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 | September, 2009

Up to MA Senate on Kennedy Seat

By on 18 September 2009

Legislation now heads to the Senate, where Republicans plan all sorts of parliamentary shenanigans to defeat it, which should run dry, according to the Boston Globe, by the middle of next week.

House lawmakers tonight approved legislation that gives Governor Deval Patrick the power to appoint a temporary successor to the late Edward M. Kennedy in the US Senate, putting Massachusetts on track to have a new senator in place by next week.

The passage of bill, by a 95-58 vote, was a crucial step toward filling the seat left vacant by Kennedy’s death last month, and it could carry major implications as Congress debates an overhaul of the nation’s health care system.

‘‘This bill will give us full representation today and the people of Massachusetts will have their second voice in the US Senate,’’ said state Representative Michael Moran, a Democrat from Boston and co-chairman of the Joint Committee on Election Laws. ‘‘My overriding concern is making sure the people of Massachusetts are fully represented in the US Congress.’’

Attorney General Martha Coakley has a huge lead in the polls and is the unquestioned favorite to win in 2010, though Steve Pagliuca, a managing director at Bain Capital and a co-owner of the Boston Celtics, will have a money bags candidate on the other side giving them hell. Reader texan4hillary has more on that in his diary.

However, the people of Massachusetts would elect Joe Kennedy II in a heart beat if he’d run.

“If Joe Kennedy runs, Joe Kennedy wins,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center. “Across every demographic, Kennedy was strong. In fact, fifty-four percent of Martha Coakley Democratic Primary voters said they would vote for Joe Kennedy, if he ran.”

As to the frontrunner for the interim appointment, assuming the legislation passes the Senate, it is still Michael Dukakis, though Paul G. Kirk Jr., chairman of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, is also in the running.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Pelosi: Violence Inciters Assume Responsibility

By on 18 September 2009

Someone in leadership finally said it out loud. Let it be noted for the record, with the gauntlet thrown down. Wingnuts who incite violence will be responsible.

It’s real, with Mickey Kaus getting it, pointing the finger where it applies:

I hate to say it,** but doesn’t Nancy Pelosi have a point when she worries about a rhetorical “climate” in which violence might take place? [...] Glenn Beck, the recent times I’ve listened to him, puts his Obama criticism in an apocalyptic framework–as if Obama is staging some sort of coup– that might seem to justify violence (despite Beck’s own disclaimers) if you happened to be a very disenchanted person with weapons lying around.

Meanwhile, where is the Republican leadership on the issue?

Anyone who has paid attention this summer knows how the right has been inciting mob anger for months. Glenn Beck has egged everyone on, with Rush Limbaugh now making light of the situation.

This topic should be something on which we all agree. Why is it that we cannot?

Because Republicans not only have no moral courage, they evidently think violence is covered under freedom of speech.

It’s not like this isn’t an issue that’s been on everyone’s minds since Barack Obama was elected. People who care about this country and know our history remember. I was living in San Francisco not long after the Moscone–Milk assassinations Pelosi referenced, but I also know well, as do most of you, our national history to which she pointedly steered clear.

Why don’t Republican leaders care enough to join in Pelosi’s stark warning?

If bipartisanship meant anything this would be one issue on which all sides would join together and stand up. Not even on issues of stoking violence that could be aimed against the President of the United States will Republicans join Democrats in a show of unity.

Gives a whole new meaning and tone to the word obstructionist.

Someone slap the Democrats working on health care into reality so they quit wasting everyone’s time.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Hanging Out with Hogs

By on 17 September 2009

szep_wallstreet
by Paul Szep

So, what’s Pres. Obama’s biggest problem with Independents and non-Democrats who aren’t right wingers?

Is it that he’s our first black president?

No. Though for some that is certainly the case. People like Joe Wilson, a staunch supporter of the South’s Confederate history, surely gives evidence that old racial scars still run deep in the south. Just look at the birther statistics and where most of those believers live.

But in the end everyone looks to their own lives, their own circumstances.

From the moment Barack Obama came to Washington he made the calculation that he had to bail the country out from what George W. Bush left behind. People have very short memories, so whatever Obama inherited, it didn’t take long for people to forget it came from George W. Bush. This goes all the way down to Afghanistan, as Adm. Mullen proved this week.

Tim Geithner’s tax problems were the first introduction to Obama’s financial fixes. Since Geithner was going to head Treasury, it was an inauspicious start. Then there was his penchant for bipartisanship and his common ground affliction, because Mr. Obama thought it best not to look backwards. This gave a gasping conservative movement room on the floor, which has grown into owning the microphone no matter how Obama uses his bully pulpit. You decide whether being on all the Sunday shows, sans Fox, is overusing it or not.

But when Obama started bailing everyone out from car companies to Wall Street using taxpayer money, as people were losing their jobs, their homes, as they saw health care rising, all of a sudden it was The People v. Obama, who didn’t look anything much like change after all.

The whole ACORN mess, facts and fictions of it, didn’t help either, because it emphasized the impression of a government kleptocracy, especially after the bailouts. After the Senate vote, in a GOP-led stampede, the House voted today to de-fund ACORN that went even further than the Senate.

The “Defund ACORN Act,” introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), would bar the federal government from doing business with the group, citing several voter registration fraud investigations. But it would also go much farther, prohibiting “any organization that shares directors, employees, or independent contractors” with ACORN from receiving federal cash.

Now the old government is the enemy battle, which is never far away with the right, now includes vocal libertarians and independents, and has reignited, with Obama seen as part of the problem. People have forgotten George W. Bush, so whatever opportunity Obama had to hang this mess around his neck is long gone.

There also hasn’t been near enough focus on the basics: J-O-B-S. It’s been about Wall Street and fixing corporations instead of main street, mom and dad.

Every day we’re hearing more stories about how Wall Street is the same as it always was, some people thinking it might even be worse. Frankly, I don’t think anyone knows, which the people sense, adding to the unease.

Something tells me when Michael Moore’s movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story”, hits October 2nd, that sentiment is going to rise exponentially.

