is gay and had wed her wife in California on Oct. 25. Ms. Sykes, who divorced her husband of seven years in 1998, had never publicly discussed her sexual orientation but said the passage of Proposition 8 had propelled her to be open about it.

“I felt like I was being attacked, personally attacked — our community was attacked,” she told the crowd.

And while some speakers were obviously eager to tap crowds’ current outrage, others took pains to cast the demonstrations as a peaceful, long-term, campaign over an issue that has proved remarkably and consistently divisive.

“We need to be our best selves,” said the Rev. G. Penny Nixon, a gay pastor from San Mateo, Calif., who warned the San Francisco crowd against blaming “certain communities” for the election loss. “This is a movement based on love.”

The protests were organized largely over the Internet, and featured few representatives of major gay rights groups that campaigned against Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote after trailing for months in the polls. The online aspect seemed to draw a broad cross-section of people, like Nicole Toussaint, a kindergarten teacher who joined a crowd of more than 1,000 people in Minneapolis.

“I’m here to support my friends who are gay,” said Ms. Toussaint, 23. “I think my generation will play a big role.”

The big crowds notwithstanding, it has been a tough month for gay rights. Proposition 8 was just one of three measures on same-sex marriage passed on Nov. 4, with constitutional bans also being approved in Arizona and Florida. In Arkansas, voters passed a measure aimed at barring gay men and lesbians from adopting children.

That vote was on the minds of many of the 200 people who protested Saturday in front of the State Capitol in Little Rock. One of those, Barb L’Eplattenier, 39, a university professor, said some of her gay friends with adopted children were fearful of state action if they appeared in public. “They think their families are in danger,” said Ms. L’Eplattenier, who married her partner, Sarah Scanlon, in California in July.

The protests over Proposition 8 also come even as same-sex marriages began Wednesday in Connecticut, which joined Massachusetts as the only states allowing such ceremonies. By contrast, 30 states have constitutional bans on such unions.

At a Boston rally on Saturday, Kate Leslie, an organizer, said the loss in California had certainly caught the attention of local gay men and lesbians who have had the right to marry since 2004.

“You’re watching people who could be you and are part of your community being stripped of their rights,” Ms. Leslie said. “And in some ways that’s why so many people are infuriated in Massachusetts and willing to stand up for a rally.”

In California, a State Supreme Court decision legalized same-sex marriage in May. As many as 18,000 couples married, some traveling from other states to tie the knot. Such marriages may be challenged in court.

David McMullin, a garden designer from Atlanta, was one of those who made the trip, marrying his partner in Oakland, Calif., in September, in part to let their two adoptive children feel part of a married family.

“We just want our kids to know we’re O.K.,” said Mr. McMullin, who had come to a protest in front of the Georgia State Capitol. “We have rights as people even if we don’t have rights as citizens.”

Supporters of the proposition have repeatedly argued that Proposition 8 was not antigay, but merely pro-marriage.

“The marriage is between a man and women,” said Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind passing Proposition 8. “If they want to legalize same-sex marriage, they are going to have to bring a proposal before the people of California. That’s how democracy works.”

Equality California, a major gay rights group here, indicated this week that it would work to repeal Proposition 8 if legal challenges fail.

Such dry approaches seemed a million miles away, however, from the boisterous scene in front of San Francisco City Hall on Saturday, where as many as 10,000 people gathered, carrying signs, American flags and even copies of their marriage licenses.

One of those was Lawrence Dean, 57, who had married his partner, Steven Lyle, in San Francisco in July. It was the fifth time that the couple of 19 years had held a ceremony to announce their commitment, and, of course, accept wedding gifts.

“If we keep this up, maybe I won’t have to again,” Mr. Dean said, looking out at the protest. “I have enough pots and pans.”

Reporting was contributed by Robbie Brown from Atlanta; Steve Barnes from Little Rock; Christina Capecchi from Minneapolis; Francesca Segrè from Los Angeles; Katie Zezima from Boston; Ashley Southall from Washington; Steve Friess from Las Vegas; and C. J. Hughes from New York.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is among the names surfacing during the debate over Republican Party leadership. Associated Press (Associated Press )

Halimah Abdullah
McClatchy
November 16, 2008

WASHINGTON – Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan is in the crosshairs as various segments of the GOP mount a campaign to give a party still reeling from presidential and congressional election losses an image makeover.

