Time for the Dems to Grow a Pair

The honeymoon of the Barack Obama presidency lasted about as long as a Britney Spears nuptial. As America got back to business after the euphoric day of January 20, several large corporations announced layoffs, unemployment claims rose, the GDP shrank, and Citigroup held off (at least for now) its plans to buy a multi-million dollar corporate jet. These are just a few of the ridiculous headlines to remind us that, yet again, the little guy pays while the big-wigs suffer minor setbacks (the folks at Merrill Lynch might afford only one vacation to southern France, instead of three).

Mr. Obama's approach to the economy has, in my view, sent mixed signals. First, his recently-confirmed Treasury secretary (Timothy Geithner) irresponsibly sounded the battle cry of a trade war with China, outwardly stating the obvious but unspeakable - that China manipulates its currency to boost its export-drive economy (at the expense of American industry). This, ironically, before the passage of a massive spending bill that will need to be financed entirely by parties other than the debt-ridden U.S. government, namely the Chinese central bank. Not to mention the even more devastating consequences to China's economy if it were to revalue its currency further, an event that is not in anyone's best interest and least of all China's biggest trading partner, the United States. Japan is already hitting a wall with the yen at its strongest level in years.

On the domestic front, we have quickly found out that Mr. Obama's admired approach to building consensus may not be a match for the intensity of the current economic crisis and the political fault lines that have become clear this week. We need not look further than the fact that the House of Representatives passed President Obama's $819 billion stimulus bill without a single Republican supporter.

So what does all this mean? I respect Mr. Obama's desire to hear both sides of the issue, but ultimately, he is the boss that the American people elected. Somehow, the Democrats have such an inferiority complex and manage to bungle even those times when they have unequivocal legislative power - it is time to create the policies that the American people overwhelmingly demanded in the November election, not watered down, ineffective policies that attempt to bridge some sort of political chasm. It's time to ignore Republican obstructionism and faux consensus building and play hard, cold politics, if Mr. Obama is to get anything done for the economy in a swift manner. And I have faith that he will.

Not the Worst President

Tomorrow at noon, the eight-year reign of President George Walker Bush will come to an end. Many will celebrate Bush's final day as president, and some will look back in reverence in his historic, albeit turbulent, tenure. I have often disagreed with most of the outgoing president's policies. But the elastic thinker is all about fairness and hearing all points of view. And so this special inauguration edition will discuss why President Bush is not the worst president. Here are 5 reasons (yes, I was able to think of five) why I think history will ultimately have a forgiving look back on the 43rd president.

1. Democracy in the Middle East - the war in Iraq was a blunder that I opposed from the outset. But just as seeing American soldiers and Iraqis lose their lives is upsetting, the rise of a fledgling democracy in Iraq is certainly troubling to the autocratic regimes that surround it. Iraq, of course, has its own unique history and ethno-religious divisions that make it more conducive to civil war. But the anarchic unrest of that country could be a looking glass into the future for the other governments in the region that have long suppressed democratic forces. The neocons in the Pentagon were wrong about the war, but may end up with a favorable result down the road.

2. Nuclear cooperation with India - President Bush is the first U.S. leader to seriously engage with the world's largest democracy and formally establish strong economic and security ties with what I see as a key long-term ally in Asia for the United States. Though the U.S.-India nuclear agreement, ratified in 2008, would seem to blaspheme all international agreements on nuclear non-proliferation - it signals the Bush White House's acceptance of India's legitimate use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and its responsible custody of nuclear weapons. This new relationship between India and the U.S. will pay great dividends.

3. The fight for immigration reform - Bush was often the lone member of his party willing to accept sweeping immigration reform that was practical and acklowledged that the U.S. economy cannot function without migrant labor. Other Republicans were too worried about their electoral standing to take a real, hard look at the issue and instead took the hard, anti-immigrant line typical of the far right wing. The immigration reform bill died.

4. Taking on North Korea - this is more a credit specifically to the U.S. State Department envoy Christopher Hill, but the Bush Administration largely succeeded in breaking the impasse with nuclear North Korea. The administration smartly conducted multilateral (six-party) talks at times and bilateral talks at other times. The end result was the first tangible commitment (at least at that time) from North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.

5. He united us before dividing us - 9/11/01 galvanized the United States. Bush united the country behind a common purpose. He later squandered the goodwill earned among nations after the attacks, but the positive aspects of Bush's legacy, I believe, will be his response to 9/11. It all went downhill from there, though.