Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

Should Obama save Chicago? That’s asking too much. – Chicago Tribune

After eight years of the often thankless work required of the leader of the free world, Barack Obama seems to be enjoying doing what he wants. He's visited the British Virgin Islands, Hawaii and French Polynesia. He's gone kite-surfing, played golf, visited an art gallery and caught a Broadway play. After all the time and energy he put into running for president and being president, most Americans probably think he's entitled to tend to his own needs.

But not everyone agrees. The headline on an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal suggests that he get to work on a formidable new task: "Obama Should Make Saving Chicago His Pet Project."

Which gives us an opportunity to discuss the post-presidential Obama. Expect to read many, many uninvited suggestions for how he should spend his time. The author of this commentary, Chicagoan Gary MacDougal, who served as CEO of Mark Controls Corp. and chairman of the Illinois Republican Party, wants the former president to take on the mission of reducing violence in the city where he once lived.

"He and Mayor Rahm Emanuel should form a citywide task force to find a way to stop the killing and start saving lives," writes McDougal, who once served on a task force with him. "Mr. Obama is extremely popular in Chicago's black community and young gang members who have ignored all previous calls to put down their guns might listen to him." The objective, says McDougal, "would be to make Chicago the safest large city in the country."

This suggestion brings to mind The Onion article that ran after the 2008 presidential election: "Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job." Obama may think he's done enough in the way of public service by shepherding the economy out of a severe recession, enacting a major health care overhaul, revamping financial regulation and taking steps against climate change. If you think all that didn't take a toll, compare photos of Obama in 2008 with those of 2016.

He has other pressing obligations, including some of value to people in Chicago. Planning, financing and building his presidential library and museum on the South Side will demand a lot of his attention before the planned 2021 opening. Obama has reportedly already started work on a memoir encompassing his White House years and it no doubt will run longer than the 464-page "Dreams of My Father," which covered less consequential years.

Why should he be the person to tackle violence in Chicago? Obama has spent little time here since becoming president. He and his wife Michelle have rented a house in Washington, where they are expected to stay at least until 15-year-old Sasha completes high school. He has no special expertise in crime prevention, and the relationships he once had with ordinary Chicagoans are no longer fresh. By now, others know the terrain much better than Obama does.

Besides, combating violence and its causes is really the job of the mayor, the City Council and the police superintendent. We're not convinced a panel of worthies, no matter who they might be, would do a lot to instill peaceable behavior among gang members or other violent residents. But if a task force holds any promise, plenty of other locals could lend it credibility. How about the Rev. Otis Moss III, Chance the Rapper, the Rev. Michael Pfleger or Dwyane Wade? Community leaders whose names are not famous could be enlisted. Local business executives could offer help creating avenues for employment to steer young people out of trouble. Corporations and foundations ought to be encouraged to invest more in blighted areas.

Obama's library and museum could be part of this effort, but it's too much to expect the former president to be the savior of Chicago. In the first place, he has too many other things on his plate. In the second, who would want to break the news to Michelle?

View post:
Should Obama save Chicago? That's asking too much. - Chicago Tribune

Team Trump doubles down on Obama’s horrendous betrayal of Syria – Washington Post (blog)

"With respect to Assad, there is a political reality that we have to accept in terms of where we are right now," White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on March 31. "We need to focus on now defeating ISIS." (Reuters)

Conservatives who excoriated President Barack Obama for acquiescence to genocide in Syria should be just as vocal when it comes to the Trump administration. Indeed, the Trump administration seems to have thrown in the towel entirely on seeking to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, thereby consenting to Irans effective domination of the country and to Russias success in defending its allies Iran and Syria.

On Thursday, both Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations,let it be known that the United States no longer seeks Assads ouster:

The United States diplomatic policy on Syria for now is no longer focused on making the war-torn countrys president, Bashar al-Assad, leave power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said on Thursday, in a departure from the Obama administrations initial and public stance on Assads fate.

The view of the Trump administration is also at odds with European powers, who insist Assad must step down. The shift drew a strong rebuke from at least two Republican senators. . . .

In Ankara on Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Assads longer-term status will be decided by the Syrian people.

