He never promised us a rose garden

There are an awful lot of Obama supporters who apparently didn’t take him at his word on this issue or that and now say they are disappointed — or worse — that he’s actually keeping his promises.

Not surprisingly, this began with Obama’s choice of Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State, though there were enough observers who saw this as brilliant, even logical, on Obama’s part, so that the fuss soon dwindled away.

Then there were complaints that Obama’s cabinet picks included too many old Clinton hands, in spite of the obvious logic of choosing people who would not need on-the-job training, whose qualifications had already been tested. Want to hit the ground running? Hard to do with neophytes, wouldn’t you say?

Clearly there will be time and space in the new administration to bring in new blood, so let’s get the darn engine running before we try to hot-rod it.

There have been complaints that more women should have been included; there were suggestions that he hadn’t chosen enough Latinos; and of course some people thought that progressives were underrepresented. The rationale was often that if a particular interest group voted for him then that group should be repaid.

As if he owed them something just for voting for him.

The way I’ve always understood these things is that a candidate offers himself (or herself, ladies) together with his (or her) vision, and if the voter likes what he (or she) sees, the vote will follow. The voter owes him the vote because it’s in the voter’s interest, not the other way around.

And y’know what? The guy worked really, really hard over almost two years to get elected so that he could deliver on his vision. Think of it this way: It’s a 24/7 job requiring enormous stamina and commitment. Anyone here think you could do that?

On the contrary, those who wanted what Obama offered and helped him win now owe him, as he gets up and running, their trust that he intends to do what he said.

From the time he came on the national scene, Barack Obama has talked about bringing people together, of the uselessness of polarity, of the value of listening to different voices, of the importance of compromise.

But when he started acting that way during the transition, some supporters went into shock.

I’ve said before: Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Can't help thinking of the old Lynn Anderson recording,

I never promised you a rose garden. Along with the sunshine, There's gotta be a little rain sometimes. When you take, you gotta give, so live and let live, Or let go.

Most recently we have the kerfuffle about Pastor Rick Warren, of Saddleback Church in Southern California, being invited by the Obama folks to deliver the invocation at Obama’s inaugural ceremony.

Previously mostly famous for his book, The Purpose Driven Life, Warren has become newly well known for his opinions as to how gay folks should live their lives. This is not to say that those opinions are anything new; the uproar is about choosing him for the event.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen should have thought about it a little longer before he objected to the choice, saying,

There you have the thinking of the man Obama has chosen above all other religious figures to represent him in this most solemn moment.

He missed the point. Obama chose someone who represents a significant chunk of the American people. It's not all about him, remember?

Singer Melissa Ethridge, who is gay and open about it, had a different perspective, and wrote this on the Huffington Post:

Well, I have to tell you my friends, the universe has a sense of humor and indeed works in mysterious ways. … I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn't sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. … When we met later that night, he entered the room with open arms and an open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future. … I will be attending the inauguration with my family, and with hope in my heart.

Barack Obama, the Democrat who will soon be president, said he would be president of all the people, and all the people include Rick Warren and his followers; no matter whether you agree with all of his opinions, there are many areas for agreement with the Obama folks -- not least the genocide in Darfur and the need to help the poor -- where everyone is on the same side and we can do great things together.

Imagine an audience at La Scala, or the Grand Ol’ Opry, hissing and booing before the show begins. Shame on them.

Barack Obama meant what he said, and he said what he meant: I expect him to be faithful one hundred percent.

We’re already seeing it at work.

What kind of man would break his word?

Just imagine yourself back a few years, back when a job wasn’t that hard to find and you could usually have a choice of job offers. Imagine that you chose to work for a local company that offered good benefits — health coverage, sick pay, paid holidaysand vacation time, plus a retirement plan.

Way back in the day, of course, most employers offered these things. But let’s say you chose a job that appealed to you because of the benefits.

So you started work, settled in, got married, bought a house, started raising kids, became a contributing member of your community.

In that way-back day, a job usually lasted until retirement age if you wanted it to, and so you worked hard, saved a little money, and when the time came you retired, ready to do a little traveling, visit the grandkids, all that good stuff.

But what if you then discovered that your old company now has financial troubles and needs a loan to make it through the next few months, but the bank won’t do it unless you give back a big chunk of your hard-earned benefits?

The way I see it, those benefits were promised as part of your compensation; you accepted that job based in part on those promises and your wages and benefits were earned over many years of hard work. To demand years later that you give any of them back makes a mockery of those promises.

There is a small group of Republican senators in Washington who would seem to have no respect for promises or the contracts that contain them. Despite pleas from their own President, despite widely acknowledged dire consequences if the American auto manufacturers fail for want of a $15 billion loan agreed to by the House of Representatives and the President of the United States, those senators have blocked passage of the enabling legislation in the Senate.

Why would they put their own party — and President — in position to be blamed for an economic catastrophe that would make previous bailouts look like small potatoes?

Here’s the deal they offer: If the auto companies will break their promises to their workers, who happen to be members of the United Auto Workers union, these honorable men will agree to allow the companies to borrow money to get through the next three or four months.

Generous to a fault, you say?

Notwithstanding that the union has, over the past four difficult years, made significant wage and benefit concessions to help the auto manufacturers stay profitable, the senators want more this time around.

They already got the unions to accept workers’ wages being reduced to that paid workers in foreign-owned non-union plants (located, interestingly, in the states represented by said senators); the unions already agreed to accept reductions in pension benefits. But the senators now want those reductions put in place this coming year (drill here! drill now!).

According to a report in The New York Times,

In a statement Thursday night, the union said it was "prepared to agree that any restructuring plan should ensure that the wages and benefits of workers at the domestic automakers should be competitive with those paid by the foreign transplants. But we also recognized that this would take time to work out and implement" using programs like buyouts and early retirement offers to bring in new workers at lower rates.

Of course the whole gambit is dishonest.

First of all, while the senators have every right to try to impose conditions on the auto manufacturers who need the loan, they have absolutely no business, so far as I can see, inserting themselves into a company-union relationship. Labor negotiations should involve management and labor, period.

Second, let’s face it: In the end, it’s all about breaking up the union. As even the famously understated pundit David Gergen said recently, there has always been “a tension” between unions and the Republican party, but this is going way too far.

Why, I wanted to know, do Republicans hate unions? I thought it was as simple as wanting cheaper labor. The anti-UAW folks are fond of insisting that auto workers are paid over $70 an hour. That would be, well, a lie.

Here’s how they figure it: Take all the wages paid and add the cost to the company of all the benefits, and then add the cost of all the pensions and benefits being paid to retirees and divide by the number of active workers. Presto.

So it can’t be about making current labor cheaper, though a case could certainly be made that they want to get rid of workers’ pensions and benefits.

U.S. Senators are paid a decent salary — over $188,000 plus benefits that include state of the art health care — and are entitled to full retirement at age 62 after five years of service. Nice.

Of course, they are much more important than factory workers.

No, I really do think it’s all about getting rid of those pesky unions.

Now, you could argue that union power has been on the wane for several years, but I’d point out that American wages have been on the wane for the same period; make of that what you like.

A very knowledgeable political historian friend insists it’s more complex, as follows: Unions are a significant force in the Democratic party, notably providing fundraising and manpower during elections, and thus help the Democrats win; ergo, if unions can be eliminated the Republicans have a better chance.

I wonder.

Whatever may be motivating those who would get rid of unions, we now know this: Promises don’t mean a thing to them.

What have you done for me lately?

Now that the biggest suspense story in politics is settled and we’re getting used to the idea of a new administration in Washington, some political types in Texas are turning some of their left-over hyper-attention to matters closer to home and the rough-and-tumble of Austin politics.

For example, now we can concentrate on getting Tom Craddick out of the Speaker’s chair, maybe along with his personal Parliamentarian, Terry Keel.

And you thought I wasn’t paying attention!

For Governor Rick Perry, the front-page worthy item seems to be the fact that this month he will become the longest-serving governor of Texas. Ever. This past summer he celebrated becoming the second-longest serving Governor after 2,745 days; I guess length of service becomes noteworthy when that’s all there is.

Now as he approaches 2,919 days you’d think that might be enough, but you’d better think again: he wants more, and plans to run for a third term.

Might be a challenge, though. For openers, think Trans-Texas Corridor and toll roads. Think about good ol’ Tom Craddick who, according to the Houston Chronicle, has said “Governor Perry's public service has been exemplary and unique.”

Rumors were that he was angling for a VP slot, but that didn’t work out. And his chances of following the George W. Bush path from Governor to the White House went down the tubes with Rove. Since it’s unlikely he could find a job in Washington anytime soon, it looks like his best hope is to try to stay put.

Enter Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Now, I have had kind of a soft spot for Kay ever since she came out strongly for Amtrak several years ago; her support for SCHIP, the children’s insurance program, made me pretty happy, too — though, to be sure, that support has been somewhat softened by the politics of the Republican opposition, but I have a sneaky suspicion she’d strengthen her position given the opportunity.

Say, as Governor.

Here’s what I think: Two terms of Perry does not seem to have produced much to brag about. Don’t believe me? Ask the person to your right — or left — what he has done for us.

Well, he’s brought us toll roads around Dallas, for starters, roads that were supposed to be built and run by private companies and pay for themselves with toll charges, but now the problem seems to be that a significant number of drivers are using alternate routes to avoid the toll charges. Even though the “scenic” routes take longer — and use more gasoline.

Folks don’t like toll roads, I guess. And now, according to a Dallas Morning News report a couple of months back, we are looking at a gasoline tax increase. The Governor has this to say about that:

“I am not going to block the debate, or if it is the will of the people, and of the legislature, I suspect I would go along with it.”

So much for that accomplishment.

And what about the Trans-Texas Corridor? Well, despite the strong opposition of what seem to be most Texas citizens — at least we know how Ellis County feels about it — Rick Perry remains a believer.

The good arguments against the TTC would fill a column; that has happened before in this space and I suspect will happen again, but that’s not the point here.

The point is that, good hair notwithstanding, this Governor hasn’t done much for us, let alone lately.

Texans should welcome “Kay Baby” into the arena and support her bid for the office of Governor in 2010. It’s time.

And she’s prettier, too.

Team of giants

In what may be one of the most brilliant political moves ever, President-elect Barack Obama has just nominated Hillary Rodham Clinton for Secretary of State in his administration.

It might not surprise those who've been here before that I’ve been a long time coming to this conclusion, given the givens, as we say. But bear with me, here.

In the beginning — that is to say, when the possibility first was raised — the idea seemed absolutely daft. After all, Hillary (her campaign name of choice) had fought fiercely (an understatement, actually) to capture the nomination for President, and once the others had dropped out she and her husband strove with every Clinton fiber to defeat Obama as a rival.

It wasn’t pretty.

Around the time of South Carolina I came to wish for the end of the Clintons, politically, with every fiber of my own being.

And when Obama won the nomination I still worried that the Clintons might have some ace-in-the-hole to play to wrest it away from him. When that didn’t happen, I joined the celebration — but still wondered what they might be up to. After all, when you’re talking about the Clintons, you just can’t help wondering.

There was a bit of cat-and-mouse with Bill during the general campaign but, by golly, in the end they said and did all the right things and Barack Obama was elected President of the United States.

So now we have Hillary Clinton with us again. Secretary of State? You’ve got to be kidding! In the immortal words of more than one pundit reacting to the news, “She just never goes away, does she?”

The arguments against such insanity are legion: She voted for the Iraq war resolution whereas Obama opposed it; she called him “naïve” for proposing to talk to our enemies; she is calculating; she hopes to see him fail so she can run for President; she would build up a parallel power structure that would undercut him; she brings Bill.

For all of these reasons, plus just plain fury, I have been opposed to the very idea of bringing Hillary into the administration, especially at such a high level.

But then, like a good citizen, I began listening to other voices, and here’s what I heard: Remaining in the Senate, Hillary would truly have a power base that could challenge Obama’s agenda, whereas as a member of the Cabinet she would be completely disarmed; the President sets the policy, and his appointees carry it out — and serve at his pleasure; you want to keep your friends close and your enemies closer; love ‘em or hate ‘em, the Clintons have great credibility and admiration around the rest of the world and that will be an asset. And here’s one I particularly like: No way Hillary will be anywhere near health care reform!

Beyond the obvious positives, Barack Obama has shown, with this bold appointment, that he is not daunted by his foes and that he intends to be in charge, a good beginning for a President. He has made a selection that will quell any remaining resistance by the Hillary holdouts while comforting some of the hawks about the Iraq war, though I think this latter issue will soon become moot.

Interestingly, the rollout of Obama’s first national security appointments made it clear that it’s a team of giants, with Robert Gates to continue as Secretary of Defense, Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, General James L. Jones as National Security Adviser, Eric Holder as Attorney General, Susan Rice as Ambassador to the United Nations, and Janet Napolitano as head of Homeland Security. Hillary Clinton is just one of the team.

In the final analysis it comes down to this: Barack Obama will be the President of the United States, a fact that has already got the world abuzz. Around the globe, the chatter is in amaze mode: America has elected an African-American to be its President! They really mean what they say!

(The most visible spokesman for Al-Qaeda, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, didn’t know what to make of it, trying weakly to foment trouble by suggesting that Obama is only a “house negro,”which shows how clueless he is.)

A Saudi journalist, Samir Saadi, summed it up: “Given Obama’s name, his background, the doubts about his religion, Americans still voted for him and this proved that America is a democracy. . . . People here are starting to believe in the U.S. again.”

Saadi’s conclusion? “The U.S. has won the war on terror.”