Duncan, whom some fellow Kentucky Republicans call “Mr. Inside,” is closely allied with President Bush. That connection, coupled with the push to distance the party from an unpopular administration, has turned the race for the committee chairmanship into a symbolic fight over the ideological soul of the party.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has emerged from the fray as a voice of change, promising to get the party back on track. Supporters are pushing him as a possible replacement for Duncan.

“The Republican National Committee has to ask itself if it wants someone who has successfully led a revolution,” Randy Evans, Gingrich’s friend and legal counsel, told several media outlets last week. “If it does, Newt’s the one.”

Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis and Republican leaders from Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina also are gunning for the post.

While Duncan hasn’t officially made a bid for the chairmanship and Gingrich says he’s uninterested in it, supporters nonetheless are lobbying on their behalf. Members will vote on a new chairman in January.

In the meantime, Duncan and Gingrich are making the rounds, discussing the state of the party with anyone who’ll listen.

Their approaches are starkly different.

“The Republican Party, right now, is like a midsized college team trying to play in the Super Bowl,” Gingrich said Friday. “We have to be honest about our shortcomings as a governing party. … You have to see the 2006 and 2008 losses together and recognize that the Republican Party has a performance failure, and the American people, who have not changed ideologically, are sending a message that they want a performance change.”

Duncan was more nuanced during an interview last week with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell attributing losses to “the national mood,” but saying that the nation is still center-right and the fundamental principles of the nation remain unchanged.

The battle over GOP leadership reflects profound problems within the party, said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. Republicans, he said, need to find leadership that better reflects the nation’s changing demographic.

“They lost badly for the second election in a row,” Sabato said. “Historically, two things happen when a party loses badly. There’s a long period of introspection, where the leaders ask, ‘What did we do wrong?’ and ‘Can we change?’

“Second, there’s a search for new leaders that can generate change for an election win.”

Reaction is strong to America’s first black president

This undated file photo provided by Gary and Alina Grewal, of Hardwick Township, N.J., shows a charred cross that had been burned on the lawn of their home after they placed a banner congratulating President-elect Barack Obama. Associated Press (File Associated Press )

Jesse Washington
Associated Press
November 16, 2008

Cross burnings. Schoolchildren chanting “Assassinate Obama.” Black figures hung from nooses. Racial epithets scrawled on homes and cars.

Incidents around the country referring to President-elect Barack Obama are dampening the postelection glow of racial progress and harmony, highlighting the stubborn racism that remains in America.

From California to Maine, police have documented a range of alleged crimes, from vandalism and vague threats to at least one physical attack. Insults and taunts have been delivered by adults, college students and second-graders.

There have been “hundreds” of incidents since the election, many more than usual, said Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes.

One was in Snellville, Ga., where Denene Millner said a boy on the school bus told her 9-year-old daughter the day after the election: “I hope Obama gets assassinated.” That night, someone trashed her sister-in-law’s front lawn, mangled the Obama lawn signs and left two pizza boxes filled with human feces outside the front door, Millner said.

She described her emotions as a combination of anger and fear.

“I can’t say that every white person in Snellville is evil and anti-Obama and willing to desecrate my property, because one or two idiots did it,” said Millner, who is black. “But it definitely makes you look a little different at the people who you live with, and makes you wonder what they’re capable of and what they’re really thinking.”

Potok, who is white, said he believes there is “a large subset of white people in this country who feel that they are losing everything they know, that the country their forefathers built has somehow been stolen from them.”

Grant Griffin, a 46-year-old white Georgia native, expressed similar sentiments: “I believe our nation is ruined and has been for several decades and the election of Obama is merely the culmination of the change.

“If you had real change it would involve all the members of (Obama’s) church being deported,” he said.

Change in whatever form does not come easy, and a black president is “the most profound change in the field of race this country has experienced since the Civil War,” said William Ferris, senior associate director of the Center for the Study of the American South at the University of North Carolina. “It’s shaking the foundations on which the country has existed for centuries.”

“Someone once said racism is like cancer,” Ferris said. “It’s never totally wiped out, it’s in remission.”

If so, America’s remission lasted until the morning of Nov. 5.

The day after the vote hailed as a sign of a nation changed, black high school student Barbara Tyler, of Marietta, Ga., said she heard hateful Obama comments from white students, and that teachers cut off discussion about Obama’s victory.

Tyler spoke at a press conference by the Georgia chapter of the NAACP calling for a town hall meeting to address complaints from across the state about hostility and resentment. Another student, from a Covington middle school, said he was suspended for wearing an Obama shirt to school Nov. 5 after the principal told students not to wear political paraphernalia.

