TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Archive | February, 2009

CPAC Saturday

By on 28 February 2009

Well, it’s been a long day. If you follow me on Twitter you know all about it.

Made longer by listening to Rush Limbaugh ramble on for over an hour without a cogent through line, with my friends over at Media Matters capturing a special moment. There’s nothing worse than an egotistical speaker rambling on and on because of self-indulgence thinking the audience is so enamored that it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t have a foundation, a thrust, or a single cogent message. It was hard to judge who was more frenzied, Rush or his audience.

Say what you will about Ann Coulter, whose way of expressing herself is usually as vile as it comes, but she’s far more in command of herself and her subject matter in front of an audience, even if she’s all entertainment and little substance. She could give Rush some pointers.

I’ll have a post up later on it, but right now I need to decompress. Thankful my trip home was quicker than the one there, that’s for sure. Still getting the hang of the area.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Why is Obama Talking about ‘Clean Coal’?

By on 28 February 2009

–updated–

Psssst… Hey, Mr. President, there is no such thing as “clean coal.”

It makes the Reality Coalition‘s new ad hilarious, but then it would be. It’s done by the famous Coen brothers. The message is not, but it’s hard to permeate the deniers’ world. Even Obama mentioned “clean coal” in his Tuesday speech. Silly for a man so smart, also a bit embarrassing. It’s not like Al Gore, who is part of the Reality Coalition, doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

… Let’s be clear: there are no US homes, factories, shopping centers or churches powered by coal plants that capture and store their global warming pollution.

Today, coal power plants emit carbon dioxide (CO2), the pollutant causing the climate crisis. A third of the America’s carbon pollution now comes from about 600 coal-fired power plants. And of the more than 70 proposed new coal power plants, barely a handful have plans to capture and store their CO2 emissions. If these dirty plants are allowed to be built, this will mean an additional 200 million tons of global warming pollution will be emitted in America each year. Until coal power plants no longer release CO2 to the atmosphere, coal will remain a major contributor to the climate crisis.

So what’s the deal with President Obama saddling up to “clean coal”?

Sometimes confrontation is required.

Oh, and I almost forgot, on the climate change issue alone we’ve got quite a brouhaha that has bubbled up between environmentalists and George Will. Because of the work of Media Matters and others, including readers, the Post is feeling the heat. Even the ombudsman of the Post was pressured on Will’s latest climate change denier rant, responding in a column which will run tomorrow (but is now online). Senator Kerry’s got a fantastic post up taking on George Will. Like I said, sometimes confrontation is required.

Disclosure: The Reality Coalition is an advertiser on this blog, though no agreement to cover the issue comes with that placement.

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

GOP: The Party of Rush

By on 27 February 2009

It’s true and it has been for many years.

Republicans won’t do anything not sanctioned by Rush Limbaugh. When they offend him they apologize on bended knee.

But just look where it’s gotten them.

They’ve lost the House.

They’ve lost the Senate.

President Obama was put into office with historic numbers. Democrats won Virginia, Indiana, the list goes on and on.

So it’s not a bit surprising to me that Democrats are planning to drive this point home again and again. Via Greg Sargent:

… “I’m encouraging every Democrat, every progressive, to be pointing out this powerful but painful truth: The party of Lincoln is now the Party of Limbaugh,” Begala continued. “We should make every Republican answer this: Why do they want our president to fail?”

Begala’s partner on CNN, James Carville, who first articulated the Rush message in early February, is also pushing Dems to blare this message, he confirms. “He is the embodiment of the Republican party, circa 2009,” Carville said. …

Right-wing radio was successful in taking down Bill Clinton a notch, to include impeachment for consensual sex, and they put and kept Dubya in office. But we may finally, at long last have reached the tipping point. If Democrats play this right we could marginalize Rush, because it’s clear the Republicans just don’t get it. Or maybe they don’t have the courage to admit it and take Rush on. Okay by me.

But just maybe Romney gets it. From CPAC:

“In the last eight years, we saw how a president’s political adversaries could be consumed by anger, and even hatred. That is not the spirit that brings us together. We want our country to succeed, no matter who’s in power. [...]

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Secretary Gates: ‘No one involved in the process has referred to the troops going in as ‘a surge.’

By on 27 February 2009
Photobucket

Just finished a media call with Defense Secretary Gates. He’s sure no Donald Rumsfeld. But then again President Obama welcomes information and as much transparency as possible, especially following his address from Camp Lejeune.

I had to chuckle at the correspondent from Fox News Radio, who asked a particularly obtuse question straight out of Sean Hannity’s playbook.

The New York Daily News reporter got slapped down a bit when he referred to the limited increase of troops in Afghanistan as a “surge.”

