AnnotatedOpinions.com

A year ago this month, the air over American liberalism was thick with champagne corks. Barack Obama the newly elected president was poised to be inaugurated, and he in turn would inaugurate the long-prophesized new progressive era. A year later, the champagne corks are hardly flying, and if this is to be morning in America for American liberalism, it seems to have come with a pretty nasty hangover. . .  

In 2008, liberals had more reason to hope. . . A little more than a year later, we surely have been hoing leftward. But it already seems as if the American people are sick of it. The 2009 off-year elections might not have been a repudiation of Obama, but they were definitely not an embrace of Obamaism. Meanwhile, by nearly 2 to 1, Americans say the country is on the wrong track. . . .   

[AO: We agree with the opinion’s writer, Jonah Goldberg: over the last year or so, there has been no giant leftward shift in U.S. politics. But the statistics he quote should be placed in context.  

Goldberg’s claim is that Americans are sick of Democrats. He marshals polling data to support that point. He insinuates that Americans want to put an end to Democratic control of government. But does the data really support this? Let’s take a look.  

Goldberg states that “by nearly 2 to 1, Americans say the country is on the wrong track.” This statement is based in part on an average of polls by RealClearPolitics.com. One of the polls showing the highest number of Americans saying the country is headed in the wrong direction is NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll. That poll shows that only 33% of Americans agree that the country is headed in the right direction (55% agreed that the country is on the wrong track. 10% said “mixed” and 2% responded “unsure”). After noting that, according to the poll, 55%, not 66% as some might be tempted to assume, of Americans agree that the country is headed in the wrong direction, the next questions that come up are (1) “is this unusual” and (2) “who do these people think are responsible.”   

The NBC/Walls Street Journal Polling data goes back to 1999. The data shows that excluding the Obama effect, a huge jump between January 2009 and February 2009, when the number of Americans agreeing that the country was headed in the right direction increased from 26% to 41%, the last time more than 33% of Americans agreed that the country was headed in the right direction was January 2005. That’s right, January 2005. In other years, during most of the booming years of the last decades, more Americans thought the country was headed in the wrong direction than do now, a time when we are still recovering from a very significant recession.  

The poll also has something to say about who respondents blame for the country’s problems. 47% of respondents approved of the job that Barack Obama is doing as president (46% disapproved). 43% want next year’s congressional elections to produce a Democrat-controlled Congress (41% favored a Republican controlled Congress).  

These polling numbers are close. There is no reason for complacency by Republicans or Democrats. However, the thrust of Goldberg’s argument, especially when considered in light of the data showing that slightly more Americans approve of the job Obama is doing and want Democrats to retain control of Congress, is not supported by the polling data. ]

Despite a first year filled with divisions, denunciations and impassioned polarization, it’s not too late for Barack Obama to formulate the bipartisan foreign policy that he promised as a presidential candidate and that Americans say they crave. To do so, he should take inspiration from the best-received speech of his presidency, resist the unbecoming temptation of blaming bad news on his predecessor, and emulate the triumphant example of a long-ago Republican president. . .  

In the remainder of his term, Barack Obama can deliver more of the concord his campaign promised if he avoids self-defeating bitterness toward his predecessor, rejects grand, unattainable international schemes and, in the soft-spoken Eisenhower tradition, reconnects with the pragmatic, conservative disposition of the American people.  

[AO: Michael Medved, the writer of this opinion in USA Today, is correct. If President Obama stops highlighting Bush-era mistakes, gives up on achieving any significant international agreements, and becomes a conservative, he can achieve unity. Unfortunately, it will be a unity between Obama and conservatives, not liberals and conservatives, because Obama will have become a conservative.]

Health care polling reveals uncertainty [Chicago Tribune]

Health-care rationing: The honest solution to an out-of-control system. [Washington Post]

Obama’s Afghanistan strategy must be more than more troops: A plan that doesn’t also deal with the Karzai problem and economic development is doomed to failure. [LA Times]

Lonely superpowerdom: Obama may soon discover that there are no allies with which to work. [Washington Post]

Signs of Hope: The U.S. has the intellectual resources and expertise to lead in the development of clean energy. It just needs the will to make it happen. [New York Times]

Biotech bills give drugmakers too many years of exclusivity: The long-awaited Biotech bills emerging from the House and Senate give too many years of exclusivity to the original makers of biotech drugs [Boston Globe]

No ‘No More Wilderness’: The interior secretary, Ken Salazar, should reclaim the authority to identify wilderness study areas and protect them. [New York Times]

What do scientists think about religion? Members of the scientific community are often seen as doubting Thomases, but the reality is more complex. Even Charles Darwin may have made room for God. [LA Times]

An Obama gray: Where is the man who once demonstrated keen moral clarity? [Washington Post]