The student’s mother, Eshe Riviears, said the principal told her: “Whether you like it or not, we’re in the South, and there are a lot of people who are not happy with this decision.”

Other incidents include:

•Four North Carolina State University students admitted writing anti-Obama comments in a tunnel designated for free speech expression, including one that said: “Let’s shoot that (N-word) in the head.” Obama has received more threats than any other president-elect, authorities say.

•In Standish, Maine, a sign inside the Oak Hill General Store read: “Osama Obama Shotgun Pool.” Customers could sign up to bet $1 on a date when Obama would be killed. “Stabbing, shooting, roadside bombs, they all count,” the sign said. At the bottom of the marker board was written “Let’s hope someone wins.”

•Racist graffiti was found in places including New York’s Long Island, where two dozen cars were spray-painted; Kilgore, Texas, where the high school and skate park were defaced; and the Los Angeles area, where swastikas, racial slurs and “Go Back To Africa” were spray- painted on sidewalks, houses and cars.

•Second- and third-grade students on a school bus in Rexburg, Idaho, chanted “assassinate Obama,” a district official said.

•University of Alabama professor Marsha L. Houston said a poster of the Obama family was ripped off her office door. A replacement poster was defaced with a death threat and a racial slur. “It seems the election brought the racist rats out of the woodwork,” Houston said.

•Black figures were hanged by nooses from trees on Mount Desert Island, Maine, the Bangor Daily News reported.

•Crosses were burned in yards of Obama supporters in Hardwick, N.J., and Apolacan Township, Pa.

•A black teenager in New York City said he was attacked with a bat on election night by four white men who shouted “Obama.”

•In the Pittsburgh suburb of Forest Hills, a black man said he found a note with a racial slur on his windshield, saying, “Now that you voted for Obama, just watch out for your house.”

Emotions are often raw after a hard-fought political campaign, but now those on the losing side have an easy target for their anger.

“The principle is very simple,” said B.J. Gallagher, a sociologist and co-author of the diversity book “A Peacock in the Land of Penguins.” “If I can’t hurt the person I’m angry at, then I’ll vent my anger on a substitute, i.e., someone of the same race.”

October 27, 2008

by Martha Rough

Last Sunday, I cried for America. I didn’t cry for the money we’ve lost in our current economic turmoil or because of predictions Obama will win the election or out of concern that America is losing status in the world. No, any one of these events was not the cause of my tears, rather they are symptoms. My tears were tears of grief, tears of guilt, and tears of fear, for the very idea of America as envisioned by our Founders, appears to be very endangered these days.

As I watch the financial crisis unfold and reflect on its causes, and as I watch the news coverage of the campaigns and listen to the polls, I find myself asking, “Have Americans truly grown weary of the responsibility of freedom?”  “Responsibility?” you may ask, “Is freedom not a right?” Rights always include responsibilities; they are two sides to one coin. What I fear is that in today’s culture, too many of us have forgotten that the responsibility associated with freedom should be an important part of the conduct of our daily decisions. Too often we consider this responsibility only in times of war and military threat. Furthermore, I fear that in today’s crisis, the responsibility seems too much.
Closely considered, you can see that freedom is the foundation of all the unalienable rights sought by the Founders. All they wanted from King George III or anyone else was to be left alone, left alone to live freely in the manner of their choosing, freely choosing how to build their own lives and happiness. In return, they recognized the duty to leave others alone as well; plus, they assumed the responsibility for the choices they made with the situations life brought them. They wanted nothing more than freedom to work, to worship, to think, to try, to fail, and to try again, to go from being poor to being wealthy, and no doubt, they accepted, too, that they were free to go from being wealthy to being poor, if their decision-making led them there. For a century and a half, we built on this heritage of freedom and refined and enhanced it by ending slavery and extending the freedom to live as one wished equally to all.