The AP reporter picked up on the news that’s been circulating about the debate about which withdrawal plan, 16, 19 or 23 months, was pushed by the generals.

As a final thought I took away that many of the questions were predicated on the notion that Gates has a crystal ball. The Secretary quickly disabused everyone of such a notion.

What follows are notes, typing as fast as I could so you could get a sense of the dynamics, from the call with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, beginning with what is needed in the short-term in Iraq:

“Maximum force presence” for Odierno during that sensitive period. The extra two months important for logistics (meaning from 16 to 18 month withdrawal plan).

REUTERS: About forces remaining after 2011.

GATES: It’s hypothetical. Have to wait and see. We should be, my own view, is that we should be prepared to have a modest size for training and intelligence beyond that, but again it’s hypothetical. No request has been made and no evidence it will be made

CBS: Difference between “combat and non-combat troops.”

GATES: All of the combat units will be out of Iraq by Aug. 2010. The rest will be “combat capable,” but “the units will be gone” and “more importantly the miss ion.. will be completely different.”

ABC: How flexible is this plan, how nimble?

GATES: We set a date because Obama said he would. That’s important to delineate between one mission and another; when one ends and another ends. It’s important for our troops and the Iraqis. As for flexibility, the President has made it clear that he’s the commander in chief and he will make those decisions, but that “we will meet these timelines.”

NY DAILY NEWS: Re: refocusing on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; will the forces getting larger than 55,000?

GATES: “First, no one involved in the process has referred to the troops going in as “a surge.” Everything will be determined by the review going on. There won’t be a sense about the size or duration until he’s see the review.

THE NEWS HOUR: 35,000 – 50,000 troops to remain in Iraq; Marines in Afghanistan Obama spoke to today, what will be their mission?

GATES: Deployed principally in the south to combat the Taliban and population security. Troops in Iraq question better addressed to Odierno; but protection for reconstruction and civilian teams. New units or “remissioned” units already there remains to be seen.

FOX NEWS RADIO: If Iraq takes a turn for the worse has Obama mentioned whether troops will go back in?

GATES: That’s pretty hypothetical. The decision Obama has made took into account these things. One reason Odierno wanted to maintain as many forces as possible is because of all the contingencies. The Iraqis will have to step up themselves. They did that during the last elections. Nobody is talking about sending more troops back in there.

LA TIMES: You talked about draw down and the Iraqi elections; how many units out this year, and air asset movements, will they move to Afghan?

GATES: “The two theaters are clearly separate.” I don’t know the answer to that question. “Most of what we’ve been adding in Afghanistan are new assets.” We’ll wait and see once we begin from Iraq. The general approach, there will be a draw down, but we have to get specific recommendations from Odierno.

AP: What happened to the 23 month option?

GATES: Odierno, Petraeus, the Chiefs, then we talked separately, 16, 19 and 23 months dated from the inauguration, with all of them having risks. Progress, sustaining progress, and tje additional need for Afghanistan. Gen. Odierno & Petraeus are comfortable with what Obama decided, Gates and the Chiefs as well

WASHINGTON INDEPENDENT: Obama talked about non-sectarian aspect and withdrawing troops from Iraq…

GATES: We’ve been pleased with the progress of the Iraq forces being non-sectarian, as witnessed recently in Basra. The army is developing along these lines. If we saw concerns like that we could bring attention to the Iraqi leadership. Confident it can be handled.

Read full story · Comments { 36 }

Commander in Chief Obama in Action

By on 27 February 2009

In a pitch perfect address at Camp LeJeune, in front of battle hardened Marines, President Obama not only announced the plan for withdrawal from Iraq, but took the opportunity to reach into the heart of the military culture to tell the men and women he leads that he is their commander in chief and will lead them wisely and deliver to them what they need, whether on the field of battle of after the gunfire has stopped.

As Barry McCaffrey said on MSNBC, after so many years of “weasel words,” this one was a “home run.” Obama’s address was “unequivocal” and “beautifully delivered.”

The Commander in Chief gave them their due on Iraq:

And so I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime – and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government – and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life – that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible.

He honored the fallen, telling a story of heroism that reached into every military man or woman in the audience:

The starting point for our policies must always be the safety of the American people. I know that you – the men and women of the finest fighting force in the history of the world – can meet any challenge, and defeat any foe. And as long as I am your Commander-in-Chief, I promise you that I will only send you into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary, and provide you with the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That is the most important lesson of all – for the consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable.

You know because you have seen those sacrifices. You have lived them. And we all honor them.

“Semper Fidelis” – it means always being faithful to Corps, and to country, and to the memory of fallen comrades like Corporal Jonathan Yale and Lance Corporal Jordan Haerter. These young men enlisted in a time of war, knowing they would face great danger. They came here, to Camp Lejeune, as they trained for their mission. And last April, they were standing guard in Anbar. In an age when suicide is a weapon, they were suddenly faced with an oncoming truck filled with explosives. These two Marines stood their ground. These two Marines opened fire. And these two Marines stopped that truck. When the thousands of pounds of explosives detonated, they had saved fifty Marines and Iraqi police who would have been in the truck’s path, but Corporal Yale and Lance Corporal Haerter lost their own lives. Jonathan was 21. Jordan was 19.

In the town where Jordan Haerter was from, a bridge was dedicated in his name. One Marine who traveled to the ceremony said: “We flew here from all over the country to pay tribute to our friend Jordan, who risked his life to save us. We wouldn’t be here without him.”

There was a sure applause line at the end, which gave everyone a moment to appreciate it together through shared laughter:

We also know that service does not end with the person wearing the uniform. In her visits with military families across the country, my wife Michelle has learned firsthand about the unique burden that your families endure every day. I want you to know this: military families are a top priority for Michelle and me, and they will be a top priority for my administration. We’ll raise military pay–

(APPLAUSE AND LAUGHTER broke Obama’s stride, as he acknowledged that he thought this would be a sure applause line.)

–and continue providing quality child-care, job-training for spouses, and expanded counseling and outreach to families that have known the separation and stress of war. We will also heed the lesson of history – that those who fight in battle can form the backbone of our middle class – by implementing a 21st century GI Bill to help our veterans live their dreams.

Semper Fi, with Commander in Chief Obama confident enough to add, HU-RAH.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Obama Announces Iraq Troop Withdrawal

By on 27 February 2009

–updated–

The announcement will be made at Camp LeJeune.

A portion of President Obama’s remarks now in progress (12:22 p.m. eastern):

[...] Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.

As we carry out this drawdown, my highest priority will be the safety and security of our troops and civilians in Iraq. We will proceed carefully, and I will consult closely with my military commanders on the ground and with the Iraqi government. There will surely be difficult periods and tactical adjustments. But our enemies should be left with no doubt: this plan gives our military the forces and the flexibility they need to support our Iraqi partners, and to succeed.

After we remove our combat brigades, our mission will change from combat to supporting the Iraqi government and its Security Forces as they take the absolute lead in securing their country. As I have long said, we will retain a transitional force to carry out three distinct functions: training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian; conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq. Initially, this force will likely be made up of 35-50,000 U.S. troops.

Through this period of transition, we will carry out further redeployments. And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned.

As we responsibly remove our combat brigades, we will pursue the second part of our strategy: sustained diplomacy on behalf of a more peaceful and prosperous Iraq.

The drawdown of our military should send a clear signal that Iraq’s future is now its own responsibility[...]

Regional efforts and diplomacy were both signature issues hit again and again in Obama’s address.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Standing Against Holder on Resurrecting ‘Assault Weapons Ban’

By on 27 February 2009

I’m beginning to wonder about A.G. Eric Holder’s priorities, not to mention his knowledge base of weaponry. Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi have this one exactly right. Any attempt to resurrect the “assault weapons ban” should be opposed, because it’s absolutely ludicrous.

… “Senator Reid would oppose an effort (to) reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future,” Manley told The Hill in an e-mail late Thursday night.

It was not immediately clear whether Reid would block the bill from the Senate, but his opposition casts serious doubt on its chances. Also, Manley noted that Reid voted against the ban in 1994 and again when it expired in 2004.

Reid’s stance joins him with Pelosi, who told reporters Thursday that the administration had not checked with her before Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters the administration would attempt to reinstate the ban. Pelosi gave a flat “no” when asked if she had spoken to Holder or any other administration officials about the issue.

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it’s clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.” [...]

First, there is no way to “ban assault weapons.” I’m not the gun expert in my family, but “ban” an assault weapon, and the gun manufacturers still provide ways around the “ban” so people can have their assault weapons, one part at a time.

Besides, there is no reason in the world a law abiding American shouldn’t be allowed to own whatever he or she wants, including an assault weapon. My husband used to have one (which I had the pleasure of firing), though I won’t get into the special license etc., because it’s in the weeds for most people. He’s a gun expert and someone who appreciates the craftsmanship of firearms. So I’d like someone to tell me why he shouldn’t be able to own whatever he wants, especially if all he’s going to do is case it or collect it. But even if he wants to fire it, why should anyone else care?

A.G. Holder is involving himself in the sort of activism that is mindlessly political and stupid amidst the real issues Justice should be tackling. Go after the gun shows, encourage more study on “microstamping” (something California will require by 2010 on all semiautomatic pistols), “encoded ammunition”, enforce the laws on the books, among other things, but resurrecting the “assault weapons ban” is a monumental waste of time.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Clinton to Middle East as Fatah-Hamas Turn to Unity Gov.

