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

Laboring Every Day For What?


compliments of WB

… [...] So to all you liberal organizations in the “veal pen” — this is your moment of truth. I get all your emails. And the next Common Purpose meeting is probably on Tuesday. If you can’t get it together to at least put out a statement of support for Van Jones and condemn the White House for using him as a sacrificial lamb to right wing extremists that will devour us all if left unchecked, it’s time to add “proudly liberal only when it doesn’t matter” to your logo and be done with it. – Jane Hamsher

Will labor blink when further compromise comes down from White House mountain on health care?

On Labor Day, I’m thinking about all the work put in to elect a Democratic Congress and president, looking at what we have to show for it. So far I’m not impressed at all.

As for Glenn Beck, send Keith Olbermann every thing you’ve got on him, though he’s not the issue at all. However, for what Olbermann does he’s the perfect target.

The American people stood up and demanded answers. Instead of providing them, the Administration had Jones resign under cover of darkness. I continue to be amazed by the power of everyday Americans to initiate change in our government through honest questioning, and judging by the other radicals in the administration, I expect that questioning to continue for the foreseeable future. – Glenn Beck

As for the rest of us, this is about President Obama and his White House team proving that people are expendable, as are our issues.

Van Jones is just the latest. On Labor Day, this message makes me choke. Another progressive just lost his job and we lost a voice.

As for what’s the latest on health care, someone needs to get Politico’s Mike Allen a copy of the New York Times.

Just for the record, as I’ve been saying for months, Barack Obama isn’t doing anything now he didn’t telegraph he was going to do all along. Passion for purpose on health care just isn’t his thing, never was.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Finding Spine

In a victory for Republicans and the Obama administration’s conservative critics, Van Jones resigned as the White House’s environmental jobs “czar” on Saturday.White House Adviser on ‘Green Jobs’ Resigns

Well, once the right wing makes you a trending topic on Twitter, which happened yesterday, you’re toast. Perfect opening paragraph, though it could just as easily read: Obama hands victory to Glenn Beck. No one should be surprised, as the White House has been telegraphing for days they weren’t going to stand by Van Jones. Did Jones’s remarks and actions warrant a resignation? Depends on how you look at it and if you believe in fighting the right as they target and pick off your people. Remember Chas Freeman?

Reader dafederatlist over In the News quotes Ryan Grimm who puts this one perfectly: Glenn Beck Gets First Scalp: Van Jones Resigns. It must be very satisfying for Beck, who has been losing advertisers in pairs ever since he called the President a “racist.” Question is why the Obama administration decided handing Van Jones over to Fox on a platter was a good move. An example of no spine at all.

Meanwhile, birthers in Congress get a pass.

On to other news, which includes that I’m taking my birthday off. I must tell you that sleeping in and waking to the news of Beck getting Jones’s scalp seems like ominous foreshadowing for the fall fight on health care. I wonder if the White House will stand and fight for anything at this point. But much fun planned today, so the stink of this one will be left behind.

Now to other news…

Send a message to Pres. Obama on the public option.

Meet Jim Greer, chairman of the Florida Republican Party and the man who accused Obama of wanting to “indoctrinate” school kids.

There once was a political operative who loved to tell crowds he had a simple way of explaining to children the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

“Republicans get up and go to work,” he would tell his son. “Democrats get up and go down to the mailbox to get their checks.”

One Seminole County mother, Barbara Wells, remembers the day Greer spoke to her son’s sixth-grade class. “My son said he made some sort of Hillary Clinton joke,” she recalled. …

Bob McDonnell, running for Virginia governor, is getting slammed over his thesis, with this website is absolutely devastating. Having read the thesis, it’s interesting that in the 21st century this man is still ahead of Deeds in the age of Obama. It’s not over by a long shot, but Republicans are looking at the Virginia governor’s race as their comeback story and foreshadowing of 2010. Fitting on Labor Day weekend that McDonnell, the GOP’s hope, believes women and feminists are “detrimental” to the family.

Offensive in Pakistan targets headquarters of Lashkar-e-Islam.

Laura Rozen on “Afghan First” memo. First piece at Politico.

British Justice Secretary Jack Straw drops all pretense on Lockerbie bomber’s release. It was about oil.

Resistance to Afghan troop increase from Senate Dems.

Sick and Wrong, by Matt Taibi.

If you didn’t read the New York Times piece on Ted Kennedy’s memoirs, it’s worth it:

Later in this volume, Mr. Kennedy addresses his own failings and regrets. He writes about how his actions in 1969 at Chappaquiddick were “inexcusable,” how Mary Jo Kopechne’s death “haunts me every day of my life” and how “atonement is a process that never ends.” When his father died four months later, he says, he “wondered whether I had shortened” his life “from the shock I had visited on him with my news of the tragic accident on Chappaquiddick Island. The pain of that burden was almost unbearable.”

