Click screen to play video
Craig looks at horror stories being spun about the President's economic recovery plan. (Produced by CQ's Andrew Satter)
January 2009 Archives
Now that the ever-growing economic stimulus package on Capitol Hill is inching close to $900 billion, guess what? That is nearly as much money as the federal government takes in from income taxes for a full year.
So, here's the Trail Mix Stimulus Plan: A year-long tax holiday. Nobody pays any income taxes for a year. It would cost nearly as much as the congressional plan, but be a lot simpler than the complicated beast now in the works.
Talk about shovel-ready. Wallets would be so thick that consumers could spend us out of the recession in no time. Who needs government doing the job when we could just let taxpayers stimulate themselves!
Rush Limbaugh must now be the new leader of the Republican Party, at least in the House of Representatives. The conservative radio comedian took aim at President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan -- and in lock step, every GOP lawmaker voted against it on Wednesday.
When one Republican House member dared to say a cross word about Limbaugh, his constituents were so outraged that he felt the need to go on Rush's show and apologize in a truly pathetic display. U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia took back his earlier observation that rich media figures like Limbaugh earn their living by stirring up conservatives without having to struggle with the consequences.
Gingrey could not backpedal fast enough, later telling Limbaugh, "I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth on some of those comments, and I just wanted to tell you, Rush -- and all our conservative giants, who help us so much to maintain our base and grow it to get back this majority -- that I regret those stupid comments."
That would appear to make Rush the new face of the Republican Party. Good luck with that.
Limbaugh is a talented entertainer with an agenda and a huge audience. But in the age of Barack Obama his following is not large enough to make Republicans a majority party in the House again -- as he helped them do in 1994. He can, however, help them become a very noisy minority.
Craig recaps the highs and lows of the first seven days (or is it six?) of Obama's presidency (Produced by Andrew Satter).
Barack Obama's visit today with Republican lawmakers puts them in a bind, especially if he gives them some of the changes they want in his economic stimulus package. The White House is signaling a readiness to compromise, which is often the wise path to victory.
Sophocles once said, "You win the victory when you yield." Sure, the Democrats probably have the votes to pass Obama's package without much help from Republicans. But a little compromise for an early bipartisan victory would be sweeter in the long run for the President.
It would be easier for the GOP if Obama snubbed them. They would have an excuse to oppose him without looking like stubborn partisans. But reaching out to them forces Republicans to make a hard choice -- to give in or dig in.
- House Republicans Urge Obama To Amend Stimulus Plan
- Obama Tries to Set a Bipartisan Tone in Trip to Meet With Hill Republicans
- Emanuel Builds on His Record of Outreach With Invitation
- Republican Petri May Back Obama Plan if Roads, Bridges Get More
- Wary of GOP Losses, Cornyn Draws Hard Line
Craig on "Imus in the Morning"
Wednesday (1/28) 6:30 AM EST
Listen Live: WABC-AM (NYC) / WJZW-FM (DC)
(Simulcast on RFD-TV)
So the Illinois governor thinks he can beat impeachment by going on ABC's "The View" and saying he would have put Oprah in the Senate if he only knew her phone number? We can't make this up.
Even more absurd is Oprah's response: "I think I'd be a great senator too. I'm just not interested."
Give Oprah credit for being smarter than Caroline Kennedy. At least the talk show diva knew better than to express interest in a Senate seat before anyone thought of appointing her - and for making sure that the relevant governor who could appoint her did not have her phone number.
Get those shovels out and do something. It's stimulation time. Why not a legislative package that plants more grass on the National Mall. More snacks for school kids? Sure thing.
Greening our pastures and fattening our children is better than nothing when it comes stimulating the economy. It's all about confidence. Doing something -- anything -- builds confidence that change is coming to the stinky economy we're in now.
The talk on Capitol Hill is about funding "shovel-ready" projects that get the money flowing. So why not just send out shovels to every taxpayer? Oh wait, Hillary Clinton tried that in the Iowa caucuses, distributing snow shovels to all of her precinct captains -- but it didn't snow and she lost by a wide margin.
Never mind.
- Stimulus Draft Sparks Rush on Hill
- Within Stimulus Bill, Democrats Move to Expand Medicaid
- More Money for Floundering Financial Industry?
- CQ Transcript: President Obama Delivers Remarks on Jobs, Energy and Climate Change
Republican leaders on Capitol Hill these days are about as comically in denial as it gets. The voters gave their party such a shellacking in the election that you'd think they would slink away to a desert island and pick lint from their navels.
Instead, they have the gall to go on national television and not only act like they have something worth saying, but actually behave as though they have earned the right to naysay anyone else's ideas. In the case of House Minority Leader John Boehner on Sunday's "Meet the Press," we haven't seen such grumpy negativity since Marge's unsupportive, chain-smoking, foul-mouthed sisters, Patty and Selma, first appeared on "The Simpsons."