By on 27 February 2009

What timing, especially since, according to Marc Lynch today, Fatah and Hamas have agreed in principle on a unity government. Hear that Bibi?

[...] The details of the proposed “National Accordance” government [al-tawafuq al-watani] remain vague, and everyone expects hard bargaining to come. The proposed reconciliation is to include rebuilding the PLO, holding new Parliamentary and Presidential elections, and reconstructing the Palestinian security forces. They also agreed yesterday to put an end to hostile media campaigns and to work towards reconciliation. But the hard choices seem to have been largely deferred to committees, and there are wide gaps in the expectations of the two sides and a lot of mutual resentment and mistrust. But the Arab governments seem keen on reaching agreement before the Doha Arab Summit scheduled for the end of March.

Everyone recognizes that the Cairo agreement is a beginning rather than an end to the political struggles over intra-Palestinian relations — but it’s important to even seen a beginning after many long months of division and conflict. And the challenges to any kind of peace deal with Israel remain overwhelming, even if the Palestinian reconciliation is achieved. …

In fact, I’d go further. I think that this dramatic shift in Arab politics from confrontation to reconciliation directly reflects Arab evaluations of the new administration, and the messages they’ve been receiving from George Mitchell.

It sets Clinton and Mitchell up very well, especially with Secretary Clinton announcing the $1 billion in aid to the Palestinians in Egypt next week. Though Clinton is getting slammed from leaders in the Jewish community for stating the obvious about Israel when it comes to delivering goods to Gaza. As a staunch supporter of Israel, Clinton is simply delivering the tough love Israel deserves. That CBS dragged out the Arafat kiss moment illustrates how the media is continually covering the Middle East with a heavy weight towards one side.

Broad itinerary from Robert Wood at State:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will travel to Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Belgium, Switzerland, and Turkey from March 1–7, 2009.

Secretary Clinton will attend and participate in the donor’s conference for Gaza recovery hosted by Egypt on March 2. Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell and other high-level representatives will be in attendance in Sharm el-Sheikh with the Secretary during the conference. The Secretary also will meet with senior Egyptian officials.

After the conference, Secretary Clinton will travel to Israel and the Palestinian Territories and meet with senior officials.

In Brussels, Secretary Clinton will attend an informal meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers on March 5, where she will consult with Allies and seek consensus on the approach to the upcoming NATO Summit. The Secretary also will attend a meeting with foreign ministers from all NATO and EU countries, as well as Switzerland, to further boost transatlantic relations.

Also in Brussels, Secretary Clinton will meet separately with EU officials.

In Geneva, Secretary Clinton will meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to discuss a number of issues of mutual interest, including possibilities for a follow-on agreement to START, and deepening our cooperation in areas such as Afghanistan.

While in Ankara Secretary Clinton will meet with key Turkish officials.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

CPAC: Republicans on Parade

By on 26 February 2009

Classic Tancredo review of Jindal’s speech, compliments of Think Progress.

Michael Steele had a different view, saying he did a “friggin awesome job.” He then offered Gov. Jindal some “slum love.” You can’t make this stuff up.

CPAC started yesterday and will go through Saturday. Live streaming for those interested. The site also has a a chat forum beside the streaming video that’s quite entertaining and revealing:

10:42 PoopooAchoo : Good. Then be a smart man, Digi, and realize that a large chunk of the military is WHITE AND CHRISTIAN.

10:47 diginess : OK….if you have 30-40% Christian, 20% something else, 20% something else…etc…then the highest percentage religion is Christian, but the majority ARE NOT Christian

Saturday speakers include Ann Coulter, with Rush Limbaugh as the closer.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

AIPAC Crowd Loses One

By on 26 February 2009

This is a good thing. Laura Rozen broke the story originally and explains the kerfuffle.

Senator Feinstein, among others, have been given the word. Charles (Chas) Freeman, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, has been selected as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Politico has the unclassified memo. His previous Saudi Arabia gig, though not directly, is one of the reasons he started taking incoming immediately upon the news being floated he might go to NIC, . Part of Freeman’s thinking on the Middle East (via Passport):

The erratic and often half-hearted manner in which we have pursued these goals, especially in recent years, accounts, in part, for Israel’s isolation from other states in the Middle East. The sad fact is that 60 years after the State of Israel’s founding, almost all Americans and many Europeans strongly back it, but it is still seen as illegitimate by the peoples of the region where it was established. The Arabs see Israel as an artifact of Western colonialism in their midst, an unappeasable power in perpetual search of Lebensraum at Arab expense, a cruelly oppressive sectarian occupier whose policies justify violent resistance, and the principal impetus for the radicalization of politics in both the region and the broader Muslim world. The region sees Israel as a hegemonic military threat, not as an appropriate partner in its politics, economics or culture.

