Pushing Obama?

During the election season, I ended up signing petitions and writing letters to the editor and calling Congress at the behest of a number of "progressive" groups because I had opinions about the issues they were raising.

That meant that related groups found out about my involvement (along with the Bush White House, I suspect - I had a "red" file in Milwaukee in the 1970s and '80s at the police department). So every day I get at least a dozen e-mails from some of the groups asking for my attention, my action, and/or my money. It's the price I pay for trying to be an activist on the current political scene.

Among the recent communications was one where the writer spoke of having a face-to-face chat with President Obama. The President thanked him for his support and the work of his organization to get some legislation passed. The writer then challenged President Obama for some decisions with which he disagreed.

The President smiled and said, "I agree with you on that but let me just say, you are going to have to fight for it."

Back during the two weeks while the Stimulus Package was before Congress and the President was trying to get Republicans to vote for the bill, one of the progressive groups sent out an SOS, saying that the rightwingers had mobilized their forces so that Congress was receiving 100 letters against the Stimulus to every letter for it!

So if you have opinions about any of the issues and legislation coming along these days, then you better do something. Positive things will not happen in Washington without our input! Even on policies that are now coming out of this Administration related to continuing to hide Bush administration e-mails and keeping Bagram prison in Afghanistan open, we need to put in our two cents worth (preferably after checking the facts).

President Obama does not mind being pushed. How great to have an adult in that office!

Rush Rules

The media, especially the liberal/progressive folks, have been aware that so many folks listen to Rush Limbaugh every day that Rush himself is really the leader of the Republican Party, no matter who the GOP leaders chose (Michael Steele).

What I'm not hearing is that Rush's voice pounding away at the stimulus bill for weeks has led to undermining public and congressional support. At one point, a progressive group sent out a note asking their supporters to write to Congress immediately because the conservatives were were sending letters at a rate of 100 to 1 over progressives.

The President went out into the country this week to counter the impression that the opposition to his bill is the majority.

And President Obama was successful.

But will he have to do that every time he needs to get people behind his program?

The reality is that conservative talk radio covers so many people in the U. S. and is not countered with facts by the rest of the media. Even normally moderate to liberal folks have him on their radios because there isn't that much else to listen to. Most radio stations are owned by wealthy conservatives who want their point of view to dominate.

But now we have a new problem. Analogue TV ends and the little boxes to translate digital TV signals won't work in many (most?) places in the U. S.

That means the only voices heard by a lot of folks will be that of Rush and his like. Even the main stream media won't reach them any more.

President Obama mentioned concern about extending analogue broadcasting until mid-June. By then the severity of the problems with the small black boxes will be much more widely known. Meanwhile, AM radio will be alive and well.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Senator Judd Gregg

A friend claims he's quoting Mark Twain when he says, "I'm having a hard time hearing what you are saying because your actions are so loud."

Whoever said it, it applies to Senator Judd Gregg's warm and thoughtful statement explaining his withdrawing his name from consideration as Commerce Secretary.

There are two actions which are part of the backstory to his accepting the nomination that lead to a third thing that I hope someone can check out.

1. I understand Sen. Gregg was concerned about having something to do in 2010 when he was pretty sure he would be retiring from the Senate. (He has since confirmed he does not plan to run then.) I can see that as a crucial motive for Gregg's earnest petitioning of the Obama administration for the Commerce job.

2. He obtained a promise from the Democratic governor that the appointee to the Senate to replace Gregg would be a Republican or Gregg would not accept the Commerce position. Word came out that the appointee would be Gregg's chief of staff.

What I want to know is, has someone come forward with a position for Sen. Gregg when he retires from the Senate that is more to his liking than working for the President?

Others have already compared Gregg's politicking around this nomination to that of Illinois Governor Blogojevich. That's why it is particularly important to find out if Gregg did get another job offer. We may not find out until he retires in two years. But I will watch, if only out of curiosity.

I can easily imagine the whole scene was a ploy to get a better job for his retirement, what with the grief his Republican colleagues put him through, something he knew would happen. It is easy to imagine that he was waiting for the one Republican who would offer him a job he would not refuse. And he would not have any guilt about it, any more than ex-Gov. Blogojevich had.

Update: Daily Kos has quite an extensive article connecting Sen. Gregg to Jack Abramoff. See it at

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/13/32013/1373/707/696949

I hope future vetting, particularly of Republican nominees for Cabinet posts, for connections with Mr. Corruption. Oh yes, and also Democrats . . . .

And I am still hoping someone can find out if he now has a job to which he will go in 2010.