White House Backpedals in Support of Democratic Transition in Egypt

Just a week ago, White House Officials made a stunning policy decision to reverse decades of support for brutal dictator and strategic ally, Hosni Mubarak. Many commentators, myself included, were elated that after 30 years of collaborating with the Egyptian government, America might finally cast itself on the right side of history.

But, in a de facto 180-policy reversal, Hilary Clinton and other US officials have begun to backpedal from their initial decision to call for Mubarak’s immediate departure over the last few days. Mrs. Clinton claimed on Sunday that removing Mubarak too hastily would threaten the country’s transition to democracy, since there’s not enough time for the opposition to prepare and for government election policies to be revamped. The White House seems to be getting closer and closer to Frank Wisner’s comments that Mubarak should remain in the picture a while longer, even though officials have distanced themselves from the former diplomat’s remarks.

The sincerity of US statements regarding the future Egyptian government will, unfortunately, only be determined by time. For now, though, the mixed signals from public officials can only cause doubt with regards to whether or not we expressed our support of the Egyptian people because it was politically expedient, or because we truly do stand behind the democratic aspirations of all people (which is what Obama claimed in his State of the Union). Maybe we are beginning to see why that speech was utterly lacking in specifics.

Last weeks remarks were markedly different from this week. I was initially proud of Obama’s speech last Tuesday, when he said, “an orderly transition [in Egypt] must begin now.” And if that wasn’t enough, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs the next day clarified that “’now’ started yesterday.” It seemed that the US was truly ready to radically alter our approach to the Middle East and support the idea that the Egyptian people’s future, and the future of all people, should be up to the people themselves.

Perhaps the most conspicuous part of Mrs. Clinton’s speech Sunday was this: “’It’s striking that in Tunisia, Ben Ali, who’d been in power so long, got out of town,’ she said, referring to…the ousted president. ‘He didn’t have the depth of support within the institutions of his government that would have enabled him even to attempt to hang on, so he left.’ Other Arab leaders, she said, believe they can ride out the unrest by taking steps to improve the lives of their people. King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Saleh of Yemen appeared to fit that description. Mrs. Clinton did not say in which category Mr. Mubarak fit.” (Reported by the Washington Post; italics are mine.)

Last week, my reporting was filled with optimism that, not only would Egyptians soon experience democracy, but also that Obama would finally bring the United States onto the right side of history in the Middle East. I received several comments saying that it was naïve thinking since Islamic Fascists would probably hijack the process anyways – which is, admittedly, stupid and devoid of the facts on the ground. But what I realize this week is that I was naïve, but only because I believed the US had the courage to actually live up to the values we profess to uphold. I can now only wait lamely in hope that the US will sincerely press for change, and not just a façade of change.

Further Reading:

NY Times: Warning Against Hasty Exit for Mubarak

Washington Post: On Egypt, Clinton acknowledges a Mubarak ouster now could complicate transition

Health-Care Repeal Fails in Senate, Next Course: Incrementally Defeat Individual Sections of Health Care -- Promising Long, Drawn-Out Debate

We all read yesterday that the Senate struck down the bill to repeal health care reform, which, of course, was not really news. The House vote to strike down job-killing Obamacare was largely a symbolic measure. The real news came out today, which is that after weeks of wrangling about a bill that actually has a negative impact on the economy, House Republicans announced they will dedicate many more weeks and possibly months attempting to incrementally defeat the most unpopular elements of the bill.

Americans are, according to polls (poll analysis), increasingly flocking towards the President as Republicans continue to bungle their mandate to focus on jobs and the economy. Obama’s approval ratings are the highest they’ve been for years, largely due to an increase in support from independents (36% approval rate last July, compared to 48% now). Not only are Republicans over-focusing on the outright repeal of health care, they're also focusing more on ‘family values’ issues like abortion. Just today Republican lawmakers, after massive outcries from women’s groups and days of dragging their feet, finally removed the term “forcible rape” from the antiabortion bill being debated in Congress. Critics argue that rape is by definition forced, as it seemed lawmakers were trying to make some cases of rape except – like in cases where the victim is unconscious.

But back to health care, Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, prepared Americans for a long fight on repealing individual parts of the law, saying “These are the first steps in a long road that will culminate in 2012. We will continue to expose flaws and faults in this legislation… and the courts will continue to review it.” Democrats and Republicans alike are both hoping the Supreme Court will quickly take up the case to put an end to the debate.