Boehner went so far as to say that there is "no demonstrated need" for bailing out the financial industry and told NBC's David Gregory that Republicans do not think that President Barack Obama's stimulus package is going to work. He vowed to vote against it.
As Obama justifiably told GOP lawmakers in a meeting last week, "I won" - which gives him the right to run things for a while and see if he has a better idea than the past eight years of Republican rule delivered.
- Obama Tactics May Strain McConnell-Boehner Tie
- Within Stimulus Bill, Democrats Move to Expand Medicaid
- More Money for Floundering Financial Industry?
(Click pics to enlarge)
Many thanks to Trail Mix Photographer Dale Blank. See more of her work at daleblank.com
How interesting that the two most high-profile campaign allies for Barack Obama who later failed to benefit from his success just happened to be on Bill and Hillary Clinton's enemies list.
It is no secret that Bill Clinton was furious at Bill Richardson and Caroline Kennedy for their endorsements of Obama in the bruising Democratic nomination race. And both ended up out of the running for big jobs, thanks in part to a vigorous whispering campaign against them.
Richardson's campaign endorsement of Obama ignited Bill Clinton because the former president had agreed to headline a fundraiser for the New Mexico governor and claims that he had extracted a promise from his former Cabinet member that if he did not endorse Hillary, he would not endorse at all. And when Caroline and her uncle, Ted Kennedy, signaled intentions to endorse Obama, the former president personally and emotionally lobbied them to hold off.
While Richardson's defection was an embarrassment to his former boss, the Kennedy endorsements were especially hurtful to Hillary's presidential campaign, sparking an obsessive news media crusade to present Obama as the heir to the famous family's legacy. (Given the poor reception Caroline got in New York political circles for her Senate ambitions, you have to wonder why so many in the 2008 campaign press corps thought her Obama endorsement should be given such incredible weight.)
Almost at the moment that Obama announced he would appoint Richardson to his Cabinet, the emails and blog hints started, raising questions about ethics and personal life. Richardson eventually withdrew his name from consideration, citing the pressure on him from a federal investigation into whether his administration rewarded a campaign donor with millions in state contracts.
Obama had no official connection to Kennedy's pursuit of an appointment to the U.S. Senate, but it was his pick of Hillary for Secretary of State that vacated the New York seat. Clinton aides were at the forefront in the early griping about Caroline. And today we learned that a former Clinton White House official -- U.S. Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand -- got the Senate appointment.
Other than a few partial fingerprints, there is no hard evidence that the Clintons actively sought revenge -- but they certainly had motive and opportunity. At the very least, they must be smiling about how things turned out.
- Rep. Gillibrand Picked to Fill Clinton's Senate Seat
- CQ Profile: Kirsten Gillibrand
- If Fundraising Figures Into NY Senate Pick, Where's the Cash?
- Selection Seldom Leads to Election in the Senate
For all of the weirdness surrounding Caroline Kennedy's now-defunct Senate quest, how odd was that phone call that she made this week to the New York governor asking for another 24 hours to think it over?
I mean, it was her idea in the first place to seek the job. Imagine applying for a job, then calling back before any offer is made to say you needed more time to think about whether you really wanted it.
Who would ever hire you? Unless you knew the job offer wasn't coming and wanted to save face -- which is what Caroline's withdrawal sounds like.
And what must her uncle, Ted Kennedy, think about Caroline's camp hinting that his poor health was a factor in her decision. Some of his aides, who are struggling to keep the Massachusetts senator at the helm of enacting universal health care, were not a bit pleased at the suggestion that he was too ill for his niece to take the job.
This debacle was not worthy of the Kennedy clan's precious legacy. In this case, Camelot was overrun by the Keystone Cops.
So maybe it wasn't the Gettysburg Address, but Barack Obama's Inaugural Address was interestingly similar in its brevity and simplicity. "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord," Obama said.
What is so remarkable about the Gettysburg Address is that in just a two-minute speech Abraham Lincoln set forth one of the great visions in presidential history. Drawing upon the principles of human equality in the Declaration of Independence, he redefined the ongoing Civil War as much more than a struggle to preserve the Union but as a "new birth of freedom" with true equality of all citizens as its goal. He also ensured in this speech that winning the war would elevate the status of national government over states' rights.
That is a heap of vision for ten sentences and 272 words. And yet, there was no bevy of professional writers swirling around Lincoln as he wrote what became one of the most quoted speeches in history.
A popular myth is that Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address on the back of an envelope while riding the train to the speech site. That has never been confirmed and seems most unlikely. Lincoln crafted his speeches with great care. He often wrote several drafts. Many of his handwritten drafts for the Gettysburg Address later surfaced, and none of them were on the back of an envelope. Like most of his speeches, this one was written on Executive Mansion stationery.
Lincoln actually wrote the first drafts in Washington. And eyewitnesses said he completed the final draft in the Gettysburg lawyer's home where he spent the night before giving the speech.
Also, the political significance of what Lincoln was attempting to do in this address suggests that he would not have been so cavalier as to dash it off on any available piece of paper while riding the train. In his view, the preservation of the union was not only at stake. The preservation of his own presidency was in doubt.
By late 1863. when he traveled to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to deliver the address, the casualty list from the bloody war was rising at an alarming rate. At least a quarter of a million lives had been lost. Anti-war sentiment was raging throughout the northern states and Lincoln was their target. Democrats were eager to oust Lincoln, the first Republican president, in the next election, just a year away. They proposed ending the war by making concessions to the South.
Lincoln's predicament was made worse by the necessity of a draft to keep the ravaged Union battle lines supplied with fresh troops. Anti-draft riots were breaking out. Hatred of the president was rampant.
Just two months before the Gettysburg Address the governor of Pennsylvania and a close friend, Andrew Curtin, wrote an ominous letter to Lincoln, warning the president that the public was turning against him and the war.
"I have been looking over the canvass in this State, with great care, and have formed the following conclusions: If the election were to occur now, the result would be extremely doubtful, and although most of our discreet friends are sanguine of the result, my impression is, the chances would be against us. The draft is very odious in the State, and unfortunately is not producing more than one-sixth of the men anticipated for the public service. In the cities and towns the changes are all in our favor, but in the country, remote from the centres of intelligence, the Democratic leaders have succeeded in exciting prejudice and passion, and have infused their poison into the minds of the people to a very large extent, and the changes are against us. ... It is impossible to magnify the importance of the result of the election in this State to the Country, and I desire to sink all personal considerations, and all political and personal differences and disagreements, and give the Contest all my time and energies."
Those are not words any president wants to hear just a year before facing reelection. Lincoln had to give the country a brand new vision for the war that would raise spirits and reset the resolve to press on.
It is fascinating that, for a venue to proclaim his vision to keep the war going, Lincoln chose a battlefield where 7,500 and several thousand horses had perished. If anything, Gettysburg was a reminder of his war's tremendous cost. But how wise it turned out to be.
In the speech, Lincoln appealed for going forward to victory or else the dead would have lost their lives "in vain." The horrifying drama of the scene at Gettysburg intensified the impact of his words.
Critics to this day have pointed out that the Gettysburg Address was long on poetry and short on logic. Would democracy throughout the world have perished if the Confederacy had survived? It seems a stretch for Lincoln to have asserted that the Union must fight the war to a successful conclusion so that "government of the people by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth."
Journalist H. L. Mencken wrote in 1922 that "it is difficult to imagine anything more untrue" than Lincoln's claim that the war was being fought to preserve democracy. "The Union solders in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves," Mencken wrote.
Such naysaying aside, there is no question that Lincoln's gambit worked. His larger vision for the war's purpose eventually rallied the nation to the great cause he had set forth -- the defense of freedom.
Sound familiar? Presidents who run wars usually echo Lincoln's words, whether it be Ronald Reagan's support of the Nicaraguan "freedom fighters" or George W. Bush's crusade for democracy in the Middle East.
There is no better compliment for a president's vision than to have it last through the ages as a useful tool for successors, whether or not it is appropriate.
Photo credit: daleblank.com
(Click photos to enlarge)
Within moments after Barack Hussein Obama's inauguration, the official White House web site was changed to reflect his takeover. Check out the new president's agenda.
More Trail Mix Inauguration Coverage:
There is simply no excuse for United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts bungling the presidential oath of office to such an extent that Barack Obama might need to do it again, at least in private, to ensure the legality of his inauguration.
Roberts should be impeached and removed from office for this unforgivable error. The Constitution requires certain language for a presidential oath of office. Roberts blew it. And if he doesn't understand such things he should be fired for misfeasance of the first order.
Sworn in today as Barack Hussein Obama, the President's very name represents a dramatic difference compared to all of his predecessors. As the nation's first African-American in the White House, he fulfills a generation of dreams inspired by the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.'s vision. His inaugural address recalled, and in some cases, repeated the rhetoric of his most memorable campaign speeches.
An overwhelming desire for change, combined with Obama's uniqueness as a presidential prospect during the campaign, allowed him to keep his vision of change somewhat vague until and including his inaugural address. Voters were so desperate for something different that Obama simply was not pressed for specifics. And the news media was so enamored with him that they too did not push for details about how he would govern.
Obama must fill in the blanks once the excitement and newness of his presidency wear off. Then it will be time for his vision to become real, testing whether he can deliver.
There were clues about Obama's world view in one of his books, "The Audacity of Hope." In a chapter entitled, "The World Beyond our Borders," Obama wrote about wanting to end what he considered a long period of divisiveness among Americans about how to conduct ourselves around the world. He described how Reagan's policies disturbed him at a time when he was coming of age as a political activist.
