I knew it...

Actually, if you knew Martin O'Malley, you would know that he was planning to run for President.  I was pretty sure that was his career track when we were both neighbours in Baltimore's Mt. Vernon Place and students at the University of Maryland Law school.  Martin is a few years younger than I am, but he was working for Barbara Mikulski.

New Hampshire, Delegate Tony O'Donnell said, "It's the worst-kept secret in Maryland that the governor has national ambitions"  after  Martin stood in for  Hillary Clinton at a Democratic campaign event in 2007.

I'm not that close to him (surprised and a little annoyed that he didn't acknowledge my congratulations on his winning the Governor post, but that's another story); so, I guess I should have known that he was making his plan to run for President in 2016 and has been since 2013.

Anyway, I received something asking who should run for president in 2016 and guess who was on the list?

Why, Martin O'Malley.

Of course, knowing his attitude toward guns, I should support him.  But, there is something deep down in me that wouldn't vote for the guy. Well, at least not in a primary. He's too much of a politician and not enough of a leader.  In other words, if you don't like Barack Obama--you will hate O'Malley.

With that, I'll end with this music video from Morrissey (No, I don't really feel this way, but I am a slacker compared with some of the people I've grown up with--although there are people who have done much worse than I have).

The Next President (not in a million years)

 via Terry Connolly The whole thing is rigged for Obama, what else could it be?

Anti-Romney Commercial

More on the The Toughest President

In this fascinating article about the largest man-made accidental explosion of all time, there's this bonus fact.

To subscribe to this wonderful e-mail 

newsletter: http://dlewis.net/nik 

Bonus fact: The Mont Blanc (cargo ship) got its name from the Alpine mountain of the same name, on the French and Italian border.   In 1886, Theodore Roosevelt lead an expedition to its peak -- while vacationing in Europe on his honeymoon.

The Toughest President of All Time

via TV Squad

Roosevelt was attacked by a deranged innkeeper named John Schrank, who shot the president as he was about to deliver a speech. The bullet passed through Teddy's coat, through his steel eyeglass case, and was finally slowed down by the manuscript of the 50-page speech that Roosevelt was carrying within his jacket.

After being shot point-blank in the chest, Teddy stepped onto the stage -- as blood was beginning to spread across his shirt -- and delivered the speech anyway. The bullet stayed lodged in his chest for the rest of his life.

Jon Stewart on Obama's Authority

Respect My Authoritah

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

First Black President

Via One Utah.

Is There Change in Washington?

Much criticism has been flying about the intenet on the apparent discrepancy between Barack Obama's campaign promises and the reality of his first weeks in office. The International Herald Tribune reports on this situation in a nicely balanced article, Obama's promise of ethics reform faces early test.

Then there is the lobbyist for a military contractor who is now slated to become the No. 2 official in the Pentagon. And there are the others brought into government from the influence industry even if not formally registered as lobbyists.

President Barack Obama said Monday that he was "absolutely" standing behind former Senator Tom Daschle, his nominee for health and human services secretary, and Daschle, who met late in the day with leading senators in an effort to keep his confirmation on track, said he had "no excuse" and wanted to "deeply apologize" for his failure to pay $128,000 in U.S. taxes.

Do you think these things are acceptable compromises one must make when transitioning from the lofty rhetoric of the campaign trail to the harsh realities of Washington D.C.? Or do these examples represent the tip of the iceberg labelled "just another lying politician?" What's your take on it?

Several Democrats, including some who have advised Obama, said privately that he had only himself to blame for laying out such an uncompromising standard as a candidate without recognizing how it would complicate his ability to assemble an administration.

In the campaign, Obama assailed Washington's "entire culture" in which "our leaders have thrown open the doors of Congress and the White House to an army of Washington lobbyists who have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play." He vowed to "close the revolving door" and "clean up both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue" with "the most sweeping ethics reform in history."

Do you agree that perhaps Obama went overboard during the campaign in describing how he would work Washington? Do you think there could have been a type of naiveté which is only now becoming apparent, even to him?

Does anyone think there was a more sinister coldness to his promises, that even at the time he knew he'd have to compromise but felt he'd get away with it?

My idea is that regardless of what may have been in his head a month or two ago, he's faced with some difficult situations now which in some cases will require compromise. I don't see any evidence so far that these unavoidable situations will detract much from the overall good he'll accomplish as president.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

The New Era Begins Today

The new era begins today. President Obama is said to be meeting with military leaders today on his first full day on the job. As I remember his campaign promises, one was to create a concrete withdrawal program for Iraq. That we should get out of there was said many times in many different ways. Now we'll see.

Other promises were about health care at home and the lessening of taxes for most Americans. But perhaps today's schedule at the White House is indicative of the priority. HuffPo writer Stephen Schlesinger wrote an interesting piece entitled, Obama and the Use of Force.

There were heartening echoes of the words and thoughts of several of our most distinguished presidents in President Obama's Inaugural address today. One I found most interesting was Obama's reference to "earlier generations" of Americans who faced down fascism and communism "not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions." Obama added: "They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please."

What do you think about that? Does it indicate a new direction for the United States of America? Could this mark the beginning of a return to the standards that were once synonymous with America? Or, are you concerned that this could be a grave mistake, that military might and world-policing is what is needed in these difficult times?

Please feel free to leave a comment.

Future Opinions of George W. Bush

Thanks to Break Room Live via Crooks and Liars.

President Bush's Last Day

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

John Farmer wrote a piece for the Star-Ledger Editorial page which I found both comprehensive and convincing. He pointed out, as have many others these days, that Bush is being blamed for a number of serious problems: the Katrina incompetence, reckless spending-and-borrowing, a politics-driven Justice Department, the Iraq war with its legacy of torture and global disapproval, the economic collapse. But according to Farmer, there is one issue which stands out above the others.

Bush's great event was the world-altering 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. But in the days and months that followed, Bush and his political consigliere, Karl Rove, employed it to divide the country along ideological and political lines rather than unify the nation as they might have done bringing Democrats into a war-time government of national unity.

It was the great missed opportunity of the Bush presidency.

My own opinion is a little stronger than that, not that I think I'm a political analyst or anything. I agree with those who have pointed out that after 9/11 there was a calculated and systematic program to raise the fears of Americans in order to elicit support for a war that we had no business engaging in. It worked extremely well, but turned into such an unwieldy debacle that public opinion gradually and consistently plummeted.

The outgoing president is extremely unpopular. Yet his supporters are not shy about commenting, just take a look at the remarks generated by John Farmer's article.

What's your opinion? Was Bush really that bad? Did he mean well at least? If suspicions about what his administration did after 9/11 are true, that they manipulated the American public in order to drum up support for the war, a natural question would be, "why?" Was it because they sincerely believed it was best for the country and the world, or was there a more sinister motive? Did they act to solidify personal power or to enrich themselves and their friends? Did they perhaps act out of some exaggerated American-centric ideology?

What do you think?

The Bush Farewell

Reports and opinions abound on the internet about President Bush's final farewell press conference. CNN reports that the President admitted mistakes but touted some accomplishments.

"Clearly, putting a 'Mission Accomplished' [banner] on an aircraft carrier was a mistake," Bush said about how his administration handled the fall of Baghdad to U.S. troops. "It sent the wrong message."

I thought that may have been the most embarrassing moment, but to mention it as a "mistake" seems to be an attempt to smokescreen the real mistakes. By contrast, more egregious things were called something else.

He termed other aspects of the U.S. invasion of Iraq "disappointments," including the failure to find weapons of mass destruction and the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison.

On the Newsweek.com site, Jacob Weisberg analyzed the outgoing president's term like this.

Bush's three most obvious legacies are his decision to invade Iraq, his framing of a global war on terror after September 11 and the massive financial crisis.

Probably the biggest question Bush leaves behind is about the most consequential choice of his presidency: his decision to invade Iraq. When did the president make up his mind to go to war against Saddam Hussein? What were his real reasons? What roles did various figures around him—Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice—play in the decision? Was the selling of the war on the basis of WMD evidence a matter of conscious deception—or of their own self-deception?

I feel these are good questions. To mention the silly incident on board the aircraft carrier as a "mistake" while describing these other troubling situations as "disappointments" is political spinning at its most transparent.

What's your opinion? Do you think Bush's selling of the Iraq war "on the basis of WMD evidence" is a punishable offence that should be investigated at the international level, as some have suggested? When do you think the President decided to invade Iraq? That seems to be an important question about which experts disagree. Do you think it was mainly his own idea or was there pressure from other sources to go to war?

Please feel free to comment.