100-day benchmark looms for Obama

(Originally published 1/24/09)

I heard an historian on television the other day lamenting the Hundred Days benchmark made famous by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the midst of the Great Depression. It is looked upon as an initial indicator, the first real measure of a president's success, he said, even though success by the standard FDR set is nearly impossible to achieve.

Roosevelt's early New Deal wins basically doomed future presidents to relative failure, the historian said; it's unlikely that any other chief executive could produce such major accomplishments in such little time, because quick legislative action was predicated on the extraordinarily dire circumstances facing the nation.

There is no question that President Obama is attempting to fashion his administration's first steps in 2009 after Roosevelt's efforts more than 75 years ago. And these times certainly bear similarities to those: Politicians aren't at all shy about invoking the Great Depression to fans the flames of Washington's legislative engine; in addition, there is unrest throughout the world, and millions of anxious Americans are looking to a popular new president for hope and help.

In his book, "Nothing to Fear: FDR's Inner Circle and the Hundred Days that Created Modern America," author Adam Cohen writes that "after assuring a despairing nation that 'the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,' Roosevelt promised 'action, and action now.'"

For President Obama, action there has been. In the first 48 hours of his presidency, Obama hit the ground running: He held meetings with key administration figures on his economic recovery plan, established a "daily economic briefing" as part of his standing schedule, signed an executive order to close the controversial terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within a year and announced the appointments of special envoys to deal with ongoing issues in the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

But there are notable differences between Roosevelt and Obama. Cohen writes that "a remarkable inaugural address" underpinned and paved the way for FDR's early moves in Congress, and desperate lawmakers gave FDR everything he wanted in those first 100 days. There was little remarkable about Obama's speech Tuesday, and by the time he delivered it, he had already fought his first tough –- though successful -– economic battle with the Senate.

The period between election and inauguration allows the president-elect time to get his sea-legs, as it were. And Obama took full advantage of the transition, alternately flexing his political muscle and staying on the sidelines when he saw fit. He took a strong and visible role on the economy, making public statements about daily indicators and actively and personally participating in negotiations about the release of second half of the congressional bailout. But as Israel undertook military action in Gaza, Obama demurred, repeatedly repeating the mantra that there is "only one president at a time."

All that changed at noon on Tuesday, when the affairs and safety and future of this country were entrusted in their entirety to President Barack Obama.

Three days down ... 97 to go.

Obama bears heavy burden of advancing King's dream

(Originally published 1/17/09)

Every presidential inauguration is an historic event.

But Tuesday offers us history-plus, if that's possible, in a chance to bear eyewitness to an event that millions in this country never dared to imagine: A black American sworn into the presidency.

History has an interesting way of weaving things together. Barack Obama's inauguration will take place the day after the United States celebrates the 80th anniversary of the birth of its foremost civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Race will figure prominently in events throughout inauguration weekend. There will be no end to the comparisons between Obama and President Abraham Lincoln and even to King himself.

Obama won't shy from these comparisons: He'll swear in on the Bible that Lincoln used to take the oath of office and will likely borrow from King, as he did during the campaign, by invoking "the fierce urgency of now."

Just about every journalist with a microphone or a laptop will gush about how President Obama is living proof of how far we’ve come on race relations in this country.

Yes, Obama's election is progress. But a black president is not in itself the embodiment of King’s dream.

On a sweltering August day in 1963, King told 250,000 Americans gathered on the Washington Mall about his dream for this country. In equal parts eloquence and passion, he described a nation where citizens of every color could live and work side by side; where character, not color, mattered; where social justice thrived and where no one is left "languishing in the corners of American society."

Yes, the new president is surely incontrovertible evidence that the down payments of blood that were paid on a bridge in Selma and in the streets of Birmingham and in jail cells and busses and schools all across the South are paying their dividends of equality.

But in looking at the country itself, we find new barriers –- social and cultural lines that have been drawn since King's speech –- that are incontrovertible evidence that his dream remains unrealized.

King dreamed of a homogenous culture even in the face of racial diversity. He dreamed that one day, race would dissipate, then disappear altogether, as a driving factor in American culture –- even he supported race-conscious social policies like affirmative action as a means to achieve that end.

I often wonder what MLK would have thought of our culture today. I like to think he would have concerned himself a lot more with the social realities of black Americans than how many black Americans coach college football teams.

Obama's candidacy exposed the uncomfortable racial divide that continues to persist in America. He gave a powerful and poignant speech about it back in April, when white Americans struggled with what to make of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

On Tuesday, Obama will take his place in the landscape of King's dream, but that dream will remain unfulfilled. As the scaffolding and bunting come down, and as cherry blossoms bloom and winter returns and midterms advance and Obama begins to run for re-election, it will fall to him to set an example and pursue public policies that will move that dream toward reality.

Fed up with Legislature's jail food law

(Originally published 1/10/09)

Did you hear the one about the Alabama sheriff who was locked in his own jail because the food was so bad?

Unfortunately, it isn’t a joke.

Morgan County Sheriff Greg Bartlett spent about 18 hours in county lockup Wednesday and Thursday after U.S. District Judge U.W. Clemon found that Bartlett had failed to abide by a 2001 directive to provide more adequate meals for inmates.

Morgan County’s nutrition consultant testified that the food on the menu was adequate for the prisoners. But The Huntsville Times reports that Bartlett admitted to modifying and making substitutions in the jail's typical weekly menu, which is designed to provide between 2,500 and 3,100 calories a day.

In one instance, the sheriff got a good deal on corn dogs, buying an 18-wheeler load of them for $500. Inmates ate the fair food every day for months.

Actually, I don't mind that arrangement. This is jail, after all, and food variety isn't part of the deal.

My problem is with the incentive that drove the corn dog purchase.

The state provides counties with jail food funds of $1.75 per inmate, per day. That isn't a lot for one meal, let alone three. But since 2006, Bartlett has fed prisoners for even less.

The balance (or "leftovers," for those of you with dark humor) amounted to $212,000 -– and Bartlett took it home.

Now, before you get all outraged at the sheriff, consider this: It's legal, thanks to your Alabama Legislature.

Bartlett was jailed for the quality of the food, not for making money off the arrangement. That's because a 1939 state law allows sheriffs in 55 of Alabama's 67 counties to keep the money that's left after the inmates are fed.

Given the cost of food these days, I suspect that Bartlett's cash cow is unique. I would guess that more sheriffs are struggling to meet their obligations with $1.75 per inmate per day than are walking home with what amounts to six-figure bonuses.

But even if inmates aren't being systematically underfed to pad the pockets of their jailers, the principle behind the law that allows it remains a problem.

Legislators who wrote this law probably considered it an incentive for law enforcement officials to be frugal with taxpayers' dollars. (Either that, or a bunch of them later became sheriffs.)

But those are still taxpayers' dollars, regardless of whether they're spent for their intended purpose. If sheriffs can meet their obligations with less than what the state provides, the remainder should be redirected to some other public need. And considering the sorry state of public funding these days, there are plenty of worthy public needs.

In his get-out-of-jail agreement with Clemon, Bartlett agreed to use all the money he receives to feed prisoners for that exclusive purpose. But this overreaching heavy-handedness holds Morgan County to a different standard than the rest of the state.

Lawmakers can easily fix this in the coming legislative session by simply requiring either the return of remainder funds to the state or their reinvestment into local law enforcement budgets.

If they fail to do so, the joke will be on us.

Government bailout of newspapers tempting, but dangerous

(Originally published 1/3/09)

Bristol, Conn.: Home to ESPN, The Bristol Press and Ground Zero in the fight to save American newspapers.

Like every other media company, The Press's owner, Journal Register, is drowning in rising newsprint costs and declining circulation and ad revenue, factors magnified and multiplied by the tanking economy. As a result, JR owners say they can't afford to keep The Press and its nearby counterpart, The New Britain Herald, open.

Enter Connecticut state assemblyman Frank Nicastro.

Reuters reported this week that the lawmaker and some colleagues don't want to see the newspapers founder, so they're asking the state government for help. In response, the state's economic development arm is offering tax breaks, training funds, financing opportunities and other incentives for publishers, but not cash.

Supporters of the move say there is precedent for government action to protect newspapers: The Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970 paved the way for joint operating agreements to help competing dailies in metro areas, and the U.S. Postal Service offers discounted postage rates.

Likewise, Nicastro says, Connecticut's assistance is being offered to protect newspapers' ability to serve as taxpayers' advocates, not to usurp it.

As newspapers continue to hemorrhage people and cash, a few folks in the industry are considering the government lifeline. Yes, newspapers jealously guard their independence from government for the sake of their sacrosanct mission. But how noble is that commitment, they ask, if no newspapers are left to fulfill that mission?

I've struggled with this issue all week. I'm the fifth generation of my family to work in newspapers; I don't want to see them die. They serve an oversight purpose that no other organization can -– or will. If newspapers die, who will dig out the connections between legislators and the state two-year college system? Who will keep an eye on City Council for you? Who will examine that new garbage contract for possible conflicts of interest, tell you about new business openings and what caused that fire down the street?

But I can't make myself believe that a government lifeline is the solution. If newspapers take a government bailout, how can they report on those bailouts -– or anything else the government is doing?

As Quinnipiac University journalism professor Paul Janensch told Reuters, "You can't expect a watchdog to bite the hand that feeds it."

As much as I hate to see newspapers go under –- and many probably will in 2009 -– I have to believe, as I did with the Big Three bailout, that bankruptcy won't kill the product. It will simply regenerate in a different –- and better –- form.

I hope industry bankruptcy will bring an eventual return of the locally owned and operated daily newspaper. No one knows your community like the people who live there, and your need for news won't die with the corporate media conglomerate. So when the corporate media conglomerate goes under, your neighbors will be there to pick up the pieces.

Yes, the newspaper industry is worth saving. But as I said on the blog last month, as other industries clamor for government bailouts to ensure their survival, it is actually the procurement, not the denial, of government funds that would seal the American newspaper's demise.

Politically, time will tell if new year will bring anything new

(Originally published 12/27/08)

Ah, the New Year ... time to resolve to lose those 15 pounds, get organized, quit smoking and make your life all you want it to be.

In other words, it's time to make all of last year's old resolutions new again.

For all the trite clichés about the new year (a fresh start, a blank slate, etc.), the new year can sometimes bring more of the same.

That can be true in politics, too –- different campaigns, same dirt; different names, same scandals; different promises, same results (or lack thereof).

Will this year finally bring something new?

President-elect Barack Obama, who won the presidency on a promise of change, will come to the White House already having dealt with its first scandal in the mess surrounding Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. As the International Herald Tribune pointed out this week, every president for the past three decades has been interviewed by federal investigators at some point. And although he participated as a witness, not a target, of the probe, "Obama may have set a land speed record by giving his first interview to investigators even before taking the oath of office," the IHT said.

How long will the Blagojevich scandal drag on? Will Obama's chief of staff-in-waiting, Rahm Emanuel, emerge unscathed? And how will the scandal itself tarnish the bully pulpit Obama won on Nov. 4?

Turning to Congress, how will Democrats handle their expanded power? They won bigger majorities in both houses at least in some part by running more conservative candidates in predominately Republican districts (Bobby Bright in Alabama's CD 2 is one example). How will House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid manage their bigger tents? Will the larger numbers shelter Obama’s initiatives to success? Or will the broader spectrum of political opinion in their party actually slow things down?

Most of Obama's biggest battles will be fought in the Senate. And although Democrats fell shy of the 60 seats they needed to avoid Republican filibusters, their lineup isn't final yet. The Minnesota grudge match between GOP incumbent Norm Coleman and former "Saturday Night Live" comedian Al Franken enters its eighth post-Election Day week; meanwhile, in Illinois, with Blagojevich facing impeachment, state legislators split between appointment and a special election and the state Supreme Court unwilling to intervene, it's uncertain how long Obama's Senate seat will remain vacant. Every day it does, Illinoisans are being shorted representation in Washington -– and Reid has one fewer vote on the board.

Closer to home, the campaign to succeed Gov. Bob Riley will kick off soon. The state budget is in proration and funding is in short supply. Unfortunately, we can't say the same for ambitious, egomaniacal politicians. Budget woes plus political jockeying? Should make for an exceptionally disappointing legislative session –- even by Alabama's low standards.

We'll have plenty to discuss into the New Year and beyond. But time, and the performance of our elected officials, will tell whether it will really bring anything new.

Want a merry Christmas? Choose to have one

(Originally published 12/20/08)

We talked in this space Thanksgiving week about things for which Americans can be thankful -– even when times are tough, as they are now.

Christmas is now upon us, and although this season means joy for millions around the world, for many others, the holidays just exacerbate their pain and loneliness.

One of my favorite things about Christmas is Christmas music, and one of my favorite Christmas songs is "'Til the season comes 'round again." But it's a bit different than the tunes of gaiety that usually typify the season.

The song is permeated with an underlying feeling that its author had been through a tough year. Although he doesn't elaborate or in any way describe his struggles, it's clear from the lyrics that in his life, fellowship with family and friends is more than a holiday obligation: It is what's keeping him going and giving him hope for the coming year.

In short, he makes a conscious decision to celebrate the season, giving thanks for what is instead of lamenting what isn't.

I recently heard someone expound on the power of the will to affect the emotions. We don't have to surrender our state of mind to the volatility of our circumstances, he said; we can choose to make our emotional state the result of an exercise of our will.

This is an important message -– not only for the many people out there who are struggling through a difficult holiday season of their own, but also for those of us who are not.

We can make a conscious decision to celebrate what we have. And we have a lot. Even in a down economy, as I discussed last month, Americans enjoy countless blessings that we simply take for granted every day.

In addition, we have the opportunity to make blessings for others. We can make a conscious decision to embody the season through acts of service or generosity to our neighbors. Donate to your favorite charity. Give to those less fortunate -– and be assured, there is always someone less fortunate.

But sharing the spirit of Christmas isn't only about money. Smile at people you meet. Look them in the eye when you speak to them. Really listen when you say, "How are you?" Show kindness to those around you.

On Christmas Eve, as I wrap presents and listen to the classic Christmas carols that have delighted people for 60 years or more, I'll be thinking of my Christmas wishes, which I share here with you:

That every child throughout the world would be safe, happy and loved;

That every homeless person would find inviting shelter;

That every hungry man, woman and child would have a warm meal to warm their souls;

That everyone already blessed with these things would share them with others, not just on Christmas but throughout the year; and

That your home on Christmas morning will be filled with the music of the season: songs of faith, family and giving – and the greatest gift of all.

Merry Christmas!

For Blagojevich, governing is all about No. 1

(Originally published 12/13/08)

An Illinois governor, the subject of a federal investigation, charged with corruption and urged to resign.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich?

Well, yes. But also Gov. George Ryan – the man Blagojevich replaced.

In running to replace Ryan, who would later be sent to federal prison, Blagojevich promised in 2002 to clean up the governor’s office. On the campaign trail, he talked about how he had pledged to his mother that he would always be honest and never take a bribe.

Six years later, it was common knowledge that Blagojevich was under investigation for corruption. But the governor’s quick arrest Tuesday, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s explanation of why it was necessary and Fitzgerald’s presentation of evidence against Blagojevich left the grittiest, most cynical political reporters – even longtime veterans of Chicago’s rough-and-tumble politics – astonished and searching for words.

Don’t worry. Fitzgerald had them covered.

“This is a sad day for government,” Fitzgerald said; Blagojevich was in the middle of a “political corruption crime spree” and “has taken us to a truly new low.”

He described five examples of Blagojevich’s alleged corruption. In addition to the most publicized allegation – that Blagojevich tried to “sell” Barack Obama’s Senate seat to the highest bidder – Fitzgerald described how the governor was caught on tape allegedly exploring ways to pull back $8 million in reimbursement funds for Children’s Memorial Hospital because its CEO had not come through with an expected $50,000 campaign contribution.

Blagojevich has apparently joined the ranks of so many other public officials who have spat in the eyes of those who elected them – not only engaging in illegal and/or improper behavior, but boldly defying anyone to catch them.

Most politicians disgraced this way finally get the message. They resign their posts or drop re-election bids, withdrawing in shame.

But not Blagojevich. This guy redefines overachievement.

The state’s attorney general, the lieutenant governor, all 50 Democratic members of the United States Senate and the president-in-waiting are all urging him to resign. The State Legislature is organizing an impeachment effort while scrambling to pass legislation in a special session that would strip Blagojevich of his ability to appoint Obama’s successor.

But Blagojevich ignores them all. He doesn’t care that he has become politically radioactive. Not even 24 hours after being released on his own recognizance, he went right back to work.

How is this sort of aloofness, this level of personal unassailability possible?

It’s easy to understand if you consider Blagojevich’s governing philosophy, revealed in a recorded conversation on Nov. 12. Prosecutors say Blagojevich told his chief of staff that his decision about Obama’s successor would be based on three criteria and in this order of importance: “Our legal situation, our personal situation, my political situation. This decision, like every other one, needs to be based upon that: Legal. Personal. Political.”

For Rod Blagojevich, governing has never been about anything but himself. We are the aloof ones if we expect that at this late date, even under fire, Blagojevich would actually do anything that is in anyone’s best interest but his own.

In stubbornly clinging to power, he’s sticking right on script.