"Looming perhaps largest of all was Ronald Reagan, whose clarity about communism seemed matched by his blindness regarding other sources of misery in the world. I personally came of age during the Reagan presidency - I was studying international affairs at Columbia, and later working as a community organizer in Chicago - and like many Democrats in those days I bemoaned the effect of Reagan's policies toward the Third World: his administration's support for the apartheid regime of South Africa, the funding of El Salvador's death squads, the invasion of tiny, hapless Grenada. The more I studied nuclear arms policy, the more I found Star Wars to be ill conceived; the chasm between Reagan's soaring rhetoric and the tawdry Iran-Contra deal left me speechless."
Obama's determination and ability to present a different face to the rest of the world will likely be a trademark of his presidency. If the change he campaigned for means anything, changing America's image in the eyes of the rest of the world is sorely needed.
In a speech to an estimated crowd of 200,000 in Berlin, Germany during the presidential campaign, Obama put soaring words to the tangible thoughts that he expressed about foreign policy in his book. It was an audacious act. Here is where John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan had made history with resounding speeches.
Obama matched his eloquence with his ideas and his personal experience in a clear call for a new and different future, calling for many specific changes, from a renewed fight against global warming to offers of real solutions for ravaged Third World nations. And that is what vision means.
"I know that I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city. The journey that led me here is improbable. My mother was born in the heartland of America, but my father grew up herding goats in Kenya. . . . At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning - his dream - required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West. And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life. That is why I'm here. And you are here because you too know that yearning. This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom. ... This is the moment when we must give hope to those left behind in a globalized world. ... People of Berlin - and people of the world - the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again."
Inaugurations are not just about ushering in a new era with a new president. If anything, the real celebration of Democracy at these turning points is the peaceful departure of the old president. Each time an outgoing president gives up power according to the requirements of our Constitution is a time for remembering that the people run their own country.
Of course, sometimes the people can't help but rub it in. At downtown Washington's Dupont Circle on Monday, the people set up a huge balloon depicting the outgoing president -- and tossed their shoes at it. Now, that's Democracy.
Join Craig for Inauguration Live Blog
New Thread Today at 11:30 AM EST
In
"They look at you and see who they want to be," Stone's "Nixon" said to JFK's portrait. "They look at me and see who they are."
While the scene was fictional, the sentiment was real.
Great presidents tend to be those who inspire by being who Americans aspire to be, while also seeming to be one of the people. It's a tough challenge to remain above us and among us all at once.
Usually it falls to the press corps to bring them down to Earth. It's an unpopular job with a president as popular as Barack Obama will be at first, but that is often when it is most needed and, sadly, when it is least provided.
Now on Poll Track:
No matter how cheesy the surroundings, Barack Obama has a way of elevating the moment. Give me a break -- Steve Carell, one of the goofiest comedians on the scene today quoting Thomas Jefferson???
And yet, Obama salvaged
"As I stand here today, what gives me the greatest hope of all is not the stone and marble that surrounds us, but what fills the spaces in between. It is you, Americans of every race and region and station, who came here because you believe in what this country can be and because you want to help us get there."
CQ T
Now that the epochal train trip is behind us, wasn't Barack Obama's second coming to Washington just a little bit odd? Meant to encourage even more strained comparisons to Abraham Lincoln, there is a big difference.
Lincoln took the train from Illinois to Washington for his first inaugural because that's what people did when they needed to make such a long trip. He had to take the train. It wasn't for show.
If Lincoln had done what Obama did -- embrace the memory of past presidents by emulating their mode of transportation -- Old Abe would have already been in Washington, but then boarded a train to Philadelphia, returning on a horse.
Small donors played a big role in getting Barack Obama elected, but they are in the back seat when it comes to funding his inaugural. The President-Elect's planning team is relying on the wealthiest contributors to meet its $45 million goal for what is shaping up to be the most expensive inaugural week in history.
Democrats could hardly be expected to downplay finally re-taking the White House after eight years out of power there. But you'd think something more modest would be in order during these rough economic times, even if most of the money is not coming from the federal treasury.
CQ Weekly reports that at least 70 percent of the money is coming from 375 donors giving the maximum allowed: $50,000 each. Only about 1 percent of the total comes from those giving less than $1,000, although in recent days the Obama team began sending emails to small givers in hopes of boosting that percentage. They're even running a lottery for those who respond with at least $5, offering a chance to win a trip to the inauguration. Presumably, the $50,000 donors get guaranteed seating.
- Who's on the Inaugural Money Trail
- Feinstein Outlines Obama Inauguration by the Numbers
- Setting a Proper Inaugural Tone
- Inauguration Is Latest in Long Line of Big, Historic Gatherings
- High Confidence and Expectations for Obama
Craig says there are multiple reasons the inauguration of Barack Obama will be historic. He uses dolls to illustrate his point.
