Should Obama ask Mitt Romney to Run GM?

Marc Ambinder poses the question should Obama install Mitt Romney as GM's chairman. Obama has said

The government can't hope to fix G.M. and sell it off without getting under the hood. Over decades now of restructuring plans at the company, two things have demonstrably not helped get much done: Money and time. The government can't simply give more of each to the automaker. What's needed is forceful, even ruthless, leadership to insist on the changes that everyone--the managers, the union leadership, the dealers, everyone--has known were necessary for about 20 years now.[...]

Here's a modest proposal to drive things along: Obama should install Mitt Romney as GM's chairman. Romney grew up outside Detroit and around cars; his father, George W. Romney, saved American Motors from collapse in the 1950s--by killing failing brands and focusing on compact cars! George Romney successfully took on the Big Three with a "dinosaur fighter" strategy. The son would bring to GM that legacy, the turnaround expertise and credentials he developed at Bain & Company, and the outsider's eye that GM desperately needs. He would also usefully jack up even further the stakes and the drama of the undertaking.

And he would create a political firewall for the turnaround. An alliance with Romney to save GM would give Obama and Henderson the protection they need to move briskly to shrink the company. Why would Romney do it? Maybe because the chance to renew an American icon, preserve America's manufacturing capacity, and save tens of thousands of jobs would mean something to him. Maybe because it would give him a platform to demonstrate what an effective leader he can be. Maybe because, along the way, it would allow him to save the Republican Party by proving that it stands for something besides...whatever it is that it stands for right now.

It would be a win for Romney because if he leads GM back he would be a top candidate in 2016. It would be a win for Obama cause it shows his bipartisan approach and would patch over a possible issue in 2012.

With all that said, it probably would never happen because it makes sense.

The Bush Mob Keeps Pulling Obama Back In

Image via Wikipedia

Frank Rich's column in the New York Times this morning is a must read.

To paraphrase Al Pacino in "Godfather III," just when we thought we were out, the Bush mob keeps pulling us back in. And will keep doing so. No matter how hard President Obama tries to turn the page on the previous administration, he can’t. Until there is true transparency and true accountability, revelations of that unresolved eight-year nightmare will keep raining down drip by drip, disrupting the new administration’s high ambitions. ...

There are many dots yet to be connected, and not just on torture. This Sunday, GQ magazine is posting on its Web site an article adding new details to the ample dossier on how Donald Rumsfeld’s corrupt and incompetent Defense Department cost American lives and compromised national security. ...

[Robert] Draper reports that Rumsfeld’s monomaniacal determination to protect his Pentagon turf led him to hobble and antagonize America’s most willing allies in Iraq, Britain and Australia, and even to undermine his own soldiers. But Draper’s biggest find is a collection of daily cover sheets that Rumsfeld approved for the Secretary of Defense Worldwide Intelligence Update, a highly classified digest prepared for a tiny audience, including the president, and often delivered by hand to the White House by the defense secretary himself. These cover sheets greeted Bush each day with triumphal color photos of the war headlined by biblical quotations. GQ is posting 11 of them, and they are seriously creepy. ...

I’m not a fan of Washington’s blue-ribbon commissions, where political compromises can trump the truth. But the 9/11 investigation did illuminate how, a month after Bush received an intelligence brief titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," 3,000 Americans were slaughtered on his and Cheney’s watch. If the Obama administration really wants to move on from the dark Bush era, it will need a new commission, backed up by serious law enforcement, to shed light on where every body is buried.

100 Days of No

A new web ad from the DNC about the Republican strategy during Obama's first 100 days in office.

Latham Votes Against Middle Class Tax Cuts... Again

Tom Latham says he wants to help cut taxes, let people keep more of their money, and is against the death tax.

However, last week Latham voted against Barack Obama's budget that will cut taxes for middle class families, voted against eliminating the death tax for nearly every American, and earlier this year he voted against the largest tax cut in history.

• Cuts taxes for middle income families by $1.5 trillion and extends the 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts for taxpayers making less than $250,000 a year.

• Protects millions of middle-class families who would otherwise be hit by the AMT in 2010.

• Provides tax relief for small businesses.

• Permanently extends estate tax relief to ensure that 99.7 percent of estates in America never pay a dime of estate taxes.

Earlier this year, Representative Tom Latham opposed the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which cuts taxes for 95 percent of the American people, representing the largest middle class tax cut in history.

So what gives Rep. Latham? Do you want to cut taxes and let people keep more of their own money or do you want to think our economic situation is just fine and you want to continue the status quo?

There's No One as Irish as Barack OBama

Dean on Hardball Talking about Obama's Health Care Plan

Howard Dean was on Hardball yesterday talking about Obama's health care plan...

It Was All Worth It

After watching Barack Obama's speech last night I realized that it truly was worth it. It was worth the all the miles I drove to hear all the candidates speak, all the time I volunteered, all the phone calls I made, and all the doors I knocked days before the Iowa caucuses in below zero weather.

Inauguration day was about the show, the monuments, the weight of the presidency, and the historical moment in our nation.

Election day was about the people, the volunteers, and the excitement.

The night of the Iowa Caucuses was about the beginning of a movement.

Last night, though, it all came together. Barack Obama called all Americans to the table to act. He spoke, not as a member of a political party, but as our President. President Obama was no longer making promises on a campaign trail, but instead laying a vision for our country, a path back to prosperity.

Obama The Tax Cutter

Obama signed one of the largest tax cuts in history Tuesday when he signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Marc Ambinder says this could come in handy in 2012...

It's hard imagine we won't hear about this four years from now. And if that's not boxing a future Republican candidate in ahead of time, I don't know what is.

Think about how many potential Republican arguments are going to be pre-empted by that nice little fact?

Rooting for Failure

Rush Limbaugh is not a big fan of Barack Obama. That part is not surprising.

However, this quote from Rush is...

I want everything he’s doing to fail ... I want the stimulus package to fail ... I do not want this to succeed.

I was not a big fan of George W. Bush, but it wasn't always that way. I began not to like Bush after numerous failures during his presidency. There was the Iraq War, Mission Accomplished, Katrina, tax cuts for the wealthy, torture, domestic spying, just to name a few. I didn't root for him to fail even though that is all he seemed to do as president.

What Rush and the Right is doing is completely different. They are rooting for Obama's failure because it would lead to their personal gain. Rush would get better ratings and more money. Republicans would have a better chance at getting elected. It would also lead to the demise of our great country.

I am sorry, but putting one's own well being before country is what I call unpatriotic.

Obama's Promise to Early Childhood Education

In the news, there's been more talk about merit pay and reauthorizing No Child Left Behind. However, the key to Obama's education plans is his promise to early childhood education.

As a 2nd grade teacher, each year I have students reading at a Kindergarten level. That means they are essentially 2 years behind grade level after 2 years of school. That doesn't mean their previous teachers aren't quality teachers. It means those students have not had the opportunities other students have had before entering school (such as quality pre-school and growing up in a literacy filled environment) and likely have obstacles that must be overcome (such as learning a 2nd language, living in poverty).

When you build a house, you start with the foundation. Obama wants to ensure that all children have the foundation needed to be successful in school. One of the failings of No Child Left Behind is that some students are already incredibly behind when the enter school.

From Lead from the Start...

10. Obama supports increasing funding for the Head Start program for preschool children. Obama has called on states to replicate the Illinois model of Preschool for All.

Campaign website, BarackObama.com, "Resource Flyers" Aug 26, 2007

9. We can start by investing $10 billion to guarantee access to quality, affordable, early childhood education for every child in America. Every dollar that we spend on these programs puts our children on a path to success, while saving us as much as $10 in reduced health care costs, crime, and welfare later on.
Source: Speech in Flint, MI, in Change We Can Believe In, p.249 Jun 15, 2008

Put billions of dollars into early childhood education
8. Latinos have such a high dropout rate. What you see consistently are children at a very early age are starting school already behind. That’s why I’ve said that I’m going to put billions of dollars into early childhood education that makes sure that our African-American youth, Latino youth, poor youth of every race, are getting the kind of help that they need so that they know their numbers, their colors, their letters. Every dollar that we spend in early childhood education, we get $10 back in reduced dropout rates, improved reading scores. That’s the kind of commitment we have to make early on.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

7. Teachers don’t go in to education to get rich. They don’t go in to education because they don’t believe in their children. They want their children to succeed, but we’ve got to give them the tools. Invest in early childhood education. Invest in our teachers and our children will succeed.
Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference Jun 19, 2007

6. If you’re a progressive, you’ve got to be worried about how the federal government is spending its revenue, because we don’t have enough money to spend on things like early childhood education that are so important.
Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008

5. Children’s First Agenda: zero to five early education

High-Quality Zero to Five Early Education: Obama will launch a Children’s First Agenda that provides care, learning and support to families with children from birth up to five years old.
Source: Campaign booklet, “Blueprint for Change”, p. 20-23 Feb 2, 2008

4. We’ve got to have early childhood education.
Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007

3. We’ll invest in early childhood education programs so that our kids don’t begin the race of life behind the starting line and offer a $4,000 tax credit to make college affordable for anyone who wants to go. Because as the NAACP knows better than anyone, the fight for social justice and economic justice begins in the classroom.
Source: McCain-Obama speeches at 99th NAACP Convention Jul 12, 2008

2. Michelle and I are here only because we were given a chance at an education. I will not settle for an America where some kids don’t have that chance. I’ll invest in early childhood education.
Source: Speech at 2008 Democratic National Convention Aug 27, 2008

1. This clip really seems to show where his heart is on the issue of voluntary Pre-K. Hopefully, he won't forget.

Bipartisanship and Millennials

Eric Greenberg, the author of Generation We, took a look at Obama's attempt of bipartisanship on the Stimulus Bill...

Obama is not going to be a pushover for the Republicans, as his blunt "I won" in response to some of the Republicans' more extreme demands in last week's meeting about the stimulus package demonstrated. But those who want Obama to declare open warfare against the right are missing the point. Obama's conciliatory moves--from selecting Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor of California's Saddleback Church, to deliver the invocation at the inauguration to bending over backward to entertain conservative complaints about details of the stimulus bill--don't indicate weakness or uncertainty on his part. Instead, they reflect his consistent desire to position himself as the first political voice representing post-partisan America.

Like so much of what Obama has done, this strategy has its roots in generational change. In all of his political choices, Obama has his eyes on 95 million young Americans currently aged 9 to 30--the Millennials. The largest generation in history (more numerous even than the Baby Boomers), they played a major role in Obama's election, favoring him by fully two-thirds (66 percent), as compared with the 54 percent majority carried by John Kerry four years earlier. Out of 23 million Millennial votes cast, this produced a seven million vote plurality for Obama--virtually the same as Obama's overall margin of victory.

And as we discovered when we researched the values and attitudes of the Millennials for our book Generation We, for today's youth, the culture wars are over. The Millennials are more accepting of gender equality, gay rights, racial blending, immigration, and divergent political views than any other generation. This is true even of Millennials who consider themselves evangelical Christians (twenty percent of the young people we surveyed--or about 19 million nationwide). [...]

Our guess is that today's young people overwhelmingly like seeing their president extending a hand of cooperation to politicians across the aisle. And if the conservatives respond by biting it off, they will only further discredit themselves in the eyes of tomorrow's biggest and most powerful political bloc--and further solidify the Millennials' attachment to the Obama coalition.

Obama's Press Conference on the Stimulus Plan

I got home after the Obama press conference started and decided to eat instead of watch it.

So here are David Sirota's thoughts on it went...

Best Moment(s): When Obama repeatedly reminded the braindead Washington press corps and the lobotomized Republican Party that it was the GOP that created the national debt with its irresponsible tax cuts and wars, and that therefore, their fake outrage at the stimulus's deficit spending is absurd.

Worst Moment: When Obama repeated right-wing - and silly - talking points that "some in my party [are] too resistant to reform" and think "only money makes a difference." This is the old conservative meme that all progressives want to do is throw money at problems. Except, last I checked, one of the people who's been most "resistant to reform" and who has effectively insisted that "only money makes a difference" is President Obama when it comes to the $8 trillion no-strings-attached Wall Street bailout - a bailout that hasn't included any financial regulatory reform whatsoever.

Movement Moment: When Sam Stein of the Huffington Post - a progressive media outlet - was given the opportunity to ask a question.

Most Predictable Moment: When CNN's John King later called the Huffington Post "not a mainstream news organization" as a subtle dig at his new media competitors.

Silliest Moment: When Obama was asked about A-Rod - as if the president's opinion on that matter means anything.

Most Shocking Omission: While the D.C. media continued fetishizing "bipartisanship" with its incessant questions about process, unbelievably (and thankfully) nobody wasted time asking about the First Family's choice of canine.

Biggest Missed Question: Not surprisingly, nobody asked Obama any questions about the composition of his economic team, and why the American people should feel confident in him when he's hired many of the same people who had a hand in creating the economic crisis.

Unanswered Questions: Obama didn't give a conclusive answer about whether he had learned anything about the legislative process from the stimulus negotiations. Seems like the lesson is clear: You don't start a proposal by making concessions in the first draft - in this case, Obama began by proposing a stimulus chock full of Republican-style tax cuts, and now has been negotiating from a position of weakness. But it also seems that Obama isn't sure what he's learned from this - and that could bode poorly for even more divisive issues (health care reform, EFCA, etc.) than the stimulus in the future.

Poll Shows Americans Approve of Obama, Disaprove of Republicans on Stimulus Plan

Gallup released a poll that shows 61% of Americans approve of how President Obama is handling the Stimulus Plan. 48% approve of how Democrats in Congress are handling the Stimulus Plan, while just 31% approve of how Republicans in Congress handling the Stimulus Plan.

The data in particular show the sharp divide between the public's views of how Obama has handled efforts to pass a stimulus bill and its views of how the Republicans have handled this -- a divide that quantitatively produces a 36-point approval gap.

Some of this difference may be attributable to pre-existing views of the entities involved in the stimulus plan wrangling. President Obama's overall job approval rating (64% as of Sunday, Feb. 8) is very close to his approval rating on the stimulus, while Gallup's last measure of favorable ratings for the Republicans in Congress (in December 2008) was 25%.

Putting Pressure on Obama

Obama has a progressive record, but throughout the campaign he ran on changing the tone and ending the partisan bickering in Washington more so than on implementing progressive change.

David Sirota wrote in his syndicated column this week that Progressives must put pressure on Obama to move to the left and implement progressive policies...

As former House Republican leader Tom DeLay said, he and his colleagues deliberately started "every policy initiative from as far to the political right" as possible, so as to shift "the center farther to the right." The formula emulated Franklin D. Roosevelt's fabled admonishment to allies: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

With Bush, congressional Republicans knew they had an ideological comrade in the White House. But they also knew he was confined by the (minimally) moderating desire for re-election and the (even more minimally) moderating limits of his national office. So, to reach their goals, conservatives had to compel their presidential friend to do what they wanted - and compel him they did. When Bush's tax cuts and deregulatory schemes hit the Capitol, Republicans inevitably expanded them to fully achieve the right's objectives.

Of course, that triumph was the country's loss, as Republican policies thrust the political center off a conservative precipice and America into an economic freefall. And as we plummet, we are desperately groping for a lifeline.

If we are lucky and we end up snagging one that saves us - a huge if - it will be one that is strong enough to snap the center back from the conservative brink. This super-durable bungee cord must have the force of law, meaning it will be woven by Democratic legislators now exerting as much pressure on President Obama's left as congressional Republicans focused on President Bush's right.

Call your Congressman and Senators and ask them to support the Progressive issue that you care about the most, rather it be the Economic Stimulus Plan, Universal Health Care, repealing NCLB, or to get us out of Iraq.

Feingold on Obama's Executive Order to Close Guantanamo and Ban Torture

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has been an outspoken critic of the abuses of the law by the Bush administration. Yesterday, Feingold wrote at the Huffington Post about Barack Obama's executive order to close Guantanamo and ban torture...

Just hours after his historic inauguration, President Obama has made history again, by signing executive orders that undo, with the stroke of a pen, some of the Bush Administration's worst mistakes. President Obama is off to a great start on restoring the rule of law, and he's giving the country the fresh start we desperately need after the last eight years.

President Obama has rejected the policies of the last administration, both in his words and in his actions. In short order, he has signed orders to close Guantanamo, suspend the military commission system, subject all interrogations to the guidelines in the Army Field Manual, end long-term CIA detentions, require humane treatment of detainees consistent with the Geneva Conventions, and guarantee the International Committee of the Red Cross access to all prisoners held by the U.S. government, and announced a return to the presumption of FOIA disclosure under the Clinton administration. That is a breathtaking list, and the beginning of change that is long overdue.

The new President's quick actions to end both excessive secrecy and flawed detention and interrogation policies are very encouraging. I have long opposed the Bush administration's policies in these areas. As chair of the Senate's Constitution Subcommittee, I held a hearing shining a light on the secret laws that last administration created - keeping OLC opinions under lock and key, for instance - and called for a major overhaul of these policies. I also held a hearing in September 2008 on restoring the rule of law, at which John Podesta and others testified about what changes should be made by a new administration. In December, I wrote then President-elect Obama urging him to take these and other vital steps to restore the rule of law. I applaud his quick action on these issues. It's a great sign of his commitment to working on the other issues that still need to be addressed, from the separation of powers to domestic surveillance and privacy.

Giving Credit Where Credit is Due: Obama, Dean, and the 50 State Strategy

The 2007 Harkin Steak Fry was the day that Iowa's Democratic Base realized that Barack Obama was ready. It was that moment that the organization the Obama campaign had built up throughout the summer became visible.

The supporters of all the candidates had arrived to stake out their spots to watch the speakers. Obama held a rally across the street from the Steak Fry and then the crowd, led by the thumping drums of the Des Moines Isiserettes, paraded down the road and into the venue.

The sight turned the heads of every person who was there supporting another candidate. I am sure a great majority of them they had to second guess the candidate of their choice at that moment. Throughout the rest of the campaign leading up to the caucuses and the general election the organization from the Obama campaign was amazing.

However, Howard Dean deserves some credit for the gains nationwide for the Democratic Party the past few years he served as chair. Dean established the 50 state strategy that helped Democrats win in reddest of red places like Idaho and Utah.

Now that Tim Kaine has taken over the DNC there are some questions if the 50 state strategy is going to continue.

Howard Dean was a rare political creature -- a person who embraced decentralization. The new crew in power is far more conventional, resorting to an old-school centralized power structure. Democrats have the White House, and perhaps it's understandable that they want to take a proven model (the Obama campaign) and begin building what will eventually morph into Obama's reelection campaign. But given the size of Obama's list and his fundraising prowess, it shouldn't have to be an either-or proposition.

John Deeth says that even though Dean is gone, it doesn't mean the idea behind the 50 state strategy is...

The 50 state MINDSET certainly won't be abandoned. Obama, Plouffe, Axelrod, et al. know how they won. There'll be a 50 state strategy of some sort, but it just might not be as much under the auspices and funding of the DNC. Where there's gaps, the locals will probably have to carry more of the load.

The main question is resources. Organizing needs organizers and organizers need to get paid. Not much, but enough to survive certainly, and even a pittance adds up when you multiply it by hundreds or thousands. (And Democratic Party political correctness being what it is, a health care package is de riguer.)

As for Dean himself, his election in early 2005 was a watershed moment for the netroots, a break from the Terry McAuliffe era of 18 states and high-dollar donors. It's fair to say Obama won in 2008 by running Dean's 2004 campaign: grassroots, people intensive, and funded by small donors.

Obama's Sensible Priorities

If you attended any political events leading up to the Iowa Caucuses you know about Iowans for Sensible Priorities. They are the ones that handed out the pens with the pull out charts, had the pie chart car, and passed out cookies with pie charts on them. There goals were to...

Increase funding to meet the needs of our children and children around the world (at no additional taxpayer expense) by reducing money spent on the Pentagon for Cold War weapons systems no longer needed to protect America.

Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff, has recently said that the Obama administration plans to cut Pentagon spending...

Withdrawing from Iraq, and cutting $300 billion in other defense spending, would wipe out the increases in military spending under the Bush administration. It would even reduce military spending to a smaller percentage of the federal budget than it was during the Clinton administration.

It is great to have a President with sensible priorities.

The Mulligan

Obama took the oath of office again last night just to be safe...

White House Counsel Greg Craig released this statement:

"We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the President was sworn in appropriately yesterday. But the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time."

The pool report has great details of how it took place:

At 7:35 pm, Roberts administered the oath of office again to Obama in the map room.

"We decided it was so much fun..." Obama joked while sitting on a couch.

Obama stood and walked over to make small talk with pool as Roberts donned his black robe.

"Are you ready to take the oath?" Roberts asked.

"I am, and we're going to do it very slowly," Obama replied.

Oath took 25 seconds. After a flawless recitation, Roberts smiled and said, "Congratulations, again."

Obama said, "Thank you, sir."

Smattering of applause.

"All right." Obama said. "The bad news for the pool is there's 12 more balls."

Interestingly, Fox News said that it was Obama's mishap on the oath, while MSNBC said it was Chief Justice John Roberts' fault. It was both mens first inauguartion.

Goodbye to All That

Goodbye to all that! Not to Bush, but to the upheaval of the1960's and the Vietnam War.

Andrew Sullivan wrote in December 2007 that the election of Obama would be a transformational moment and allow our nation to finally move past the 1960's.

The logic behind the candidacy of Barack Obama is not, in the end, about Barack Obama. It has little to do with his policy proposals, which are very close to his Democratic rivals’ and which, with a few exceptions, exist firmly within the conventions of our politics. It has little to do with Obama’s considerable skills as a conciliator, legislator, or even thinker. It has even less to do with his ideological pedigree or legal background or rhetorical skills. Yes, as the many profiles prove, he has considerable intelligence and not a little guile. But so do others, not least his formidably polished and practiced opponent Senator Hillary Clinton.

Obama, moreover, is no saint. He has flaws and tics: Often tired, sometimes crabby, intermittently solipsistic, he’s a surprisingly uneven campaigner.

A soaring rhetorical flourish one day is undercut by a lackluster debate performance the next. He is certainly not without self-regard. He has more experience in public life than his opponents want to acknowledge, but he has not spent much time in Washington and has never run a business. His lean physique, close-cropped hair, and stick-out ears can give the impression of a slightly pushy undergraduate. You can see why many of his friends and admirers have urged him to wait his turn. He could be president in five or nine years’ time—why the rush?

But he knows, and privately acknowledges, that the fundamental point of his candidacy is that it is happening now. In politics, timing matters. And the most persuasive case for Obama has less to do with him than with the moment he is meeting. The moment has been a long time coming, and it is the result of a confluence of events, from one traumatizing war in Southeast Asia to another in the most fractious country in the Middle East. The legacy is a cultural climate that stultifies our politics and corrupts our discourse.

Obama’s candidacy in this sense is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us. So much has happened in America in the past seven years, let alone the past 40, that we can be forgiven for focusing on the present and the immediate future. But it is only when you take several large steps back into the long past that the full logic of an Obama presidency stares directly—and uncomfortably—at you.

At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war—not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a mo­mentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade—but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce.

Obama's Remarkable Journey

The Washington Post has a great article looking at Obama's improbable rise to the prescidency...

The essence of Barack Obama has been his capacity to avert life's roadblocks and disappointments during his journey. The first could have been his unusual family biography, with the challenges it presented in terms of stability and psychology. The second could have been the sociology of race in America, with its likelihood of rejection and cynicism. And the final was the geography of elective politics, with all the variables of ideology and luck. In each case, Obama kept moving, finding his way around dead ends, avoiding the traps.

Today, a quarter-century after his first glimpse of the White House, he retraced the route from the U.S. Capitol west along Pennsylvania Avenue, this time ensconced in the back of a presidential limousine, the whole world watching, as he glided toward his new home.