Also coincidentally in the news today Virginia’s attorney general announced that he wanted to bypass the lower court system by asking the Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of the health care law on a more expedited basis. But, historically at least, Democrats have a lot more precedents to point towards in arguing that the health care law is constitutional. As Senator Richard Lugar, Democrat of Illinois, said, “This is not the first major law that’s been challenged in the courts, even challenged successfully in the lower courts.” He then cited the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Federal Minimum Wage law – all of which were challenged, sometimes successfully in lower courts, and ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.


Further Reading:

CS Monitor: Health-care repeal fails in Senate
NY Times: VA. to ask supreme court to rule on health law

Tea Party Influence Present in Highest State and Federal Courts

Judge Roger Vinson

Judge Roger Vinson, of Federal District Court in Penasacola, Florida, released a 78-page legal opinon on the ruling to strike down health care reform on Monday. But while the outcome of the ruling is not surprising, what is drawing a lot of attention is what seems to be a deliberate nod to a political movement and perhaps an instance of political bias by one of the state's highest court judges. "It is difficult to imagine," the opinion read, "that the nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place." Some commentators are even referring to the document as the 'Tea Party Manifesto." It is unclear so far how much damage this will do to the chances of health care repeal getting admitted to the Supreme Court, and that, in turn, depends on how much bad press the opinion gets.

But this is not the first time Americans have heard of radical Tea Party members peddling influence with the some of the most prestigious courts in America. Just last week it was reported that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke on Capitol Hill in a closed-door session with a group of conservative lawmakers. While it is proper for justices to interact with Congress, like any other job it requires an obligation on the judges part to at least act like they are being impartial. Jonathan Turley wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post Sunday about this, saying that "If justices come to personify political movements, the law appears to be merely an extension of the personalities -- and the politics -- of the bench."

Also recently in the news Virginia Thomas, Supreme Court Clarence Thomas's wife, has for decades worked for and received money from conservative think-tanks and political groups, but Justice Thomas has not reportedly made public where the money is coming from. Mrs. Thomas is the founder and head of a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group called Liberty Central, and because of the 501(C)(4) status she does not have to publicly disclose any of the contributors. But, the New York Times reported, "A federal law requires justices to recuse themselves in an number of circumstances where real or perceived conflicts of interest could arise, including in cases where their spouses could have a financial interest. But the decision to step aside is up to each justice; there is no appeal from the nation's highest court."

While Judge Vinson's ruling may not be taken up by the Supreme Court and very well could soon be invalidated, there are still serious questions remaining about the ability of justices who serve in state and federal courts to dissociate themselves with political groups when deciding upon matters that are to be influenced by the law, and only the law. How did we even get ourselves into this pathetic state of affairs?


Further Reading:

NY Times: Justice Scalia to Speak to Tea Party...
NY Times: Activism of Thomas's Wife Could Raise Judicial Issues
NY Times: Tea Party Shadows Health Care Ruling
Huffington Post: Florida Judge Rules Health Care Reform Unconstitutional

2012 Roadmap to Obama Victory: Compete in Historically Republican South

Obama's Chief Political Advisor, David Axelrod

In a bold effort to define the roadmap to victory, the DNC announced yesterday that Charlotte, North Carolina will be the site of the Democratic National Convention in 2012. North Carolina, along with Virginia, went Democratic in the last election for the first time since Jimmy Carter, and basically since leftist politicians passed the Civil Rights Act. But thanks to more robust economies, more social and racial diversity, and large voter turnout among blacks, some Southern states are once again turning into political battlegrounds. David Axelrod highlighted the importance of states like North Carolina on Monday, saying “[T]he mistake we make in this town is often to sit on the back of the truck and look at what just happened and extrapolate from it and assume that the next election is going to be just like the last one."

But as Democrats are working to be more competitive in historically Republican regions, the electoral map is beginning to reflecting that. The Midwest was another region that voted more democratic in 2008 than in had over the past decade, where Obama carried states like Indiana, Ohio, and Iowa (all of which went for George Bush in 2004). But Obama’s team is, at least for now, paying less attention to this region since the revival of the auto industry is proving to be essential to these states economic recoveries. Obama is right to think he can win in those states without too much extra attention, with success stories like the GM revival to point towards. Just a week ago GM sold more vehicles in China than the US for the first time, showing it can be a successful global competitor. Dana Rouse, chairman of the United Automobile Workers, told the New York Times “Less than two years ago, we didn’t even know if we were going to have a company,” in response to the Ford Motor Company announcing their decision to add 7,000 jobs to their plants in Flint, Michigan by 2012.