(Produced by CQ's Andrew Satter)
George W. Bush could not let go of his passion for privacy, never seeming to fully understand that he is a public servant who owed the nation more transparency. He ran one of the most secretive administrations in history.
Vice President Dick Cheney was allowed far-reaching duties and a zone of privacy that the president did not even reserve for himself. Even Cheney's whereabouts were top secret, producing a round of national jokes about his "undisclosed locations."
When Cheney accidentally shot a man on a hunting trip in Texas, it took days to get the details. His aides later said the vice president had opposed early efforts to inform the White House press corps, instead only authorizing communication with a tiny local newspaper.
Cheney's top aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, ended up a convict essentially for lying to protect his boss, who had presided over a phenomenal White House campaign to discredit a former American diplomat, Joseph Wilson, who had dared to publicly oppose the administration's Iraq policies. In retaliation, Libby and others leaked classified information about Wilson's wife, who worked for the CIA.
Privacy was a relative matter for the Bush White House. When it suited his team's purposes, they leaked sensitive information about a CIA employee -- something they might have called treason if someone else had done it.
When it came to the people's right to know, Bush could not have been less forthcoming, starting with his own press conferences. It might seem like a petty issue to some, but it was significant and telling that Bush would not allow follow-up questions in his sessions with reporters.
The follow-up question is a crucial part of getting information that the people have a right to know. Presidents since Calvin Coolidge had allowed reporters to ask another question based upon the answer to the first question. Often that first answer is a dodge, an attempt to stick to a talking point or a scripted answer. Only by asking the follow-up question can evasive answers be explored.
Bush was obsessed with avoiding follow-up questions, knowing that it is an effective tool for getting him off script.
On staying within the bounds of the Constitution, Bush and his vice president thought they were above the law, defying Congress and the courts whenever challenged. This seems to be the lesson they gleaned from their original election.
The Bush team learned how to cut corners in the 2000 election, avoiding a final recount of Florida's challenged ballots by going to the United States Supreme Court to stop it. In many ways that experience produced an attitude that any obstacle, even the Constitution itself, can be circumvented with the right set of machinations.
Also on Trail Mix:
When presidents do not trust the public to handle the truth, more often than not it comes back to haunt them. In many cases, more openness to questions allows a skilled president to make a better case to the public. This is especially true when the public is already asking tough questions.
Consider the nation's experience with George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003. Like so many presidents, Bush preferred to tell the world what needed to be done and shield himself from answering critics. This worked for him in the early days of the war when polls showed a majority of the public behind him. But that dramatically changed.
As the war dragged on and Americans grew angry about the death toll of American lives, Bush continued to stand above the debate refusing to acknowledge his errors or directly address mounting concerns.
Bush never seemed to trust the public or Congress in deciding to invade Iraq or how to prosecute a war that gradually became so unpopular that he became one of the lowest-rated presidents in the history of polling. In almost unilaterally making every decision regarding Iraq, Bush stood alone and isolated when it all went bad.
Failing to bring the public and Congress along for the ride can leave a president helpless if mistakes are made. When nearly everyone in the country is questioning their decisions, they ought to answer the questions with humility and honesty. Americans can be quite forgiving unless you stubbornly deny that anything is wrong.
It is widely believed that the beginning of the end of George W. Bush's popularity as president began with his tepid response to Hurricane Katrina. I disagree. It really began a few weeks earlier.
Bush's undoing began in the summer of 2005 when war protesters camped out close to his ranch near Waco, Texas, where he thought he would be safe from the real world, with plenty of land to buffer away the onlookers -- and the press in particular.
The president and his staff were almost paranoid about deflecting unwanted attention at the ranch in Crawford, Texas. When a reporter on a road trip to Dallas -- who wasn't part of the traveling press corps at the Bush ranch -- asked a local party official for directions to Crawford, later that day the president's press secretary called, suspiciously asking, "Why are you going to the ranch." He was told that it was a just a field trip to the town to see what it was like.
Ultimately, the ranch was not so peaceful a place for Bush, although it was the birthplace of a peace movement protesting the war in Iraq. It was near the ranch in the summer of 2005 that Cindy Sheehan, the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq, staged a month long protest that became a focal point for rising numbers of citizens who had grown tired of the war.
On some days as many as 1500 supporters visited "Camp Casey," named for Sheehan's deceased son -- including members of Congress, as well as several notable actors, singers, and civil rights activists.
In a moment that seemed to underscore how Bush was out of touch with the public mood, his motorcade of limousines and police escorts indifferently sped by the makeshift camp of anti-war activists.
Bush thought a remote ranch in one of the most desolate parts of the country would keep the world away. Not so. Presidents cannot escape their public.
Also on Trail Mix:
As we ponder George W. Bush's final week as president, what was his most fateful day in office? One is that day in August of 2001 when he got word in a national security intelligence briefing that terrorist Osama Bin Laden was planning a major attack. Thirty six days later the warning came true.
A censored copy of the intelligence memo that Bush saw on Aug. 6 at his Texas ranch was released by the White House three years later. It was entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US," and provided many details about his activities, including that members of his organization, Al-Qa'ida, "have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks." At least 70 FBI investigations were underway to find them, the memo reported to the president.
There was even a reference to Bin Laden's desire to hijack U.S. aircraft, although the memo did not foresee that hijackings would be used to crash into buildings, as happened a little over a month later to the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington.
Bush shuffled the CIA's warning over to his National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice -- and went bass fishing. He never called a meeting or followed up on the matter until nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on Sept. 11, 2001. The day after the intelligence warnings in August there was more recreation time, as Bush played golf and joked around with reporters.
"No mulligans, except on the first tee," Bush said to laughter as he hit a second drive on the first fairway. "That's just to loosen up. You see, most people get to hit practice balls."
Although Rice later tried to claim in testimony to Congress that Bush had put the government on "battle stations" during that time, even a close Bush adviser wouldn't go along with that, calling her characterization an "overstatement." No evidence ever surfaced that Bush did anything, said anything or even thought about the matter between that briefing and 9/11.
Also on Trail Mix:
The tragic course of George W. Bush's presidency began with what might have well been one of the great accidents in American history -- his flawed election. It is difficult to find a more dramatic example of why voting matters.
The Bush team learned how to cut corners in the 2000 election, avoiding a final recount of Florida's challenged ballots by going to the United States Supreme Court to stop it. In many ways that experience produced an attitude that any obstacle, even the Constitution itself, can be circumvented with the right set of machinations.
Bush won the Electoral College in 2000 thanks to winning a contested fight against Democratic nominee Al Gore in Florida when the Supreme Court stepped in to stop a recount ordered by state courts. That froze in place the results that gave Bush a 537-vote margin out of six million that were cast.
There were 175,000 Florida ballots that year that could not be counted by machines for various reasons. They had to be hand counted to determine what the voters intended.
One lesson of the Florida 2000 experience is that it is not enough for voters to show up at the polls. You must be extremely careful to properly cast your ballot no matter how confusing it might be.
Another lesson of the Florida recount is that the actual loser might have taken office. We might not ever know for sure, or will we? Florida officials decided to keep the famous ballots for posterity despite an effort by then-Gov. Jeb Bush -- the president's brother -- to destroy them. They can still be counted until courts allow them to be thrown away.
A consortium of news organizations, including national newspapers and television networks, spent months after the 2000 debacle reviewing contested ballots in an effort to find out who actually won. Once the study was completed, the organizations reached different conclusions.
Some reported that Bush would have won anyway. Others were not sure. It all depended on what standard is applied for judging a voter's intention.
One of the most troubling issues was so-called overvotes -- where it appeared that more than one candidate had been chosen. The cause of the confusion was mostly due to poorly designed ballots.
Gore would have been declared the winner under statewide rules that Florida later developed for evaluating questionable ballots. That was the conclusion of The Orlando Sentinel, one of the participants in the consortium study. But those rules were not in effect in 2000 when the standards varied from county to county, so it cannot be said for sure that Bush would have lost if the Supreme Court had allowed a statewide recount.
The bottom line is that more Florida voters tried to vote for Gore than voted for Bush. There is a real chance that Bush should never have become president.
No president wants to dwell on his mistakes while leaving office, but George W. Bush certainly left a few things out when asked for a list during his final press conference.
"Clearly, putting 'Mission Accomplished' on an aircraft carrier was a mistake," he said. Bush confessed that "some of my rhetoric" was mistaken. He admitted to miscalculation in trying to overhaul Social Security. Abuses at the Abu Graib detention camp were regrettable, the outgoing chief executive said. Oh, and not finding those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a blooper, Bush acknowledged.
Bush's failings go much deeper. Historians take a long time to render final judgments. But an early sounding conducted by researchers at George Mason University found sobering results for Bush. More than 100 professional historians around the country were asked to rank all presidents and 61 percent said Bush was the worst of them all. Even more -- 98 percent -- rated his presidency a failure.
What makes a lousy president? At least three factors were shared by some of our worst chief executives, according to the university study -- the paranoia of Richard Nixon, the poor ethics of Warren Harding and the faulty judgment of Herbert Hoover.
Bush combined all three. His administration was marked by a paranoid obsession with secrecy, a dismissive attitude toward ethics and a lack of competence highlighted by an ill-conceived invasion of Iraq that led to a miserably managed occupation.
The list goes on.
• CQ Transcript: President Bush Holds Final News Conference
You could hear the ground breaking underneath Barack Obama's business tax cuts just by noting what he didn't say in his Sunday interview on ABC's "This Week."
Host George Stephanopoulos asked a pertinent and pointed question: "Do you really believe those business tax cuts are going to work to create jobs? Or did you put them in so you could get Republican votes?"
Obama's nearly 300-word response ducked the direct question. By not denying that he only included business tax cuts in his stimulus package to attract GOP votes for it, the President-Elect left the impression that, along with many Democrats who criticized the proposals, he does not really believe that tax cuts will prod companies to hire more workers and significantly stimulate the economy.
"They may not help as much as some of the direct spending projects do, but they still provide a stimulus," Obama said. That was hardly a resounding defense against the calls from members of his own party to delete some of Obama's tax cuts from the stimulus legislation.
Obama's hope for bipartisan support might be giving way to Democrats on Capitol Hill who are fed up with tax cuts.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Craig talks with Keith Olbermann about Barack Obama's anti-terror team and stimulus package ("Countdown," MSNBC, 1/10)
Craig wins Pundit Poll
Everyone in Washington seems to be in a hurry these days. Craig says that, for better or worse, that seems to be the only way the city knows how to get things done.(Produced by CQ's Andrew Satter)
- Pelosi Lays Out Timeline for Stimulus Action
- Rifts show as Obama urges quick action on stimulus
- Poll Tracker: Majority Supports Stimulus as Big as $775 Billion
- CQ Transcript: Obama Speaks on the Economy
Craig on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann"
Tonight MSNBC 8:05 PM EST
Barack Obama needs to win the tax cut debate emerging within his own party. Some Democrats on Capitol Hill are targeting the President-Elect's promise to cut taxes for the middle class.
But if Obama backs down, things could unravel on other fronts. The last two Democrats in the White House lost early battles with fellow party members on the Hill, getting their presidencies off to a rocky start.
Jimmy Carter tangled with congressional Democrats over his effort to curb pork spending by scrapping water projects. He lost that fight and never really overcame the bitterness that ensured between his White House and Democratic lawmakers.
Bill Clinton was forced into a painful compromise by Senate Democrats, such as Georgia's Sam Nunn, who opposed his plans to fully admit gays into the military.
Capitol Hill Democrats who seem to be mounting a bid to shut down Obama's tax cuts might also be testing his mettle. But Obama cannot afford to give up -- not only because he promised that middle-class tax cut in nearly every stump speech, but also because early on he needs to show his own party who's boss.
- Obama tax plan runs into opposition in Senate
- Questions, Committee Action May Slow Stimulus Package
- Pelosi Lays Out Timeline for Stimulus Action
- Obama Pushes Congress to Act Swiftly on Stimulus
Now that Democrats run the country they can do stuff like seat a senator appointed by an arrested governor. How cool.
Isn't power a wonderful thing? People appointed by someone facing a criminal trial can take office. You'd think Senate leaders would at least wait to see if the Illinois governor is impeached and thrown out of office.
Senate Democratic leaders, egged on by President-Elect Barack Obama, want to make the Roland W. Burris mess go away but letting him have a Senate seat even though the governor who appointed him, Rod R. Blagojevich, is facing a trip to the slammer on federal bribery and conspiracy charges.
Gee, wonder what Democrats would be saying if the GOP were pulling such a stunt? If hypocrisy was a virus in Washington, we'd all be dead.
With each new announcement of Barack Obama's choices for those who will help him govern, most seem to reinforce a pattern that defines his style. Call it Competent Change.
The sometimes radical feel of his campaign -- the hip poster art, web savvy outreach and appeals to anti-war voters -- led many who watched Obama's operation, and probably a lot of his supporters, to think that Washington was in for a sweeping overhaul run by outsiders.
Instead, Obama's idea of change seems to be less dramatic than advertised. But that does not mean that the status quo will be maintained. He is building a team that brings competence and experience to the work of making a difference.
Changing Washington from the inside requires players who actually know how the place works.
Barack Obama might be quite wise to go with a CIA chief who is not an intelligence community careerist. Leon Panetta is no dummy even if he does lack spook background. And it could be a hint that the new president is paying attention to the experiences of predecessors like John Kennedy, who always regretted listening too closely to CIA pros in his first weeks at the White House.
Letting intelligence advisers talk him into the Bay of Pigs fiasco early in his presidency was one of Kennedy's biggest mistakes. Although publicly he took full responsibility for the botched invasion of Cuba, he held a private grudge against those advisers for the rest of his days.
Paying better attention to what you've inherited from your immediate predecessor was a lesson that JFK learned the hard way. Every new president should beware potential traps left over from a previous administration.
Dwight Eisenhower initially approved the invasion of Cuba in March of 1960, the year that Kennedy was then just a presidential candidate. The CIA had proposed to equip and train Cuban exiles for an attack against the new communist government led by Fidel Castro. Agency officials were convinced that they could overthrow the Cuban dictator based upon their success in ousting hostile governments in Iran and Guatemala earlier in Eisenhower's presidency.
Preparations were well underway by the time Kennedy took office and just three months later the invasion attempt took place. The American-trained forces were overwhelmed in a few days and the new administration suffered a horribly embarrassing loss just as it was getting started.
Some blame Kennedy for refusing to order American air support for the invading forces, but the plan's failure also stemmed from a variety of other factors, including intelligence leaks and the faulty assumption that large numbers of Cubans would rise up to support their "liberators."
Sound familiar? "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators," Vice President Dick Cheney said in 2003 as the United States invaded Iraq. It turned out the reception was more like the Bay of Pigs.
The incorrect assumption about a Cuban uprising to help American-backed liberators was later cited by the CIA in its report on what went wrong in the Bay of Pigs. The agency blamed its own internal incompetence for the disaster.
Craig on "Imus in the Morning"
Wednesday (1/7) 6:30 AM EST
Barack Obama presided over one of the most efficient campaign organizations in history. There is a quiet competence about the man that voters found right for the times.
One of Obama's secrets was no tolerance for infighting among aides, a policy that Ronald Reagan followed to great effect. It's a management technique that tends to discourage news leaks. The news media prefers infighting. It's often how we get a story -- when feuding aides tattle on each other.
Understanding presidential character is important. What type of person typically rises to the job? While every president is a unique human being, there are certain characteristics most have in common. For starters, they like to hear themselves talk. Teddy Roosevelt called the office a "bully pulpit."
Most presidents do not like to be questioned, especially by the news media. George W. Bush refused to take follow-up questions at press conferences. It's much easier to stick to your talking points if you don't let anyone probe your answer.
Presidents are not always good listeners. The massive ego required to win office tends to get in the way. Confidence is a great thing, but sometimes it helps to know your limits and take advice.
Keeping secrets is a passion for the typical president. And it often gets them in trouble. There are simply too many people watching to ever think you won't get caught. How Bill Clinton thought he could conduct a sexual affair in the modern age of internet gossip and not get caught was about the dumbest move ever.
Most presidents are true extroverts, feeding off the energy of a crowd. One major exception was Calvin Coolidge, who was so laid back and shy that the writer Dorothy Parker, when told of his death, said, "How can you tell?"
Barack Obama seems to possess the droll wit of a Franklin Roosevelt, who once broke the tension of attacks on his administration by referring to his famous dog, a Scottish terrier named Fala.
"I do not mind the attacks on me," Roosevelt told an audience. "My family does not mind the attacks. ... But Fala does mind."
It was the subject of a White House dog that lightened the mood at Obama's first press conference following his election in November of 2008. Obama mimicked the same semi-serious tone that Roosevelt had adopted in referring to Fala.
Asked about the dog he had promised to get for his young daughters when moving into the White House, Obama ponderously -- but humorously -- answered in the same grave manner with which he had handled weighty questions about the troubled economy.
"With respect to the dog, this is a major issue," Obama said. "I think it's generated more interest on our Web site than just about anything. We have -- we have two criteria that have to be reconciled. One is that Malia is allergic, so it has to be hypoallergenic. There are a number of breeds that are hypoallergenic. On the other hand, our preference would be to get a shelter dog, but, obviously, a lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me. So -- so whether we're going to be able to balance those two things I think is a pressing issue on the Obama household."
Clearly not schooled in the Reaganesque story-telling technique or especially facile with a Kennedy-like quick comeback, Obama seems to enjoy a more quaint sense of humor that spotlights the irony of silly questions or bizarre moments. Whatever works for you, Mr. President, get a laugh when you can. They are hard to come by in this job.
Nations throughout history perish or flourish based upon how well they progress into a new age. America mastered the industrial age in the early 20th Century and, thanks to John F. Kennedy's vision for the future of science in calling for a trip to the Moon, we mastered the age of computers.
This is what our best presidents do. They prod us forward. They nourish our best instincts. They do not just lead our government. They lead us, make us better and, as a result, make us a stronger country.
At the dawn of Barack Obama's presidency, this unique and thoughtful man shows the promise to be one of our best. As with Kennedy, the world looked at him and saw a new America, one that looks and sounds more like the rest of the world.
Americans can look at this new president and also see themselves in a different way. It is not just that he is our first African-American in the White House. Or that he grew up in an unusual mix of places, from Kansas to Indonesia.
Obama has the chance to bring about a new spirit for the country, as Kennedy did. His campaign attracted supporters who had never before been active in politics. They learned that being an American is about taking part, that the genius of our nation and the gift of our best presidents is the preservation of a simple ideal: We run our own country.
Craig on NBC "Today Show"
Saturday (1/3) 7:00 AM EST
(times vary, check listings)