In a written statement, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) argued that the statements signaled a shift to a Faustian bargain with Assad and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin sealed with an empty promise of counterterrorism cooperation. He warned: Such a policy would only exacerbate the terrorist threat to our nation. Not only would we make ourselves complicit in Assad and Putins butchery that has led to more than 400,000 Syrians killed and six million refugees, but we would empower ISIS, al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist terrorists as the only alternative to the dictator that the Syrian people have fought for six years to remove. McCain concluded: Trying to fight [the Islamic State] while pretending that we can ignore the Syrian civil war that was its genesis and fuels it to this day is a recipe for more war, more terror, more refugees, and more instability. I hope President Trump will make clear that America will not follow this self-destructive and self-defeating path.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) likewise denounced the apparent decision. If the press reports are accurate and the Trump Administration is no longer focusing on removing Assad, I fear it will be the biggest mistake since President Obama failed to act after drawing a red line against Assads use of chemical weapons, Graham said in a written statement. To suggest that Assad is an acceptable leader for the Syrian people is to ignore the wholesale slaughter of the Syrian people by the Assad regime. Leaving him in power is also a great reward for Russia and Iran.

Outside foreign policy experts were puzzled.

Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy told me: There remain at least two key unknowns: 1) Will the Trump Administration truly counter Irans regional ambitions in Syria, as it has promised to do (and which the Obama administration refused to do lest such a policy threaten the Iran nuclear deal)? 2) Will the Trump administration take the necessary steps post-victory in Raqqa to ensure that Sunni grievances are addressed in such a way that son-of-ISIS does not emerge from the ashes of ISIS? He continued: If the answer to both questions is yes, then the Administration will find itself taking measures that have the effect of driving Assad from power, even without declaring that as a goal, since Assad cannot long survive in a Syria in which Iran is on the defensive and Sunni grievances are addressed. If, however, the answer to either of these questions is no, then Assad could be around for a long, long time. In other words, rather than correcting the horrendous Obama policy, Republicans will have made it their own.

Is this a definitive policy decision?Frankly, its hard to know precisely what the administration intends, because Tillerson declines to interact with the media and the State Department no longer bothers to hold press briefings. Whether it is irreparable or permanent is the question, said Eric Edelman, former U.S. ambassador to Turkey. A good secretary, like George Shultz, understands that there is enormous subject matter expertise at State but little in the way of political judgment. The mark of a good secretary is to co-opt the knowledge and put [it] in the service of policy. So far, I cant tell whether or not that is happening but the initial auguries are not good. Conservatives who blasted Obama for the very same policies have no justification for refusal to do the same when a Republican administration follows his amoral and strategically disastrous policies.

Read the rest here:
Team Trump doubles down on Obama's horrendous betrayal of Syria - Washington Post (blog)

Flashback: Former Obama press secretary once told April Ryan to ‘calm down’ – TheBlaze.com

Earlier this week, liberals accused White House press secretary Sean Spicer of being racist and sexist for telling veteran White House reporter April Ryan to stop shaking her head.But newly resurfaced video reveals that Robert Gibbs, former White House press secretary under former President Barack Obama, once said much worse to the American Urban Radio Networksreporter even comparing Ryan to his child.

Ryan asked Gibbs in December 2009 about former Obama social secretary Desiree Rogers seemingly wallowing in the spotlight at the first official state dinner of the Obama administration.Traditionally, the social secretarys responsibility at such functions is to act as a gatekeeper, ensuring that only those who were invited to the event were allowed in, according to the Washington Post.

That evening, Michaele and Tareq Salahi managed to crash the White House event, a security breach that prompted a congressional investigation. Some observers at the time, speculated the Salahis security breach may have been a direct result of Rogers actions.

Weeks after the incident, Ryan asked Gibbs about the stunning breach.

Is there concern in this White House that she came out being, someone might have called her [Rogers] the bell of the ball, overshadowing the first lady, Ryan asked.

Gibbs responded, I havent heard that.

Ryan followed up, saying, Its been bantered around Washington.

Thats not a station I live in, Gibbs replied.

Ryan continued to press, pleading with Gibbs to just answer the question, please.

Are you done speaking so I can? a testy Gibbs shot back.

Oh, yes, Im done, Ryan assured.

Gibbs reiterated that he had not heard that particular criticism.

The President, the first lady, and the entire White House staff are grateful for the job [Rogers] doesand thinks she has done a terrific and wonderful job pulling off a lot of big and important events here at the White House, he said.

Ryan wasnt satisfied with that answer.

[Rogers] came by herself to this state dinner, did the president invite her? Ryan asked, as Gibbs attempted to call on another reporter.

No, thats a real question. Do not fan it off, Ryan said. Did she invite herself when the president asked when her name was going on the list, and social secretaries are the ones that put their names on that list?

Was she at the dinner? April, April, calm down. Take a deep breath. Now see? I do this with my son and thats what happens, Gibbs said.

That comment was followed up with a collective ohhh from the White House press corps.

Dont play with me. Im being serious, Ryan shot back.

Was she at the dinner? Yes, shes the social secretary, Gibbs continued.

Social secretaries are not guests of the dinner, Ryan pointed out.

Gibbs replied, Im going to get back to weightiertopics like 98,000 men and women in Afghanistan.

Original post:
Flashback: Former Obama press secretary once told April Ryan to 'calm down' - TheBlaze.com

Former Obama official discloses rush to get intelligence on …

A former top Obama administration official has acknowledged efforts by her colleagues to gather intelligence on Trump team ties to Russia before Donald Trump took office and to conceal the sources of that intelligence from the incoming administration.

Evelyn Farkas, deputy assistant secretary of defense under Obama, made the disclosure March 2 while on the air with MSNBCs Mika Brzezinski.

I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration, Farkas, who is now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, said.

Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy ... that the Trump folks if they found out how we knew what we knew about their ... the Trump staff dealing with Russians that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.

The comments come as lawmakers on Capitol Hill clash over House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes' claim last week that surveillance operations incidentally collected Trump team communications during the transition. Critics have accused Nunes of carrying water for Trump and called on him to recuse himself from Russia matters, but Nunes and his congressional allies have pushed back.

Aside from questions over whether communications were improperly gathered during the transition and before, there is speculation over how widely such information was disseminated.Farkas described a rush to spread the material before Trump took office.

"So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia," she said. "So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill."

Link:
Former Obama official discloses rush to get intelligence on ...

Obama’s Legacy Is Proving Far Harder To Erase Than Trump Imagined – Huffington Post

It wasnt quite in the league of predicting the Dow would hit 36,000 months before the dot-com bubble burst, but when New York Magazines Jonathan Chait unveiled his book on Barack Obamas enduring legacy shortly before Donald Trumps election, it seemed for lack of a better term poorly timed.

Trump, after all, was not just running to undo Obamas record. He embodied, in many ways, the antithesis of the former president: brash, not particularly interested in policy detail and prone to push societal pressure points. When Chait stood by his premise, the internet, that unforgiving beast, let him have it. Ben Domenech, writing for the conservative National Review, called it an authors nightmare to have your book arrive just as its central thesis is dashed against the sharp rocks of reality. Other conservatives indulged in similar schadenfreude, treating the book as prima facie evidence of liberalisms aloofness.

It was so completely taken for granted that Trump would completely wipe away the Obama presidency that the existence of this book was itself a punchline, Chait recalled. It was like, You poor, sad man.

Months later, Chait looks far more prescient. Though Trump is president and Republicans control both houses of Congress, the Obama legacy, to an unexpected degree, has endured.

The failed effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, after a seven-year commitment to that principle, was just the latest sign of this. Trump has left the presidents signature foreign policy achievement the Iran nuclear deal in place. Hes offered no indication of a serious desire to undo the thawing of relations with Cuba, either. Though he has weakened workplace protections for the LGBTQ community, he has largely accepted the advancements made on gay rights, and publicly declared same-sex marriage settled law. He has indicated a desire to undo Dodd-Frank regulatory reform. But a wholesale overhaul no longer seems to be a pressing priority. Hes taken a hard-line stance on immigration while still preserving Obamas Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program a protection for the so-called Dreamers that Trump had pledged to ax. Hes introduced harsh new screening guidelines for refugees but has found his attempts rebuffed by the courts so far.

There are areas, of course, where major breaks have occurred: the authorization of the Keystone pipeline and the scuttling of the Trans Pacific Partnership free trade agreement, to name a few. But on matters like infrastructure investment and lowering prescription drug prices, Trump seems more likely to adhere to Obamas legacy than depart from it.

Veterans of the past administration say they arent particularly surprised. Though the Obama legislative portfolio may not have been particularly popular in the moments of passage, officials always felt comfortable in its longevity. Legislative progress, they figured, is as tough to unravel as it is to put together primarily because it shifts the voters frame for the role government plays.

I always believed that the Affordable Care Act was going to be harder to get rid of than Republicans and the pundit class thought post-election because it is harder to take a benefit away than to give it, said Dan Pfeiffer, Obamas longtime adviser. We are seeing that, despite Trump winning, the terms of the political debate have turned in Obamas direction. The debate going forward is how to give people health care and the problem is conservatives dont have an argument.

Carlos Barria / Reuters

The notion that Trump would move swiftly and effectively to erase the Obama legacy was far-fetched to begin with. Every opposition-party presidential candidate campaigns on undoing the past administrations record only to find that the intricacies of governance dont lend themselves to that vision.

Barack Obama himself didnt close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, or fully end the war in Iraq, or undo all of George W. Bushs tax cuts that he pledged to undo, or break apart the centralization of executive power in the manner he described while on the campaign trail.

And yet, Obamas struggle to scale back Bush-ism was different than the challenges Trump is confronting.

On the foreign policy front, at least, Obama was often tripped up by divided government or geopolitical realities, while Trump appears to have essentially accepted the practicality of keeping the Iran deal in place and letting relations with Cuba continue to improve.

On our second full day in office we rolled back the executive order on torture and rendition and on the first day there was the now-infamous executive order on GITMO, recalled Ned Price, a former national security spokesman for the Obama administration. It wasnt like it was empty campaign rhetoric. In this case, there was a lot said on the campaign trail and it was divorced from the reality of governing.

Domestically, Trump has used executive action more aggressively to undo Obama-era gains. Hes rolled back federal standards for schools, rescinded requirements that top federal contractors disclose labor violations, reopened the Justice Departments use of private prisons, and reversed a rule that prohibited some people with mental health problems from buying guns.

And then there are the changes to environmental policy, where Trump has made his greatest inroads. Early action included letting mountaintop miners dump waste in nearby waterways and allowing the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider strict fuel efficiency standards. An executive order signed on Tuesday instructed the EPA to roll back Obamas Clean Power Plan, in addition to paving the way for coal leasing on federal lands, the rewriting of limits on methane emissions, and the removal of climate changes as a mandatory consideration in policymaking. Though Trump has not yet formally withdrawn from the landmark Paris Climate accord (one of Obamas signature achievements), he will make it effectively impossible for the United States to meet the accords benchmarks.

And yet, even on this front, Obamas legacy seems stronger than initially foreseen. There is the matter of the courts, which have already directed the EPA to act on its finding that climate change is a threat to human health, and will undoubtedly be hearing cases soon challenging Trumps actions. And there is also the cumbersome rule-making processes that will end up delaying some of Trumps directives, potentially for years.

The Obama administration had to contend with these hurdles as well. But over the course of eight years they were able to make advancements on climate policy, and they did so precisely through the grunt work of governance that the Trump administration does not yet seem to fully appreciate.

I would call it the triumph of rigor, said Patrick Gaspard, Obamas former political director. Rigor matters. As does the ability to convince even those who voted against you that your approach was governed by a fierce integrity.

Too much is made of dealmaking and going with gut, he added. Obama had an informed decisiveness that contained the passion of those in trenches with him and the anxieties of those who feared change. Thats the weatherproofing on his policy legacy.

Carlos Barria / Reuters

Of course, theres still plenty of time for Trump to rip apart the Obama legacy in a fashion he promised. And not everyone assumes that hell be content to let matters like health care reform, or the Iran deal, or refugee policy simply remain in place and move on.

I assure you, I stand by my Chait review, Domenech told The Huffington Post.

But the likelihood has clearly grown that Trump will end up taking a more nuanced approach, that hell work within the Obama governing framework instead of trying to dismantle it. On health care, already his administration is talking about working with Democrats to reform Obamacare, while House Republicans have begun looking at ways to fund a provision of the law that they previously sued the Obama administration to end.

I had a book that seemed to be saying the opposite of what people felt at the time. It ran into that timing problem of people looking for an explanation of the opposite of what I was trying to explain. But it has become more apparent that it was correct, said Chait. I think it is going, in some ways, better than I predicted at the time.

Want more updates from Sam Stein? Sign up for his newsletter, Spam Stein, here.

See the rest here:
Obama's Legacy Is Proving Far Harder To Erase Than Trump Imagined - Huffington Post