The woman who could fill Ted’s seat (interview), if not his shoes, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. She’s tough, smart, happens to be married to a cop, and someone to definitely watch, no matter who else jumps in. Coakley talked straight on abortion funding on health care as well, addressing the Hyde Amendment too, as she said “yes,” we have to make sure access is provided and “change other laws to make them consistent.” I like the way this woman talks. She’s definitely got spine.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Max Baucus to the Rescue, and Other Absurdities

szep_healthcarehookers
by Paul Szep

Both Woolsey and Rep Barbara Lee, D-California, the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, told CNN that they told the president point blank that they do not believe a health care proposal without a government run option is real reform. [...] A Democratic source close to the process told CNN Friday that the White House was very conscious of the potential congressional fallout: “How do you (get the deal passed) without a revolt in the House? It can be done, but very delicately.” The bottom line, said the source, is that the president would have to “move to the center” on the issue eventually, “and it’s not a bad thing to have liberals screaming at him” — that development will help sell the deal to Americans, “convince them it’s a good, moderate deal, if liberals are mad.”Sources: White House considers drafting health care bill

Ah yes, the make the lefties mad makes Obama look “centrist” tripe. It will never end, not even when we’re right on the issue. But if the CNN report is correct, I’ve got to question the sanity of the White House. After all this time they’re now considering delivering their own bill?

… they are preparing for the possibility they could deliver their own legislation to Capitol Hill sometime after the President Barack Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress Wednesday. The White House emphasized Friday that no formal bill has yet been written. …

Mass confusion reigns.

Enter Rep. Clyburn, doing Obama’s compromise work for him in the House. Beware of anything Clyburn is pushing.

The deal offered by Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat with close ties to the White House, was the latest signal that Obama may back off his previous insistence on a full public option when he addresses a joint session of Congress Wednesday.

More about Max.

Speaking of confusion, has anyone been following the Van Jones insanity? He’s now a trending topic on Twitter!

But don’t you just love when Labor Day holiday arrives? Football, cooler weather, red wines tastes better. I certainly do, but then September is a celebration at our house, especially this year, as my hubby Mark is about to experience his very first fall, then winter. (But also because September is my birthday month.)

…and just because, in praise of Sen. Al Franken. The man knows how to get it done.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Issues Bigger than Party Personalities

Passing the legislative buck hasn’t worked for Obama.

People around here had a serious back and forth recently about “Obama supporters” often unable to criticize and acknowledge serious failures of Pres. Obama and his team, especially on the health care debate, some taking issue when I outlined Obama’s sinking approval numbers. But I’m part of the reality based community. Charlie Cook provides more bad news:

… Many conservatives predictably fear — and some downright oppose — any expansion of government. But late last year many moderates and independents who were already frightened about the economy began to fret that Washington was taking irreversible actions that would drive mountainous deficits higher. They worried that government was taking on far more than it could competently handle and far more than the country could afford. Against this backdrop, Obama’s agenda fanned fears that government was expanding too far, too fast. Before long, his strategy of letting Congress take the lead in formulating legislative proposals and thus prodding lawmakers to take ownership in their outcome caused his poll numbers on “strength” and “leadership” to plummet. [...]

I’ve been harping for months about the Obama White House allowing the right to dictate the message. The results have been disastrous.

Then when the White House does get involved, issuing a happy face health care memo, they bury the truth about the support for the public option. Greg Sargent reports that Obama’s pollster omitted favorable public option numbers, because after all, the boss is getting ready to spike the idea so what’s the point, right?

But really, as if every Democrat isn’t an “Obama supporter.” As opposed to what? An “issues supporter.” The distinction in this description elemental to the arguments raging today. There are “Obama supporters” who will cave on the principles of an issue and support whatever Obama decides, even if they have to bite their lip on it, because after all he is a Democratic president. On the other side are people who voted for Obama, but are not willing to compromise on the public option, for instance, even if Obama is handed a loss; because these people believe that without the public option health care reform will fail, coming back to haunt Democrats much longer than the fight we’re in right now. This second group are “issue supporters” first, foremost and always.

The elite DC Democrats, of which Obama is their leader, run on issues, which help them make a good show of their passions and sense of purpose, but these establishment Democrats all have one thing in common: protecting their power. Issues are secondary to that goal; surviving to continue the only thing, which if you think about it makes sense to them. If you’re not in power what can you actually do? Just listen to Hoffa, who has blinked on the public option, saying “We’ve got to find out what’s doable.”

According to whom?

It’s a classic Democratic trait. Giving in before the fight is over. Telegraphing your compromise before you even know you must.

It’s the choice of walking away from the Democratic power that gets you the possibility of moving things forward on issues you care deeply (for me it’s the Middle East and women’s power issues across the globe), because the one you helped elect sold you out on a fundamental social justice priority, health care. How important is it? Worth scuttling it all over? Tough questions given the alternative is someone like, say, Joe Scarborough or David Petraeus in the White House.

There is pressure from the issue oriented Democratic supporters coming from all quarters, bearing down hard on Obama and Congress. People continuing to put the pressure on the White House and Congress, because it’s not over yet.

David Sirota’s recent syndicated column is very timely for this discussion.

The difference between parties and movements is simple: Parties are loyal to their own power regardless of policy agenda; movements are loyal to their own policy agenda regardless of which party champions it. This is one of the few enduring political axioms, and it explains why the organizations purporting to lead an American progressive “movement” have yet to build a real movement, much less a successful one. …

DC elite Dems are part of an overall hierarchy that must at all costs support itself.

People outside that structure, which includes activists and many people who helped get Obama and the Democratic Congress elected, but are being sold out, are on their own.

The trouble is there are many “Obama supporters” who simply won’t take on the President or the structure he was elected to support and keep going. Sirota again:

Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that Moveon.org has “yet to take a clear position on Afghanistan” while VoteVets’ leader all but genuflected to President Obama, saying, “People (read: professional political operatives) do not want to take on the administration.”

President Obama and the Democratic Congress can limp along without their issues constituency, but they can’t get re-elected without us. At some point this will dawn on the DC elite Dems and they’ll come courting once again, passions, purpose and issues in tow to impress. It’s long past time to score which ones are actually our friends.

… True grassroots movements that deliver concrete legislative results are not steered by marble-columned monoliths, wealthy benefactors or celebrity politicians — and they are rarely ever headquartered in Washington. They are almost always far-flung efforts by those focused on real-world results, not partisan vanity — those who don’t care about congressional cocktail parties or White House soirees they were never invited to in the first place.David Sirota

Issues are bigger and more important than party personalities. But you need both to win.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Oy, Israel

-updated-

oy

Earlier Friday, a senior government source had reported that Netanyahu was to approve the construction of hundreds of new housing units in West Bank settlements before he declares a moratorium on building in those locales. The source from the prime minister’s bureau said Thursday night that the premier informed U.S. officials of his decision to authorize the construction a few weeks ago. … – Haaretz

Or maybe the title should read, Oy, Netanyahu.

Obama’s statement came across about two hours ago. Here’s the nut:

We regret the reports of Israel’s plans to approve additional settlement construction. Continued settlement activity is inconsistent with Israel’s commitment under the Roadmap.

As the President has said before, the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement expansion and we urge that it stop. We are working to create a climate in which negotiations can take place, and such actions make it harder to create such a climate. ..

Also to include the obvious and obligatory: The U.S. commitment to Israel’s security is and will remain unshakeable.

The conundrum regarding our “unshakeable” commitment is that Netanyahu’s unshakable obstinance on settlements is not helping Israel’s security or its cause.

On a political note, the Middle East is one reason the health care reform debate’s spiraling downward and out of control is so dangerous. If Obama fails to get real reform that also honors what progressives want, with any concessions towards Republicans seen as a sell out, it will weaken his support while emboldening the opposition even more. This could send a chill through Obama’s more valiant stances on foreign policy, including establishing new talks towards achieving Middle East peace, aka equilibrium. Another political problem for Obama and his Administration is Afghanistan, with the news today of a deadly NATO air strike killing as many as 90, including civilians sure to make the case for escalation even harder to sell, even as SecDef Gates seemed to change tracks by saying it’s not time to leave Afghanistan yet. Signaling support for more troops, as tours are also extended, with Obama’s main support coming from conservatives. Politically speaking, the success of failure to get substantive health care reform that progressives support impacts all of Obama’s foreign policy agenda.

Going into Labor Day, Pres. Obama seems besieged on all sides.

Read full story · Comments are closed

In the News Tech Issues – FIXED

We’re working on it. Thanks for your patience! Until then, if you delete all the extraneous characters after the In the News title in the URL, you can reach the comment section (though it’s still a little tricky). We’ll get it fixed as fast as we can.

UPDATE: It’s been fixed. Please feel free to contact us if you ever see anything amiss.

Read full story · Comments are closed

It’s Getting Noisy Out There

A health reform bill without a robust public option will not achieve the health reform this country so desperately needs. We cannot vote for anything less. – Congressional Progressive Caucus

That noise. It keeps getting louder. And not just from the left. They’re even ranting at people in wheel chairs! I hope Pres. Obama is listening. It’s not going to get any quieter over Labor Day weekend.

“A bill without a strong public option will not pass the House. …”Speaker Nancy Pelosi

The good news is Obama still has time to do what’s required to make health care reform mean something. That is, make the public option a central part of your speech coming up. Now, I don’t think any reform is meaningful without addressing prevention (diet, weight, exercise and other issues). But no one wants to admit lifestyle choices we make every day impact our health as much as anything. So Obama standing up for a public option is better than nothing.

However, no one is expecting that to happen right now.

The bad news is that even with a public option, no one is going to quiet the crazies at this point.

I don’t know who in the White House decided to let months go by without framing health care reform, but allowing the wingnuts to do it themselves has been very costly. Joe Klein:

I was later told by a local observer that many of these vomitous, disgraceful notions were the fruit of Glenn Beck’s fruitful imagination. “We are living Glenn Beck’s fantasy life,” said this audience member. The amazing thing remains not only the unwillingness of responsible Republicans–a term that is in danger of becoming an oxymoron–to call bull– on this, but also the willingness of many prominent Republicans to join in the slinging of garbage. Michelle Cottle reports that there are Republican-sanctioned efforts afoot to have parents not send their children to school on September 8 because the President is scheduled to address the nation’s school-children that day and they are afraid that he will fill their little heads with socialist propaganda. That is somewhere well beyond disgraceful.

The likes of Sarah Palin leading the “death panels” charge caused such a ruckus that she knocked everyone, including Obama and his White House team, so far back on their heels that not even traditional media and all the cable shows together could dispel the nonsense once the noise started coming out of the town brawls.

We all know Barack Obama is not an ideologue. That he wants to bring people together, sharing ideas and creating legislation that everyone can get behind. Laudable goals. Very 1983. But the people keeping their children at home so they won’t have to listen to the President of the United States aren’t listening.

Meanwhile, the more progressive members of Congress have now in no uncertain terms drawn a line in the sand as to the bottom line on what health care reform means.

Some of the people that helped get Obama elected have tuned out the noise and are less enamored with consensus, because they aren’t willing to sacrifice principle and good policy on the White House hill and certainly won’t “do almost anything it takes” to get a health care bill just so Pres. Obama can say he passed one.

Oh, and if Pres. Obama thinks he can save the Blue Dogs with something less than the public option as an ode or down payment to reform, that’s wishful thinking. Because as the volume continues to rise, the Blue Dogs may go from endangered species to extinct in one election cycle.

Then it really will get noisy.

Read full story · Comments are closed

NY Times: Unnamed White House Official Reveals Desperation

szep_kennedypussys

The New York Times reports on the expected scope of what Pres. Obama might say next week, including that he “was unlikely to unveil a detailed legislative plan of his own.” That’s a safe bet. But while using the “nonessential” buzz word that has come to represent the public option once Kathleen Sebelius used the term to describe what most of us believe is actually an essential aspect of any real health care reform, the Times then muddies the message to say it’s not yet off the table. You figure it out.

And they insisted that Mr. Obama had not given up on the provision that has attracted the most fire from the right, a proposal for a government-run competitor to private insurers, although many Democrats say the proposal may eventually be jettisoned. [...]

[...] In his address, Mr. Obama is expected to emphasize areas of potential agreement. One is the need for federal regulation of health insurance companies to prohibit them from denying coverage, or charging higher premiums, because of a person’s medical history or current condition. Another is the need for federal subsidies to make insurance affordable to millions of lower-income people. …

The money quote comes from an anonymous White House official:

“It’s so important to get a deal,” a White House official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to be candid about strategy. “He will do almost anything it takes to get one.”

Not exactly a strong bargaining position to reveal when the other side has telegraphed they’ll do anything to stop you.

TM NOTE: A word about the graphic. It’s compliments of Paul Szep, who gifts this site by sharing some of his wonderful drawings and editorial pictorials. Just wanted to say thanks. I’ve always had a thing for editorial cartoonists, so it’s a privilege to have Paul share his political art.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The Village Dean is Wrong

David Broder was wrong then. He’s wrong now.

Flashback:

First, let me stipulate that I agree on the importance of accountability for illegal acts and for serious breaches of trust by government officials — even at the highest levels. I had no problem with the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, and I called for Bill Clinton to resign when he lied to his Cabinet colleagues and to the country during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

William Jefferson Clinton had a stupid consensual affair, with Republicans deciding that was the bridge they’d blow up no matter the cost, as the dean of elite DC journalists led the impeachment drum, that is, when he wasn’t drooling over the details of the Clintons’ marriage.

Washington, D.C.: Mr Broder, if you feel Karl Rove is owed an apology from the pundits and writers over Valerie Plame, did you also call for an apology to the Clintons after Ken Starr, the Whitewater investigation and the failed attempt to impeach President Clinton? If not, why not?

David S. Broder: As best, I can recall,I did not call for such an apology. My view, for whatever it is worth long after the dust has settled on Monica, was that when President Clinton admitted he had lied to his Cabinet and his closest assoc, to say nothing of the public, that the honorable thing was for him to have resigned and turned over the office to Vice President Gore. I think history would have been very different had he done that.

So, let’s get the Broder priorities straight. Sex is something for which a president should resign. Illegal acts including torture and breaking the law, no big deal.

Looming beyond the publicized cases of these relatively low-level operatives is the fundamental accountability question: What about those who approved of their actions? If accountability is the standard, then it should apply to the policymakers and not just to the underlings. Ultimately, do we want to see Cheney, who backed these actions and still does, standing in the dock?

[...] In times like these, the understandable desire to enforce individual accountability must be weighed against the consequences. This country is facing so many huge challenges at home and abroad that the president cannot afford to be drawn into what would undoubtedly be a major, bitter partisan battle over prosecution of Bush-era officials. The cost to the country would simply be too great.

Making sure the executive branch officials uphold the law is just too much trouble. Got it.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The Uncomfortable War



The other day I wrote a post about why I remain a reluctant feminist hawk on Afghanistan. Reluctant being the operative word. Over at Abu Muqawama, aka Andrew Exum, he explains the same feeling I have on the matter. The interview above is his appearance on “The News Hour.”

[...] As I walked out of the studio last night, though, Gwen Ifill turned to me and said, “Look, I understand you’re not some fire-breathing hawk, but you’re about the only person we can find in Washington to defend this war at the moment.” Woah. The only person who will defend this war? If this blogger is the only person in the nation’s capital willing to defend the war, we have a big problem. …

As a lonely feminist hawk on Afghanistan, also not having Exum’s clout on the matter, I’ve still not wrangled a visit to the region. So I, too, always listen to the cascade of commentary on the Get Out Now contingent. (Also see “Washington’s Afghan Brawl”.)

I wasn’t for preemption in Iraq from the start, but the issue that continues to turn my head in Afghanistan is the plight of the women and girls, who are in the opposite position of what Iraqi women have been in throughout their history, even with Saddam’s brutality.

Spencer Ackerman’s analysis on how people like Exum and myself feel is dead on:

More seriously/to make a meta point: this is the main difference with the Iraq debate. The advocates of the war (… so to speak?) are haunted by the proposition that they may be wrong, and the proposition that they could make things worse. You find no certainty among Richard Holbrooke or whomever. And they certainly don’t have enthusiasm for the war. They’re pretty… Exum-esque: worried about making things worse, from a variety of directions.

Yep. I’m haunted by the image of Obama turning into LBJ. It never leaves my nightmares.

As Pres. Obama reads McChrystal’s Afghanistan evaluation over the Labor Day holiday, I’m sure he’ll have his own.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Seducing Olympia

-updated-

olympiasnowe

The end game? If so, whatever was in the HELP or House Committees won’t get anywhere near the finish line.

Ezra Klein, someone who has kept himself clear of rhetorical shots at the White House, has an insider’s look: “universal-lite” or “not universal at all.”

The first camp could be called “universal-lite.” They’re focused on preserving the basic shape of the bill. They think a universal plan is necessary for a number of reasons: For one thing, the insurance market regulations don’t work without universality, as you can’t really ask insurers to offer standard prices if the healthy and the young don’t have to enter the system. For another, it will be easier to change subsidies or improve the benefit package down the road if the initial offerings prove inadequate. New numbers are easier than new features. Creating a robust structure is the most important thing. This camp seems to be largely headed by the policy people.

The second camp is not universal at all. This camp believes the bill needs to be scaled back sharply in order to ensure passage. Covering 20 million people isn’t as good as covering 40 million people, but it’s a whole lot better than letting the bill fall apart and covering no one at all. It’s also a success of some sort, and it gives you something to build on. What that sacrifices in terms of structure it gains in terms of political appeal. This camp is largely headed by members of the political team.

Without Sen. Snowe, the lone Republican, Blue Dogs will peel off too. Once that happens health care reform gets lighter and lighter.

Which begs the question: Without Sen. Snowe, who is evidently providing cover for some of the Blue Dogs Blanche Lincoln, with Republicans battling to the end to defeat health care reform, will Pres. Obama and the Democratic led Congress get a bill at all?

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama to Address Joint Session of Congress Sept. 9

–updated below–

jointsession

The speech will be on Tuesday. ABC, then MSNBC broke the news. It’s clear that if Pres. Obama doesn’t put the full weight of his office behind moving health care forward immediately after things resume next week, it only gets harder from there.

Reuters has the story now too:

Obama’s speech, first reported by ABC News, comes after White House officials said he was preparing to lay out a new strategy to promote his goal of healthcare reform, which has spurred doubts among lawmakers and found increasing public opposition.