What’s unfolding on health care is going to make matters worse.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Missile Shield Decision Brings Out Mitt Romney

By on 17 September 2009

Conservatives are breathless. Evidently the reality that the “Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended to the President” what Pres. Obama announced today didn’t make a dent.

They’re running around with their rhetoric half cocked, with Michael Goldfarb emotionally upset, accusing Obama of “smears” against the right’s beloved missile shield system: The White House has put out a “fact sheet” on their policy of Russian appeasement/missile defense surrender.

Wow. “Appeasement” and “surrender” in the lead off sentence. Impressive.

The right thinking they know better than the SecDef and the Joint Chiefs, plus Joe Biden and Pres. Obama combined.

This occasion also gave 2012 hopeful Mitt Romney a chance to posture on national security. I wondered what opportunity Mr. Romney would use to show himself.

President Obama has made a dangerous and alarming decision to shelve our missile-defense system in Europe. Facing the growing threat from Iran’s nuclear ambition, the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency has worked long and hard to secure a site for the system to thwart a potential strike against our European allies. Developing the missile shield could also have important implications for U.S. security. His decision is wrong in every way, despite his rationale… – Obama on Missile Defense: Alarming and Dangerous

It’s out with Bush-Cheney era over emphasizing of Iran’s hyped military capabilities. In with Obama’s more strategic formula, which will focus on Iran’s short-range missile reach, beginning with SM-3 missiles aboard ships, expanding in the future.

The following was released by the White House:

The Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended to the President that he revise the previous Administration’s 2007 plan for missile defense in Europe as part of an ongoing comprehensive review of our missile defenses mandated by Congress. Two major developments led to this unanimous recommended change:

· New Threat Assessment: The intelligence community now assesses that the threat from Iran’s short- and medium-range ballistic missiles is developing more rapidly than previously projected, while the threat of potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capabilities has been slower to develop than previously estimated. In the near-term, the greatest missile threats from Iran will be to U.S. Allies and partners, as well as to U.S. deployed personnel – military and civilian –and their accompanying families in the Middle East and in Europe.

· Advances in Capabilities and Technologies: Over the past several years, U.S. missile defense capabilities and technologies have advanced significantly. We expect this trend to continue. Improved interceptor capabilities, such as advanced versions of the SM-3, offer a more flexible, capable, and cost-effective architecture. Improved sensor technologies offer a variety of options to detect and track enemy missiles.

These changes in the threat as well as our capabilities and technologies underscore the need for an adaptable architecture. This architecture is responsive to the current threat, but could also incorporate relevant technologies quickly and cost-effectively to respond to evolving threats. Accordingly, the Department of Defense has developed a four-phased, adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe. While further advances of technology or future changes in the threat could modify the details or timing of later phases, current plans call for the following:

· Phase One (in the 2011 timeframe) – Deploy current and proven missile defense systems available in the next two years, including the sea-based Aegis Weapon System, the SM-3 interceptor (Block IA), and sensors such as the forward-based Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance system (AN/TPY-2), to address regional ballistic missile threats to Europe and our deployed personnel and their families;

· Phase Two (in the 2015 timeframe) – After appropriate testing, deploy a more capable version of the SM-3 interceptor (Block IB) in both sea- and land-based configurations, and more advanced sensors, to expand the defended area against short- and medium-range missile threats;

· Phase Three (in the 2018 timeframe) – After development and testing are complete, deploy the more advanced SM-3 Block IIA variant currently under development, to counter short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missile threats; and

· Phase Four (in the 2020 timeframe) – After development and testing are complete, deploy the SM-3 Block IIB to help better cope with medium- and intermediate-range missiles and the potential future ICBM threat to the United States.

Throughout all four phases, the United States also will be testing and updating a range of approaches for improving our sensors for missile defense. The new distributed interceptor and sensor architecture also does not require a single, large, fixed European radar that was to be located in the Czech Republic; this approach also uses different interceptor technology than the previous program, removing the need for a single field of 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland. Therefore, the Secretary of Defense recommended that the United States no longer plan to move forward with that architecture.

The Czech Republic and Poland, as close, strategic and steadfast Allies of the United States, will be central to our continued consultations with NATO Allies on our defense against the growing ballistic missile threat.

The phased, adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe:

· Sustains U.S. homeland defense against long-range ballistic missile threats. The deployment of an advanced version of the SM-3 interceptor in Phase Four of the approach would augment existing ground-based interceptors located in Alaska and California, which provide for the defense of the homeland against a potential ICBM threat.

· Speeds protection of U.S. deployed forces, civilian personnel, and their accompanying families against the near-term missile threat from Iran. We would deploy current and proven technology by roughly 2011 – about six or seven years earlier than the previous plan – to help defend the regions in Europe most vulnerable to the Iranian short- and medium-range ballistic missile threat.

· Ensures and enhances the protection of the territory and populations of all NATO Allies, in concert with their missile defense capabilities, against the current and growing ballistic missile threat. Starting in 2011, the phased, adaptive approach would systematically increase the defended area as the threat is expected to grow. In the 2018 timeframe, all of Europe could be protected by our collective missile defense architecture.

· Deploys proven capabilities and technologies to meet current threats. SM-3 (Block 1A) interceptors are deployed on Aegis ships today, and more advanced versions are in various stages of development. Over the past four years, we have conducted a number of tests of the SM-3 IA, and it was the interceptor used in the successful engagement of a decaying satellite in February 2008. Testing in 2008 showed that sensors we plan to field bring significant capabilities to the architecture, and additional, planned research and development over the next few years offers the potential for more diverse and more capable sensors.

· Provides flexibility to upgrade and adjust the architecture, and to do so in a cost-effective manner, as the threat evolves. Because of the lower per-interceptor costs and mobility of key elements of the architecture, we will be better postured to adapt this set of defenses to any changes in threat.

[...] We also welcome Russian cooperation to bring its missile defense capabilities into a broader defense of our common strategic interests. We have repeatedly made clear to Russia that missile defense in Europe poses no threat to its strategic deterrent. Rather, the purpose is to strengthen defenses against the growing Iranian missile threat. There is no substitute for Iran complying with its international obligations regarding its nuclear program. But ballistic missile defenses will address the threat from Iran’s ballistic missile programs, and diminish the coercive influence that Iran hopes to gain by continuing to develop these destabilizing capabilities.

