Obama Teaming Up With Bush 41, Promoting Volunteerism
President Obama is teaming up today with former President George H.W. Bush, to promote the cause of community service at Texas A&M University. The event at the conservative school will also be protested by the college chapter of the Young Conservatives of Texas. "I actually did get an invitation," said chapter chairman Justin Pullman, age 19, "but I had to decline due to our protest."
Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama will depart from San Francisco at 12:35 p.m. ET, arriving in Houston at 3:55 p.m. ET. He will attend a Point of Light Forum at Texas A&M University, at 5:50 p.m. ET, hosted by former President George H.W. Bush. He will depart from Houston at 8:25 p.m. ET, arriving back at the White House at 11:15 p.m. ET.
Biden's Day Ahead
Vice President Biden will attend a 12 p.m. ET fundraiser for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), in Reno. Afterward, Biden and Reid will hold an event at the University of Nevada-Reno to discuss the progress of the stimulus program. They will make remarks at 2 p.m. ET. Biden will then travel in the evening to Wilmington, Delaware.
WaPo: Obama's Judicial Nominations Blocked By GOP, White House Inaction
The Washington Post reports that President Obama has thus far failed to win confirmation on many judgeships:"During his first nine months in office, Obama has won confirmation in the Democratic-controlled Senate for just three of his 23 nominations for federal judgeships, largely because Republicans have used anonymous holds and filibuster threats to slow the proceedings to a crawl. But some Democrats attribute that GOP success partly to the administration's reluctance to fight, arguing that Obama's emphasis on easing partisan rancor over judgeships has backfired and only emboldened Senate Republicans."
ACORN's Woes Strain Ties With Dems, HUD Secretary
The New York Times reports that Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan has distanced himself ACORN, in light of the organization's current scandals, after years of working closely with them. "I can't get near him," said ACORN chief executive Bertha Lewis.
Freshman Republican Urge Afghanistan Surge
A group of freshman House Republicans have urged a troop increase in Afghanistan. "It would be irresponsible to take any action other than what Gen. McChrystal has recommended, which includes adding at least 40,000 troops to the region," said Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA). "Victory in Afghanistan is well within reach, but it will only be possible if our military leadership and combat forces receive the resources they need to win."
Pence's Travel Picking Up 2012 Attention
The Hill reports that Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) has become the only potential Republican presidential candidate to travel to both Iowa and South Carolina -- and he's picking up the attention of the GOP base. "With Republicans, quite frankly, there's a lot of bandwagon people who are saying, 'Hey, we're with you now.' I don't feel that Pence is one of those," said Ryan Rhodes, chairman of the Iowa Tea Party Patriots. "I don't think Pence is someone who's lost our trust. He's been aligned with the limited-government mentality that the tea party movement has been about."

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

Jim H
October 16, 2009 9:09 AM
When will Obama listen to the Republicans and realize appeasement never works?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
converse
October 16, 2009 11:02 AM in reply to Jim H
Yeah, he should send those 40,000 troops to the Senate Confirmation Hearings!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jerryfatheart
October 16, 2009 9:12 AM
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/10/house_health_bill_trimmed_by_3.html?hpid=topnews
House bills with public option get their CBO scores back ... and they're looking good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
October 16, 2009 10:24 AM in reply to jerryfatheart
Saw that as well. Covers moer people, just as cheap, all I want to know is if it is deficit neutral.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
klg19
October 16, 2009 9:19 AM
If you read the NYTimes piece about the Texas A&M protests, it's even more inexplicable. It notes that TAMU is known for its annual Big Event, a day dedicated to public service. But they're going to protest an event dedicated to promoting community service.
It's also interesting to see the placards the Young Conservatives are working on in the photo with the article. One reads "My Health = My Choice." Apart from my delight in learning they've embraced the kind of pro-choice stance many women have taken for decades now, I'm confused---how is the public option taking their choice away from them?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
October 16, 2009 10:24 AM in reply to klg19
This is Republicans we're talking about. They get up in arms when the President tells kids to stay in school and study hard. It's not surprising that they would protest when the President encourages people to volunteer in their communities. Any day now, I'm expecting Obama to say he likes apple pie, thus setting off a frenzied protest by teabaggers (apples are red, don't you know?).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kyle H
October 16, 2009 10:40 AM in reply to klg19
Clearly they're protesting the President and not the event?
Anyway, as an A&M grad, that article is awfully condescending. "Country cousin" to UT Austin? "Modern day equivalent of a barn-raising"? Focusing on one student group's obscure (and often ridiculed) protesting methods? Showing the Corps of Cadets marching in their Saturday gear instead of their standard class As is a nice touch, too - a pretty clumsy attempt to relegate them to some sort of amateur hour program instead of a proud 120 year old tradition with direct ties to our armed services. 10,000 pictures of the Corps drilling in their class As, and that's the picture they pick? Classy.
We've got 60,000 students, Nobel Prize winning faculty, prestigious research galore, one of the most prominent engineering departments in America, and, yes, a generally conservative student body.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kyle H
October 16, 2009 10:41 AM in reply to Kyle H
And just to clarify, the article explicitly says the Young Conservative group at A&M has 90 members.
90!
Out of a student body getting close to 60,000.
C'mon, this is the fringe of the fringe. Let's not paint with a broad brush.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
converse
October 16, 2009 11:05 AM in reply to Kyle H
Somebody's a little defensive today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
October 16, 2009 10:53 AM in reply to klg19
Today's Republicans are not constrained by logic or consistency....we should all know that by now. Of course their protests won't make any sense. None of them do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Redshift
October 16, 2009 11:11 AM in reply to klg19
If they manage to keep the protests focused on policy, I would have to respect that. Regardless of the topic of the appearance, this is an actual appearance by the president (unlike the protests against the speech to school children, where there wasn't any "place" to protest and the complaints were against the actual event.) Whether I agree with their protest or think they're ideologically driven and woefully uninformed, it's a perfectly appropriate time and place to protest the president's policies. For once, wingers are doing a protest which is actually fairly equivalent to something people on our side would do. (Other than the part about getting invited to the presidential event, of course... sigh.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Seeryer
October 16, 2009 9:22 AM
I have been to the GHWB Presedential Library in College Station. It is a nice place. There will be some students at A&M that will be proud Obama visited their campus with former president HW Bush. The rest of them can get over themselves. Republicans are the worst victims in the world. They have this victimhood mentality but they claim to be so self reliant. Isn't that ironic?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 16, 2009 9:35 AM
Hmmm a story about those Texans again. Paging eric cami?????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
October 16, 2009 9:52 AM
This anonymous hold stuff is crap. It has become simply a means of obstruction by Republicans who still cannot get over the fact that they LOST last November's election. That said, the administration does need to push through it's nominees with more vigor!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 16, 2009 1:56 PM in reply to CityGuy
They need to push Harry Reid to get rid of the anonymous hold.
I don't get it; when Democrats try to place a hold on anything, Reid ignores it, but when Republicans do it, it's like the hold is sacrosanct.
I have tried to give Reid the benefit of the doubt, but at this point, I'm thoroughly disgusted with him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Salmo
October 16, 2009 2:07 PM in reply to slb
Reid gets the benefit of the doubt far too often. It should be clear by now that Reid serves at the pleasure of the Democratic majority precisely because he does this sort of thing. They want to enable the Republicans. Why that is the case is much more difficult to pin down, but it really cannot be disputed that Reid is doing what those who put him in that position want him to do. He has done it for a long time, it is now entirely predictable, and they have kept him in that role.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 16, 2009 2:15 PM in reply to Salmo
Unfortunately, you make a very good point. And I would suspect that money is at the root of it -- Democrats don't want to wreck the gravy train.
We need to get money out of politics to the greatest extent possible, and that is going to be very difficult with the current bent of the Supreme Court.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
October 16, 2009 10:08 AM
The final insult by the Obama White House will be to allow the Republicans to set the tempo on federal judge appointments.
Yeah, this is just what we need, fewer Democratic appointed judges and more Republican appointed judges; this kind of shit comes back to seriously bite you in the ass.
I'm beyond Obama's great feel good speeches and at a point where I'm completely disappointed in his performance. He's better than McCain/Palin, but at this point I don't know by how much.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
October 16, 2009 10:58 AM in reply to JohnW1141
For the most part, district-court-level (and even circuit-court-level) federal judges are not very partisan (I know this flies in the face of the "activist judge" b.s. but bear with me...I worked for two different "Republican" judges and you'd never have known their political leanings if you hadn't known who appointed them). And mostly they just want to move their caseloads along--caseloads that rarely involve any earth-shattering opportunities to rule on critical legal points. As long as President Obama is getting his Supreme Court picks (which ARE critical), it's not an earth-shattering problem.
Plus, Obama can use this whole thing as yet another example of Republican obstructionist behavior. I think the GOP is in for a nasty surprise in 2010.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 16, 2009 2:13 PM in reply to jenesq
I disagree. This is the same thing they did when Clinton was president -- held up filling the seats on the lower courts, and then when Bush came in, he had lots and lots of seats to fill because of the backlog.
These days, most Supreme Court nominations come from the ranks of sitting federal judges. By denying Democrats the chance to fill all of the vacancies that occur during Democratic administrations, and forcing them to move to the right to get nominations through at all, the Republicans have the chance to pack the ranks of future Supreme Court candidates with relatively conservative judges. They're trying to control the agenda even when they are in a very distinct minority.
If Democrats were to do the same thing, it would hurt the country badly, because there would be so many vacant seats on the court that the system would be even more badly clogged than it already is, not to mention that justice would become very political.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 16, 2009 2:20 PM in reply to jenesq
And one other thing: most cases don't make it to the level of the Supreme Court -- they are decided at the lower levels. The makeup of the judiciary at the lower levels of the federal court system has a big effect on the lives of a lot of people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
October 16, 2009 11:04 AM in reply to JohnW1141
Seriously? This is the final insult? THIS is the issue that does it for you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
October 16, 2009 12:46 PM in reply to VivaAmerica!
Viva,
calm down, it was just a way of expressing my displeasure with Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 16, 2009 10:31 AM
Sometimes the commenters here remind me of some old walrus-mustachioed general who thinks the answer to every tactical problem is an immediate over-the-top frontal assault and sneers at officers who suggest timing or manuever or some other tactic might be more likely to succeed as cowards.
The Republicans would love a good bare knuckles judicial confirmation bloodbath right now. Nothing gets the base more fired up and the money rolling in like the chance to decry "radical, activist") judges. There are, however, one or two matters of some importance pending in the Senate that Democrats need to stay focused on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Redshift
October 16, 2009 11:04 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Personally, I'd like to see a little more walk-and-chew-gum. The Judiciary Committee isn't involved in the health care debate, and there's never a shortage of things Republicans are outraged about. There's always something big moving forward or pending in Congress, and that's a good argument for not pushing another big thing, but the small things have to proceed concurrently and not wait for all the big things to be done first.
Some of the criticism is over the top; I know how much the opinion of anonymous "some Democrats" is worth, so I'm not inclined to get too worked up about it. But judges, especially the kind of right-wing radicals that Bush routinely appointed, have the power to undo a lot of the good we're trying to do, so this isn't a small matter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bmags
October 16, 2009 11:55 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Love every part of this post.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
yellowdogD
October 16, 2009 12:02 PM
Duncan Hunter...a chip off the old turd.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kman23
October 16, 2009 12:26 PM
Does Pence have a chance of becoming the Fox lunatic in the race and winning an ultra conservative primary/caucus like Iowa?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
October 16, 2009 12:40 PM
When a neighbor breaks things and pinches your wife's butt every time you invite him to one of your parties, you don't look inside yourself and wonder how you can be nicer or more bipartisan to him. YOU JUST STOP INVITING HIM.
We liberals are constantly wringing our hands and chastising ourselves, paranoid that we might go too far or overstep the bounds of respectful discourse... meanwhile, the Republicans rant like lunatics, never apologize when they're wrong (which is most of the time) and constantly make political hay from nothing.
I'm not suggesting we adopt the methods of the Right. We couldn't if we wanted to, because we're not authoritarian hypertribalists. But I'm sick and tired of our side bending over backwards to avoid the stereotypes painted by the right, when the Right painted those stereotypes *precisely* to make us second-guess ourselves.
Obama's playing into that (as many have pointed out) by focusing on money instead of people in the healthcare debate.
Republicans are sociopathic when it comes to turning every political topic into a black-and-white, our-side-is-right fight. We might be better served by allowing ourselves to get a little looser and freer and to be a little less afraid of being "mean" to those poor widdle Republicans.
Republicans are assholes. They have lost the respect they would have otherwise deserved. They deserve only scorn and ostracism at this point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 16, 2009 2:23 PM in reply to Clavis
"Authoritarian hypertribalists" -- I love it!
And I agree with everything you have said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 16, 2009 2:29 PM
"It would be irresponsible to take any action other than what Gen. McChrystal has recommended."
Since when did we give up civilian control of the military? Didn't we learn under JFK that the military experts can lead you badly astray? And don't we admire Lincoln for having the wisdom to knock his generals around until he found one whose style of generalship was in line with Lincoln's strategic goals?
This worshipful deference to the military is one more indication that what Republicans want is actually a national security state, not a true democratic republic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
October 16, 2009 3:03 PM in reply to slb
You're giving them way too much credit. It has less to do with worshipful deference to the military than it does with promoting whatever one's position is at the time as being the only legitimate position. When General Petraeus said something that Republicans didn't like earlier this year, they quietly accused him of playing politics (which, inexplicably, didn't result in outrage on the left the way MoveOn.Org's accusations did on the right -- big surprise) and ignored his advice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?