Not only is it a shrewd choice to choose North Carolina to remain competitive in that state, but Democrats should aggressively take on the rest of the Southern states as well. This is, in essence, Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy in 2006 of competing in every single state no matter how uncompetitive it seems.

Many people are still critical of trying to win states like South Carolina and Georgia. Huffington Post Author Howards Fineman wrote yesterday “the interior border states are trending Republican. West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri used to be competitive. They no longer really are.” But although it’s true that these states have historically gone Republican, we cannot deny that Democrats have made dramatic gains in the South over the last two elections. Dems lost Virginia in 2004 by 10%, but won by 6% in 2008. They lost NC by 10% in 2004, but won in 2008. Even states where Obama still lost in 2008 have seen many more people vote democrat than in the last few decades. Dems lost Georgia by 20% in 2004, but lost by only 5% in 2008. They lost SC by 20% in 2004, and 10% in 2008. They lost West Virginia by 23% in 2004, but lost by 13% in 2008. The gains are subtle but undeniably there, and by choosing North Carolina as the first major stop on the President's roadmap, Obama is making a very bold move to take on Republicans right at the core of their base. 

And it may just work.

Further Reading:

Huffington Post: Obama Bets on the New South

                           Axelrod Outlines the 2012 Map

NY Times: Can North Carolina Deliver Again?

Jordan Gives in to Protester’s Demands of Reform – US Should Help Ensure This Reform Takes Place

King Abdullah II of Jordan

As the wave of popular protest throughout the Middle East seems to be reaching its crest, King Abdullah II of Jordan is attempting to capitulate to demonstrator’s concerns before Egyptian-like protests erupt in his country as well. Today the king fired Prime Minister Samir Rifai and replaced him with former general and ambassador Marouf al-Bakhit in an effort to bolster more support for his monarchic regime. The new Prime Minister is widely seen as untainted by corruption, and also an American ally because of his work in crafting a peace agreement with Israel, giving it an air of legitimacy to two key constituents.

Mr. Bakhit’s first task as the new PM is to “[take] steps to start a political reform process… [To] bolster democracy [and] nation building that opens the scope for broad accomplishment to all dear sons of our country and secure them the safe and dignified life they deserve,” states the official announcement of transition. The New York Times reported, “Reactions among protest leaders were cautiously positive. Nahed Hattar, a leftist activist, said in a telephone interview that he considered the change a good move but that he wanted to see the government program before rendering a judgment.” Indeed Jordanians should ask themselves why King Abdullah, like President Mubarak, would bring about democratic reforms that would spell an end to his rule. But, at least for now, the people of Jordan are only calling for economic reform and more government accountability.

The US should aggressively work with their Jordanian counterparts to ensure this reform takes place. If we have learned anything from Egypt and Tunisia it is that ‘our dictators’ in the region are clearly not as stable as we thought. We should continue to use the leverage of military aid to tell these dictators, and perhaps more importantly their generals, that they must proceed with reforms if they expect our financial support, like we have done in Egypt. President Obama was right in his State of the Union to say that “The United States of America supports the democratic aspirations of all people,” but he should follow up on that by taking concrete actions, before the momentum is lost.

Further Reading:

NY Times: Jordan's King Dismisses Cabinet...

Huffington Post: King Abdullah II Dismisses Government

Clinton Finally Uses the D-word, Democracy -- Will Mubarak Take Heed?

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton resisted calls to explicitly tell Mubarak to step down when she was on a handful of morning talk shows on Sunday, but she did for the first time in the official US response to the Egyptian unrest use the d-word, democracy. Ms. Clinton said on CNN “Both existing and any new members of any government [must] take concrete steps toward democratic and economic reform,” and highlighted the carefully calibrated “transition” wording that is now being used with regards to an end-game scenario in Egypt.

As the situation on the ground has been rapidly changing over the past few days, so too has the language that Western officials have used to show their support, or lack of it, of the aging dictator. Obama made vague mentions of support for ‘democratic aspirations’ in his State of the Union which coincided with the first few days of the unrest. The gaffe-prone Biden said on Friday that Mubarak was actually not a dictator. Now the administration seems to have adopted a new stance, stemming from the continued unrest over the weekend, which depicts an increasingly weak and fragile government. Indeed many nations all over the world are calling for some sort of democratic transition, but refraining from calling for Mubarak to step down.

Fears that a radical movement could fill the vacuum of power that Mubarak’s absence would bring reverberate throughout many foreign official's concerns of a regime change in Egypt. Many commentators are suggesting that the protests could be hijacked by fundamentalists, and would result in another Iran-like theocratic state.

While we should fear the radicalization of the presently secular protests, we should even more so fear deeper alienating the democratic process by imposing our influence over what should be a matter decided upon by Egyptians. Not Americans, not Britons, not Israelis or Chinese, but by the Egyptian people alone. Not to mention the fact that the protests seem to be largely secular anyway and that the most prominent Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, has agreed to take a backseat in the forming of a new government. But US support of any one person or candidate is much more a burden than a help. The popularity of the United States is still quite low because of increasing belligerence in the region over the last decade, and if we do decide to back any one candidate over another then we will only be pushing moderate Egyptians towards radical solutions.

While US restraint on publicly stating Mubarak should step down is frustrating, especially considering we’re the country with the most leverage in Egypt given the aid we give, no other countries are calling for the dictator to step down either. No European country is saying that, nor China, nor India, or Japan either. In some respects this tact has already achieved perhaps game changing results. The New York Times reported that the "EU Institute for Security Studies said Mubarak’s regime was ‘beyond the point of reforming.’ The appointment of Omar Suleiman as vice president ‘indicates that the army, probably prodded by the U.S. administration, has accepted that Mubarak must leave.’”

Consider this statement made by British Prime Minister David Cameron: “There needs to be a proper, orderly transition to a more democratic situation, where there are greater rights, greater freedoms, better rule of law…It is very important that, whether it is President Obama or me, we are not saying who should run this country or that country.” We would do well to heed his advice and continue to limit our involvement to calling for general reform and continuing to use the military aid we give as leverage. Indeed it seems that these actions have already reaped handsome rewards.

Further Reading:

NY Times: EU Urges Egypt to Seek Peaceful Shift to Democracy

Washington Post: Obama administration aligns itself with protests in Egypt...

Obama May be Forced To Take a Stand on Same-Sex Marriage

Over the past two years, President Obama has managed to avoid a political showdown regarding same-sex marriage, but two pending federal lawsuits are now threatening this fragile balancing act. To date, executive officials have been upholding the Defense of Marriage Act (which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriage) by citing their duty to defend Acts of Congress. In general, the Obama Administration has previously been able to downplay 'family value' issues in the last two elections, which normally tend to get a lot of conservative voters to the polls. More attention has been put on the economy and jobs in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

Democratic legislators across the country have also been grappling with LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual) issues concerning marriage over the past decade. California voters passed the infamous Prop 8 Law in 2008, which denied same-sex couples the short-lived right to marry -- 173 days to be exact. But Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to defend the prop in court, which basically ended up nullifying the voter-passed initiative. The Obama Administration is essentially facing the same dissonance between its responsibility to defend the law of the land, or force the federal courts to prove why there has to be a separate set of laws for the gay community.

The New York Times reported today that "Some conservatives have accused the administration of throwing the fight by not invoking other arguments, like morality. And in particular, lawmakers' primary focus in 1996," (when DOMA passed), "was 'encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing....' [but] other cases disavowed that rationale, noting that infertile heterosexuals may marry and citing studies that children raised by same-sex parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexuals."

Not only should Obama ask himself whether certain individuals' moral beliefs should be imposed onto everybody else -- which they shouldn't -- but he should also ask himself whether or not he learned anything at Harvard Law School. I find it hard to balance the fact that our president studied constitutional law at the most prestigious university in the world, and also thinks that gay people should have a 'separate' institution of marriage called civil-union, 'but equal' in that it affords them all the same rights. How can he square this rationale when everything history teaches us tells us different?

The Obama Administration has until March 11 to decide whether or not to defend DOMA. The United States is indeed exceptional, and as the president noted in the SOTU, we were the first country in history to be founded on an idea -- that all men are created equal, and possess the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hope our administration makes the decision to live up to these firmly held values.


Further Reading:
NY Times: Lawsuits on Same-Sex Marriage May Force Administration to Take a Stand

US Economy Shows Robust Growth -- But Who Will Take Credit, Obama or GOP?

The Commerce Department released a report today showing the US Economy sped up it's growth rate in the last quarter of 2010 to 3.2%, up from 2.6%. As Americans felt comfortable buying again during the holiday season, and businesses are increasing funding for equipment and software, economists are hoping these numbers will be coupled with investments in new workers as well.

The real story, however, will be unraveling over the next few days. And that is, who will take credit for the strong growth rate? President Obama obviously has reason to claim his policies have turned the economy around, with hundreds of pieces of legislation promoting growth to prove his point. But, I would not at all be surprised if Republicans claim the growth is due to a boost in confidence from consumers and businesses, stemming from their recent victory in November.

I hope to bring more updates on this, as it could get really juicy.

Further Reading:
NY Times: U.S. Economy Grew at 3.2% Rate in the 4th Quarter

Live Blogging Updates on Egyptian Protests Turned Violent

As I'm sure a lot of you have noticed that Egypt is dominating the news. Events are happening so quickly there it is getting hard to keep up with. Here are a couple websites that have been updating the news from the region pretty frequently. Dan Murphy, staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor, has been updating this page every 20 minutes or so all day which is very helpful. Andrew Sullivan's "The Daily Dish" has also done a good job with providing commentary pretty frequently, and the Huffington Post has been providing both news and commentary updates fairly regularly.

Hawaiian Legislators Put Birther’s Claims to Rest – Obama is Not Kenyan

forged Kenyan birth certificate that circulated the conservative blogosphere

I can’t believe this is news, but Hawaiian legislators have taken steps today to ensure skeptics that President Obama was not, in fact, born in Kenya. We all remember the incredulous McCain supporters, unable to just admit that they lost. Perhaps my favorite claim was that our president is a Muslim, and even maybe a sleeper terrorist cell (?) – and with a name like that, how could it not be true? Representative Rida Labanilla, the bill’s main sponsor, said, “All these people are still doubting it because they don’t want the birth certificate from Obama. They want it from our state office.” The state is currently unable to release the records because of strong constitutional privacy protections.

But, putting these ridiculous claims to rest was only one motivating factor behind the measure. If passed, anybody will be able to acquire Obama’s birth certificate for a fee of $100. One of the main reasons the new legislation is being considered is actually to offset the time lost by state employees who frequently receive phone calls and emails from people who believe Obama was not born in the US. Hawaii is currently facing a budget deficit exceeding $800 million, and if they can make money putting these idiot's claims to rest, then fine. But that does imply that birthers follow some kind of reasonable logic, and I’m not convinced they do yet.

Further Reading:

Washington Post: HI bill would give anyone Obama birth info for fee

Daily Kos: GDP growth clocks in at 3.2% for fourth quarter

Obama Voices Support for Tunisia in SOTU, But What About Egypt?

The civil unrest in Egypt has sent U.S. officials scrambling to explain our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East. Under scrutiny is the policy of massive military and economic aid to brutal dictators, while at the same time claiming to advocate for political and economic reform.

President Obama, in his State of the Union address subtlety expressed support for democratic efforts in Egypt, saying “Tonight, let us be clear: The United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia, and supports the democratic aspirations of all people." Hilary Clinton especially, being in charge of the State Department, has been making speeches expressing support for reform in the region. The United States, she said, “have consistently raised with the Egyptian government, over many years, as well as other governments in the region, the need for reform and greater openness and participation in order to provide a better life, a better future, for the people.”

But actions speak louder than words. And when we don’t put any teeth behind these words it makes our efforts seem half-hearted and meaningless. Dictator Hosni Mubarak has been the recipient of billions of billions of military and economic aid, and that gives the US a lot of leverage over the Egyptian President. Simply asking a dictator to enforce political reforms that would essentially bring about his demise, and expecting change is just plain dumb. We owe it to ourselves, as a country founded on the idea of democracy and liberty, and to Egyptians to spend that money wisely and put conditions on aid. Without using our leverage, and possibly adding some sticks into the equation if we don’t see reform, saying that we support Egypt is a totally empty statement. If Obama is serious when he says he’ll stand with democratic movements, he should put his money where is mouth is.

History is in the making in the Middle East, and we should be sure we’re on the right side of it.

Obama's Speech: Lot's of Promise, Little Substance

Before I delve into any commentary on the President’s State of the Union Speech, I just want to post two lists I’ve made. One is a Democratic wish list of proposals Obama made to energize the left, and another list is a Republican wish list of proposals offered as an olive branch to the right.

Democrat Wish List

·      Encouraging American innovation (biomedical research, information technology, and green technology funding)

·      Increased education funding

·      Address Immigration

·      Rebuilding America (infrastructure spending, including trains, wireless coverage, roads, airports, construction, etc)

·      Take away oil companies’ tax breaks to use for environmental technology research

·      Bring the troops home from Afghanistan by July of this year.

 

Republican Wish List

·      Less government regulation of financial markets

·      Reform specific parts of health care reform

·      Reform medical malpractice laws

·      Reduce the deficit by freezing annual spending for 5 years (Obama also mentioned cutting Medicare and Medicaid)

Now, granted, it’s been all over the media for the past few days that Obama’s speech would turn to the center, with one eye on the 2012 elections. But what I was surprised at was at his uncomfortably overt way of doing this. Looking at the lists above, it almost seems like they were made by two separate candidates. Sure there were the lofty remarks, the patriotic rhetoric, the call to set aside our differences and work together to achieve a more perfect union.

What threw me off was this laundry list of totally paradoxical policies. How in the world do we increase spending for education, for infrastructure, for green energy, and at the same time freeze annual spending for 5 years? The answer can be found in the paradoxical beliefs of the American people. Americans overwhelmingly support spending cuts over tax increases, when given the choice. But, when asked about what exactly we would cut out of our budget, Americans are hesitant, and Obama danced along that fine line of “investing” in America’s future, but also not cutting any programs that Americans feel attached too to pay for it.

While Obama made a pot shot at Republicans who are vying for the number one contender’s seat for a chance at the Presidency, saying “At stake right now is not who wins the next election, because didn’t we just have an election?” It was very hard to explain what Obama’s speech was if not a campaign speech; it was very light on policy proposals, and heavy on the rhetoric.  The New York Times deftly noted, “The president who once emphasized the problems he had inherited from his predecessor was instead looking forward and making the case that the nation had a long last emerged from economic crisis.” Perhaps a possible campaign slogan for 2012: There’s still hope!

I have to say even if it was not my favorite campaign speech, especially as a liberal voter, after watching the two Republican responses I was pleasantly surprised by the State of the Union's superiority. I’ll have more on those speeches later today.

Further Reading:

NY Times: Obama Sees Global Fight for U.S. Jobs

Huffington Post: Obama Doubles Down on his Agenda..

Daily Kos: State of the Union Roundup

Poll Analysis: Is the Tea Party Digging Their Own Grave?

Tea Party's Christine O'Donnell

Last November when Republicans took back the house, many progressives were rightfully gloomy. Our President had done much of what we asked him, passing more legislation than any other president since Lyndon Johnson. And while we knew our concerns about the economy, the environment, and the historic health care bill would take a back seat, many expressed optimism that the tea party Congress would pull the Republican Party even further away from the center.

That is exactly what is happening.

Four polls have been released this week showing many new revelations on what the American public thinks of the new House of Representatives. A Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that while a slim majority of Americans don’t like the health care bill, only a small minority of Americans want to fully repeal the bill. Of the Republicans who don’t support Obamacare only 1/3 of them want to repeal it in totality. On the other side, most Democrats support the health care bill – and the ones that don’t believe it didn’t go far enough towards not-for-profit health care.

The other new poll done by the NY Times/CBS News shows that while Americans favor spending cuts over tax increases, we also do not favor cuts when they involve Medicaid and Social Security. Yet that is exactly what Republicans have endorsed in their call yesterday to enact legislation that drastically reduces government spending. Republicans are now divided amongst themselves on how to move forward. About 2/3 of the House Republicans support this legislation, including all of the newly elected tea party activists, which pits them against John Boehner and the ‘old-guard’ Republicans.

Another poll released this week shows President Obama enjoying a surge of support from the American public. Now, I don’t want to jump to conclusions, because this could very well be in response to the tragic shooting in Tucson. Many Presidents enjoy short surges of support during a national crises. The poll could, however, represent the fact that the tea party is pulling Republicans far to the right just in time for the 2012 elections. So the surge is not from the national tragedy, but from independents and moderate conservatives who voted Republican last November and have now changed their mind.

The bottom line is that America’s top priority right now is jobs, and if the Republicans continue to offer incompetent solutions, the Republican victory in November may well be a boon for Democrats in 2012. Let’s look at one last poll: the top three GOP Presidential contenders for 2012. Newt Gingrich (a washed up political hack), Mitt Romney (a Mormon, and not that I care but America has never elected a non-Christian), Sarah Palin (where do I even begin?), and then there is Barack Obama, one of the most respected and admired presidents this nation has seen since probably Ronald Reagan or FDR.

I, for one, am optimistic.

Further Reading:

NY Times: Poll Finds Weariness About Cutting Entitlements

LA Times: GOP's childish opposition to health care reform

Huffington Post: Republic Study Group Issues Proposed Tax Cuts

Talking Points Memo: What Do Americans Really Think of Health Care Reform Repeal