While America has lost thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, not a single American troop was killed during the combat mission in Libya. The result was the removal of one of the world’s longest-running dictatorships and an irritant to its region. Gaddafi will not be missed by anyone.

The Libyan mission has shown what liberal foreign policy looks like. Out are the neo-conservative go-it-alone attitudes. In are coalition-building, limited military air support and willingness to aid those in distress with supplies. The mission won international approval at the United Nations. Other Arab nations even supported the NATO mission.

Aside from having political support from the international community, the United States allowed NATO to take the lead role. Not only were our European allies encouraged to participate, the French were the ones to initiate bombing. Costs were shared between nations as well as responsibility and risks. While the United States spent over $1 trillion between the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the cost of removing Gaddafi is unlikely to pass more than a few billion dollars.

This is a welcome change from the Bush administration when the United States was burdened with nearly everything, from the loss of life to military expenditures. Yet President George W. Bush and administration officials readily took credit for events that he had very little involvement in, such as the thwarting of potential terrorist attacks and “mission accomplished” in Iraq. Eight years later, the country is still in Iraq, although thanks to President Obama, we will have all troops out by the end of this year.

While the fighting is mostly over, Libya now has the potential for a democratic state. The people of Libya will be able to decide their own destiny – without having put a single American troop on the ground. Just as important for the United States, our foreign policy has shifted under President Obama from a neo-conservative rush to war to a liberal coalition-building approach that topples dictators without engaging our military in decade-long war.

The latest ad specifically claims that “America’s economy is hanging by a thread” thanks to “reckless spending, a failed stimulus and a $14 trillion debt.” The ad goes on to say that it is time to stop giving President Obama a blank check. The message of the ad is clear: Obama is the reason that we have a beleaguered economy, a large (and rising) national debt, etc.

The only problem, of course, is that it is not true. President Bush and Republicans in Congress racked up $5.07 trillion of debt from tax cuts for the rich, wars, a Wall Street bailout, Medicare prescription drug bill, and other spending. During the eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency, the federal budget increased by an average of 3.81% per year.

The nation’s debt is not a product of President Obama. The 2010 budget passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama was an increase of only 1.4%. Emergency measures that he did take were only temporary. When he entered office the nation was losing nearly a million jobs a week and he took action by passing the Recovery Act, which created as many as 3.6 million jobs. This is his largest contributor to the debt to date.

The healthcare reform bill that passed in 2010 was paid for, despite repeated lies by Republicans that it added to the deficit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the “Affordable Care Act”, which Republicans love to call “Obamacare”, will reduce the deficit by $1.3 trillion over the course of the next two decades. Again, that is a reduced deficit thanks to the actions of our president and a Democratic Congress.

Republicans might not like the numbers, but they don’t lie. The bulk of our country’s debt problems lie on the shoulders of George W. Bush and a Republican Congress that went on a spending spree at the same time that they unloaded the Treasury Department with tax cuts for the wealthy. Now they hold our economy hostage, claiming that President Obama is spending too much money, when they themselves are the main reason that we have a deficit problem.

Much of this cycle the Democrats have trailed Republican Rob Portman, a former Bush administration official, by a few points. That appears to have ended with a slight lead for both Democratic candidates for Senate. The reversal of fortune comes just weeks after the health care reform bill became law. President Obama’s approval rating has also edged up in the state, as has Governor Strickland’s, a Democrat.

“In the Senate race, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher leads Republican Rob Portman 41 – 37 percent, reversing a 40 – 37 percent Portman lead February 24. Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner edges Portman 38 – 37 percent, reversing a 40 – 35 percent Republican lead,” Quinnipiac University found. While a 4 point lead and 1 point lead for the Democratic candidates is not comfortable, it is a pretty big swing in the matter of a short period of time (7 points towards Lee Fisher and 6 points towards Jennifer Brunner).

While the rate of unemployment continued to increase, this slowed dramatically until in November 2009, when the economy finally began to create jobs again. As the president has said continuously, we have a long way to go before everyone that wants a job can find one. But to deny that the stimulus is working is to deny reality. Congress should follow up by passing a new jobs bill to spur further employment opportunities for our citizens. Republicans that block a jobs bill should be punished by voters for playing politics with the health of our economy.

This event was a first. While President Obama last year met with Republicans on several occasions, no television cameras were allowed into the meeting. Certainly this is a big departure from the days of President Bush, who would never meet with Congressional Democrats other than in the White House. President Obama showed a great deal of confidence going into a room with 178 members that are openly hostile towards him. Many of them were publicly pushing ideas that he would set up “death panels” on grandma and even raised questions over whether he was an American citizen.

Most of the questions were framed in a way that you would expect on Fox News: loaded with a bunch of commentary, followed by a “why do you hate America so much?” Congressman Mike Pence asked the president whether he would embrace tax cuts. Of course the stimulus package last year, which Republicans opposed unanimously in the House, was nearly 1/3 tax cuts to the middle class. The Republican idea of “across the board tax cuts” are tax cuts to millionaires and corporations, similar to what we saw during the Bush years. President Obama rightly questioned why the Republican Party opposed a bill that included such large amounts of tax relief, as well as funding to cities and states that were laying off teachers, police officers, firefighters and health care professionals to ensure that they kept their jobs.

Another major point of contention was the idea that President Obama and the Democrats have set the country on a path to fiscal disaster. That simply is untrue. As President Obama pointed out, he inherited a $1.2 trillion annual deficit from President Bush. Yes, the size of the deficit increased last year, but only marginally. Passing the stimulus package was the main reason for that. When Obama took office a year ago, in the first quarter of 2009, the GDP fell 6.4%. If we had not passed the stimulus act, most economists agree that we would not have seen the kind of business growth that led to a nearly 6% increase in GDP for the 4th quarter of 2009. That is a hugely positive sign that you won’t hear Republicans touting. We are on the road to economic recovery. Jobs will not appear overnight, but they will come. Returning to the failed policies of the Bush years, however, will only ensure another economic disaster.

By the way, Obama’s policies are working. The GDP fell by only 1% in the second quarter compared to over 6% in the first quarter of 2009. Most economists believe that the country will see growth in the 3rd quarter of 2009 (July to September). The stimulus did what it was intended for: it slowed the recession, saved jobs that would have been otherwise lost and invested in our country’s economy through infrastructure projects, green jobs and the largest tax cut in American history.

Even (some) Republicans understand. Conservative economist Bruce Bartlett laid out the facts in an article for the Daily Beast:

• Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real GDP grew 34.7 percent. Between the fourth quarter of 2000 and the fourth quarter of 2008, it grew 15.9 percent, less than half as much.

• Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real gross private domestic investment almost doubled. By the fourth quarter of 2008, real investment was 6.5 percent lower than it was when Bush was elected.

• Between December 1992 and December 2000, payroll employment increased by more than 23 million jobs, an increase of 21.1 percent. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it rose by a little more than 2.5 million, an increase of 1.9 percent. In short, about 10 percent as many jobs were created on Bush’s watch as were created on Clinton’s.

• During the Bush years, conservative economists often dismissed the dismal performance of the economy by pointing to a rising stock market. But the stock market was lackluster during the Bush years, especially compared to the previous eight. Between December 1992 and December 2000, the S&P 500 Index more than doubled. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it fell 34 percent. People would have been better off putting all their investments into cash under a mattress the day Bush took office.

• Finally, conservatives have an absurdly unjustified view that Republicans have a better record on federal finances. It is well-known that Clinton left office with a budget surplus and Bush left with the largest deficit in history. Less well-known is Clinton’s cutting of spending on his watch, reducing federal outlays from 22.1 percent of GDP to 18.4 percent of GDP. Bush, by contrast, increased spending to 20.9 percent of GDP. Clinton abolished a federal entitlement program, Welfare, for the first time in American history, while Bush established a new one for prescription drugs.

This resignation creates a bit of a conundrum for Republican Governor Charlie Crist. The governor has announced that he will run for his party’s nomination in the 2010 Senate election. The only problem is that he will have to appoint a temporary replace until the election is held in 2010.

There are several reasons why this complicates things for Governor Crist. For one if he nominates someone that does not agree beforehand to not run for re-election, they automatically become the chief rival to Crist as he seeks the same sit that he is forced to fill.

The second pitfall is if he chooses to appoint himself it could weaken his chances at winning the November 2010 election – or even the primary. As a senator Crist would have to vote on a number of potentially controversial measures. Healthcare reform comes to mind most clearly. Does he work with Democrats to pass Obama’s agenda or does he side with other obstructionist do-nothing Republicans?

A vote in favor of healthcare reform would almost certainly doom his chances of winning the Republican nomination against his more conservative challenger Florida Speaker Marco Rubio. A vote against would give Democrats an election year issue to run against him on, among potentially many others. Being in the majority allows Senate Democrats to force votes that might not go over too well in the Sunshine State. Either way, Martinez’s move is not something that is likely to make Charlie Crist very happy.

Part of the president’s visit was to tout the success of the stimulus package his administration passed earlier this year. It’s clear with the GDP falling only 1 percent last quarter that the economy is on the rebound after diving 5.4 percent in the October-December quarter of 2008 and 6.4 percent between January and March 2009. The Bush recession is leading to an Obama stimulus-driven recovery.

Another part of his visit was to announce grants as part of his stimulus package that will both reduce dependency on foreign oil, as well as put people back to work. The president announced $405 million dollars in grants into research and production of electric vehicle batteries for Indiana. $39 million of that will be for Navistar, a company based in Wakarusa. The money will be used to make “400 advanced battery electric trucks with a range of 100 miles,” the president said.

Six other companies in Indiana were awarded grants making Indiana the second largest recipient of money from the federal government. Investments will also be made in Indiana University, Purdue University, Notre Dame and Ivy Tech to train workers. As a state that has historically played a large role in the development of automobiles, it is great to see a president that supports domestic vehicle production. Not just any vehicles, either. Clean, green and energy efficient vehicles taking advantage of American ingenuity. Built right here in America.

Below is President Obama’s speech announcing the grants to Indiana:

NBC’s Chuck Todd also got a chance for a short interview at the Navistar plant:

The President was greeted by both well wishers and protesters. As the right wing Republican machine has done so frequently throughout his short term as the leader of our nation, they opposed his very presence. Their argument is clear: if you do not hold their position then you are not welcome. Essentially if their policy were adopted by the University then a “Democrats need not apply” sign might as well be posted on the Golden Dome.

Thankfully cooler heads prevailed in the matter. Father Jenkins was a gracious host and stood up to the pressure that Catholic leaders from Bishops to activists have put on him for the past month. While it is unfortunate that anti-abortion outsiders decided that this venue was appropriate, the graduation ceremony went on without a hitch (at least mostly – there were a few brief interruptions).

Let it be known to all of you from around the country looking at this media spectacle: the students and faculty of Notre Dame, as well as a majority of Catholics across the country, stand behind the decision to invite President Obama. The small minority that did protest, only a few dozen people, were mostly from out of state. They really had no business even being in South Bend.

I am perfectly fine if the students want to protest. It’s their graduation, afterall. But to have people like Alan Keyes, whom President Obama defeated in the Illinois Senate race in 2004, is pretty disgraceful. Unlike President Bush, who was invited in 2001 and was responsible for overseeing more inmates being put to death than any other governor in history (which is against Church teaching), President Obama has no direct connection to any abortions.

The president has no control over abortion laws and he never will. To vote on an issue like this for which the person seeking office has no legislative authority is mind boggling to me. Then to turn around and hold it against him when he speaks at a university is even more so. Notre Dame is a university. It is not a theological school, it does not require its students to be Catholic or practice Catholic teachings. Perhaps these activists would like to see Notre Dame institute an admissions policy where all new students would be required to convert to Christianity and hold Catholic beliefs. At any rate, these are absurd objections.

Courtesy of DailyKos

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record