Such freedom demands that we choose everything wisely and carefully, keeping in mind and accepting the risks and uncertainties of the future alongside the hopes and gratifications of today. Freedom demands our attention at all times. It is impacted by how we work, how we eat, how we vote, how we invest, how we spend, how we do anything. Truly, the dollars we spend and the actions we take are mighty powers, if we use them wisely and responsibly. Personal responsibility is key to maintaining freedom.  Has this price of freedom become too much?
Apparently, it has. Polls verify that the people want government to fix the economy, solve their health care problems, save their home loans and incomes, cut their taxes, and more. In America today, the scope of rights to which people feel entitled has expanded radically. Certainly, health care, higher education, home ownership, financial security, and, even, wealth were all goals that the Founders would say any citizen should be free to pursue, but the Founders knew that remaining free would mean the responsibility for achieving those goals lay with the individual. We imperil our most precious right, the right to freedom, with these new demands, and the peril stems from the responsibility side of the rights coin. Once these goals become rights to which everyone is entitled, who is responsible for providing them?
Unlike the unalienable rights which demand no positive contribution from others, the ideas and longings listed above would be positive rights. In other words, someone gets a right fulfilled, but someone else must provide for it. The problem with positive rights is they always infringe on the negative rights of someone in some way. How?  The unalienable rights leave us to work, dream, build, and enjoy the fruits of our efforts. Our newly sought-after rights take some of these fruits of our neighbor’s labor, thus diminishing his or her freedom to work and enjoy. Such policies clearly, then, infringe on liberty, but even the folks who stand to benefit from such policies lose some of the joy of their basic rights. By eliminating the need to pursue happiness and replacing it with an entitlement, the citizenry is robbed of the satisfaction of personal achievement and accomplishment. Not only do we lose this satisfaction that only we can truly bestow on ourselves, but those who achieve lose the rewards and incentives that have been the impetus for the innovation and entrepreneurship that have provided countless benefits to the world.
When we consider the uncertainty we live with these days, we can see where voters might be motivated to make demands for positive rights. The outlook for our individual and collective financial lives is bleak and miserable. The pundits as much as the populace seem at a loss. It appears that no one knows how to fix this. Furthermore, most of us feel we have done our part, working and caring for our families, so the need to assign blame to Bush or corporate fat cats or unqualified borrowers is understandable; but as Mama always said, “For every finger of blame you point, there are three pointing back at you.”  Despite all the good things we do day in and day out, for quite a while now, plenty of us have seen the signs of trouble brewing, yet we have not spoken out or acted. We have known that Americans, individually and as a nation, have become credit junkies. We have given our politicians a pass, sending not even one concerned letter, about questionable, though well-meaning, policies. Why give loans to unqualified consumers?  Why not help them become qualified, instead?  We have invested in fast growing stocks to build portfolios as quickly as possible, ignoring the risk and the notion of real value in ways not dissimilar to the speculators whose greed and denial drive them to addictive levels of trading. We have built a house of cards, a fairy tale economy, but now we just want someone to fix it for us.
What I fear is that Americans have reached a precipice, a tipping point as defined by Malcolm Gladwell in his bestseller. Our times and the prognosis for America are confused and uncertain. The Bush administration has already injected the government into private enterprise, a move that, if permanent, is a definite step toward socialization. The current financial crisis, however, is only the latest piece in a jigsaw puzzle that has been taking shape for decades. The idea that we are all entitled to have whatever we want while we do whatever we want to do grew up in the ‘60s and ‘70s. Since then, American culture has been deemed bad for the environment, bad for our image in the world, unfair and mean to anyone middle class and below. The degree of loathing of the American way has intensified steadily and unhealthily, shifting focus away from the vision of what we have been at our best and what we can be when we fulfill our legacy. This message has permeated popular culture, promoted by college professors, the news media, the movie industry, and liberal politicians. Americans have been sold the idea that we have to change. And, change is likely to be the order of the day on November 4. The idea of change has never stuck or been as enticing as now.  Obama’s Main St. versus Wall Street rhetoric and the idea of electing the first Black American to the Presidency, an act that should serve to heal some very old wounds, have Americans sold on the idea of change.
But I won’t be voting for Barack Obama, though I have seriously entertained the idea throughout much of the last year and a half. You see, when I first started listening to Obama’s message, I was hopeful that he held the same appreciation of the Founders’ vision of freedom and responsibility as I do, but the revelation of his policies tells me that he favors positive rights and the idea of absolute equality much more than he values freedom. Maybe he truly believes that government can create both, but history teaches us otherwise. We can never make or keep everyone’s status equal.  The classless society is never really classless, and, in the end, the citizenry forfeits its freedom for nothing.
I wonder how far left the country would move under an Obama Presidency. Several conditions make a substantial shift not only quite possible, but very probable.  First, he would have no check placed on him by Congress since the Congressional majority favors positive rights and follows two leaders whose modern liberalism matches Obama’s. Additionally, this group of legislators has called to overtly impede freedom of speech and of the press with the Fairness Doctrine and has worked to curtail Second Amendment rights to bear arms.
Next, the press, except for Fox, will not place any checks on Obama. The press is supposedly our “fourth estate,” meant to serve the interest of the people. Rather than serve, the press works to lead the people, especially in matters of politics and social change. If you doubt the media bias in this campaign, just look at the contributions that the Obama campaign has received from media sources. The parent companies of CNN, NBC, and CBS have all made sizable contributions to the Obama campaign and none to McCain. In fact, several recent comments from the Obama camp and the lack of news coverage about them have given me serious pause. The most troublesome came from Joe Biden at the Seattle fundraiser where he said Obama would be tested. The media played the comment about Obama’s mettle to the hilt. What few people know is that Biden went on to talk about how the decisions that he and Obama would have to make would most likely be unpopular and questionable. He was asking the supporters to keep the faith and fervor they have had during the campaign in the future. Obama, according to Biden’s comments, would need their support, with “the use” of their “influence in the community.”  I worry about a ticket that asks for such blind faith without any explanation and that escapes without more media scrutiny.
Furthermore, consider the array of Hollywood stars who support Obama. Frankly, none of them share my hopes for America. They subscribe to the negative view of our country, all while many of them reap the rewards of its liberty, making as much money or more as the corporate CEOs they demonize, and growing just as wealthy as the fat cats of Wall Street. What is particularly perplexing is that none of them seems to worry about Obama spreading their wealth around. Perhaps they will benefit from their close association to the candidate.
The collision of this election and the current economic crisis is what worries me most and makes me very fearful that Americans will opt for being taken care of because they will think their futures are more certain. But, we should always be careful what we ask for; we might just get it. Look at what our demands from government have done for us already. Even when spending for the war is factored out, Americans make more demands from the government than we are paying for. That is why our government has a budget deficit and owes money to others around the world. Indeed, some steps to prevent an outright depression were essential because global economic disaster will most surely set the stage for global conflict. For the government to solve the crisis single-handedly, though, without increasing our debt to other countries or driving up inflation will be nearly impossible. The value of the dollar has suffered drastically which adds to my worries, because a traumatized currency threatens the whole system. Vladmir Lenin recognized this, saying, “The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.”  This fiscal instability and demands for more and more positive rights via socialized programs puts us at a precipice. America seems too closely leaning toward the brink to socialism.  Will Barack Obama push us over?  I do not know, but the evidence suggests that the conditions for such a plunge are much more likely with Obama than with John McCain.  In these unsure times, I will err on the side of caution. I will vote for John McCain, not because he has a perfect record, but because I feel much more certain that his appreciation of rights and mine are the same.
Borrowing from Patrick Henry’s famous “Give me liberty or give me death” speech, I find myself wondering, “Are equality and certainty so dear, or ease so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of freedom?”  Any teenager longing to be on his or her own recognizes that they will never have full freedom as long as their parents support them. When people invest in you, they own part of you. Any 17-year-old can tell you that. Kids know you can have someone take care of or you can have your freedom, but you really can’t have both.
Over the last week, I’ve ventured to share these points with others, dared to vocalize my worries even with folks I knew would disagree with me. I am heartened to find that I am not alone with these concerns. There are others also focused on the health of American freedom. Still, I fear how close we are to the edge, to the fall of American freedom as envisioned by our Founders, fought for by our fathers and grandfathers, nurtured by our mothers and grandmothers. I still carry a guilty fear that I will face them someday and have them say that I, that we, did not do enough to save the best dream humankind has ever birthed.
Maybe my thoughts won’t count for much.  I’m an average middle-American school teacher.  My husband and I did not grow up with money.  In fact, we were both relatively poor, but our homes were rich in care, and we were raised with an ethic of self-responsibility. The possibilities afforded to us by freedom have enriched our lives in every way.
Last week, I cried for America. Today, I am writing for America, pouring my heart out to America, praying for American freedom, asking my fellow Americans to keep Liberty’s torch undampened and burning bright.  Our freedom, the very idea of America, is worth the effort.

Skeptics Challenge Assumptions Made

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 29, 2008; A02

Could the polls be wrong?

Sen. John McCain and his allies say that they are. The country, they say, could be headed to a 2008 version of the famous 1948 upset election, with McCain in the role of Harry S. Truman and Sen. Barack Obama as Thomas E. Dewey, lulled into overconfidence by inaccurate polls.

“We believe it is a very close race, and something that is frankly very winnable,” Sarah Simmons, director of strategy for the McCain campaign, said yesterday.

Few analysts outside the McCain campaign appear to share this view. And pollsters this time around will not make the mistake that the Gallup organization made 60 years ago — ending their polling more than a week before the election and missing a last-minute surge in support for Truman. Every day brings dozens of new state and national presidential polls, a trend that is expected to continue up to Election Day.

Still, there appears to be an undercurrent of worry among some polling professionals and academics. One reason is the wide variation in Obama leads: Just yesterday, an array of polls showed the Democrat leading by as little as two points and as much as 15 points. The latest Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll showed the race holding steady, with Obama enjoying a lead of 52 percent to 45 percent among likely voters.

Some in the McCain camp also argue that the polls showing the largest leads for Obama mistakenly assume that turnout among young voters and African Americans will be disproportionately high. The campaign is banking on a good turnout among GOP partisans, whom McCain officials say they are working hard to attract to the polls.

“I have been wondering for weeks” whether the polls are accurately gauging the state of the race, said Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Minnesota. Borrowing from lingo popularized by former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Schier asked what are the “unknown unknowns” about polling this year: For instance, is the sizable cohort of people who don’t respond to pollsters more Republican-leaning this year, perhaps because they don’t want to admit to a pollster that they are not supporting the “voguish” Obama?

If so, that could mean the polls are routinely understating McCain’s support. “I have no evidence that this is happening,” Schier said, but he added: “I’m still thinking there’s a 25 percent chance that this is a squeaker race and McCain pulls it out.”

Other experts are less uncertain. Ruy Teixeira, a political demographer at the Center for American Progress and the Century Foundation, said averaging the daily polls points to “pretty much the same thing — that the race is pretty stable and that Obama has a stable lead. Typically, when you are this far ahead at this point, it’s hard to lose.”

“It is very unlikely that we are going to get surprised by a last-minute movement,” said John R. Petrocik, chairman of the political science department at the University of Missouri. “Obama has been running six to eight points ahead for the better part of two weeks, and it’s hard to imagine that turning around.”

The McCain campaign’s case that the race is closer than many polls suggest appears to rest largely on the proposition that the composition of the electorate this year will closely resemble that in 2004.

McCain pollsters do anticipate that turnout could be even higher this year than the robust turnout four years ago, but they also expect that Democratic gains among African American voters and younger voters will be offset by higher turnout among more Republican-leaning voters. They also assert the race is tightening in battleground states, with independent voters increasingly receptive to McCain.

“As other public polls begin to show Senator Obama dropping below 50% and the margin over McCain beginning to approach margin of error with a week left, all signs say we are headed to an election that may easily be too close to call by next Tuesday,” McCain pollster Bill McInturff wrote in a memo released last night by the campaign. Obama officials voiced confidence in their ultimate victory but said they have always expected the election to be close.

To buttress its point of view, the McCain team points to results reported yesterday by the Gallup organization, whose daily tracking poll showed Obama up 49 percent to 47 percent using Gallup’s traditional turnout model, which assumes that turnout will follow the patterns of past elections. Obama has a larger lead, seven points, using a model that allows a higher presence of first-time voters.

A Pew Research Center poll released yesterday shows a 15-point lead for Obama, a result based on relaxed criteria for when to consider an African American respondent a likely voter, said Andrew Kohut, president of the center. He said the poll shows that roughly 12 percent of the electorate this year is black, up from 2004, with a similar increase among younger voters. Kohut defended this approach, saying there are historically high levels of interest in this contest among both demographic groups. At the same time, he added, “we’ve consistently shown less enthusiasm and engagement among Republicans than is typical, and the composition of the electorate shows that.”

Kohut said several variables signal Obama has not convinced voters, such as a large number of respondents in the Pew poll who see the Illinois Democrat as a risky choice. But Kohut said the odds are against “a huge shift” in voter preferences by Election Day.

Some polls show Obama with a healthy lead even without an assumed surge in African American and young voters. Obama’s seven-point lead in the Washington Post-ABC News poll is not premised on disproportionately higher turnout among those demographic groups. The poll’s turnout model currently shows that 10 percent of likely voters are black, compared with the 11 percent who voted in 2004, according to the network exit poll. Voters younger than 30 make up 16 percent of the Post-ABC sample, little different from the 17 percent four years ago.

Post polling director Jon Cohen said the survey designers “carefully consider a range of likely voter scenarios and use our best judgment. Our polling throughout the campaign has been on target and, we believe, helpful to understanding what is really happening. I hope it stays that way.”

He noted that to address “one potential pitfall,” The Post and ABC conduct interviews with a random selection of those who have only cellular phone service alongside a traditional random sample of those with residential phone service. One recent criticism of current polling has been that it does not accurately capture the sentiments of those who primarily use cellphones.