Read full story · Comments are closed

When You’ve Lost Jon Stewart…

By on 17 September 2009

“I will clean this house,” (ACORN) CEO Bertha Lewis vowed on CNN.

You have lost the PR game.

Regardless of the fact that Mr. Stewart gave no impression whatsoever that he actually knows what ACORN does, because given the contagion of damning videos and stories flooding the airwaves, with the Senate just recently voting overhwhelmingly to block HUD grants from the group, none of this matters.

Bertha Lewis should call “The Daily Show” and walk in to Stewart’s arena, just as she’s doing across the cable networks. Rehabilitation may come, but it will be all up hill.

ACORN made the job of the right’s Harold Hill, Andrew Breitbart, way too easy to get done.

Glenn Beck, Time magazine cover man (using the opposite title they did for Rush, replacing “good” with the word “bad”), has also been on a rampage against ACORN. Recently, he gave a plea to Democrats, not those far lefty ones, but, you know, the normal Democrats, to please wise up. Because, well, Democrats love their children, their country, too. It was quite a performance, even for Glenn Beck.

Bill O’Reilly was only too happy to play along on the tag team match.

The White House says ACORN must be held accountable.

Bully for them.

But the very best interpretation of the ACORN scandal comes from a comedian well below Stewart’s perch. It perfectly encapsulates the abject spinelessness of Democrats who think throwing out the baby with the bathwater is their only recourse. The title of the piece is priceless: Democrats Still Not Aware They Actually Won The Election. And believe it or not it was posted on FoxNews.com:

The Senate’s move means that ACORN, the most effective organization for helping low income people avoid foreclosures, will not be able to receive grants for counseling low-income people on how to get mortgages and for fair housing education and outreach. That would be like the Census Bureau refusing to work with ACORN to count how many low income and minority Americans live in America. Which is what the wimpy Census Bureau actually did do last week, when they said they won’t work with ACORN on the census.

Who cares about minority representation in this country anyway? Apparently not Republicans and right wing pundits. Because their obsession with ACORN stems from the simple fact that the minority communities ACORN works with tend to vote Democratic. So what better way to keep down voter registration in those areas than by constantly harassing the people trying to register them? Yes there were a few instances of workers writing fake names on petitions. (Although I suppose it’s possible for your name to really be Donald Duck. But not likely.) And those workers were promptly fired. As were the workers who were duped by a conservative activist filmmaker in the recent entrapment scheme caught on tape.

But what really makes this standup comedian’s hair stand up, is the way the Democrats have meekly given in to almost every right wing smear. …

The Democrats who had the spine to vote no are: Burris (D-IL), Casey (D-PA), Durbin (D-IL), Gillibrand (D-NY), Leahy (D-VT), Sanders (I-VT), Whitehouse (D-RI), and all deserve to be commended.

As for Democrats like Feingold, Schumer, Dodd, Boxer, Franken, Lautenberg, Cantwell and many more, well, when you put Democrats in a position like this, with art and video, it’s really hard to ask them to go out on a limb for an organization who clearly doesn’t have its act together.

Politics is perception.

However, the moral of the story is damning for Democrats.

They handed Karl Rove a win he couldn’t get when he was inside the Bush administration firing U.S. Attorneys, because they didn’t have the evidence to bring charges against ACORN. From John Atlas, author of Seeds Of Hope: The Untold Story of ACORN, America’s Most Successful Anti-Poverty Community Group and How It’s Changing America, due out next year:

Rove viewed ACORN as a threat to the GOP because of its success in registering low-income voters and turning them out to vote on election day. I describe Rove’s campaign against ACORN — not only in New Mexico, but also in other “swing” states where more low-income voters could hurt GOP candidates — in my forthcoming book Seeds of Hope, a history of ACORN, published by Vanderbilt University Press.

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee released over 5,000 pages of White House and Republican National Committee e-mails, with transcripts of closed-door testimony by Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. The documents reveal that Rove played a central role in sacking Iglesias, who was one of several federal prosecutors fired in a string of politically motivated dismissals in 2006.

Iglesias refused to cooperate with the White House’s political agenda of prosecuting ACORN for “voter fraud.” Under pressure from New Mexico Republicans and Rove, Iglesias, a Republican and former Navy lawyer appointed by President George W. Bush, did investigate whether ACORN was engaged in voter registration fraud. But once Iglesias realized ACORN was following the rules he refused to smear the group by filing a phony indictment.

It’s a lesson in political vengeance that must have tasted very sweet for Mr. Rove and the Fox News gang, as well as all of their right wing minions.

That Jon Stewart gave a nod to Michelle Malkin on his show eviscerating the traditional news media for missing the story illustrates just how complete the wingnut victory was on this one.

Read full story · Comments are closed

A Word About Jimmy Carter

By on 16 September 2009

Jimmy Carter is being Jimmy Carter. Again.

The former president shatters yet another taboo.

Mr. Carter, the man who had me rooting for Teddy Kennedy in the 1980 election season, because I was so angry about Iran and standing in gas lines, making me a Reagan Democrat for one election cycle, has spoken out on yet another unspeakable subject. Race. It’s as nuclear, maybe even more so, than the first issue he cracked open.

Jimmy Carter dared to say Palestinians are people, too. Until Carter’s incredibly brave statements on the plight of the Palestinians, no important public figure of his stature had ever dared take on the conventional wisdom, which was that you never said anything good about Arabs, especially if it was judged to be at Israel’s expense, which is how it was seen no matter what was said. To be pro Palestinian, even when due and Israel was clearly in the wrong, was to be automatically deemed an anti-Semite. Still is by some. Rush Limbaugh using that label to describe Carter earlier today.

The right is also eager to link Carter and Obama, because even as his post-presidency has been laudable, few remember the Carter presidency that way. Having lived through it as a very impressionable activist and artist living in New York City and doing Broadway at the time, every time I filled up my car with gas based upon rationing guidelines predicated on my license plate number, all I could do was sit by frustrated, steaming, particularly when news blasted from the radio announcing another day of the Iranian hostage crisis.

As an independent agent, Jimmy Carter never considers the ramifications of his actions on others, whether as a current or former president, with his actions causing continual friction with the Clinton’s, though that didn’t keep WJC from bestowing the Medal of Freedom to the Carters. But it has been in the Middle East, especially, where Carter has been most abrasive, with just one example from the summer as evidenced in this title: Obama’s Carter Problem?

Why should the race issue be any different?

People don’t think of Missouri as being very southern. It’s not Alabama, but the state has a very difficult history when it comes to race (as well as cultural issues). My brother, a lawyer who was also an asst. A.G. under Ashcroft, worked on important desegregation and busing issues, but I grew up watching it from the time I was a kid. When my high school started busing in students from Normandy, on the first day I had a knife pulled on me in the quadrangle. Nothing came of it, because as she lunged I took off.

I know that there are many, many people, non Democrats, Republican and Independents, who are furious at Obama on policy grounds, because they feel he hasn’t delivered on his promises. People in my own family, as well as distant relatives and cousins, are completely turned off at this point and it has absolutely nothing to do with race.

Carter’s comments correlate very specifically to Rep. Joe Wilson’s “you lie” –insert “boy” here (as Maureen Dowd rightly wrote)– which his personal history verifies. Joe Scarborough can whine all he wants and make outlandish claims that make light of this country’s racism, but he’s certifiable if he believes that there isn’t a racial current running through the tea bagger, town hall brawlers, 9/12 protester contingent. You simply cannot look at the Republican Party’s history, the southern strategy, as well as how they have run elections, and not see the truth in Carter’s statement.

Like always, Jimmy Carter’s blunt outspokenness has ignited debate. No one wanted to hear what he had to say about Palestinians and apartheid either (an understatement). Saying Obama’s wingnut critics were inspired in some part because they’re racist, paraphrasing the implications of what Carter said, isn’t going down well either.

The trouble comes if the wingnuts can use it successfully against Pres. Obama, something Mr. Carter didn’t consider, because he simply speaks his mind, damn the consequences.

Is what Carter said helpful to Obama? It’s a good question, which I’ll leave you to answer. Kris has a diary up where people are chiming in and I hope you do.

Jimmy Carter is a brave veteran, humanitarian, but had a lousy presidency by anyone’s standards, something he never quite got over.

”We left Washington in something of despair and embarrassment and frustration. We didn’t know what we were going to do, and I was about your age. I found out from some friends at the C.D.C. I still had 25 years of life expectancy, and what was I going to do with it.” – Former President Jimmy Carter

He’s trying to make up for it by making his life count. He’s not worried about the good opinion of others, as Dr. Wayne Dyer would say.

But did former President Jimmy Carter play the race card? Of course he did. But he certainly wasn’t the first to do so.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Mullen Throws Bush Leadership Under a Bus

By on 16 September 2009

“… and we need to really, really put to bed the issue that I think is behind everybody, which that this is another Vietnam. And I think it’s a terribly debilitating analogy for our country. Every time something is difficult we say Oh! It’s Vietnam. Afghanistan and Vietnam have nothing to do with each other. The whole world is on our side in Afghanistan. The world was clearly not on our side in Vietnam. The people in Afghanistan prefer an outcome that’s not the Taliban. While in Vietnam, as you know, the situation was different. So, let’s take that analogy and throw it out of the window and deal with the facts on the ground. It’s going to be hard enough with those facts to win the argument.” – Jamie Rubin, former State Department spokesman (today on “Morning Joe”)

Mr. Rubin said it better than I ever could. It’s an argument I’ve been having over several months with people from all over the spectrum, including the respected Middle East expert Juan Cole. (Here’s our back and forth we had over Juan’s “Obama’s Vietnam” back in January.) We need to remove the knee jerk Vietnam description if we’re going to evaluate Afghanistan correctly.

That said, the most stunning thing to be heard from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen was that the political and military decision making and leadership on Afghanistan during Bush-Cheney was “very badly under-resourced.” This is what put Pres. Obama and his administration in the position they’re in today. Let’s remember this the next time someone says Afghanistan is Obama’s war, which it may well be. But what he inherited from Bush-Cheney is making his job much harder, which is now no longer in doubt.

From from Fox News:

… Mullen said the United States has “very badly under-resourced Afghanistan for the better part of five years.” He said it’s “very clear we need more resources to execute the president’s strategy,” though Mullen said he’d await McChrystal’s report “to evaluate specifically what that means.”

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., warned about comparing Afghanistan to Iraq, saying Iraq is “used to a strong central government” and that Afghanistan “has never been governed centrally.” Mullen said he favors a “relatively weak central government that isn’t corrupt.” …

As Mullen implies at the end of his quote above, one of the biggest challenges we face is an incredibly corrupt Karzai government, which is making our efforts a whole lot tougher.

Spencer Ackerman reports that the report from McChrystal may be presented in a manner that leaves Obama room to actually perform his civilian commander in chief role, rather than automatically being told what needs to be done from the military, with the inherent expectations to follow them no matter what implied. Below is a pertinent section, but the whole piece should be read.

Pending Obama’s approval of McChrystal’s strategy review, the subsequent resource request will present “several different ways forward, with [a presentation of] the risks and benefits of each,” said one U.S. official. “It wouldn’t neccessarily be ‘here is the way to do it,’ but rather really hashing through a combination of approaches for what makes sense.”

Support for the war in Afghanistan is waning, with leading Democrats like Karl Levin very skeptical about escalating further.

Meanwhile, leading conservatives wrote an open letter to Pres. Obama last week imploring him to “Properly Resource War Effort in Afghanistan.”

Today, Pres. Obama is scheduled to have what can only be interpreted as a serious meeting with former general Colin Powell; the timing of which presents an opportunity to fully discuss Afghanistan. A national security issue that will likely prove to be one of Pres. Obama’s most important decisions.

Escalate and put in more resources or continue the current course, surging on Afghanistan training, while getting more civilian aid to the people. Never giving up the cause of aiding the release from bondage of the Afghan women and girls, something I contend is as important as any mission we’ve got in the world.

