The U.S. presidents announcement, made in an e-mail to supporters Monday, sent many in Moscow praising the achievements of a reset in relations that has become a hallmark of both Obamas and Dmitry Medvedevs presidencies.
I will be very happy to see a second Obama term because this will mean a maximum in policy continuity regarding Russia, Mikhail Fedotov, head of Medvedevs human rights council, said by telephone Tuesday.
His comments were echoed by Alexei Malashenko, an analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center, who said a second Obama term would be the best possible outcome for Moscow because there was no more capable or promising leader in current U.S. politics. He is the first U.S. president completely free of Cold War thinking, Malashenko explained.
Konstantin Kosachyov, chairman of the State Dumas International Affairs Committee, also has enthusiastically embraced Obama as Moscows obvious choice. Obamas global agenda is much better and more productive than what was proposed by his predecessors, Kosachyov, who is also a leading member of United Russia, said in comments published on the partys web site Monday.
But Kosachyov made it clear that what he liked about Obamas stance on Russia might seem a weakness to others. Previous administrations, he said, defined U.S. national interests as meaning world dominance, while Obama accepts the concept of a multipolar world as being compatible with its national interests.
Fellow United Russia Deputy Sergei Markov put it more bluntly. We should support Obama because he softened support for anti-Russian regimes in our neighborhood, like that of [Georgian President Mikheil] Saakashvili, he said by telephone.
#1
The infamous courtship of a patrician and a revolutionist Roosevelt and Stalin
Robert Nisbet
Then, in August 1944, the Soviets cruelly
widened their attack. Germans were still in
206 Summer/Fall1986
occupation of Warsaw but preparing to
retreat from the city. Moscow Radio for
days secretly called upon the Polish Home
Guard in Warsaw to revolt on a certain
day, promising that the already-advancing
Soviet army would move in immediately to
engage the Germans. Instead, after the
Polish uprising in Warsaw began, the incoming
Soviet troops suddenly stopped at
a river a few miles from Warsaw and
watched the spectacle over several days of
Nazi massacre of the rebelling Home
Guard.
This ugly display of Soviet barbarism
took place, it must be realized, three
months after the Normandy landing, after
Paris had been freed, and after there was
only the slightest threat to Russia from the
German armies. The world was shocked,
and when the British and Americans asked
Stalin for permission to use Soviet air fields
if any of their own planes were crippled
and forced to land in their mission of dropping
supplies for the Warsaw Poles, the
answer was a sharp no. The reactions by
Churchill and Roosevelt were individually
characteristic. Churchill, on August 25,
sent Roosevelt a draft telegram to Stalin
for Roosevelts concurrence, one begging
for a relenting of the Soviet decision in
order that the British and Americans, on
their own responsibility alone, might help.
Roosevelt, on the very next day, replied
stiffly: In consideration of Stalins present
attitude in regard to relief of the Polish underground..
. I do not consider it advantageous
to the long-range, general war
prospect for me to join with you in the proposed
message.35
It was about this time that Churchill
wrote Roosevelt to say that Chaim Web
mann (head of the World Zionist Organization)
had asked that the Jews be allowed
to organize a brigade of their own,
with their own commanders, uniform, flag,
et cetera, to join in the war against the Germans.
Churchill was all for it, and he was
obviously eager to have Roosevelt join
him. But the Presidents reply was a model
of brevity and coldness: I perceive no objection
toyour organizing a Jewish brigade
as suggested.% End of message.
In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses indefinitely. But then, dozens of interest groups all set about spending the excess, each thinking the whole thing was theirs. Add in WOT and Hopeless Security, a recession, and there you have it.
Polls show that a large majority of Americans blame wasteful or unnecessary federal programs for the nation's budget problems. They didn't ask me, but I would've agreed.
The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and the tax bills enacted under former president George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue. How did I know this was coming? It's the WaPo!
Bush said as he accepted the GOP nomination in August 2000 - "The surplus is not the government's money. The surplus is the people's money." Buffoon! It's gubamint's money! After a lot more Bush Bashing, we get to the root cause:
William Hoagland, who was for years a top budget aide to Domenici and other GOP Senate leaders, said it is simplistic to think today's fiscal problems began just 10 years ago. In 1976, as a young CBO analyst, Hoagland produced a long-term simulation that showed entitlement costs gradually overwhelming the rest of the federal budget. Seems some of here figured that out already.
Summarizing a chart in a graphic sidebar in the article - Legislative spending added $8.4 trillion, economic and technical costs were $3.6 trillion, and "other" was $0.7 trillion, or $700 billion.
Of the spending, $2.8 trillion was several tax cuts, more spending totaled $3.4 trillion, stimulus (only) $700 billion, and $1.4 trillion in borrowing.
They're silent on ObamaCare, but that's revenue-neutral, I heard. [cough]
#3
I wonder if he is referring to "The Great Society*"?
That's what I'd call it - greatest mistake of ... quite a while.
*The Great Society was a set of domestic programs enacted in the United States on the initiative of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Two main goals of the Great Society social reforms were the elimination of poverty and racial injustice. New major spending programs that addressed education, medical care, urban problems, and transportation were launched during this period. The Great Society in scope and sweep resembled the New Deal domestic agenda of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but differed sharply in types of programs enacted.
Some Great Society proposals were stalled initiatives from John F. Kennedy's New Frontier. Johnson's success depended on his skills of persuasion, coupled with the Democratic landslide in the 1964 election that brought in many new liberals to Congress.
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/01/2011 16:54 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The inauguration of JFK I think.
Posted by: Aussie Mike ||
05/01/2011 17:24 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Oh sure, the Great Society programs of the 1960s were a huge mistake. But FDR's New Deal in the 1930s laid the foundations for that. And those were made possible by, among other things, the 16th and 17th amendments (income tax and direct election of senators) in 1913, and 20th century progressivism in general. And so on, all the way back to 1803 (Marbury v. Madison), or even 1789, when the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution, arguably the grand-daddy of all subsequent big mistakes.
Just want to establish how big we're talking when we refer to "biggest mistakes in American history"!
Yep, that pesky amendment. Had that been in place both Senators from MA would be 'D'. Look at the quality replacement for the One out of IL which was an appointment [not to mention the Roman circus of soliciting bids for the job]. And the recent one in Alaska wouldn't have had to bother to find a judge to reinterpret the law to maintain her reign. Terrible that the people should ever be trusted with a choice. /sarc off
Go back and read why that was put in place and discover the corrupt practices that gave birth to it.
#8
The Constitution originally provided for Senators to be appointed by state legislatures, to represent states' interests at the national level. The concern was protecting states' rights form federal encroachment.
This was the New Jersey plan, proposed in opposition to the Virginia plan, which sought direct election of both Senators and Representatives because this would favor more populous states, giving them disproportionately more power at the national level.
The 17th amendment repealed the New Jersey plan and adopted the Virginia plan, after the big-state vs. small-state issue had already been settled over a century earlier, and is just as relevant today.
Currently, 26 state legislatures are controlled by Republicans; 16 by Dems; and 8 are split. Hence, absent the 17th amendment, Republicans would now control the Senate too, and states' interests would be more accurately represented.
#10
Hence, absent the 17th amendment, Republicans would now control the Senate too, and states' interests would be more accurately represented.
That's the Donk line of thinking. The assumption that 'We' will always be in power. What happens when it isn't so? That the problem. The object is never create a situation where someone you prefer not to have such power can get it even if it means you don't get it either.
#11
P2k, of course it wouldn't always work out in favor of the party one prefers. But an appointed Senate would more reliably reflect the national mood, including rural and remote areas; a directly elected one has a built-in slant toward states with large urban concentrations (as well as dead and undocumented voters). Corruption may be a risk with the first, but fraud is a risk with the second. Take your pick.
The Framers accepted that the human condition is flawed, so the goal was just to limit the damage. They also sought to create a republic, not a democracy. The New Jersey-Virginia debate is covered in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, which sounds boring until you realize the Framers debated exactly this point just as furiously, and much more eloquently.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses indefinitely. 