Haven’t received official word from White House yet.

To add… Below is the text of Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid’s letter to Obama inviting him to address Congress:

President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Our nation is closer than ever to achieving health insurance reform that will lower costs, retain choice, improve quality and expand coverage. We are committed to reaching this goal.

We would like to invite you to address a Joint Session of the Congress on Wednesday, September 9, 2009 on health insurance reform.

Thank you for considering this invitation to speak to the Congress and the nation.

Sincerely,

NANCY PELOSI
Speaker of the House

HARRY REID
Majority Leader of the Senate

Read full story · Comments are closed

Heading In to Labor Day

On health care, Obama’s willingness to forgo the public option is sure to anger his party’s liberal base. But some administration officials welcome a showdown with liberal lawmakers if they argue they would rather have no health care law than an incremental one. The confrontation would allow Obama to show he is willing to stare down his own party to get things done. – Politico

obama_approval_index_september_2_2009

According to a new CNN poll, “a majority of independent voters disapprove of how Barack Obama’s handling his job as president.” Now, I leave polling analysis to the few experts who are any good at it. However, the current numbers heading into next week’s resumption of political business after the recess are enough to give anyone pause. Especially since one of the Democrats’ core issues will lie in the balance of what they think they can push. Bad numbers invariably means cautious politicians, which isn’t good for anyone who wants bold, sweeping and courageous legislation out of Congress.

Interesting that the CNN poll also says that 9 out of 10 Democrats “approve of the job Obama’s doing, up three points from a month ago.” Well, that certainly isn’t representative of Obama’s biggest supporters, people around here, as well as die hard progressive activists who feel the wind going out of the sails, and not just because we lost one of the biggest champions on health care reform we’ve ever had. All of this taken together, including the 8-point drop from Republicans, doesn’t bode well for any public option, co-op or otherwise, going forward. Because Obama’s got Dems, with Independents the group he’s lost, who also happen to be the most concerned about costs, the deficit, as well as bad PR health care reform picked up from too little messaging and framing out of the White House, also known as lack of leadership from the top.

Rasmussen numbers for Obama, but also the generic congressional ballot, are even worse.

I’m not trying to be negative or rain on anyone’s hope parade regarding the public option, or saying you shouldn’t still work your hearts out. It’s just that the political analysis of the situation is what it is and has been for quite some time; ever since Obama and the Democrats allowed the deadline for a deal to slip into oblivion during the August recess. It’s not about Obama making the base happy. It’s about gaining back some of what he’s lost among Independents. The rationale being that Democrats aren’t going anywhere. There’s nowhere else to go.

Asked if the union would work against any bill that did not hit those targets, Trumka told reporters during a briefing: “That means we won’t support the bill if it doesn’t have the public option.” – AFL-CIO: Gov’t option an absolute must

Read full story · Comments are closed

Health Care Reform Plot Thickens

To give you an idea of how laugh out loud ludicrous some in the Democratic controlled Congress are making the health care fight, get a load of Brian Beutler’s headline:

51 Vote Rules May Force a Public Option Too Liberal for Some Dems

A “public option too liberal for some Dems.” If that doesn’t hit our dilemma in the bull’s eye, while also revealing why Republicans have always planned to fight health care reform until their last political breath. They know they’ve got help on our side.

… According to Martin Paone, a legislative expert who’s helping Democrats map out legislative strategy, a more robust public option–one that sets low prices, and provides cheap, subsidized insurance to low- and middle-class consumers–would have an easier time surviving the procedural demands of the so-called reconciliation process. However, he cautions that the cost of subsidies “will have to be offset and if [the health care plan] loses money beyond 2014…it will have to be sunsetted.”

And there the irony continues: Some experts, including on Capitol Hill, believe that a more robust public option will generate crucial savings needed to keep health care reform in the black–and thus prevent it from expiring. But though that may solve the procedural problems, conservative Democrats have balked at the idea creating such a momentous government program, and if they defected in great numbers, they could imperil the entire reform package.

It’s a very technical conundrum with huge policy ramifications. So it’s not surprising that Republicans are on to it, and preparing for war. …

Sen. Judd Gregg, the man Obama wanted in his cabinet, and senior Republican on the Budget Committee, plans to lead the opposition in a “vicious fight” according to the Hill, foreshadowing the mother of all procedural battles to bring health care reform down.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Liz Cheney’s Ideological Blindness Revealed in Hoax

Anyone watching “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday saw he was clearly out muscled by the non-stop motor mouth debate tactics of Liz Cheney. Tom Shales takes Stephanopoulos to task for letting the rising right wing star get the better of him, though nothing less than a Vaudevillian hook would have succeeded in shutting her up. This is especially true when Liz gets on one of her Cheney tears defending torture, waterboarding her favorite technique. Regardless of truth or reality on record, Liz Cheney babbles on, inspired and fueled by her embedded right wing ideology, which no fact can dent, because with ideological blindness you can never be wrong. Shales on Liz Cheney’s “Chatterbox Summer”:

She doesn’t just finish a thought, she doesn’t just finish a sentence, she’ll go right into a new paragraph and ignore all attempts to head her off.

But for all of Liz Cheney’s babbling, her ideological blindness recently led her into embarrassing territory. How can someone charged with being a “Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs”, then promoted to “Principal” in that same post, not know basic information about Jordan? Liz Cheney getting suckered into what some have called the first great hoax of the 21st century.

This is something that has not garnered much attention even with “Forbidden Lie$”, which is about the Norma Khouri hoax, hitting Showtime. Khouri is a now disgraced fabricator who perpetrated this fantastic hoax, writing a book about her friend who she claimed was a victim of an honor killing in Jordan.

This tale was good enough to suck in Liz Cheney, someone who touts her experience as “Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs,” which some have claimed was a post specifically created for her by her father, with Cheney promoted in 2005 to Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State For Near Eastern Affairs. A position that should have given her, at the very least, rudimentary knowledge of Jordan. Meaning that when Khouri talked about women needing escorts around the streets, let alone that they had to be covered, warning bells should have gone off in Cheney’s head. It’s just not reality for women in Jordan. But Ms. Cheney fell for Khouri’s fiction hook, line and lie, not even aware the Jordan in the book has little relation to the country it chronicles.

Honor Lost was initially published in 2002 in Australia, under the title Forbidden Love, and became a bestseller. But in 2004, the literary editor of the Sydney Morning Herald revealed that, although Khouri had indeed been born in Jordan, she had been living in Chicago during the years her story took place. Khouri’s book was withdrawn from publication, but the author didn’t slink so quietly into the Australian night. – Vanity Fair

Evidently, hearing about a supposed honor killing that allegedly happened in Jordan was all Liz Cheney needed to know.

You can forgive NBC news anchor Lester Holt for an interview with Khouri, the author, which is shown in “Forbidden Lie$”. But someone with Liz Cheney’s background should have easily recognized some of the more glaring and obvious factual errors in Khouri’s book. Like where the Jordan River flows (and where it doesn’t).

Enter Rana Husseini, an award winning journalist and expert on honor killings in Jordan, whose book is called Murder in the Name of Honor, who is also featured in “Forbidden Lie$.” Ms. Husseini did interviews asking women about the conduct expected of Jordanian women alleged in Khouri’s book, only to get laughter as a response. The places mentioned, like a unisex hair salon, not even in existence in Jordan.

Liz Cheney’s part is a side story, but is influential:

First was the granting of the visa. The department doesn’t define “Distinguished Talent” outside the circularity of “people who are internationally recognised for exceptional and outstanding achievement”. Assessing that talent is left to the nomination process. Those who nominated Khouri were her victims: publishers, literary agents and others who believed her memoir was a true story. Supporting material was provided by Elizabeth Cheney, a daughter of the US Vice-President, who was also sucked in. Her “Distinguished Talent” rested on pure deceit. We can only speculate on how much weight the name Cheney carried in the department.

This is just background on the type of shallow knowledge Cheney has accrued while spinning a career readying herself for higher office.

But to be taken in on an honor killing story is particularly dangerous. Countries are sensitive to Americans lecturing and any interference in their affairs, so getting caught in an honor killing hoax reduces our standing to ideological reaction. It’s one thing to come out strong where honor killings are hidden, but this is not the case in Jordan, because when it does happen they are prosecuted fully.

Liz Cheney’s ideological performances have become very popular on political shows, because everyone loves a spectacle. No problem with that, as politics on TV is now seen as entertainment. But as much as I think it’s important to get women on TV, Stephanopoulos choosing Michelle Malkin, then Liz Cheney, shows a disturbing trend.

However, the real issue is more serious. When someone like Cheney uses her clout and name on a sensitive issue like an honor killing, but ends up being duped because she didn’t know basic knowledge of a country like Jordan, which has supposedly been in her purview for years, it makes us all look bad, because our actions are reduced down to primitive emotional and ideologically driven spasms.

Read full story · Comments are closed

What’s Up with All the Bad Syria Reviews?

–updated below–

Part of it begins with the Syria – Iraq squabble.

Syrian President Bashar Assad on Monday dismissed Iraqi accusations that his country has been used as a launching pad for violence in Iraq, calling the allegations “immoral” and politically motivated. Iraq and Syria are entangled in a diplomatic dispute over demands that Damascus extradite two suspects wanted in recent suicide attacks on government ministries in Baghdad that killed about 100 people. The tension led both countries to recall their ambassadors. … – JPost: Assad denies Syria is launch pad for Iraq attacks

Marc Lynch runs it down, as analysis cascades from all quarters that Obama’s Syria policy is supposedly failing, citing the sources currently opining as proof that it’s actually not.

… This all suggests, of course, that perhaps something is going right with Obama’s outreach to Syria. What might it be?

First, the bill of indictment. The argument for failure rests primarily on Iraqi accusations of Syrian responsibility for last month’s horrific bombings in Baghdad which have thrown a deep chill onto Syrian-Iraqi relations. It also includes the continuing presence of Islamist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Damascus, the continuing stalemate in Lebanan’s efforts to form a government, and Bashar al-Asad’s visit to Tehran.

Most of these are just silly. If visiting Tehran is a red line, Washington will need to have some long talks with Nuri al-Maliki, Jalal Talabani, and virtually every other Iraqi politician. … [...]

The points Lynch makes about Hezbollah and Hamas are particularly important to the discussion, especially since there is never any nuance in the American coverage of either of these groups.

Elliott Abrams, of the Bush era NSC, reminds us today just how bad the Bush-Cheney policies on the Middle East were. While using the right’s favorite trip wire word “appeasement” on Obama. But my favorite line is this one: Syria is an excellent test case of the new Obama approach to the Arab world and to dictatorships that the Bush administration tried to isolate. The new policy is failing. The Bush administration’s effort at isolating bad characters did absolutely nothing for our foreign policy, getting nothing to show for it. Abrams argument on Bush’s “toughness” is positively laughable considering what we didn’t gain, also known as time we don’t have squandered, as the net result.

First, Bush’s policy was far too soft. While the Bush administration used some trade and financial pressure against the Asad regime, it did not take the direct action against terrorists and terrorist facilities there that might have made the regime back away. Jihadis flowed into the Damascus airport, through training camps, and across the border into Iraq, to murder Coalition forces and civilians–but the United States never threatened or imposed the kind of punishment our military, across the border in Iraq in full strength, might have wielded.

Another piece like Abrams’s appears in Foreign Policy.

But buried at the end of Lynch’s piece a familiar point emerges.

The sudden rush of anti-Syrian commentary by hawkish essayists and Israeli sources actually suggests that something may be afoot which they don’t want to see. What might that be?

Abrams & the Bush-Cheney crew do not want engagement with Syria. So, to forward Obama failure in the Middle East where Syria is concerned furthers their own ideological fetish that diplomacy means never having to engage with bad guys or those people who make negotiations complicated (to include Iran). Because engagement with these countries is something their neocon ideology doesn’t accept or have room to consider. You isolate these countries and the characters who run them, regardless that it never gets you anywhere to do so or changes the dynamic by doing the same failed strategy year after year.

Obama’s supposed Syria policy being called a failure is just another form of preemption. It’s what the right always does when they see or sense something brewing they don’t like.

UPDATE (9.2.09)
: Marc Lynch adds more analysis today, confirming what I’ve been thinking along these lines as well. It all gets down to Middle East peace, though you can’t ignore Maliki’s internal problems either. Lynch:

The most common regional politics argument is that Iran wanted to prevent Syria from reconciling with the U.S. and making peace with Israel, and thus pushed the Iraqi government to finger the Syrians (regardless of who was actually responsible). The columnist Ghassan al-Imam, for instance, suggests that Iran was sending a warning signal at Syria, with the prospect of US-Syrian reconciliation alarming Tehran. This analysis (which tracks a number of others I’ve seen over the last few days) suggests that the Obama outreach to Syria was actually generating some real concern among those most affected (and thus directly contradicts the Abrams thesis that such outreach has failed).

Read full story · Comments are closed

Massachusetts Watch

–updated–

Now that Vicki Kennedy is out and the door is “closed and locked,” according to ABC’s Stephanopolous, more work is still to be done to fulfill Ted Kennedy’s wish of an interim appointment before the special election set in January.

Amid fevered speculation about possible contenders for Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s seat, Gov. Deval Patrick on Monday scheduled a special election for Jan. 19 and said he would keep pushing the state legislature to change the law so he could name an interim successor.

… “I don’t think by any means it’s a certainty that it will happen,” Mr. Patrick said. “I think that they are trying to find a path from here to there to honor the very reasonable request of Senator Kennedy.” …

Yesterday Patrick wouldn’t say whether Vicki Kennedy would run in the special election, an interesting note, though no one should count on it.

This seems to set up a likely Michael Dukakis entry to be appointed to the interim slot, if the Legislature gets the bill through, something all Democrats are hoping.

UPDATE: Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley moves to run for Kennedy seat.

Read full story · Comments are closed