Read full story · Comments are closed

NEWSFLASH! Republicans Won’t Support Baucus Bill

By on 16 September 2009

–link to Baucus bill in update below-

goldburg

Shocking news!

I’m stunned.

Speechless even.

Gang of Six Republicans say no to Baucus bill — for now:

CNN has learned that – barring some unforeseen change — Democratic Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus will unveil a health care proposal Wednesday without the support of the three Republican senators — Charles Grassley, Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe — he’s been negotiating with for months.

Senate Republican sources close to Grassley and Enzi — and in the case of Olympia Snowe, the senator herself — tell CNN they still have concerns that have not been addressed that range from taxpayer funding of abortion, to illegal immigration, to affordability of the health coverage this new law would require.

Now look up the definition of rube. It applies to the every Democrat in Congress, but also Pres. Obama, for thinking there would ever be Republicans on board.

Democrats have been played. Badly. Wasting an enormous amount of time, political clout and the people’s patience, only to come up with a bad bill from Sen. Baucus.

Somebody needs to rescue the situation immediately or Democrats are going to pay for this dearly. Frankly, they should. There really is no excuse for kowtowing and bending over backwards to get a bipartisan solution, only to wind up with a bill we’d be better of without, as far as I’m concerned; at least from what we know now, though I’m always ever hopeful to have misjudged these rubes.

It gives me no pleasure to say I (and many others) told you so.

UPDATE II: Here’s the full pdf of the Baucus bill.

UPDATE: Read this piece by Mike Lux: The Bad News? The Senate Finance Bill is Horrendous. The Good News?

Read full story · Comments are closed

How Not To Lead

By on 15 September 2009

–bumped–

Strong and wrong beats out weak and right.

It’s an old saying but it’s apt. Any Reagan Democrat can tell you that.

Pres. Obama is acting like he didn’t already win a health care mandate last November. Hanging on to the notion of getting bipartisanship support on health care. He’s like a battered political spouse who so desperately wants to be loved by his abuser.

Today we learn that even Wilson’s own wife wanted to know what “nut” had yelled “you lie.”

Democrats have already let Republicans shape the summer debate on health care. How’d that work out so far? Well, we gain nothing if we allow Republicans to shape a bad health care bill. We’ll be blamed for whatever goes wrong, because Democrats own Washington right now. Too bad the DC elite aren’t acting like it.

Why in the world Pres. Obama and other Democrats, including Speaker Pelosi, haven’t learned from political history is beyond me. This summer, it took two words in a White House message vacuum to hijack the entire health care debate: “death panels.” That Obama and the Democrats got beat on message by Sarah Palin says it all.

Then there are simple facts that prove not everyone at the table is being honest:

Industries have spent $585.7 million since 2007 on lobbying and campaign contributions

Via NPR, 63% of doctors believe patients should have public and private options:

Among all the players in the health care debate, doctors may be the least understood about where they stand on some of the key issues around changing the health care system. Now, a new survey finds some surprising results: A large majority of doctors say there should be a public option. …

Tell me again why Democrats are compromising?

I’ve made this argument for months, but Digby linked to a great post, which makes the case in another way. Read it:

… There are two things you absolutely do not want to do when a bully tries to make your life a living hell: you do not want to ignore them and you do not want to give in to their demands. Unfortunately little Obama did just that and let Beck rant about his green jobs adviser until he felt compelled to resign. Big bad Beck gained strength, resolve, and a more active following and Obama was left wondering who among his administration was going to be targeted next. Now little Obama is not just at the mercy of big bad Beck, but also of every other conservative pundit, blogger, and politician who has been paying attention to how easily little Obama retreats and gives in. It is only a matter of time before his allies will become impatient, disillusioned, and less willing to stand up for their friend. This is a vicious cycle that leads little Obama right where the big bad bullies want him: friendless, cornered, and vulnerable. Needless to say, this is exactly what progressives need to avoid at all costs. [...] - Attn Barack Obama: A guide to dealing with kindergarten bullies

It’s also impacting what we’re going to get on health care, as new analysis comes out of the health care policy wonks that reveals real failings of leadership from the Democrats. From Jonathan Cohn:

The bottom line here depends, in part, on which people you consider–in particular, whether you’re looking at the poor or middle class, and whether you’re looking at the relatively sick or the relatively healthy.

Total medical expenses, including premiums and out-of-pocket expenses, would be no more than 20 percent of annual income for most of the people profiled in the document. For the poor, it’d be dramatically less. That’s the (relatively) good news.

And the bad news? These figures are all for people in average health. But people end up paying a lot more in out-of-pocket expenses when they have a serious medical issue–whether it’s because of an accident, an acute illness, or a chronic disease. According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, a family of four making $42,000 a year could owe $9,000 a year in medical expenses if it hit the maximum in out-of-pocket expenses–which is pegged, in the Finance legislation, to deductible levels in Health Savings Accounts. That’s easy to do when one family member gets in an accident, has an acute medical problem, or is dealing with a chronic disease.

A family of four making $78,000 a year could owe $23,000–nearly a third of its income–if it had a member with high medical bills. …

It’s safe to say that not all Democrats are happy with the Baucus prescription. Simultaneously learning that Baucus won’t budge on the 300 percent above the poverty level cap.

Meanwhile, Republicans are stoked, engaged, enraged and ready to rock ‘n roll. With good reason. Obama is not only capitulating to Republicans on the altar of bipartisanship, he’s handed over allies because of squealing on the right, instead of standing behind people who have fought for him, which only stokes the beast.

While Obama’s base is getting pretty close to demoralized, with many feeling they’re the only ones fighting for the cause. That’s because they are.

Newsflash: With a supermajority, if progressives and other Democrats in Congress can’t pass a good health care bill it’s their own fault for letting Republicans hijack it.

Yet Obama lectured progressives last week that: The public option — the public option is only a means to that end, and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.

Why?

The only reason Obama wants us to be open to other ideas is because Obama wants to bring in Republicans, regardless if those other ideas are worse than what progressives are offering.

A leader does not capitulate to a minority that also happens to be wrong on the facts, not to mention the solutions. Neither should a Democratic majority, but that looks like what they’re getting ready to do.

Read full story · Comments are closed

House Resolution Against Wilson Passes 240-179

By on 15 September 2009

The Republican speeches were lame and it didn’t matter that the Resolution was anything but harsh, stating simply that Wilson “interrupted” Pres. Obama. They found a way to whine about it anyway.

All Rep. Wilson had to do to keep this from happening was to go to the well of the House chamber to apologize to his colleagues. That was a bridge too far for the former fighter of the Confederate flag; someone who believed as late as the 1990s that it should still fly high. Respecting our first black president is just too much for this southerner. From Southern Studies (via Harpers):

But local lawmakers, like Republican senator Joe Wilson say it is all about pride and history, and nothing to do with racism and hate. He finds comparisons with Nazis odious.

“That’s offensive to me that they would take my heritage and make it into a Holocaust era type description. I find that very offensive, and it’s not true,” Senator Wilson said. “The Southern heritage, the Confederate heritage is very honourable.”

Read full story · Comments are closed

Terry Moran’s OTR Tweet Deleted

By on 15 September 2009

–updated–

Turns out Pres. Obama’s Kanye is a “jackass” remark was strictly off the record, and Terry Moran’s tweets have been removed. Statement from ABC, via Michael Calderone:

In the process of reporting on remarks by President Obama that were made during a CNBC interview, ABC News employees prematurely tweeted a portion of those remarks that turned out to be from an off-the-record portion of the interview. This was done before our editorial process had been completed. That was wrong. We apologize to the White House and CNBC and are taking steps to ensure that it will not happen again.

Nice to have pull, now isn’t it? If new media made such an error we’d be hard pressed to get Twitter to delete the tweets. This is a real issue of credibility and accountability.

But as Garance Franke-Ruta of the Washington Post found out, nothing is ever deleted anymore.

Realtime results for obama from:terrymoran

  • Terry-afghanistan_normal
    TerryMoran: Pres. Obama just called Kanye West a “jackass” for his outburst at VMAs when Taylor Swift won. Now THAT’S presidential.
    about 17 hours ago from web · Reply · View Tweet
  • Terry-afghanistan_normal
    TerryMoran: Obama to his opponents: “My door is always open.” But will anyone take him up on that offer? Does the GOP base even really want a deal?
    5 days ago from web · Reply · View Tweet
  • Terry-afghanistan_normal
    TerryMoran: Prepping for a Council on Foreign Relations panel I’m moderating on Iraq and Afghanistan tonight. Should Obama keep fighting these wars?
    6 days ago from web · Reply · View Tweet

I’ve had many off-the-record discussions with politicians. It would seem that if you’re talking to the president, you’d sure make certain you got it right. Terry Moran knows better. Sloppy impulse control will be the death of journalism. No wonder the media is seen in such a poor light.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Misinformation Media and Glenn Beck’s Bogus Rally Tally

By on 15 September 2009

They’re following their leader, Glenn Beck. The most fact challenged pundit anywhere on any dial, TV, radio or in any other medium. Offering the evidence, which amounts to some college study he can’t name or cite, Beck pontificates that he has the truth.

He joins Michelle Malkin, who is another right winger who has a history of either ignoring the facts or simply making them up to fit her world view, like Beck. All because of one tweet. Now you get why I immediately questioned her? ABC immediately knocking down that tweet with one from ABC’s Jake Tapper, which the right ignored completely.

Malkin’s knee jerk reaction to take anything uttered on the right as fact was clearly in evidence this past weekend, when Ms. Malkin decided that a good turnout had to be turned into a believe it or not whopper fantasy without providing any evidence of her “2 million” crowd number, with other right wingers using an old Promise Keeper’s rally shot to bolster the baloney.

Fox News channel allowed Beck to repeat another totally imagined rally tally as well, with no one worried about the actual truth.

I questioned Malkin’s “2 million” number, as well as a shot she offered that did end up to be valid, while simultaneously offering a verified photo from Mary Katharine Hamm of the crowd size. With no one able to verify the over-inflated “2 million” number. But it was Malkin who decided to pass a tweet with the number of people off as fact, not satisfied with simply the number ABC actually reported first, 60-70,000, which ballooned into a “2 million” rumor that ricocheted across outer wingnuttery, spreading like like wildfire: NewsBusters, Wizbang, Gay Patriot, Examiner, Right Pundits, and many more.

It must have really been disheartening when Bill O’Reilly put the number at around 75,000 just last night.

Eric Boehlert has more:

According to estimates provided by the Washington, D.C., fire department, Malkin and friends were only off by 1,930,000 people. In other words, Malkin, citing fictitious press accounts, led the charge to falsely inflate the size of the crowd by 30 times. Malkin and company, desperate to dress up the tea party event as a mass movement, saw a relatively modest crowd of 70,000 GOP protesters and imagined it was 2 million strong. (She’s a dreamer, I suppose.)

Worse, Malkin spent most of Saturday in denial, refusing to update her transparently false report, which meant the rest of the right-wing blogosphere also played dumb on a massive scale and kept excitedly repeating the manufactured claim. The scary part is that within the fact-free conservative blogosphere, lots of people still believe the 2 million nonsense, or are at least repeating it. They believe it despite the fact that nobody can point to any evidence to support it. …

Correcting the record, because Glenn Beck won’t do it and neither will Fox News. Always more comfortable with “news” that comports to their world view, facts seldom having anything to do with it.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Biden Hits Iraq

By on 15 September 2009

An unscheduled visit, his third:

Vice President Biden arrived in Baghdad Tuesday afternoon for a previously unannounced visit.

He left Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland at 7:15 p.m. Monday, changed planes at Mildenhall Royal Air Force Base in England and touched down at Baghdad International Airport at 4:20 p.m. local time.

While in Iraq, Biden will meet with U.S. military commanders and diplomats, Iraqi officials, and U.S. soldiers.

UPDATE: Below is the pool report, just in.

Biden emerged from the C17 into a hot dusk at about 4:50pm. He was greeted by Gen Ray Odierno, Amb. Christopher Hill, and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. Biden’s national security adviser Tony Blinken and Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg also walked through the welcome line.

Boarded helos for the Green Zone, short, uneventful flight on Air Blackhawk through warm Baghdad evening. Streets quiet below as people endure the final hours of the daily fast inside.

Touched down in Green Zone (LZ Washington) at 5:08pm.

Short pool spray with Biden, Hill, Odierno and Steinberg as they began their meeting… No remarks.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Prelude to a Breakthrough

By on 14 September 2009

No country in the region wants more bloodshed. But while Israel’s neighbors want peace, they cannot be expected to tolerate what amounts to theft, and certainly should not be pressured into rewarding Israel for the return of land that does not belong to it. Until Israel heeds President Obama’s call for the removal of all settlements, the world must be under no illusion that Saudi Arabia will offer what the Israelis most desire — regional recognition. We are willing to embrace the hands of any partner in peace, but only after they have released their grip on Arab lands. – First Land, Then Peace, by Prince Turki al-Faisal

israel_map

If anyone doubts what settlements represent, I hope Saudi Arabia’s al-Faisal has disabused you of your delusions. Hearing him this past spring, al-Faisal’s plea to Pres. Obama was simple: We don’t need more plans from Obama. “We need implementation.”

But believe there is real hope if…

Buried at the bottom of the Haaretz report is that the United Nations accept Palestine as a full member within two years, which is supposedly coming from the highest levels of the Obama administration. This is beyond the well placed rumors of a possible deal rumbling amidst the current silence and shuttling.

Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will resume next month on the basis of an understanding that the establishment of a Palestinian state will be officially announced in two years. Palestinian and European Union sources told Haaretz that talks will initially focus on determining the permanent border between Israel and the West Bank. … [...] Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s refusal to discuss Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees in the initial negotiation stages will not be allowed to delay the announcement of an independent Palestinian state. …

Marc Lynch analyzes the current circulating hopes.

Beyond what the settlement issue means to the actual borders of wider Jerusalem, Lynch brings up no minor issue:

The second major issue is Gaza. The approach for now seems to be to simply ignore Gaza and focus on the West Bank under PA control. That’s a major problem, obviously, and one which everyone seems keen to pretend doesn’t exist. It does.

Indeed, “borders first” negotiations under current conditions — especially if Gaza is ignored and the Jersualem area either deferred or ratified — might well lead not to a two state solution but to what I’ve heard described as a “five statelet” outcome: Israel, Gaza, Ramallahstan, Nablusstan in the northern West Bank and Hebronstan in the southern West Bank. Does anyone really think that this would be the foundation for an end of conflict agreement?

Meron Rapoport over at IPF believes that without tackling Jerusalem first, we’re… well… er, screwed, to put it bluntly.

Turning a blind eye to what is happening in Jerusalem is no new phenomenon and is understandable. Of all the issues on the Israeli-Palestinian negotiation table, the question of Jerusalem is possibly the most complicated. On the one hand, it is clear to all that the Palestinians (as well as the whole Arab and Muslim world) will only agree to a peace treaty that will include a comprehensive and just (from their point of view) solution to the issue of Jerusalem and the holy sites. On the other hand, the reality on the ground – starting with the expansion of Jewish neighbourhoods in areas of East Jerusalem that were annexed to Israel after the 1967 war and ending with the entrenchment of Jewish settlements within the Palestinian neighbourhoods – render every proposal to divide Jerusalem between Israel and Palestine difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. …

… The increasing presence of settlers in neighbourhoods such as Silwan is turning East Jerusalem into a Hebron: a reality of daily friction between Israelis and Palestinians. …

Invoking Hebron is paralyzing to anyone who knows the history and actually cares about finding a solution.

We need talks to start right now, as in immediately. Time is wasting. But the atmosphere and ground rules will decide whether this will be just another frustrated effort or potentially meaningful, dare I say a definitive drive towards peace, or as Steve Clemons has convinced me to call it, equilibrium.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Murtha: No More Troops in Afghanistan

By on 14 September 2009

Al Qaeda tape released.

Josh Rogin over at The Cable got Rep. Murtha on the record expressing his opposition to what SecDef Gates has already announced is going to happen.

“In Vietnam it took 500,000 troops and that didn’t solve the problem. So we have to take a different approach,” Murtha told The Cable in an exclusive interview. “I think that’s what McChrystal is trying to do,” he said, referring to Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, who recently delivered a status report to the White House on the situation there.

Murtha’s dissent comes at a critical juncture, with the Washington debate heating up and public support for the war effort dropping. The Pennsylvania congressman is only the latest senior Democratic lawmaker to come out against a troop increase, following similar statements last week by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin.

But opposition from Murtha, who has deep contacts among the military brass, could ultimately prove more problematic for an Obama administration that has yet to launch a full-throated to defense of the war. …

House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton has come out in favor of continuing the mission, expanding it if necessary, invoking “resolve” as impetus.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Power Lunch at Il Mulino

By on 14 September 2009

obama_billnewyork

One word, think garlic.

Never been to the Italian restaurant Il Mulino, but I’ve heard plenty about it.

Pres. Obama and former President WJC will be lunching together today at this Greenwich Village trattoria. Too bad they won’t be sharing a bottle of Chianti with this classic fare. At least I assume that won’t be part of this rich lunch, though it would certainly be a lot more fun.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Protectionism in the Air?

By on 14 September 2009

Obama imposes a tariff on Chinese tires, China responds, not just because of that act, but also because of the one little word that can take us all down a very dangerous economic hill: nationalism. More from the Times.

China unexpectedly increased pressure Sunday on the United States in a widening trade dispute, taking the first steps toward imposing tariffs on American exports of automotive products and chicken meat in retaliation for President Obama’s decision late Friday to levy tariffs on tires from China. [...]

Understanding that the tire tariff is about (union) jobs, all I see is Obama smacking China. Aren’t tariffs better applied when they target an industry? Someone needs to explain to me why this is smart.

Brad deLong calls Obama out bluntly, while also slamming Harold Meyerson.

Barack Obama Does Something Really Stupid: Tire Tariffs

Why oh why can’t we have better Democratic presidents?

Barack Obama does something stupid. …

WSJ has a bunch of econ reactions, none too complimentary.

The economy isn’t my turf. I read political signs. I don’t see any good ones on this one.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Press Blackout for Palin’s Hong Kong Speech

By on 14 September 2009

Control exerted.

The first keynote speech outside North America by former US vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin will be closed to the media, organisers of the Hong Kong event said on Monday.

This is a mistake for Palin, who shouldn’t have agreed to it, though you have to wonder if she insisted on it. Her speeches were never her biggest problem. But a media blackout for someone who is obviously intent on widening her resume, which in the end is all about also broadening her appeal, is not the best road forward.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Harkin Makes a Promise

By on 14 September 2009

But can he keep it?

“I’m ready to carry on [Kennedy's] work, and I’m ready to get a health reform bill passed and to President Obama before Christmas comes this December,” Harkin said in a fiery push for health reform during a speech at his annual Steak Fry, a fundraiser for Iowa Democrats. “That bill — mark my word, I’m the chairman — is going to have a strong public option,” he added to thunderous applause.

Then again, what’s Harkin’s definition of “public option”? Does it include co-ops and triggers?

Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsay Graham pronounced anything out of the House as “dead.”

“It looks like the House bill is dead,” Graham said. “It looks like all the action is now in the Senate.”

With Sen. Olympia Snowe pronouncing that triggers, like those proposed by Sen. Kent Conrad, would be the only means by which anything resembling a public option will be included. Though that was shot down by Sen. Susan Collins, who said “no” on a trigger option.

The only sure thing right now is that confusion continues to rage.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The Noise and News Beyond

By on 13 September 2009

–updated–

“I am not going to apologize again,” Wilson said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I apologized to the president on Wednesday night. … I believe that is sufficient.” – Politico

Speaker Pelosi, the ball is now in your court.

Of course, the noise is still swirling about yesterday’s Wingnuts in Washington carnival. While ABC continues to try to set the record straight with the event’s promoter FreedomWorks that they ever reported there were “2 million” people. That was picked up by the Daily Mail, which ran with the bogus number, blasting it everywhere with the caveat “up to 2 million”, hoping that would make it more legit. Tapper was pushing back on Twitter too, but that didn’t keep Michelle Malkin from taking a good turnout and exaggerating the reality by double digits, which is what got everyone questioning what she was writing in the first place. As for some conservatives complaining that there is a lot of focus on the wack jobs and crackpots, to quote Mark McKinnon, including the majority of signs that anyone should be ashamed to show in public, that’s because there were a whole lot of them.

Before going around the world, we start at home. George McGovern has an op-ed with a simple message: Medicare for all.

How do you think the wingnuts who hit Washington yesterday will react to that one?

But one of the most provocative titles and articles to date is from Politico: Who’s afraid of Barack Obama? The answer is easy: no one. I’ve been harping on this for months, and talking to the Democratic wall in Washington isn’t getting anywhere. Between Chas Freeman, then Van Jones, a demotion, then the recent story that the Obama administration is dropping ACORN from their census role, which is directly related to right wing ranting, plus all the bipartisanship where they get everything and we only compromise, I’d say Obama’s not in the place I’d want to be only eight months: on defense. You never get anywhere in politics when you’re punching back. Wilson’s response to being asked to apologize in the well of the House is further evidence. He’s daring Democrats, because he just doesn’t think they can win, especially since he’s got all those crazy wingnuts in Washington standing behind him.

szep_rightwing
by Paul Szep

I wrote about it earlier, but do not miss today’s New York Time’s Magazine section on “The New Israel Lobby.”

SecDef Gates has decided. More troops to Afghanistan very soon.

McClatchy unwinds a “deadly Afghan ambush.”

“The Ganjgal people have an expression,” he said: “It’s up to you to come into the valley, but it’s up to us to let you out.”

Also from Afghanistan, Bagram detainees will get a taste of justice.

Hundreds of prisoners held by the U.S. military in Afghanistan will for the first time have the right to challenge their indefinite detention and call witnesses in their defense under a new review system being put in place this week, according to administration officials. …

A report has Gen. McChrystal stating that he does “not see indications of a large al-Qaida presence in Afghanistan now.” We know security is a problem, but with no al-Qaida, troop levels shouldn’t rise, even if our mission remains steady. With no al-Qaida, which was always our goal there, how is Obama and the administration going to keep escalating our involvement? Understanding that we can never stop supporting the civil aid on the ground, especially for women and girls.

Iranian blogger Fariba Pajouh has been in solitary confinement for three weeks now. The Lede has the report.

Secretary Clinton and the Obama administration to make more news on violence against women around the world, according to Laura Rozen.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton plans to spend some ten days in Turtle Bay, aides say. On the last day of the month, Clinton will preside over a UN meeting, Rice said. At it, the Obama administration hopes to lead passage of a measure that would strengthen implementation of a previous UN resolution condemning sexual violence against women. Rice noted that both she and Clinton have traveled in recent months to the Democratic Republic of Congo, where they witnessed the devastation caused by the massive scale of rape employed in a war that has killed more than five million people.

Pro Publica has Iran’s response issued last week dealing with the push of the international community on still unresolved nuclear issues. Given that Russian and China have nixed serious sanctions at present, the U.S. has decided to venture in to talks with Iran, obviously intent on moving these deliberations to the nuclear issue.

Ben Smith is also reporting about a “freeze for freeze” development. It’s like a quid pro quo arrangement between the U.S. and Tehran, where Iran freezes their nuclear expansion for six weeks and then completely at the end of that period, wherein the U.S. pulls back on sanctions. That noise you just heard was the reaction of the Israelis, who will raise unholy hell over the thought of implementing this idea.

On another front, Obama moves to impose tariffs on China, backing up the unions because of jobs.

In one of his first major decisions on trade policy, President Obama opted Friday to impose a tariff on tires from China, a move that fulfills his campaign promise to “crack down” on imports that unfairly undermine American workers but risks angering the nation’s second-largest trading partner.

…and get this, Wall Street is going to Washington for “meet and greets.” Call it PR on parade.

Read full story · Comments are closed