These perceptions, no matter how objectionable to an American audience, represent a major failure of both American policy and the Israeli policies that the United States has facilitated and underwritten. …

[...] Overall, this is not a pretty picture. Given our substitution of talk radio for serious analysis of the sources of Muslim rage and the paralysis of our politics post 9/11, it has taken some time for our society to recognize that things have not been going well and to begin to ask what we might do to change course. …

Looks like Steve Rosen will have to pick another battle. He led the charge against Freeman, mostly based on the reality that Freeman actually criticizes Israel. Or as M.J. Rosenberg puts it: Only In America: Steve Rosen, Under Indictment, Leads Fight Against Key Obama Pick. Followed by Obama Rebuffs Neocons, Appoints Freeman.

David Rothkopf applauds the choice.

Not so Jeffrey Goldberg.

As for Mr. Peretz, well, if he’s unhappy about Freeman’s appointment, for my money it’s an inspired choice.

Steve Clemons explains why:

I think it’s increasingly clear that Barack Obama is pushing a very full spectrum range of talent and perspective into his Middle East policy team, and if Rosen and the other Israel-hardliners are going to prove anything in the campaign against Freeman, it will be their general impotence in challenging Barack Obama as flagrantly and as crudely as they are doing now.

I may not like everything Obama and his Middle East team are up to every moment, but I do think it’s exceedingly clear that he’s not going into this arena with the traditional biases and the traditional “false choice” approach that many others before him have taken.

We just might have turned a page.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

More Trouble for Burris

By on 26 February 2009

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

The son of embattled Sen. Roland Burris is a federal tax deadbeat who landed a $75,000-a-year state job under former Gov. Rod Blagojevich five months ago, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned.

Read full story · Comments { 67 }

‘Missing’ Women

By on 26 February 2009

Site spotlight today is UN Dispatch, which is published by my good friend Peter Daou.

UNICEF offers ways that you can make a difference:

“This year alone, more than 500,000 women will die during pregnancy or childbirth. That’s one woman missing every minute of every day. We call these women ‘missing’ because their deaths could have been avoided. In fact, 80 per cent of maternal deaths could be averted if women had access to essential maternal health services.

We know where and how these women are dying, and we have the resources to prevent these deaths. Yet, maternal mortality is still one of the most neglected problems internationally.”

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Obama’s Gamble

By on 26 February 2009

–updated–

Photobucket

Here comes the budget. It’s staggering. Everyone is opining. Few understand it, including on Capitol Hill. Most Americans are somewhere between clueless and furious with no one giving them anything they can bank on. My guides continue to be Paul Krugman, Maria Bartiromo and Jim Cramer.

Meanwhile, where is Tim Geithner?

The broad outline below, with health care getting a down payment, compliments of the Bush tax cut expiration:

President Obama will release a proposed budget today that sets aside up to $250 billion dollars to add to the existing bank bailout, which would bring the 2009 budget deficit to $1.75 trillion dollars, White House officials said. Overall, the massive spending plan is built on the assumption that lawmakers can resolve some hugely contentious issues — and it relies on a few well-worn budget tricks.

The request Obama will deliver to Congress today proposes to provide what administration officials are calling a “down payment” on a major expansion of health care coverage for the uninsured. It identifies $634 billion in tax increases and spending cuts to cover the cost of part of the program, but does not say how the administration hopes to raise the rest of the money — hundreds of billions of dollars more. “TBD” has been penciled into categories for cost savings and benefit reductions.

Obama’s budget also would make permanent a tax cut for the middle class enacted in the recent stimulus package. [...]

On “Morning Joe,” Patrick Buchanan has already announced Obama’s demise. Maria Bartiromo was apoplectic about the silence on the banking system.

Again, where is Tim Geithner?

Read full story · Comments { 29 }

Republicans At War Within

By on 26 February 2009
Photobucket

Rush discovered, to his shock evidently, that he’s got a listener gender gap. The man who coined “feminazi” and “info-babe” didn’t have a clue. His rationalization was that if he came out and changed his pro life stance all would be fixed. To help he had a “women’s summit.” I listened to it. Think Progress has a partial transcript and audio:

But I want some of these women to start telling me what it is I must do to close the gender gap — or, if not what it is I must do to close the gender gap, what it is I’ve done that has caused the gender gap; assuming the gender gap is true and that the poll is true. […]

I own the men, and what must I do now to own women?

When he wasn’t desperately trying to suck up to women, Rush was squealing that Republicans shouldn’t go after Gov. Jindal, and those who do should never call him again.

Then you have Sean Hannity who became unhinged talking to Rep. Joe Sestak, a retired admiral, yesterday on his show, using the imaginary marsh mouse and high-speed rail from Vegas to Disneyland to do it. Sestak did all he could to keep from laughing in his face (over satellite feed). Today Sean tried to rescue Bobby Jindal with an interview that was one for the books. When not comparing Jindal’s treatment by the media to what Sarah Palin experienced, Hannity was begging and pleading his audience to not throw Jindal overboard.

Gov. Sanford went around the bend, but ended up implying that Rush is an idiot, when asked about Rush’s comments that he wants Obama to fail. Via Real Clear Politics:

I don’t want him to fail. Anybody who wants him to fail is an idiot, because it means we’re all in trouble.

The new RNC chair, Michael Steele, when asked by Neil Cavuto if he’d withhold funds from Senators Specter, Snowe or Collins because of their support for the stimulus, basically said everything is on the table, “baby.”

Jim Bunning is threatening to sue the RNC.

The pressure is just too much these days.

President Obama’s cool has caused the wingnuts to blow their collective gasket. They don’t know where to turn or what to do.

But please, oh, please; oh, please; oh, please. Let the Republicans follow Bill Kristol, who’s got ideas about how Republicans can become relevant again. Evidently, channeling Jindal’s pessimism that government can’t solve any problems at all is catching. Emphasis added:

Perhaps — if they can find reasons to obstruct and delay. They should do their best not to permit Obama to rush his agenda through this year. They can’t allow Obama to make of 2009 what Franklin Roosevelt made of 1933 or Johnson of 1965. Slow down the policy train. Insist on a real and lengthy debate. Conservatives can’t win politically right now. But they can raise doubts, they can point out other issues that we can’t ignore (especially in national security and foreign policy), they can pick other fights — and they can try in any way possible to break Obama’s momentum. Only if this happens will conservatives be able to get a hearing for their (compelling, in my view) arguments against big-government, liberal-nanny-state social engineering — and for their preferred alternatives.

Kristol wants to change the subject from the economy to foreign policy. From the economy to “the war on terror.” From the economy to, well, anything having to do with blowing crap up in other countries, which neocons like Kristol label “foreign policy.”

The Republicans are desperate, but they don’t know what to do. They sure don’t want the subject to stay on domestic, and their business clients want health care, but they can’t afford to give Obama that win, but they don’t dare stop it. They don’t do domestic. Hell, they don’t do foreign policy well either. Because they don’t solve problems. They create them. And they’ve created a big problem for themselves now, which with every effort they’re making worse. That’s what they do.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

Sitting in George Washington’s Pew

By on 25 February 2009
Photobucket

It’s Ash Wednesday.

So it was quite a delight to find myself walking on to the grounds of an historic church. But I never expected to be escorted over to sit in what is called George Washington’s pew. Though eventually whenever I move to a new area I always begin by scouting out churches, those of the “frozen chosen” variety. Christ Church was built beginning in 1767. The graveyard on the grounds is something. Inside the church, George Washington’s people sat on the left side, with Robert E. Lee’s people on the right, a tradition one of the women I met inside the church said continues today. In response to a question I asked about gays I was told the church tends to be “conservative,” though they do have gays and lesbians, including couples who attend. Though I felt a little surprise from the woman when I used the word “gay” and “marriage” in the same sentence, something I was curious about because some Episcopal churches frown on the notion. I won’t worship in any church that isn’t openly welcoming to all.

I’ll hit the National Cathedral at some point as well. We’ll see where I eventually land.

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

Krauthammer: Obama’s ‘in the Reaganesque League’

By on 25 February 2009

The same cannot be said for Mr. Jindal.

The reviews from last night should make Democrats sing. That other noise you hear is the wailing of wounded right wingers. From CNN:

[...] Delivered against a backdrop of dismal economic news and with polls showing overwhelming majorities of Americans believing the country is on the wrong track, Obama’s first speech to Congress amounted to a political tour de force. He proposed what many claim is a complete overhaul of the country’s economic foundation while ripping his conservative predecessors for transferring “wealth to the wealthy” and gutting regulations “for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market.”

And he did it while employing some of Reagan’s favorite rhetorical tools. …

Now, I’m not a big poll follower, but there are plenty of them out there that give a snapshot reaction. A CBS poll showed 63% approving of Obama’s handling of the economic crisis before the speech. Afterward it was 80%. CNN has a poll too, if you’re interested. Frankly, from what I saw there is no need to measure. You cannot credibly spin a negative into Obama’s tour de force last night.

Criticism on the right will be viewed through one prism: partisanship. Said another way, smallness.

As for Jindal, it’s one of those moments from which his presidential ambitions may never recover. The Republicans continue to flail.

Read full story · Comments { 49 }

Residual Forces in Iraq

By on 25 February 2009

An announcement about withdrawal from Iraq is coming, according to Vice President Biden as early as Friday. Predictably, some are already finding fault between a 16 and 19 month withdrawal, which I find silly, frankly. A serious withdrawal is planned that fully measures up to candidate Obama’s promise.

Then there is the issue of residual forces, which could total around 50,000. Again, people are already talking about this reality, with Rachel Maddow exhibiting an eye popping disapproving moment just last night when talking about it. No doubt she and others have problems with the general notion of residual forces. That’s part of what gave rise to Bill Richardson’s candidacy or at least the floated promise he hoped would make the difference, as did Chris Dodd. As an aside, Joe Biden was the one who went after Richardson’s military strategy on Iraq, part of what got him invited on this blog to post items when no one was giving him the time of day. Of course, no one can fault someone for not wanting residual forces but it is not based on the realities of the Iraq war.

However, Obama never promised he’d remove all troops in Iraq before 2013, though the SOFA does demand a 2011 deadline. Flashback to the Dartmouth debate when neither Obama, Clinton or Edwards would make the “out by 2013″ commitment, which took everyone by surprise:

Russert: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?

Obama: I think it’s hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don’t know what contingency will be out there.

What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office — which it appears there may be, unless we can get some of our Republican colleagues to change their mind and cut off funding without a timetable — if there’s no timetable — then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians, and making sure that we’re carrying out counterterrorism activities there.

I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don’t want to make promises, not knowing what the situation’s going to be three or four years out.

Being against the Iraq war from the start, once we got in I just didn’t see any way we wouldn’t have residual forces after the major part of the draw down was done. Bush-Cheney screwed up too many facets of the war effort in Iraq to make anything other possible.

As far as I’m concerned, President Obama isn’t doing anything different from what he said he’d do, three month quibbling aside. Bottom line is that Obama asked his military advisors to come up with a plan and they did. Even as the generals pushed Obama to stand down from his withdrawal commitment, he did not. Since Obama never promised otherwise on residual forces, having them amounts to caution during a massive withdrawal, a moment that is always the most dangerous.

The issue that took Obama from obscurity to the presidency is Iraq. We’ll have to see the details after it’s announced, but at this point he’s simply delivering what he said he would to the people who brought him to the show.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Jindal’s Spectacular Flame Out

By on 25 February 2009

“Oh God,” muttered Chris Matthews, before Gov. Jindal had begun. If you’re going to enter like a wanna be president the least you can do is have a clue what has come before you show up.

Michael Gerson should be hiding after tonight: Some have compared Jindal to Obama, but the new president has always been more attracted to platitudes than to policy. Rush Limbaugh has anointed Jindal “the next Ronald Reagan.”

Happy Mardi Gras is how Gov. Jindal started. It got worse from there. Fox’s Charles Krauthammer stated it simply: “Jindal didn’t have a chance.”

Following President Obama’s incredible oratory, personal touches and serious content, Jindal’s high school bio driven blather, complete with Katrina gaffe that included mentioning the sheriff that stood on the bridge with dogs and guns to keep people from crossing, you had to wonder if Republicans had ever heard the man speak before. Maybe they simply picked him because Michael Steele is the only other guy of color they’ve got and he was busy.

David Brooks drives in the final nail:

LEHRER: Now that, of course, was Gov. Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, making the Republican response. David, how well do you think he did?

BROOKS: Uh, not so well. You know, I think Bobby Jindal is a very promising politician, and I oppose the stimulus because I thought it was poorly drafted. But to come up at this moment in history with a stale “government is the problem,” “we can’t trust the federal government” – it’s just a disaster for the Republican Party. The country is in a panic right now. They may not like the way the Democrats have passed the stimulus bill, but that idea that we’re just gonna – that government is going to have no role, the federal government has no role in this, that – In a moment when only the federal government is actually big enough to do stuff, to just ignore all that and just say “government is the problem, corruption, earmarks, wasteful spending,” it’s just a form of nihilism. It’s just not where the country is, it’s not where the future of the country is. There’s an intra-Republican debate. Some people say the Republican Party lost its way because they got too moderate. Some people say they got too weird or too conservative. He thinks they got too moderate, and so he’s making that case. I think it’s insane, and I just think it’s a disaster for the party. I just think it’s unfortunate right now.

Republicans might have to rethink this Jindal thing. Calling Sarah Palin? She can’t answer the simplest questions but at least she can deliver a speech.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

The Speech: ‘It’s not about helping banks – it’s about helping people.’

By on 24 February 2009

–updated live blogging–

Having seen the full speech, I particularly liked the “no one messes with Joe,” referring to veep Biden. One section struck me:

I understand that on any given day, Wall Street may be more comforted by an approach that gives banks bailouts with no strings attached, and that holds nobody accountable for their reckless decisions. But such an approach won’t solve the problem. And our goal is to quicken the day when we re-start lending to the American people and American business and end this crisis once and for all.

I intend to hold these banks fully accountable for the assistance they receive, and this time, they will have to clearly demonstrate how taxpayer dollars result in more lending for the American taxpayer. This time, CEOs won’t be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over. [...]

Health care will be up front and center tonight in Obama’s speech. How you get business back on track without it is not debatable. That is unless you’re Gov. Jindal.

As someone who has interviewed Dr. Dean but never ever been a Deaniac, it’s beyond ridiculous that he isn’t the front runner for HHS. It’s remarkable that inside Dem politics is winning over what would be best, while the Obama administration touts non-partisanship with Republicans. President Obama should rethink the stiff arming of Dr. Dean.

“I hope you become the head of HHS,” said Matthews, “give him a piece of it.” When you’re right you’re right.

ABC reports that Obama’s goal is to reach the American people.

Photobucket

Streaming is available at C-SPAN. ABC also is streaming, as well as the White House site. After all, this is the Obama presidency.

[...] We are a nation that has seen promise amid peril, and claimed opportunity from ordeal. Now we must be that nation again. That is why, even as it cuts back on the programs we don’t need, the budget I submit will invest in the three areas that are absolutely critical to our economic future: energy, health care, and education.

It begins with energy.

And so it begins.

Liveblogging UPDATE: How much do you love seeing Vice President Joe Biden where Dick used to sit? Justice Ginsberg being present sent my heart soaring.

The President’s cabinet… Secretary Clinton. Thrilling, truly thrilling for me. … She exchanged cheek kisses with Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. Now that’s putting politics aside.

Wild cheers as President Obama stands to hand Biden and Pelosi their envelopes. Thunderous applause that the President cannot contain.

President Obama jumps the gun, as Speaker Pelosi introduces him. Wild applause erupts again. … Obama addresses, including the first lady of the United States to more applause. [...]

Optimism of what America can do leads the speech.

We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.

On banks and bail outs, “I promise you I get it.” Seriously, have you ever heard a major political figure let alone a president speak in these terms?

[...] On energy, “it’s time for America to lead again.” … “Market based” reality on energy. … Ugh, “clean coal,” which doesn’t exist.

“The nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.”

“We cannot afford to put health care on hold.” Then Obama mentions SCHIP and gets a rousing ovation.

Just put Jindal’s response in the comments.

Tit for tat on the deficit. Obama says we can’t give our children a burden they cannot pay. Republicans erupt, then Obama quickly reminds them about the deficit he inherited.

[...] End no bid contracts in Iraq. (standing ovation) …

The budget includes the cost of the wars. “For years we’ve been a nation at war; no longer will we hide its price.

On Pakistan: “I will not allow terrorists to plot against Americans half way around the world. Segue to our troops and their “quiet burden.” We “honor your service… and you have our unyielding support.” [...] We “will raise their pay” and give them the benefits they deserve.

Gitmo’s gone, “living our values doesn’t make us weaker it makes us safer and stronger.” … “The United States of America does not torture.”

Obama mentions a bank president who took his $60 million bonus, then gave it to the people who worked for him. He was in the audience.

[...] “…every American sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months. … “

–end speech–

Two word review: Simply extraordinary.

Read full story · Comments { 93 }

AP: Out of Iraq by August 2010

By on 24 February 2009

The official announcement, according to this AP story, won’t come for at least a day.

The withdrawal plan — an announcement could come as early as this week — calls for leaving a large contingent of troops behind, between 30,000 and 50,000 troops, to advise and train Iraqi security forces and to protect U.S. interests.

Also staying beyond the 19 months would be intelligence and surveillance specialists and their equipment, including unmanned aircraft, according to two administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan has not been made public.

The complete withdrawal of American forces will take place by December 2011, the period by which the U.S. agreed with Iraq to remove all troops. [...]

Evidently, Obama requested a range of withdrawal plans from military advisors. An earlier report said that Gen. David Petraeus didn’t want any withdrawal, which was supported by Defense Secretary Gates. Odierno was similarly against it, drawing up his own plan of slower withdrawal, with Gen. Keane strongly opposed. Keane pushed for Petraeus from the start and is also one of the proponents of the surge, including that such strategy of does not harm the military. The up shot is that these generals didn’t think Obama would buck them on troop withdrawal, even considering Obama’s purview is the entire world, not just Iraq.

Ackerman’s confirmed the AP story.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }