domingo, 28 de fevereiro de 2010

A queda de John Edwards: terá a imprensa o poder de vetar candidatos presidenciais?


Mais uma boa história do POLITICO.com, através de Michael Calderone, sobre a influência da pressão mediática na incrível queda de John Edwards:

«Over the past few weeks, the world has learned quite enough about John Edwards – from the lies he told in trying to cover up an adulterous affair to the compulsive vanity that left some people close to him questioning his judgment and even his grip on reality.


Democrats who seriously considered making Edwards the party’s 2008 presidential nominee could be forgiven for asking: Now you tell us?


The revelations about Edwards, contained in two best-selling books, have undermined one of the favorite conceits of political journalism, that the intensive scrutiny given candidates by reporters during a presidential campaign is an excellent filter to determine who is fit for the White House.


While the media “usually does well” in vetting candidates, said presidential historian Michael Beschloss, “Edwards is a good case” in which it didn’t.


And that failure is worrisome in a changed political world where politicians - be they Barack Obama or Sarah Palin - can burst upon the national stage and seemingly overnight become candidates for higher office.


The media, according to Beschloss, now has “a much bigger responsibility than it used to.” In the past, he said, the political establishment “would usually have known the candidate for a long time, and if there were big problems, they probably would have known about those, and tried to make sure those people wouldn’t be nominated.”


That did not happen with Edwards, even though as a Senator he had run for president once before, in 2004, ended up on the Democratic ticket as John Kerry’s running mate, and was a known quantity to many top Democrats.


In 2008, there were conversations among some Edwards staffers, according to “Game Change,” the new book by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, about the responsibility of coming forward with what they knew about Edwards, perhaps leaking to the New York Times or Washington Post, if it looked like he might win the nomination. But there is no evidence they ever did.


Two stories by the National Enquirer that ran before Iowa described Edwards’s affair with Rielle Hunter. But the mainstream media went to sources within the Edwards campaign to try to confirm the stories and got nowhere. No one in the campaign would confirm them.


Those staffers are the ones who should be held accountable, Marc Ambinder wrote in response to the question he posed on The Atlantic’s website: “Should Edwards Aides Be Shamed And Blamed?”


“It’s your responsibility to quit the campaign and not enable it,” he wrote. “If you enable it, you are responsible in some ways for the fallout. Your loyalty isn’t an excuse for that.”


The failure to follow up aggressively on the reporting by the National Enquirer, which has nominated itself for a Pulitzer Prize for its Edwards coverage, has served as fodder for conservatives and others convinced the media has a double standard when it comes to vetting Democrats and Republicans.


"I feel sorry for the liberals who were duped by Edwards,” said Cliff Kincaid editor of the right-leaning watchdog organization Accuracy in Media. “They were the real victims of the failure to vet Edwards.”


“Now we know that Edwards was a phony in more ways than one,” Kincaid added. “Our media, especially progressives in the media, were in love with Edwards because of his liberal views. But he wasn't in love with them. He was in love with someone else—and it turns out it wasn't his wife.”


Not everyone agrees that the media completely dropped the ball, including a former spokesman for Hillary Clinton, who might have had the most to gain from any Edwards disclosures.


“Edwards was pretty thoroughly vetted but there are limits to what the press can reasonably be expected to uncover, said Phil Singer, Clinton’s former deputy communications director, “and events that take place in the bedroom are probably at the top of that list.”


Nicholas Lemann, dean of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, said that there isn’t a “simple yes or no” answer when looking at whether Edwards was fully vetted. What news organizations can cover, he said, comes down to a question of resources.


“News organizations just don’t have the horsepower to go out when there’s fields of eight people in each party to do the level of vetting it would take to uncover that,” Lemann said of the Edwards affair.


And with numerous candidates in both parties to cover, it’s not surprising that news organizations largely ignored the report of a “love child” between Edwards and Hunter just a few weeks before the Iowa vote.


Still, simply because the media missed the affair doesn’t mean Edwards wasn’t given scrutiny as a candidate. Throughout 2007, there was a series of reports that undermined the image that Edwards had sought to project by contrasting his populist rhetoric and focus on poverty with the reality of a candidate with hedge fund ties and $400 haircuts.


“I thought we did a pretty good job back in ‘07,” said Washington Post reporter Alec MacGillis, “to the point where we were getting a lot of complaints from them.”


In April 2007, MacGillis and then-colleague John Solomon reported in a front page story how Edwards—who spoke of “two Americas” during the 2004 campaign—went to work for a hedge in October 2005. The Post story ran about a week after POLITICO’s Ben Smith reported on Edwards’s $400 haircuts at a top Beverly Hill stylist.


Then in August the Wall Street Journal reported that as an investor, “Edwards has ties to lenders foreclosing on Katrina victims.” It damaged Edwards not only because of the campaign’s anti-poverty theme, but because he announced the presidential run from New Orleans.


Christopher Cooper, who reported the story for the Journal, said that the theme of his story and others in 2007 was that “he was not the man his politics suggested.” And Cooper noted that Edwards “was in a pretty deep fade by October,” when the first Enquirer report appeared.


But the campaign went on, and staffers—largely unaware of the truth about Edwards’ relationship with Hunter—continued batting away infidelity rumors. Several former Edwards staffers told POLITICO that without direct knowledge of an affair, they passed on misinformation that came down to them from the top.


“I was told that it was not true by John Edwards and by others,” said one former staffer. “I fought back against the story going beyond the Enquirer; I just stuck with what I knew to be the facts. I didn’t make moral arguments.”


Andrew Young, the former aide who described his own efforts to help Edwards cover up the scandal in his book “The Politician,” said that based on conservations with top staffers, he believes knowledge of the affair was more widespread than ex-staffers will now admit.


“Anybody who was around Edwards and Rielle for those months,” Young said in an interview with POLITICO “it’s virtually impossible for any of them to claim they didn’t know something was going on.”


But he concedes they now have “plausible deniability” since Edwards staffers were not openly discussing anything specific about an affair.


Those within the Edwards orbit between 2004 and 2008 have gone on to a variety of careers in Democratic politics, advocacy organizations and the Obama administration: senior adviser Joe Trippi remains a top Democratic strategist: national press secretary Eric Schultz is now communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; adviser Jennifer Palmieri is senior vice president for communications at the Center for American Progress; campaign manager David Bonior’s chairman of American Rights at Work, and deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince is a spokesman for Special Envoy George Mitchell at the State Department.


POLITICO reached out to over a dozen former Edwards’ staffers who either would only speak without attribution, declined to comment, or were unavailable following multiple requests.


One former staffer said that in asking who should be shamed or blamed—the issue Ambinder raised on his blog—it’s difficult to draw a clear line of who knew and didn’t know.


“I’d say only a handful of people knew, and they didn’t truly know,” said the former staffer. “And those people, for whatever reason, were not involved in the campaign.”


Young as well as Heilemann and Halperin wrote that Josh Brumberger, Kim Rubey and David Ginsberg likely knew about Edwards’s affair with Hunter. All three stopped working for Edwards in 2006, though Ginsberg and Rubey came to Iowa in the days just before the caucuses.


Democratic strategist Bob Shrum, who ran the Kerry-Edwards campaign in 2004, doesn’t believe senior staffers should be held accountable for what they knew about their candidate’s behavior. “I would cast no harsh judgment on most of these folks, many of whom I know,” he said.


“I would assume that with the exception of a couple of people who did seem aware of the problem, and actually tried to do something about it, most people were either not aware or didn’t want to be aware,” Shrum said.


One former staffer thinks most people would agree with Shrum.


“I think, for the most, part people understand that we worked on the campaign for the right reasons, that we were trying to make a positive contribution to our country and to progressive causes,” the staffer said, “and that we weren't responsible for the bad personal (and public) judgment of the candidate.”»

Sugestão CASA BRANCA: Máquina Política

O CASA BRANCA regressa hoje a uma rubrica que tem andado um pouco esquecida por cá, mas que prometo retomar com regularidade: as sugestões CB sobre o que de mais interessante vai aparecendo na blogosfera.

Hoje destaco o MÁQUINA POLÍTICA, blogue recente, e muito interessante, do João Luís. É, podemos dizer assim, um dos principais «concorrentes» deste humilde blogue, porque trata do mesmo tema: a política americana.

Com actualizações diárias, num estilo que reúne boa informação e escrita escorreita, os temas do momento na América são apresentados com rigor e conhecimento. Vale a pena a visita.

Aqui vai o link:
http://maquinapolitica.blogspot.com

Mensagem Semanal: Obama ainda não desistiu do «bipartidarismo»

sábado, 27 de fevereiro de 2010

Reforma da Saúde: para evitar risco de 'filibuster', a Administração Obama admite usar figura da «reconciliação»

É uma possibilidade que os democratas estão a ponderar utilizar: passar o ObamaCare com maioria simples de 51 senadores. Mas, nesse cenário, os republicanos podem ter resposta ainda mais feroz...

quinta-feira, 25 de fevereiro de 2010

Barómetro: 51 por cento de aprovação


Sondagem ABC/Washington Post:
-- Aprovação: 51 por cento
-- Reprovação: 46 por cento

Nota: mais à noite, será feita aqui, no CASA BRANCA, a devida cobertura de «cimeira do Health Care», que decorre esta quinta-feira, na América

Presidenciais 2012: núcleo duro de Obama já prepara, discretamente, a reeleição


... e não será fácil a corrida para a reeleição, pelo menos se a Taxa de Aprovação se mantiver como está.

Num exclusivo POLITICO.COM, Mike Allen conta como três dos mais próximos colaboradores de Obama (David Axelrod, Anita Dunn e Jim Messina) já preparam a batalha eleitoral de 2012:

«President Barack Obama’s top advisers are quietly laying the groundwork for the 2012 reelection campaign, which is likely to be run out of Chicago and managed by White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, according to Democrats familiar with the discussions.

For now, the planning consists entirely of private conversations, with Obama aides at all levels indulging occasionally in closed-door 2012 discussions while focusing ferociously on the midterm elections and health care reform, the Democratic sources said. “The gathering storm is the 2010 elections,” one top official said.

But the sources said Obama has given every sign of planning to run again and wants the next campaign to resemble the highly successful 2008 effort.

David Axelrod, White House senior adviser, may leave the West Wing to rejoin his family in Chicago and reprise his role as Obama’s muse, overseeing the campaign’s tone, themes, messages and advertising, the sources said.

David Plouffe, the Obama for America campaign manager, described by one friend as "the father of all this," will be a central player in the reelect, perhaps as an outside adviser.

"The conversations are beginning, but decisions haven't been made," a top official said. "If you look at David Plouffe's stepped-up level of activity with the political organization [as an outside adviser on the 2010 races], that is obviously the beginning of the process."

Anita Dunn, former White House communications director, will be intimately involved, too. Brad Woodhouse, the Democratic National Committee’s communications director, enjoys rising stock and would be a logical choice to be communications director for the reelection campaign, the sources said.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett are likely to remain at the president’s side in Washington, while exercising major influence over the campaign. Pfeiffer, communications director of the last campaign and always a trusted insider, has a higher public profile every day.

Other central figures are likely to be DNC Executive Director Jennifer O'Malley Dillon; her husband, Patrick Dillon, who is deputy White House political director and is likely to bring his extensive gubernatorial contacts to Chicago; Mitch Stewart, executive director of the DNC's Organizing for America; Jon Carson, national field director of Obama for America; and White House political director Patrick Gaspard.

The DNC sees Republican challengers ramping up earlier than ever and has decided to begin defining potential opponents early. Operatives are already assembling research and drafting unflattering narratives to push about the leading possible 2012 candidates.

Even though the planning is still very preliminary, the campaign is likely to launch in just over a year. President Bill Clinton opened his second presidential campaign in the March after his first midterm congressional elections, and President George W. Bush opened Bush-Cheney '04 a month later in the political cycle.

Aides expect Obama to hew to a similar schedule. A president’s reelection campaign — “the reelect,” as Obama intimates are already calling it — is a massive, lavishly funded machine that hires hundreds of people and spends hundreds of millions of dollars to carry out the mechanics of a national campaign, while the candidate and many of his top aides continue their day jobs of running the free world.

Obama's campaign will get a head start from the large machine he has built at the DNC, including Organizing for America, the successor to his grass-roots campaign operation.

OFA is now a DNC project with staff in all 50 states and has worked to keep Obama's army active through engagement on health care and other issues.

Messina, the likely manager, largely ran the operations part of the 2008 campaign after joining it in June 2008, while Plouffe focused on the big picture. Advisers said Messina is valued for his relationships on Capitol Hill, where he has been chief of staff to Democratic Sens. Max Baucus of MontanaSen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, as well as Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), and advised others on their campaigns, including Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester.

“Jim can bring the bare knuckles, and he can make sure members are advocating for the president,” a colleague said.

The question of where to locate the campaign has not been decided by the president, and is the subject of much internal speculation.

Top sources say they will be surprised if the headquarters is not in Chicago, which will always hold a certain magic for the president and first lady Michelle Obama.

Obama for America senior staff felt there was a huge advantage in having distance from insiders in Washington who were constantly giving advice and asking for things. And Obama advisers see the advantages George W. Bush reaped by basing his original campaign in Austin, Texas, giving it a beyond-the-Beltway aura.

"We were able to focus on nothing but the campaign," said one Obama for America veteran who plans to saddle up again. "We didn't play the inside-Washington game, and that's a huge piece of who we are.''

However, some top advisers are skeptical that running the campaign from Chicago would have the same advantages that it did last time, since face-to-face contact will be necessary among top officials from the different arms of Obama’s operation.

''It was hard enough to get people to move there in 2007," one Obama for America alumnus said.

A compromise might be to follow the example of the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign and put the office in Virginia, a swing state.

The themes for Obama’s campaign are not yet chosen, but a top adviser said not to expect a radical surprise: “He knows who he is."

quarta-feira, 24 de fevereiro de 2010

Reforma da Saúde: antevisão da «cimeira bipartidária» de amanhã

Barack Obama está a tentar relançar as pontes políticas para um acordo final no Senado que evite um filibuster no 'ObamaCare':

terça-feira, 23 de fevereiro de 2010

Reforma da Saúde: Barack lança jogada de risco e faz nova insistência no Senado

Mesmo depois da perda da supermaioria no Senado, com a derrota de Martha Coakley no Massachussets, Obama não desiste da Reforma da Saúde e fará, nos próximos dias, uma nova tentativa de conseguir uma aprovação bipartidária de um texto único que resulte das duas propostas já aprovadas no Congresso (a primeira na Câmara dos Representantes, a segunda, mais modesta, no Senado).

É uma jogada de alto risco, porque falta, pelo menos, um voto para chegar aos 60 que evitem um filibuster de bloqueio. Mas convé lembrar que os republicanos ainda estão em clara minoria no Congresso -- e esta será uma grande prova sobre se existe ainda uma réstia de vontade de cooperação por parte do GOP...

«WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama is upping the ante on health care.

In a last-ditch effort to salvage his overhaul of the sector, the president unveiled a $950 billion plan that lays the groundwork for his party to try pushing its legislation through Congress without Republican support.

Mr. Obama's plan, released ahead of a televised health summit with congressional leaders Thursday, didn't include any additional nods to Republican ideas. Republican leaders denounced it, suggesting that the summit is unlikely to lead to bipartisan breakthroughs. White House aides said the president was prepared to incorporate Republican ideas into the framework set by the Democratic bill, almost daring Republicans to remain opposed.

The proposal is an attempt to jump-start one of the President's top priorities, which has been nearly paralyzed since Democrats lost their 60-seat supermajority in the Senate on Jan. 19.

The chances of reconciliation succeeding remain iffy. House Democrats passed their version of a health overhaul in November by a narrow 220-215 margin, and some of the yes votes are uncertain now that some House lawmakers don't like aspects of the Senate bill. Democrats have more breathing room in the Senate but the procedure carries political risks and Republicans could use delaying tactics.

White House aides said the proposal keeps the best features of the Senate bill, while making insurance more affordable for lower- and middle-income Americans. It would extend insurance to about 31 million Americans by providing them with tax credits to offset the cost of coverage and expanding the Medicaid federal-state insurance program.

"Starting from scratch doesn't make sense," said White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, rejecting Republican calls to begin again.

The Obama plan also scales back a tax on high-value or "Cadillac" insurance plans, which had roused opposition from unions and others.

Republicans are expected to call at the summit for more targeted legislation that curbs malpractice lawsuits, creates high-risk insurance pools for sick people and allows consumers to purchase insurance across state lines.

"I don't think that people like this any more than…the approach that came down the pike earlier," said Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the House Republican whip. "People are incredulous. I just think they are wondering, does the White House not get it?"

President Obama's health plan adds about $75 billion to the 10-year cost of the $871 billion Senate health-overhaul bill, and includes new taxes.

White House aides said they were satisfied that the new tax would help control health spending over the long term even though it no longer does much to fund the bill in the short run.

Couples who make more than $250,000 would see higher Medicare taxes under the Obama plan. The Medicare payroll tax would be extended to cover unearned income from dividends, interest and other sources.

To raise money for more generous subsidies helping lower earners buy health coverage, the Obama plan would make deeper cuts to Medicare Advantage, a program under which some seniors get their Medicare benefit through private insurers.

Like the Senate bill, the Obama plan doesn't include a government-run health plan or "public option" to compete with private insurers. That idea, a favorite of liberals, was part of the House bill.

Mr. Obama has largely tied his own fate and that of his party to the fate of the health-care measure, and his job approval numbers have fallen along with support for the plan.

Most Democrats in Congress have already voted yes on a version of the plan. Advocates for pushing through an overhaul argue that those up for re-election will be forced to defend those votes anyway, and will be better off if they have something to show for their effort.

The White House has begun to make the case that using reconciliation would not represent an extraordinary step. The "extraordinary step" would be for Republicans to filibuster the bill, Mr. Pfeiffer said. The president simply wants an "up or down vote," he added.

The new White House plan contains stiffer penalties for most Americans who don't carry insurance and for businesses that don't provide coverage for workers. By 2016, consumers who lack insurance would have to pay a flat annual fine of $695 or 2.5% of income, whichever is higher. Lower earners who couldn't afford coverage would be exempt from the fine.

Employers who do not offer insurance coverage would face fines of up to $2,000 per employee, up from $750 per worker in the Senate bill. Firms with fewer than 50 workers would be exempt, and small businesses would get $40 billion in tax credits to offset the cost of coverage.»

in Wall Street Journal

Tim Pawlenty, possível candidato republicano a 2012: «Obama será um 'one-term-president'»


Para o governador do Minnesota, mais do que provável candidato às primárias republicanas de 2012, os problemas da economia vão condenar Obama à derrota em 2012. Mesmo um republicano moderado como Pawlenty parece estar a aderir à estratégia-Fox do 'quanto pior melhor'. Preocupante...

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/Video-Embeds/2010/February/Pawlenty4/?WT.mc_id=EmbedNewsPlayer

domingo, 21 de fevereiro de 2010

Kathleen Sebelius: «Obama lutará pela opção pública»

Em entrevista a Rachel Maddow, a secretária da Saúde da Administração Obama recupera a questão da opção pública - aprovada na Câmara dos Representantes, mas que ainda não passou no Senado:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Mensagem semanal: Obama faz nova insistência pela Reforma da Saúde

sábado, 20 de fevereiro de 2010

Histórias da Casa Branca: festas de chá contra Obama


Texto publicado na rubrica «Histórias da Casa Branca», site de A Bola, secção Outros Mundos:

«A contestação a Barack Obama tem tido diversas proveniências. A fatia mais preocupante de desiludidos é aquela que resulta dos independentes que o apoiaram, em massa, no duelo com John McCain. Mas há uma franja crescente de americanos (e são quase todos brancos...) que encontra nas "Tea Parties" a forma de exprimir a sua aversão pelo «poder de Washington».

Em 1773, dois anos e meio antes da Declaração de Independência, colonos ingleses furiosos com o governo britânico atiraram para as águas do porto de Boston uma enorme quantidade de caixotes de chá.

O episódio ficou conhecido como Boston Tea Party – e tornou-se num ícone de uma das idiossincrasias de um certo estilo americano, que ainda perdura: a tendência de estar contra qualquer interferência do poder federal.

Mais de dois séculos depois, o acto de rebelião daqueles colonos ingleses, disfarçados de índios, continua a povoar o imaginário dos quem vêem nos mais altos responsáveis políticos de Washington inimigos potenciais.

Com um Presidente como Barack Obama, essa reacção tende a ser atiçada. A agenda transformadora de Obama tem sido interpretada por facções mais radicais da Direita americana como um ataque aos valores fundamentais dos EUA.

As palavras de ordem daquelas manifestações peculiares são, necessariamente, contra os «gastos excessivos», o agravar do «défice monstruoso» ou a «interferência do governo na livre iniciativa».

Mas, no meio de ideias mais ou menos aceitáveis, têm aparecido pérolas como a de que a Reforma da Saúde seria uma forma de Obama «legitimar o aborto livre». E há, claro, aquelas franjas minoritárias que insistem em lançar medos primários sobre um sinistro «plano das minorias que elegeram Obama para fazer mal à América».

A questão é que o descontentamento crescente, com o prolongar da crise económica, está a dar palco às novas 'Tea Parties', onde Obama é rotulado de «socialista». O que começou por ser um movimento descoordenado, com ideias pouco consistentes politicamente, passou a ser, nos últimos meses, um fenómeno multiplicado por centenas de cidades na América.

Mesmo um Partido Republicano tentado a virar-se à direita tem tido um certo pudor em avalizar estes novos movimentos. Os principais políticos conservadores estão a recusar os convites dos organizadores das «festas contra o Presidente», assustados com aquilo que por lá se diz.

«White people's party?»
No geral, os manifestantes inspiram as duas deixas no que ouvem da boca de radicais como Rush Limbaugh ou, mais recentemente, Glenn Beck, estrelas de talk shows de rádio e TV.

Mas a presença de Sarah Palin, ex-governadora do Alaska e vice do ticket presidencial republicano em 2008, tem dado uma projecção mediática inesperada a estas bizarras «festas de chá» contra Obama.

Palin já foi criticada por elementos do seu próprio partido por se juntar a estas manifestações radicais. Mas este é um claro sinal do radicalismo que está a contagiar o actual momento político na América.

Como bem notou Keith Olbermann, autor de um programa de opinião na MSNBC, estas novas Tea Parties deviam passar a chamar-se... 'White People Party'. «Onde estão as pessoas de cor nestes movimentos?», questiona Olbermann, de forma pertinente.»

terça-feira, 16 de fevereiro de 2010

Histórias da Casa Branca: O estreito caminho da recuperação


Texto publicado no site de A Bola/Outros Mundos, na rubrica «Histórias da Casa Branca»:

O estreito caminho da recuperação

Por Germano Almeida

Será possível voltarmos a ver Obama com níveis de popularidade equivalentes aos que tinha após a eleição? Possível é, mas o caminho, admitamos, é muito estreito.

O Presidente dos EUA completou o seu primeiro ano de administração com valores de aprovação preocupantes, muito por culpa da situação económica e, mais recentemente, da perda da supermaioria democrata no Senado, que inviabilizará a versão aprovada na véspera de Natal para a Reforma da Saúde.

O discurso do Estado da União apontou uma viragem ao centro, num claro gesto de Obama no sentido de refazer pontes políticas. Barack, o candidato da «reconciliação» na campanha presidencial de 2008, ainda não baixou os braços na sua luta pela suavização do ambiente político na América.

O problema é que o primeiro ano da era Obama pode ter provado que essa «reconciliação» é virtualmente impossível de se concretizar. O Partido Republicano costuma ser muito mais feroz do que o Partido Democrata quando está na oposição – e perante uma agenda transformadora como a que Obama se propôs realizar na conquista da Casa Branca, a tensão é inevitável.

Jimmy Carter e Bill Clinton, os dois Presidentes democratas que antecederam Obama, já o haviam sentido na pele: na hora de tocar a rebate, os conservadores mostram maior capacidade de união do que os democratas.

Clinton, que nunca obteve maioria absoluta nas duas eleições presidenciais que ganhou, foi um Presidente em constante luta contra um Congresso que lhe era hostil e que o via como um intruso num ambiente predominantemente conservador em Washington.

Em contraste, Ronald Reagan, apesar do seu discurso altamente crítico do «peso do Governo», contou com fortes apoios de sectores democratas (muitos se lembrarão dos «ReaganDemocrats»).

Quase três décadas depois dos anos Reagan, Obama chegou a acreditar que iria conseguir repetir esse «consenso alargado», mas desta vez com o eixo deslocado à esquerda, quando, durante a campanha presidencial, atraiu os Obamacans – republicanos desiludidos com a herança Bush que votaram em Barack, mas que em poucos meses o deixaram de apoiar.

Pontes curtas para margens tão largas
Num sistema bipartidário como o americano, seria natural que os dois pólos comportassem uma grande diversidade interna. De facto, tanto democratas como republicanos acolhem diferentes sensibilidades políticas e ideológicas. Mas, nas questões essenciais, o Partido Republicano é muito mais homogéneo.

O Partido Democrata acolhe minorias muito heterogéneas – e o perfil dos seus militantes tende a ser mais indisciplinado. O travão dos 'Blue Dogs' no conturbado processo legislativo do ObamaCare é a maior prova disso.

O que move um republicano costuma ser mais fácil de congregar: a aversão pelo Estado enquanto eventual intruso da liberdade de empreendimento; o orgulho por «ser americano»; a inclusão de «Deus» no ideário político ('in God we trust'); e família, família, família.

É daqui que parte uma boa parcela dos problemas com que Obama se tem confrontado. A agenda do Presidente implica grandes intervenções do poder federal – e nem a enorme vitória que obteve a 4 de Novembro de 2008 alterou esta realidade: cerca de metade dos americanos não querem que o Estado se intrometa na sua vida.

A «mudança» que Obama prometeu ser possível tem um caminho estreito – e pode demorar anos. Pouca gente quis ouvir essa parte, mas não é nada que Barack não tenha avisado.»

sábado, 13 de fevereiro de 2010

Afeganistão: já começou a Operação Moshtarak, a ofensiva contra os talibãs em Helmand

É a maior operação das forças da NATO no Afeganistão desde que a guerra começou, em Outubro de 2001. «Moshtarak» quer dizer «juntos» em dari.

Será um passo em frente na nova etapa do AfPak?

O fim do clã Kennedy no Congresso: Patrick Kennedy abandona a vida política

O congressista Patrick Kennedy, membro da Câmara dos Representantes eleito por Rhode Island, anunciou esta sexta-feira que não procurará a reeleição.

A decisão marca o fim da dinastia Kennedy no Congresso americano: é que há mais de seis décadas que, de forma ininterrupta, há sempre algum Kennedy (geralmente, mais do que um) com assento no Senado ou na Câmara dos Representantes.

Ao fim de duas décadas na política, o filho de Ted Kennedy prefere «seguir outros caminhos», poucos meses depois da morte do pai.

Depois da surpreendente vitória do republicano Scott Brown para ocupar o lugar deixado vago no Senado por Ted, como representante do Massachussets, esta decisão de Patrick marca o fim de uma linhagem com mais de meio século.

Caroline Kennedy, a única filha viva de JFK, e Robert F. Kennedy Jr, filho de Bobby, chegaram a ter aspirações políticas e seriam os dois nomes que poderiam continuar o legado dos Kennedy.

Mas a história da família política mais importante do último século americano parece mesmo ter chegado ao fim.

sexta-feira, 12 de fevereiro de 2010

Jenny Sanford, primeira dama da Carolina do Sul, lança hoje o livro «Staying True»



Uma típica história da política americana: Jenny, a esposa traída do governador Mark Sanford, republicano da Carolina do Sul, faz a sua «catarse» do escândalo em público.

Mark era um valor emergente do GOP, a nível nacional. Mas depois deste caso tem as suas ambições políticas limitadas à escala estadual. É a vida...

Bill Clinton hospitalizado

O ex-Presidente dos EUA, de 63 anos, que em 2004 já fora operado ao coração (quádruplo bypass), teve uma recidiva dos problemas cardíacos de que padece e deu entrada no New York Presbiterian Hospital, na zona de Harlem, Nova Iorque, depois de sentir fortes dores no peito.

quarta-feira, 10 de fevereiro de 2010

Obama avançou há três anos

Faz hoje três anos, a 10 de Fevereiro de 2007, numa manhã gélida em Springfield, em frente ao Old State Capitol do Illinois, o então senador Barack Obama (que apenas cumpria a primeira metade do seu primeiro mandato no Capitólio) anunciava oficialmente a sua candidatura à presidência dos Estados Unidos da América.


terça-feira, 9 de fevereiro de 2010

O circo do Tea Party devidamente tratado nos «late night shows» americanos

John Murtha, congressista democrata da Pensilvânia durante quase quatro décadas, morreu aos 77 anos


«Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania powerhouse for 36 years in Congress and an early ally for Speaker Nancy Pelosi in her rise to the top of the House, died Monday afternoon due to complications from recent surgery.


An announcement from his office said Murtha died at 1:18 p.m. at the Virginia Hospital Center, where he had been admitted last week after having his gallbladder removed at Bethesda Naval Hospital.


A Marine veteran of the Vietnam War, the 77-year-old Democrat won national fame for standing up against U.S. military involvement in Iraq. But in Congress itself, he also symbolized an old school generation going back to Tip O’Neill and the Democratic heyday of the '70s, when the House was less divided by partisan ideology than by often regional interests.


With his military credentials and conservative western Pennsylvania district, Murtha moved easily in this world. It was his house within the House, and he was forever “Captain Jack” and the mayor of “Murtha’s Corner.” But behind the rough talk, vote-swapping and pork barrel politics was a restless intellect, a shrewd man who read history and went home early to monitor BBC broadcasts when he wanted a different slant on American wars overseas.


He loved birdhouses, fretted about his roses and bet early on Pelosi to become the first woman speaker in the history of the House. And when the time came, he stepped out of the back room as no one else could to forcefully challenge the war on Iraq in 2005 and become a folk hero to anti-war liberals who had previously dismissed him as déclassé. ?


In going public, Murtha paid a heavy political price. Republicans, who had all but ignored his district before, poured millions into campaigns to unseat him after he came out against the war. Internet sites were devoted to attacks on Murtha. Direct mail specialists with ties to Karl Rove at the Bush White House targeted the Democrat. ??


Murtha was unprepared for the exposure. He had rarely been on television, and his blunt backroom style invited ridicule. Reporters began looking for scandal behind the millions of dollars in home-state projects in his annual defense bill.


Rather than lie low, Murtha made himself a target further with public comments in the spring of 2006 pressuring the Marine command to investigate allegations of civilian casualties at Haditha. This infuriated many Marines, and critics argued that the congressman had become more partisan himself out of loyalty to Pelosi.


In fact, Murtha, a regular visitor to the wounded at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals, personally feared the strain on the military. He had been deeply affected in 2004 by the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, which involved units from western Pennsylvania. And his relations with the younger President Bush were in stark contrast with what he experienced with Bush’s father during the first Persian Gulf War, when Murtha worked closely with the White House and then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney.


Over time, he and Cheney became more alienated, and one of the most telling stories of this period was Murtha’s 2005 behind-the-scenes role in saving an anti-torture amendment, bitterly opposed by the vice president and sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

McCain had publicly proclaimed that the amendment, attached to the annual defense appropriations bill, would be killed by House-Senate negotiators because of their anger against him, a frequent critic of pork barrel spending. In fact, just the opposite happened, and Murtha — together with Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) — kept the language intact over the objections of Republican House members and Cheney.


Staff would laugh that each time the subject came up in the closed-door meetings in late 2005, Murtha and others would have to vent first on how irritating they found McCain. But his bottom line was that he believed in the amendment and that it was staying.


Elected in a special election in February 1974, Murtha was the first of the "Watergate babies" of that year — but a very different breed than the younger reformers. ??He established himself early on the House Appropriations Committee, befriending old bulls like the late Chairman Jamie Whitten (D-Miss.).


But Murtha paid a heavy price when he was drawn into the 1980 Abscam FBI sting operation — for which he was never prosecuted but severely embarrassed when a videotape surfaced of his exchange with a purported sheik. ??


He could be immensely useful to O’Neill but also a rambunctious irritant. “Mr. Murtha is very good at solving problems, some of his own making,” an O’Neill aide once commented. And presidents took notice. Murtha worked closely with Ronald Reagan and later with the first President Bush. He was a golfing partner for Bill Clinton, who came back to his district last year to help save him with a major rally in Johnstown.


He was very respectful of President Barack Obama but never had the same relationship with this White House as with the Clintons. He had supported Hillary Rodham Clinton in the highly contested Pennsylvania Democratic primary in 2008, and though personally close to the president’s National Security Advisor Gen. Jim Jones, Murtha and Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief-of-staff, viewed one another warily.


One relationship that spanned much of this was with now Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who first knew Murtha while in the CIA in the '80ss.


“I've known Jack and worked with him for more than two decades,” Gates said in a statement from Paris, where he was traveling Monday. “In our dealings over the years, Jack and I did not always agree, but I always respected his candor.”


Murtha was strict about decorum. Military officers coming from the Pentagon were expected to be in dress uniforms; a long-time aide remembers wearing a tie the first time they met on the way to playing golf. At the same time, he preferred to meet with Gates alone, one on one. And he saw all the humor in the pretensions of Congress such as when a science coalition, grateful for his funding, put his picture on a faux box of Wheaties.


He was very much a soldier’s soldier, checking boots when he visited base camps. And his biggest legacy on the Appropriations Committee may be the huge investments he oversaw in military health programs and the attention he demanded for brain and post traumatic stress injuries.


Murtha kept in his office a dark-blue wool Union Army cap worn by his mother’s grandfather Abraham, who lost an arm in the Civil War. But the greater influence was Abraham’s widow, Mary, who lived into her 90s next door and famously told the future congressman, “You are on this earth to make a difference.”

McCain had publicly proclaimed that the amendment, attached to the annual defense appropriations bill, would be killed by House-Senate negotiators because of their anger against him, a frequent critic of pork barrel spending. In fact, just the opposite happened, and Murtha — together with Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) — kept the language intact over the objections of Republican House members and Cheney.


Staff would laugh that each time the subject came up in the closed-door meetings in late 2005, Murtha and others would have to vent first on how irritating they found McCain. But his bottom line was that he believed in the amendment and that it was staying.


Elected in a special election in February 1974, Murtha was the first of the "Watergate babies" of that year — but a very different breed than the younger reformers. ??He established himself early on the House Appropriations Committee, befriending old bulls like the late Chairman Jamie Whitten (D-Miss.).


But Murtha paid a heavy price when he was drawn into the 1980 Abscam FBI sting operation — for which he was never prosecuted but severely embarrassed when a videotape surfaced of his exchange with a purported sheik. ??


He could be immensely useful to O’Neill but also a rambunctious irritant. “Mr. Murtha is very good at solving problems, some of his own making,” an O’Neill aide once commented. And presidents took notice. Murtha worked closely with Ronald Reagan and later with the first President Bush. He was a golfing partner for Bill Clinton, who came back to his district last year to help save him with a major rally in Johnstown.


He was very respectful of President Barack Obama but never had the same relationship with this White House as with the Clintons. He had supported Hillary Rodham Clinton in the highly contested Pennsylvania Democratic primary in 2008, and though personally close to the president’s National Security Advisor Gen. Jim Jones, Murtha and Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief-of-staff, viewed one another warily.


One relationship that spanned much of this was with now Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who first knew Murtha while in the CIA in the '80ss.


“I've known Jack and worked with him for more than two decades,” Gates said in a statement from Paris, where he was traveling Monday. “In our dealings over the years, Jack and I did not always agree, but I always respected his candor.”


Murtha was strict about decorum. Military officers coming from the Pentagon were expected to be in dress uniforms; a long-time aide remembers wearing a tie the first time they met on the way to playing golf. At the same time, he preferred to meet with Gates alone, one on one. And he saw all the humor in the pretensions of Congress such as when a science coalition, grateful for his funding, put his picture on a faux box of Wheaties.


He was very much a soldier’s soldier, checking boots when he visited base camps. And his biggest legacy on the Appropriations Committee may be the huge investments he oversaw in military health programs and the attention he demanded for brain and post traumatic stress injuries.


Murtha kept in his office a dark-blue wool Union Army cap worn by his mother’s grandfather Abraham, who lost an arm in the Civil War. But the greater influence was Abraham’s widow, Mary, who lived into her 90s next door and famously told the future congressman, “You are on this earth to make a difference.”»

in POLITICO.com

sexta-feira, 5 de fevereiro de 2010

Barómetro: ligeira recuperação de Obama


Depois da queda livre do último mês, Barack Obama voltou, pelo menos, a respirar um pouco à superfície, atingindo os 50 por cento de aprovação nas sondagens da IPSOS/McClatchy, NBC/Wall Street Journal e CBS.

Na CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, está no limiar desse valor mínimo, ao obter 49% de aprovação.

A queda livre parece ter parado, mas são números ainda muito insuficientes para quem tem que começar a pensar no caminho da reeleição.

Estejamos, então, atentos a próximos indicadores...

quarta-feira, 3 de fevereiro de 2010

Michelle no 'TodayShow': «A minha missão é ajudar»

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy



Em entrevista a Matt Lauer, a Primeira Dama dos EUA reforçou a imagem que deixou no primeiro ano de administração: ser discreta, mas presente. «O que as pessoas viram de mim neste primeiro ano é exactamente o que eu sou. É a verdadeira Michelle».

terça-feira, 2 de fevereiro de 2010

A próxima batalha com o Congresso


Christina Romer, chefe da equipa de assessores económicos do Presidente; Tim Geithner, secretário do Tesouro; Peter Orszag, director do Orçamento e Larry Summers, conselheiro económico nacional, ladeiam Barack Obama: a aprovação de um orçamento que agrava o monstruoso défice externo americano é a batalha que se segue para a Administração Obama

A mensagem de Obama sobre o seu orçamento

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/budget/03_Presidents_Message.pdf

Obama apresenta orçamento de 3,8 biliões de dólares

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy