Sandra Fluke Receives Call From Obama After Rush Limbaugh 'Slut' Comments

President Obama on Friday placed a call to Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University law school student at the heart of the debate over the contraception law, thanking her for speaking out on the issue.
The call came a day after conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh demanded that Fluke release tapes of her having sex in exchange for the contraception that she argued should be covered by employers. Fluke was set to go on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports when the president rang her on her phone. She took the call while waiting in the green room.
"He encouraged me and supported me and thanked me for speaking out about the concerns of American women," she told Mitchell, who received permission from the White House to discuss the exchange between Fluke and Obama. "What was really personal for me was that he said to tell my parents that they should be proud. And that meant a lot because Rush Limbaugh questioned whether or not my family would be proud of me. So I just appreciated that very much."
Fluke appeared to be choking up a bit while recalling the conversation. But she composed herself and went to discuss how surreal her experience has been. After being declined the opportunity to speak on a congressional panel to debate the president's contraception rule, she was subsequently invited to address Democrats on the topic. For that, she was vilified by Limbaugh, who also compared her to a prostitute. On Friday, several leading Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), condemned the remarks. The call from the president put a capstone on the week.
"He did express his concern for me and wanted to make sure that I was OK, which I am," she said. "I'm OK."
UPDATE: 1:29 p.m. -- At the White House press briefing shortly after the news broke, Press Secretary Jay Carney outlined the reasoning behind the president's decision to call Fluke.
Obama, said Carney, felt that, "the kinds of personal attacks that have been directed her way have been inappropriate."

"The fact that our political discourse has been debased in many ways is bad enough," he added. "It's even worse when it is directed at a private citizen who is simply expressing her views about public policy."
The call was placed by Obama from the Oval Office, Carney relayed. It was also the reason why Friday's press briefing was delayed more than an hour.

UPDATE: As reported by Huffpost Media, Limbaugh responded to Obama's call during his program on Friday.

Limbaugh also reacted to President Obama's call to Fluke. Obama told Fluke that her parents should be "proud" of her. Limbaugh had a different message for them. "I'd be embarrassed," he said. "I'd disconnect the phone. I'd go into hiding."

FULL STORY

Zakaria: Time to get real on Afghanistan

By Fareed Zakaria, CNN
The controversy over the desecration of copies of the Quran in Afghanistan and the murders of Americans that have followed is, on one level, one moment in a long, complicated war. But it also highlights the difficult and ultimately unsustainable aspect of America's Afghan policy. President Obama wants to draw down troops, but his strategy remains to transition power and authority to an Afghan national army and police force as well as to the government in Kabul, which would run the country and its economy. This is a fantasy. We must recognize that and pursue a more realistic alternative.
The United States tends to enter wars in developing countries with a simple idea - modernize the country, and you will solve the national security problem. An articulation of that approach came from none other than Newt Gingrich during a 2010 speech:

"The fact that we have been in this country for seven, eight years, and that we have not flooded the country with highways, we haven't guaranteed that every Afghan has a cell phone, we haven't undertaken the logical steps towards fundamentally modernizing their society."

Now, assuming that every Afghan got a cell phone and could travel on great highways, here is what would not change: The Afghan national government does not have the support of a large segment of its population, the Pashtuns. The national army is regarded as an army of Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras - the old Northern Alliance that battled the Pashtuns throughout the 1990s. And, simply put, Afghanistan's economy cannot support a large national government with a huge army. (The budget for Afghan security forces today is around $12 billion paid for by the US of course. That is eight times the amount of the government's annual revenue.)
As America has discovered in countless places over the past five decades, there are problems with this nation-building approach. First, it is extremely difficult to modernize a country in a few years. Second, even if this were possible, the fundamental characteristics of that society - its ethnicity, religion, and national and geopolitical orientation - persist despite modernization.
Accepting reality in Afghanistan would not leave America without options. We could have a smaller troop presence; we can pursue robust counterterrorism operations.
The United States could, of course, maintain its current approach, which is to bet on the success of not one but two large nation-building projects. We have to create an effective national government in Kabul that is loved and respected by all Afghans, whatever their ethnicity, and expand the Afghan economy so that a large national army and police force are sustainable for the long run.
To succeed, we would also have to alter Pakistan's basic character, create a civilian-dominated state that could shift the strategic orientation of the Islamabad government so that it shuts down the Taliban sanctuaries and starts fighting the very groups it has created and supported for at least three decades. Does anyone really think this is going to happen?
For more of my thoughts throughout the week, I invite you to follow me on Facebook and Twitter and to visit the Global Public Square every day. Be sure to catch GPS every Sunday at 10a.m. and 1p.m. EST. If you miss it, you can buy the show on iTunes.
Reported by cnn.com

FULL STORY

Obama Payroll Tax Cut: President Finally Scores Coveted Win

WASHINGTON -- The $143 billion payroll tax cut won by President Barack Obama may be the last significant measure he receives from a deeply divided Congress that promises to only get more polarized as Election Day approaches.
Obama's coveted renewal of the payroll tax cut for 160 million workers and jobless benefits for millions more caps a five-month campaign-style drive against reluctant Republicans.
Under the bill Congress approved Friday, workers would continue to receive a 2 percentage point increase in their paychecks, and people out of work for more than six months would keep jobless benefits averaging about $300 a week, steps that Obama says will help support a fragile recovery from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
It would also head off a steep cut in reimbursements for physicians who treat Medicare patients.
The tax cuts, jobless coverage and higher doctors' payments would all continue through 2012.
Passage of the legislation hands Obama a victory over objections from many GOP lawmakers who oppose it but were eager to wipe the issue from the election-year agenda.
It also clears away a political headache for House Republicans, who blocked a two-month extension of the tax cut and jobless coverage in late December, only to retreat quickly under a buzz saw of opposition from conservative and GOP leaders from around the country.
With that history, Republicans seemed ready to get the fight behind them and change the subject for the rest of this election year.
"We're dumb, but we're not stupid," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told reporters after he voted. "We did not want to repeat the debacle of last December. It's not that complicated."

Republicans said the final deal, significantly changed from a tea party-backed measure that passed in December, was the best Republicans could get.
"We don't control Washington. Democrats still control Washington – they control the Senate, and they control the White House," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., the top House negotiator on the measure. "A divided government must still govern." Camp cited stricter job search requirements for people receiving unemployment benefits and other changes in the program as wins for conservatives.
Extending the 2 percentage point cut in the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax would save around $80 monthly for someone earning $50,000 a year and give a maximum cut of $2,200 to high-end earners.
The reduction in the Social Security payroll tax, which is deducted from workers' paychecks, would cost $93 billion through 2022. In a sudden concession this week that made bipartisan agreement possible, House Republicans dropped their demand that the tax cut be paid for with spending reductions.
In a GOP win, coverage for the long-term unemployed would be cut from the current maximum of 99 weeks to a ceiling of 73 weeks by this fall in states with the worst job markets, with most topping out at 63 weeks.
Of the $30 billion cost of the extended unemployment benefits, half would be paid for by government sales of parts of the nation's broadcast airwaves, half by requiring federal workers hired after this year to contribute an additional 2.3 percent of their pay for their pensions, up from the current 0.8

FULL STORY