Neurotic Democrat

The AP is reporting at this hour that the Senate has reached a deal to extend cash for clunkers. A vote is scheduled for Thursday to pump $2 billion more into the program, meaning consumers could get rebates on fuel efficient cars through Labor Day.

Following lengthy negotiations, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Democrats and Republicans had agreed to vote on the plan Thursday, along with a series of potential changes to the bill, which was passed by the House last week. Reid has said Democrats have enough votes to approve the measure and reject any changes that would cause an interruption in the rebates of up to $4,500.

Apparently, this means the bill has enough Republican support to ward off a threatened filibuster.

[Republican] Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky concurred that the matter would be settled soon. And objectors conceded they do not have the votes to force all of the changes they want, or to block the House version of the bill.

This is terrific news, for all the reasons I blogged about yesterday. And this:

If the Senate approves the additional money, it’s likely to lead automakers to increase production and bring back laid-off workers. Many automakers reported low inventories due to increased sales from the program at the end of July. Already Hyundai Motor Co. has added a day of production to its Montgomery, Ala., plant, and Ford is considering increases.

It’s a great start to a critical month in which Democrats will be barnstorming the country, making the case for health care reform, asking Americans to trust their government.

POSTSCRIPT: On a 60-37 vote, the Senate approved $2 billion more for cash for clunkers today. The AP reports:

The legislation had its share of critics, though, most of them Republicans.

“What we’re doing is creating debt. … The bill to pay for those cars is going to come due on our children and grandchildren,” said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.

Really? This, from the same Judd Gregg who didn’t bat an eyelash over the past eight years as George Bush racked up 4 trillion dollars worth of debt? More debt than any president in U.S. history?

I think what we are doing is creating jobs, selling cars, helping the environment, and spurring consumer confidence — all of which could hasten the end of this recession and actually help lower the national debt, over the long term.

But, hey, that’s just me.

All day today, washingtonpost.com ran its lead story — news that Bill Clinton had secured the release of two American prisoners in North Korea — along with an op-ed by John Bolton: ‘Clinton’s Unwise North Korea Trip.’

Which made me wonder, after I cleared my head and put my glasses back on: Is there anything the Democrats or the Obama administration could do that wouldn’t earn immediate public scorn from the GOP?

The women, both journalists, had been sentenced in sham trials to 12 years of hard labor in North Korean prison camps. Clinton, in a visit of less than 24 hours, secured pardons and releases for both women. It was billed as an unofficial visit, but according to reports, Obama’s State Department was very active behind the scenes, working to make this happen. As I write this, the women are flying back to the United States, with Clinton, in his plane.

The gist of Bolton’s argument seems to be that Clinton’s visit to North Korea somehow rewards state-sponsored terrorism.

Despite decades of bipartisan U.S. rhetoric about not negotiating with terrorists for the release of hostages, it seems that the Obama administration not only chose to negotiate, but to send a former president to do so.

While the United States is properly concerned whenever its citizens are abused or held hostage, efforts to protect them should not create potentially greater risks for other Americans in the future.

Bolton, in case you’ve forgotten, was George Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations — the one who was opposed to the United Nations. (He famously said: “There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States,” also noting that the U.N. building in New York “has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”) Among his lifetime achievements are the derailing of the 2001 biological weapons conference in Geneva, and his support for military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power — during the Clinton administration.

“In Pyongyang’s view,” Bolton writes in the Post op-ed, ”the two reporters are pawns in the larger game of enhancing the regime’s legitimacy and gaining direct access to important U.S. figures.”

On CNN moments ago, political consultant David Gergen — who served in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations, and was an advisor to Clinton — was asked directly about Bolton’s views. Gergen did not mince words:

“I think that’s nonsense and heartless … I just sharply disagree here. Listen, the United States gave nothing away. Bill Clinton went as he is a private citizen … and beyond that, if John Bolton had his way, these two women would still be in prison.

“And finally, I must say we ought to take a moment here to say how exemplary Bill Clinton’s behavior has been since his wife became secretary of state. A lot of people thought he’d be a loose cannon. He has been totally supportive, he’s been quiet, and on this occasion he did something good for the country. I think people ought to have a higher level of respect for him, after this trip, and thank him for doing what he did.”

Quite honestly, I couldn’t have said it better, myself.

Here in the heartland, we were greeted with headlines this morning, the likes of which we haven’t seen since aught seven.

“Clunkers’ restarts auto sales; some makers have best month,” trumpeted the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

The Akron Beacon Journal announced: “July auto sales on the rise as program draws buyers.”

The federal “Cash for clunkers” program, as most people know, offers rebates of between $3,500 and $4,500 to people who trade in old cars for newer cars with higher fuel economy. The old cars have to get 18 miles per gallon or less. The rebate size depends on the fuel economy of the replacement car.

Congress initially appropriated $1 billion for the bill.

Funny thing happened on the way to the car dealership. People love this government program. It helps automakers (Ford last month posted its first sales increase since late 2007), car dealerships, and consumers — spurring the beleaguered economy, all while helping the environment. As the NY Times reports:

Dealers estimated that they moved a quarter-million cars with the rebate money. The Transportation Department reported that of 120,000 rebate applications processed so far, the average gas mileage of cars being bought was 28.3 miles per gallon, for SUV’s 21.9 miles per gallon, and for trucks, 16.3 miles per gallon, all significantly higher than required to get a rebate.

The House last week, with true bipartisan support, passed a bill to extend the program, authorizing another $2 billion worth of rebates.

Enter Senate Republicans.

Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky says cash for clunkers is an example of botched execution by the Obama administration. With people lining up to purchase new, environmentally friendlier cars from economically strapped dealers, Sen. John McCain is reportedly expected to lead a filibuster against the additional funds. Said Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina: “This is crazy to try to rush this thing through again while they’re trying to rush through health care. We’ve got to slow this thing down.” He called cash for clunkers an example of the “stupidity coming out of Washington right now.”

Actually — and this is what many Republicans simple cannot abide — it’s an example of a spectacularly popular government program that works.

Do they seriously mean to tell us with a straight face that because Congress underestimated the popularity of the program, it’s an example of government ineptitude? Would they say the same thing about Apple, which initially could not keep up with demand for iPod minis or Shuffles? Would they castigate Amazon.com, for initially failing to make enough Kindles? Would they hurl bromides about the stupidity coming out of Silicon Valley?

Republicans, having made the specious argument that this program’s popularity proves the government is too inept to manage health care, cannot now afford to let new funding go through. By their own logic, it would show that government can and does work for the people. And it would hand Obama a huge and visible victory as he makes the case this August that government can and will manage health care reform.

Yes, we know. More car rebates will add to the national debt. Just like all those war-time tax cuts Republican senators voted for during the Bush years.

Meanwhile, consumers line up in an ailing economy, hoping the Senate will come through, and they will be able to buy newer cars with better fuel economy.

You’re a mean one, Mr. Grinch.

The conservative mind is made up. President Obama is anti-Israel. See, for example, John Podhoretz’s latest essay in Commentary, “The Turn Against Israel“:

There is no question that we have entered a new era, one that I expect will be characterized by tensions and unpleasantnesses of a kind unseen since the days when George H. W. Bush was president, James A. Baker III was secretary of state, and the hostility toward Israel oozed from both men like sweat from an intrepid colonial traveler’s brow as he journeyed across the Rub-al-Khali.

It’s pretty wearying stuff, after awhile. I’ve heard Obama talk about Israel. Personally, in a small group in Cleveland, two weeks before the Ohio primary. This is a man who oozes respect for the Jewish state, its history, and its people.

“The US-Israel relationship is rooted in shared interests, shared values, shared history and in deep friendship among our people,” Obama said, last October. “I will work tirelessly as president to uphold and enhance the friendship between the two countries” …

Obama next described a trip he took to Israel 2 years ago, and his travels around the country, saying it “left a lasting impression on me.”

“Seeing the terrain,” Obama said, “experiencing the powerful contrast between the beautiful holy land that faces the constant threat of deadly violence. The people of Israel showed their courage and commitment to democracy everyday that they board a bus or kiss their children goodbye or argue about politics in a local café.”

Never mind. Podhoretz skewers Obama for telling NPR that part of being a good friend to Israel is being “honest.”

But, of course, honest discourse about Iran [and its nuclear threat] was not the fearless truth Barack Obama wished to bestow upon Israel or the Muslim world.

Rather, his honesty solely concerned the trajectory of the “settlements” …

Nice to read this, then, posted a few minutes ago by the NY Times:

Officials said the United States was pushing for a package of measures ranging from Arab countries’ opening commercial offices in Tel Aviv to their leaders’ granting interviews to Israeli journalists. Another step would be getting Arab nations to allow Israel’s state carrier, El Al, to fly over Arab countries to cut flight times to Asia.

So much for only pressuring the Israelis. Obama’s negotiating team, lead by George Mitchell, is working tirelessly to get Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, to take concrete steps they’ve never taken before.

“One of the public misimpressionsis that it’s all been about settlements,” Mr. Mitchell, the administration’s special envoy to the Middle East, said in a rare interview Friday after six months on the job. “It is completely inaccurate to portray this as, ‘We’re only asking the Israelis to do things.’ We are asking everybody to do things.”

Podhoretz, though, has a point to make:

And so the turn against Israel that so many predicted during the 2008 campaign is coming to pass—with a smile, and a nod, and an invocation of a word [honesty] that actually means something very different from friendship. It might even mean its opposite.

What a tonic, then, to read Thomas Friedman’s column this morning in the NY Times. Friedman, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Jewish columnist who began covering the Middle East for UPI in 1979, does have some advice for  Obama: 1) Don’t get into the historical blame game in the Middle East, because nobody believes they are at fault, and 2) Connect with Israel on a gut level. (I couldn’t agree more. I blogged nearly a month ago, “The Time is Right for Obama to Visit Israel.”)

[This, also from the Times article, should help address Friedman's second point: "In coming weeks, senior administration officials said, the White House will begin a public-relations campaign in Israel and Arab countries to better explain Mr. Obama’s plans for a comprehensive peace agreement involving Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab world. The campaign, which will include interviews with Mr. Obama on Israeli and Arab television, amounts to a reframing of a policy that people inside and outside the administration say has become overly defined by the American pressure on Israel to halt settlement construction on the West Bank."]

But here’s the rest of what Friedman has to say. And, as he’s been covering this topic for literally 30 years — and is one of the most even-handed and knowledgeable commentators on the region – he’s worth quoting in full:

President Obama is not some outlier when it comes to Israel. His call for a settlements freeze reflects attitudes that have been building in America for a long time. For the last 40 years, a succession of Israeli governments has misled, manipulated or persuaded naïve U.S. presidents that since Israel was negotiating to give up significant territory, there was no need to fight over “insignificant” settlements on some territory. Behind this charade, Israeli settlers bit off more and more of the West Bank, creating a huge moral, security and economic burden for Israel and its friends.

As Bradley Burston, a columnist for Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, put it last week: “The settlement movement has cost Israel some $100 billion. … The double standard which for decades has favored settlers with inexpensive housing, heavily subsidized social services, and blind-eye building permits has long been accompanied by a kid-gloves approach regarding settler violence against Palestinians and their property. … Settlers and settlement planners have covertly bent and distorted zoning procedures, military directives, and government decrees in order to boost settlement, block Palestinian construction, agriculture, and access to employment, and effectively neutralize measures intended to foster Israeli-Palestinian peace progress.”

For years, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the pro-Israel lobby, rather than urging Israel to halt this corrosive process, used their influence to mindlessly protect Israel from U.S. pressure on this issue and to dissuade American officials and diplomats from speaking out against settlements. Everyone in Washington knows this, and a lot of people — people who care about Israel — are sick of it.

The Times’s Jerusalem bureau chief, Ethan Bronner, captured the we-are-untouchable arrogance of the settlers last week when he quoted Rabbi Yigael Shandorfi, leader of a religious academy at the settlement of Nahliel, calling Mr. Obama in a speech “that Arab they call a president.”

So if Mr. Obama has bluntly pressed for a settlements freeze, he is, in fact, reflecting a broad sentiment in Congress, the Pentagon and among many Americans, Jews included. …

What about Mr. Obama? He has nothing to apologize for policy-wise. The president is working on a deal whereby Israel would agree to a real moratorium on settlement building, Palestinians would uproot terrorists and the Arab states would begin to normalize relations — with visas for Israelis, trade missions, media visits and landing rights for El Al. If the president can pull this off, it would be good for everyone.

Put another way: The so-called “turn against Israel” is pure fiction.

It’s not every day that I receive a request from a reader, asking me to weigh in on a specific topic. I did, though, this week: A reader wanted to know my take on the arrest of Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr.

First, I should say, I appreciate the request. It prompted me to ask myself: Why haven’t I weighed in on this already?

Part of the reason I didn’t comment at first was that the basic facts of the case were unclear, and in dispute. I continued to hold off over the last week because I really try to avoid the kind of exhausting, mind-numbing verbal diarrhea that characterizes so much of our media coverage.  (See, for instance, this report from Fox News: “Beer Enthusiasts Disappointed in Obama’s Choice of Beverage for Summit with Professor, Cop“; Obama drank Bud Light, now owned by a Belgian/Brazilian consortium.) Also, if I’m going to ask readers to take a few moments to read a blog post, I like to say something original, or at least present things from a slightly different vantage point. If you can read the same thing on Huffingtonpost, why come here?

For the record, here’s what I think: To the extent Gates became belligerent with the cops — black, white, or otherwise – it was wrong. (I’ve yet to read a persuasive argument for belligerence with authority figures.) Sgt. James Crowley was wrong for arresting – and humiliating — Professor Gates. (I’ve yet to read a persuasive argument that cops should let wounded feelings guide them when making arrests.) And President Obama was certainly wrong for saying the Cambridge police acted “stupidly” at his news conference last week on health care. (I’ve yet to read a persuasive argument that our president should make vague, off-the-cuff remarks on racially-charged issues when he doesn’t have all the facts.)

Obama quickly backed down, calling it a “teachable moment,” and inviting Gates and Crowley to the White House for a beer.

Yet all week long, I’ve been scratching my head: Beyond platitudes about racial progress and harmony, what, exactly, does Obama hope to teach us?

Flashforward to yesterday’s Beer Summit at the White House.

This is from the New York Times coverage:

“What you had today was two gentlemen who agreed to disagree on a particular issue,” a poised and smooth Sergeant Crowley said in a 15-minute news conference after the session. “We didn’t spend too much time dwelling on the past, and we decided to look forward.”

Professor Gates said in an interview, “I don’t think anybody but Barack Obama would have thought about bringing us together.”

The two men and their families first encountered each other in the White House library while each group was on individual tours of the White House on Thursday afternoon.

“Nobody knew what to do,” Professor Gates said. “So I walked over, stuck out my hand and said, ‘It’s a pleasure to meet you.’ That broke the awkwardness.”

Sergeant Crowley added that the families “had continued the tour as a group while the beer talk commenced.” He described the interaction between families as very cordial.

Professor Gates concurred, saying: “We hit it off right from the beginning. When he’s not arresting you, Sergeant Crowley is a really likable guy.”

One of my all-time favorite Torah portions is Va-era, Exodus chapter 8. It’s the familiar Passover story of the second plauge. God tells Moses to tell Aaron to hold his rod over the river, and raise an infestation of frogs over all of Egypt. Pharoah’s magicans, though, counter the trick, doing the same with their spells. With frogs spreading out over the land, Pharoah is forced to beg Moses to plead with God to remove the frogs, promising in turn to let the Israelites go free.

What on earth does this have to do with the Beer Summit?

The Midrashic interpretation states: “Pharaoh’s magicians cannot remove the frogs; they can only create more frogs, making matters even worse. Trying to spite Moses, they make their own lot worse. It is easier to augment a plague (whether conflict, gossip, or greed) than to end one.”

This is about race relations, sure. But, more broadly, it’s about how we treat one another. Our families. Our friends. Our spouses and children. It’s about the seemingly intractable conflicts in our lives.

It’s a gift when one of our political leaders can admit a mistake, and show us — by example — how we might make our own tentative steps toward reconciliation and repair.

As I write this, the AP is reporting “Deal with ‘Blue Dogs’ sets up health care vote.”

The gist is that in the House, liberal Democrats and centrist Blue Dog Democrats are close to  a compromise agreement that would provide health insurance to millions, while slowing skyrocketing health costs. At the same time, Democrats and Republicans on the all-important Senate Finance Committee are nearing a bipartisan deal that would extend coverage to 95 percent of Americans without raising federal deficits.

“We’re on the edge, we’re almost there,” said Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican involved in the secretive talks

This is great news, to a point. To reach consensus, Democrats are likely to drop a public insurance option, as well as a provision forcing businesses to offer insurance to their workers — both key components of the Obama plan.

Still, if lawmakers could reach a agreement before the House recess begins Friday – regardless of the shape and scope of the bill — it would be a huge lift for Obama, considering that just days ago, health care seemed DOA.

Now, the bad news. Obama’s poll numbers are slipping, along with his political muscle. A new NY Times poll finds that Obama is losing his clout on health care, just as people’s concerns ratchet up.

Obama’s ability to shape the debate on health care appears to be eroding as opponents aggressively portray his overhaul plan as a government takeover that could limit Americans’ ability to choose their doctors and course of treatment. …

Reflecting a problem that has hindered efforts to bring major changes to health care for decades, Americans expressed considerable unease about what the end result would mean for them individually.

Republicans no doubt sense blood in the water.

“Although some members of a coalition of conservative Democrats announced a breakthrough in negotiations Wednesday,” FoxNews.com reports, ”a final deal on the legislation could be a long way off, meaning August could stand as a key month before the potentially dramatic finale in the fall.”

The House will wait until September to bring the bill to the floor — so that members can spend August combing through the massive bill and listening to the concerns of their constituents. 

The month of August now takes on out-sized importance.

Remember, just a few days ago, South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim De Mint declared: “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”

We are going to see and hear a steady drumbeat of negativity from Republicans, many of whom, like De Mint, are determined to kibosh health care not on the merits, but as a way to undermine Obama on his signature issue, thereby pulling the rug out from under the new administration.

Which is why anybody who cares about Obama’s broader progressive agenda — from passing a cap and trade bill that would stem global warming, to closing Guantanamo Bay and restoring America’s image in the world, to actively working to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians — needs to take action in the next four weeks to support health care.

Call or write your congressmen. Liberal or conservative, they need to hear from constituents who want a bill.  If you don’t know who your congressman is, check out www.healthcareforamericanow.com.  It’s a terrific grassroots organization, supported by Obama, that can help you call your congressman, download print materials to hand out to neighbors and friends, or find a local group to volunteer with. If you’d rather make a small donation, or buy a Health Care For America Now! shirt, you can do that, too.

Write a letter to the editor of your local paper, demanding health care reform. If you do nothing else this August, forward this post to a friend, or send out your own email.

It’s four weeks that will shape the next four years.

The other day, I received an email from a Jewish communal leader, forwarding an email from another Jewish communal leader, which stated simply: “The honeymoon is over.”

Attached was an article from American Thinker, a daily conservative web site, headlined: “National Leader Turns Against Obama.”

The national leader in question was Alan Solow, which made the article particularly damning, because Solow is the Jewish Chicagoan who has known Obama for years, and who prominently heckshered Obama as a friend of Israel during the election campaign. With false news articles swirling that Obama was a Muslim with a retinue of anti-Israel advisors, many Jews looked to Solow’s endorsement as evidence that Obama supports Israel — not just in word, but in his kishksas.

Since the election, Solow has been named chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. The American Thinker article was pinned on a statement from Solow and Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chair of the Conference of Presidents, taking issue with the Obama administration for opposing a Jewish construction project in East Jerusalem.

The article claimed “a huge crack has surfaced in Obama’s Jewish base in the person of Alan Solow,” noting that Solow’s “rosy expectations of Obama and [chief of staff Rahm] Emanuel as reliable friends of Israel have been dashed.”

When I received the email and read Solow’s statement, it was immediately apparent that the American Thinker article was a wildly exaggerated hatchet job. Solow and Hoenlein had objected to a specific policy. Nowhere in the statement was there evidence of the catastrophic schism suggested by the article.

Indeed, Solow has just come out with his own rebuttal:

The statement we issued on Jerusalem reflected long standing policy of the Conference of Presidents. Given the press attention focused on this issue, we thought it was appropriate to speak out. It was not intended as a general comment on President Obama’s ongoing approach in his current discussions with Israel. One thing the President made clear in our White House discussion of July 13 was that there might be points of disagreement over issues of strategy, but the President also wanted it known that his support for Israel as a Jewish State in the Middle East was unequivocal. The President’s commitment to Israel’s safety and security is one that he has previously stated publicly, as well as privately to me over the years. Our relationship remains excellent, and the President understood when I became Conference Chair that I would advocate for positions based on communal consensus. As Chairman of the Conference, I look forward to working with the President to make his support meaningful and effective, and his hosting of the meeting with Jewish leaders is an indication that he wants to hear from our community. I think all participants in the meeting would agree that it was valuable and productive. I intend to continue to engage with the Administration to advance the interests of American Jewry, and I expect that the President and his team will continue to value our input.

The president’s support for Israel as a Jewish state is unequivocal. Obama is committed to Israel’s safety and security. Our relationship remains excellent. 

Alan Solow is probably one of the most important Jewish leaders in America right now. He not only trusts Obama, but Obama trusts him.  Perhaps more than any other leader, when Solow speaks out, you can bet Obama will get the message. This was not the first time Solow has offered Obama constructive criticism on Israel, and I hope it won’t be the last.

As for American Thinker, the damage is done. The inflammatory storyline about a fairy tale breach is out there, circulating, taking hold. Don’t expect a retraction any time soon.