Turkey and the Kurds: Turkey’s plan to grant long-denied rights to its Kurdish minority, despite opposition from nationalist politicians, is a show of courage and good sense. [New York Times]  

The relentless ghost of Christmas future: In this holiday season, Charles Dickens would find that his own little ghost story, ”A Christmas Carol,” is still very much alive. [Boston Globe]

Television: Two standards, or too racy? There’s beauty in restraint. [Boston Globe]

The NFL tackles concussions: There’s nothing like being compared negatively to the tobacco industry to get a business’ attention. And so it is with the NFL. [USA Today]  

A referendum on Obama? Not likely [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

Getting a handle on elections [Chicago Tribune]

The Off-Off-Year Elections: If there were broad messages in the grab bag of contests, they were for both parties. [New York Times]

Voters send cautionary messages to both parties [USA Today]

Time for equal rights for gays is now: Progress is occurring, but Tuesday’s rejection of a same-sex marriage law in Maine shows there’s still a lot of work to be done. [LA Times]

Who ended the Cold War? The fall of the Berlin Wall is as much Gorbachev’s unheralded achievement as it is Reagan’s. [Boston Globe]

1989 was a very good year: The end of the Cold War brought change that sent ripples around the world. [LA Times]

Berlin Wall’s lessons for today: The oxygen of a free society is accurate and trustworthy information. Yet even today, regimes around the world are intent on cutting off the supply. [USA Today]

Deteriorating relationships? The United States only seems to be more polarized [Chicago Tribune]

Welcome sign: U.S. ends a misguided HIV policy [Houston Chronicle]

Women and health care [Washington Post]

Fixing healthcare: Primary care is job No. 1 – Effective reform requires spending for front-line doctors, those who screen for preventable diseases and are a patient’s advocate. [LA Times]

A Powerful Idea on Youth Violence: A Chicago plan that will put high-risk youth on the road to productive lives deserves full support. [New York Times]

Airline safety: I say Obama, you say O’Bama – New requirements by the Transportation Security Administration that names on plane boarding classes exactly match those on personal identifications could present major headaches. [Boston Globe]

Cyclists and motorists on collision course: A physician’s conviction in a bicycle crash case reveals a noxious form of road rage. [LA Times]

For university presidents, a pay cut is in order: Presidents at the top research universities should be embarrassed by 2008 average salary increases of more than 15 percent. [Boston Globe]

The Facebook grave site [Chicago Tribune]

Take the Shot: The most vulnerable people and those in critical jobs should take the swine flu vaccine. [New York Times]

One mom’s rapid conversion to swine flu vaccine believer [USA Today]

Obama must stand firm on Honduras crisis: A U.S.-brokered deal to return ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to office is unraveling, and the Obama administration seems to be wavering. [LA Times]

Iran’s abuse goes on: The problem is not limited to Tehran’s illicit nuclear activities. [Washington Post]

A bipartisan boost for the parks: Neglected during the Bush years, National Parks finally found enough allies in Congress, Democratic and Republican, to pass a much necessary funding increase. [Boston Globe]Afghanistan: Now what? After the election mess, Obama has little choice but to work with President Hamid Karzai’s weakened government. [LA Times]

The arithmetic of the frontier: In adding up the toll of the Afghan war, one must examine the total time, treasure, and lives Americans must commit [Boston Globe]

President Karzai’s Second Term: After being re-elected by default, Hamid Karzai needs to do everything in his power to persuade the Afghan people that he is deserving of their trust. [New York Times]

Throwing away the key: Should a juvenile be sent to prison for life for a crime that doesn’t involve murder? That’s the question the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing in two cases before the panel. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Medical tourism — outsourcing your health [LA Times]

Obama’s first year: I wish he’d be tougher. But he’s a president, not a Hollywood action hero. [Washington Post]

Freedom of the Press: The Senate should pass the federal shield law to protect reporters and ensure that Americans get the information they need about the institutions that affect their lives. [New York Times]

Reshaping our housing dreams: Before the crash, smaller American families bought ever larger, more expensive trophy homes. [Boston Globe]

Madoff’s federal allies: How investigators, in their own fumbling way, were accessories to his crime. [Washington Post]

The Halliburton Loophole: If hydraulic fracturing is safe, the oil and gas industry should not fear regulation that will come when a dubious loophole is closed. [New York Times]

Merkel’s quiet dominance: One of the world’s most powerful women, but will anyone notice? [Washington Post]

Are Facebook wishes for real? Facebook age raises sincere doubts on birthday wishes [Chicago Tribune]

Billion dollar Ford [USA Today]

Stalin’s stain: President Medvedev’s feeble attempts to reinvent Russia as a modern nation. [Washington Post]

Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, clearly stipulates: “And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”  

The award of the peace prize to a sitting president is not unprecedented. But Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson received the honor for their past actions: Roosevelt’s efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War, and Wilson’s work in establishing the League of Nations. Obama’s award is different. It is intended to affect future action. [AO: Even if meant for future action, since the clause applies only to sitting president, what is the effect of it being given for action meant to occur after Obama is no longer president? Wouldn’t that make it constitutional? Isn’t that a critical issue if the writer is attempting to distinguish Obama’s Nobel from that of Roosevelt and Wilson? Of course what this shows is the silliness of the distinction. After all, the only evidence the writers offer for this “future” business is that one of the members of the Nobel committee said so. O.k. What did the rest of them have to say? Anyway, this is a side point. There is a more important reason why accepting the Nobel is not unconstitutional. See below.]

The five-member Nobel commission is elected by the Storting, the parliament of Norway. Thus the award of the peace prize is made by a body representing the legislature of a sovereign foreign state. There is no doubt that the Nobel Peace Prize is an “emolument” (“gain from employment or position,” according to Webster). [AO: Ha! It appears the writers did not do as much research as they should have. Five minute of research, even on Wikipedia, will show that the Nobel Prize is actually a gift from Alfred Nobel, not the Norwegian government. See, the peace prize is not created or given by the Norwegian government but by a trust created by Alfred Nobel. The Norwegian parliament selects the five-member committee which gives the prize from Alfred Nobel’s trust. When doing so, the Congress is acting as an agent of the trust and not necessarily in an official capacity on behalf of the Norwegian people.]

A New Deal for Recovery: Break the cycle of high unemployment and income stagnation with public investment. [Washington Post]

The essence of diplomatic engagement: The president’s critics are misguided in decrying his willingness for dialogue with adversaries. [Boston Globe]

Comedy catches up with Obama [Chicago Tribune]

No peace in the Swat Valley: Its residents remain trapped between Pakistan’s army and the Taliban. [LA Times]

Trusting the blogosphere: Is the FTC’s focus on enforcing Internet advertising standards more heavy-handed than with traditional media? [LA Times]

Bleeding Holders of Debit Cards Dry: Congress should act to rein in banks and their overdraft policy abuses. [New York Times]

The Mojave cross case: Editorial: Will the Supreme Court stand up for the 1st Amendment? [LA Times]

The Constitution and the Cross: The Supreme Court should rule that a large cross that has been placed on federal land in California violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. [New York Times]

Nominate, Vote, Wait: Slow-walking nominations is a bipartisan sport, and now it’s Obama’s turn to suffer. [Washington Post]

Our Three Bombs: Today’s youth are growing up in the shadow of three bombs — the nuclear, debt and climate bombs — any one of which could go off and set in motion a radical change in their lives. [New York Times]

Russia’s Silent War: Democracy can’t flourish when the pursuit of journalism carries an informal death penalty. [Washington Post]

More time for learning: A longer school day provides one way to bolster the nation’s failing urban public schools. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Gourmet Magazine, 1941-2009: A recipe for obsolescence – A recipe for Gourmet’s fading importance on the culinary magazine scene. [Boston Globe]

Health care for all — even Republicans [Chicago Tribune]

A Good Return on Investment: Congress could help rescue struggling families by putting money into the National Housing Trust Fund, which was signed into law in 2008 but has never been financed. [New York Times]

Mortgage predators: Many of the same sleazy operators who helped fuel the real estate bubble through dubious subprime lending practices are now taking advantage of homeowners through “foreclosure-rescue” scams. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Acting as if he were head of the Chicago chamber of commerce, not the leader of the United States, President Obama is traveling hat in hand to meet with the International Olympic Committee in Copenhagen today. He’s pushing for his hometown to host the 2016 Games. . . . But he risks diminishing the prestige of his office by mobilizing it behind this narrow cause. And it seems at least possible that some judges will feel so put off by his hard sell that they’ll opt for one of the other finalists.

[AO: Why? Why would the IOC selecting another location to host the 2016 Games diminish the prestige of President Obama’s office? Must the president succeed at everything he is involved in or else diminish the office of the presidency? If so, one has to wonder if this is a natural law only applicable to the American president. After all, other countries in the running, Japan, Spain and Brazil have their presidents or Kings in Copenhagen trying to seal the deal. Clearly, only one of those leaders will walk away with Olympic gold. Why would the US president not do what he can to help a US city when the contenders have their leaders in Copenhagen doing so?]

How would the ‘public option’ outcompete private enterprise? [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

The Polanski Case: This case has nothing to do with Roman Polanski’s work or his age. It is about an adult preying on a child. It is time that he account for it. [New York Times]

Roman Polanski hasn’t paid for his crime [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

Roman Polanski: It’s about time [Chicago Tribune]

Repulsion: The outcry from some over Roman Polanski’s arrest on an old California warrant for drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl is, in a word, perverse. [New York Daily News]

Obama’s tough choices: The economy, healthcare, Iran and  Afghanistan — all are problems with no easy answers. [LA Times]

Summoning Keynes: Math-heavy economic models are elegant — they just don’t reflect reality. [Washington Post]

Signs of Life in Financial Reform: Financial regulatory reform has gotten a new boost of energy from Congress and the G-20, but Americans still cannot be sure it will produce real change. [New York Times]

Engaging Iran: West faces complex choices The West faces complex choices involving a historically important culture and country. [Houston Chronicle]

Tilting the Power Balance in Tehran: Why Obama should broaden his agenda to include human rights. [Washington Post]

North Korea: If communism can’t make it there…: The truest sign of the death of communism came when the ultimate dead-ender, North Korea, announced it would no longer label itself a communist country. [Boston Globe]

What in the world is China? At 60, the People’s Republic has evolved into a conscientious global player, except when it isn’t. [LA Times]

Talking With Myanmar: In the past, the punishment-only approach to Myanmar hasn’t worked. Talks, if handled skillfully, might lead in time to positive change. [New York Times]

New heights for Burns and PBS: A six-part TV series on national parks? I was skeptical, even with Ken Burns as producer/director. And with last Sunday’s first part competing against some of television’s best shows, I gave it a half-hour to make its case. Two hours later, I was still
transfixed. [Boston Globe]

Facebook’s online poll crosses a line: The social networking site reacted properly to an Obama assassination entry, but questions about responsibility remain. [LA Times]

Way Behind the Curve: Several responsible members of the United States Chamber of Commerce are quitting because of the chamber’s attacks on legislation to curb emissions. [New York Times]

Violence videos spur bad politics [Chicago Tribune]

It’s worth the trip: It’s hard to see the downside of President Obama’s decision to travel to Europe Thursday night to lobby personally for the 2016 Olympics in Chicago. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

On Safire: William Safire was anything but a nattering nabob of negativity. He had none of the vile and vitriol of today’s howling pack of conservative pundits. [New York Times]

Shutting down child sex tourism: Pedophiles and their victims dominate the media. What has received less attention, however, is that American pedophiles pose a grave risk to children outside the United States. [Boston Globe]

‘High-speed rail’ might not deliver the Obama vision [USA Today]

Obama’s powerful presence: The president’s popularity — on view at the U.N. — has helped reduce global tensions and deprived America’s enemies of propaganda points. [LA Times]

Global Economic Challenges: The members of the Group of 20 should share the credit for avoiding the economic abyss, but now they must confront the causes and cures of the financial crisis. [New York Times]

The Afghan Imperative: Fighting the Afghan war the easy way hasn’t worked. Only the full counterinsurgency doctrine offers a chance of success. [New York Times]

Intercepting terror plots: How worried should we be? [Chicago Tribune]

Taming Brutopia: The Internet could represent a flourishing of democracy. Instead it amplifies hate. [Washington Post]

Senator Kirk: A capable interim appointee – Paul Kirk, chosen by Governor Patrick as interim senator, is one of many outstanding staff members that Senator Kennedy recruited over the years. [Boston Globe]

Immigration issue is a red herring [USA Today]

How fast they forgot the lessons of Sunday school [Chicago Tribune]

Khadafy: No camping on the Donald’s lawn – The dictator of Libya thought he had a home for his tent on property belonging to Donald Trump in the tony Westchester suburb of Bedford. [Boston Globe]

Don’t discount trade in economic recovery [Chicago Tribune]

First the Fed, Now the Med: What the Federal Reserve did to tame inflation could be replicated in health care. [Washington Post]

The Subject Was Nuclear Weapons: The Security Council must commit to a resolution intended to strengthen the fraying rules that are supposed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. [New York Times]

Toward peace in the Middle East: Breakthroughs require real leadership from all sides. [LA Times]

Showdown on Iran’s nuclear program enters endgame [USA Today]

Now, where was I? If the ratcheting up of media multitasking is teaching us not to pay attention, is it also training us not to expect attention? [Boston Globe]

Skin in the Game: Hedge funds offer a lesson on how to manage bank risk: Let them fail. [Washington Post]

ACORN cracking: The advocacy group’s troubles deserve a full, nonpartisan investigation [Houston Chronicle]  

Picking on ACORN: There’s no evidence of wrongdoing to support the California Republican Party’s call for an audit of group’s voter registration efforts. [LA Times]

Hard truths about Uzbek cotton: The strongman regime is making huge profits on the backs of the nation’s children while ignoring calls to halt its violations of international labor regulations. [LA Times]

House vs. Senate Over Competitive Bidding: The introduction of some competitive bidding in for-profit contracts as part of earmark reform is the logical next step that Senate Democratic leaders should join the House in implementing. [New York Times]