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 | March, 2010

Speaker Pelosi’s Where the Boys Are Roundtable

By on 15 March 2010

–updated–

Speaker Pelosi held what is being called “a small roundtable with bloggers today.” Greg Sargent has a good report on it. One problem. He doesn’t mention that there were no women in attendance. Brian Beutler doesn’t mention it in his reporting either. Matthew Yglesias at least names (some of) the men in attendance. I’ve confirmed it was indeed an all-male meeting.

Chris Bowers at least tweeted there were no women present. According to Bowers, Pelosi said “she kept the public option alive as long as she could.” That it’s “important not to dwell on public option and abortion. Better to focus on the good things in the bill.” Pelosi contended that she “endorses single payer, says she is for the public option. Says she was told there weren’t the votes in the senate.”

So, Speaker Pelosi holds a final push roundtable on health care, cherry-picking the attendance, but no women show up.

Evidently, the men attending, minus Bowers, didn’t notice it; either that or they decided to do Speaker Pelosi a favor by not reporting it. After all, it is rather embarrassing for her.

Meanwhile, MoveOn.org hits a new low. Taking a page from Liz Cheney, they use the “patriotism” charge against people and legislators who simply want a public option, as well as to continue to stand up for women’s rights. Stay classy, MoveOn.

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Passing The Public Option Buck While Hitting Women

By on 15 March 2010

Let’s play a game, pass the public option buck… on the backs of women.

Nancy Pelosi has already allowed Bart Stupak to become the Henry Hyde of health care. As I’ve been writing for months now, Democrats with a majority and the presidency have chosen to make women’s full reproductive health care a bargaining chip, further solidifying that when it comes to compromises, women’s self-determination is always the easy bet, because no one is willing to take a stand for us. All of this on top of Speaker Pelosi’s craven collapse on the public option, even as Senate Democrats are daring her to include it in what she passes to the Senate. It makes no sense. The majority of Americans support the public option, so Pelosi would have plenty of cover.

If pointing fingers was an art, the current Democratic majority would win for creativity.

Speaker Pelosi will blame the Senate that the public option isn’t included; Sen. Durbin will blame Pelosi; and Pres. Obama will blame Congress.

That’s your Democratic party in action.

As for Mrs. Pelosi’s weird little Twitter event with the boys, any wonder why women aren’t present? I tweeted it here and here, then simply got disgusted. (This paragraph has been updated.)

ScreenHunter_01 Mar. 15 11.31

Meanwhile, you’ve got unions and MoveOn.org threatening to target Democrats who won’t vote for the health care bill in Congress. So, you can add these groups into the mix of so called “progressives” willing to sell women out so we can give Pres. Obama his “historic win.”

The damage the current health care bill does is to further codify Hyde, as I’ve said innumerable times, further allowing weak and unprincipled Democrats to use women’s self-determination as a bargaining chip. Read this research if you’re unconvinced. Currently, states can assist poor women with reproductive aid, which the Senate bill would curtail. The disingenuous “conscience clause” is nothing more than an excuse for people to further limit women’s reproductive options under cloak of someone’s “conscience.”

Imagine that someone’s “conscience” thought separate but equal was actually correct. Would we protect that, too? Of course not, it’s just women who must compromise. Always. When will it stop? When abortion is turned back to the states completely, with Democrats now aiding that move backwards, without a single progressive standing up to say no, enough.

Why is it that it’s always the right-wing who “stands on principle” against women, without anyone on the left willing to do the same.

So, once again it’s Democrats arguing among themselves to hurt women’s reproductive choices. It hardly matters to Obama, Pelosi and the Democratic majority that women’s reproductive access becomes more difficult in the process.

I’ve said it many times before and I’ll say it again. The bill Speaker Pelosi and Pres. Obama are calling “historic” is a very bad bill. Some are arguing that women will get benefits through the bill, down the line because Democrats are delaying the benefits of the bill until Obama’s safely re-elected president; arguing that these “benefits” make the bill important to middle and lower income women. Is that a trade off for having women’s self-determination further limited? Democrats are arguing it is, while maintaining feminists are wrong to stand against this bill. Many of these Democrats men. Isn’t it just like a “progressive” man to tell women what constitutes what’s good for women and what defines a “good” feminist.

It’s a bad bill. It’s doubly so for women.

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Justice Clarence Thomas and his Tea Party Wife

By on 15 March 2010

This is the tale of the demise of the Supreme Court’s reputation, but also it’s rise as a political beast. It started well before the latest Clarence and “Ginny” Thomas incident.

The LA Times reported on Sunday that the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has created Liberty Central Inc., a non-profit, “non-partisan,” Tea Party-linked lobbying group that was inspired because of Pres. Obama’s “hard-left agenda.” There is nothing illegal about it, with Virginia (Ginny) Thomas having been a conservative activist, including being tied to the Heritage Foundation and Dick Armey, for quite some time.

Her biography notes that Thomas is a fan of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, author of “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America.” “She is intrigued by Glenn Beck and listening carefully,” the bio says. [...] As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, Liberty Central can raise unlimited amounts of corporate money and largely avoid disclosing its donors. …

The outrage over the Thomas situation denies a depressing, but very real situation.

First, let’s disabuse ourselves of the canard that the Supreme Court is above politics. The Court has been used as a political tool since William H. Rehnquist decided to use his power for political ends. It’s an arcane bit of history, which revolves around the three-judge panel whose jurisdiction is independent counsel investigations.

Once upon a time, before Pres. Bill Clinton set the right’s hair on fire, the presiding judge of the three-judge panel was a man by the name of Judge George A. MacKinnon of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. MacKinnon was a conservative, but he also had a creed: “Attorneys with strong ties within the Washington Beltway–of either party–were generally excluded from consideration,” to quote Ken Gormley. Any judge that was mixed up in national politics “or anywhere near its orbit” was just too risky to be on the panel. Judge Rehnquist would change this and history with it, because the Arkansans coming to Washington seemed like a good target for conservatives. They had plenty of home spun enemies, so it wouldn’t be hard to make new ones in the snake pit of Washington, D.C.

In the fall of 1992, just weeks before Governor Bill Clinton defeated President George H. W. Bush in the November elections, Chief Justice Rehnquist made a quiet move that would forever reshape history. He replaced the elderly Judge MacKinnon with Judge David B. Sentelle, a fifty-on-year-old federal appeals judge in Washington known for his strong Southern, conservative Republican roots. Rehnquist also added Judge Joseph T. Sneed… who was even more conservative than Sentelle. – Ken Gormley, “The Death of American Virtue: Clinton v. Starr” (p. 152-153)

On its face this sounds quite innocuous, but what lies beneath tells the tale.

It was Judge Sentelle who would eventually fire the very respected independent counsel Robert Fiske, which coincidentally happened after a lunch meeting between Sentelle, Sens. Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth. Ken Starr would be named to replace MacKinnon, much to everyone’s stunned disbelief. Five former ABA presidents denounced this little conservative lunch tête-à-tête, with three-dozen senators protesting Starr’s appointment, demanding he resign because of the circumstances of his appointment. We all know that didn’t happen. As an aside, Jesse Helms had sponsored Sentelle for his appointments to the federal district and court of appeals, with Sentelle also having once been a local Republican Party chairman, all of which Ken Gormley also details in his book.

Anyway, the point of this little detour is to remember that whatever outrage there is over the Judge Thomas’ possible or potential and eventual “conflict of interest” is going to fall on deaf ears. The Supreme Court has been a political animal since Judge Rehnquist used it as his personal stalking horse against Pres. Bill Clinton. So unless the legal community get pushy all of this will continue to pull the Supreme Court into disrespect and mediocrity.

After Judge Alito’s petulant silent protest of Pres. Obama during the SOTU this year, I think it’s time everyone come to grips with the reality. That is if Bush v. Gore didn’t already drill it home.

The Supreme Court of yore is no more.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Of US-Israeli Relations… and other news

By on 14 March 2010

Sources in the Prime Minister’s Office said the crisis appeared to be orchestrated by the U.S. administration, as Netanyahu apologized to U.S. Vice President Biden and believed that the crisis was behind the two allies. – Haaretz

Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to want to continue to tweak their friend. But the notion that we orchestrated the crisis is complete fantasy floated by someone wanting to make even more trouble. The latest provocation from Israel makes their bravado about Iran seem hallow. I don’t see anyone else working overtime to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue and get stronger sanctions imposed.

The Washington Post today asks: Are America and Israel drifting apart? They have several people answering the question, never mind it’s a silly question. Hey, but it’s the Post op-ed page, so what do you want? They include opinions by Elliott Abrams, David Makovsky, Aaron David Miller, Danielle Pletka, and Hussein Agha and Robert Malley. Here’s how Mr. Abrams begins:

The current friction in U.S.-Israel relations has one source: the mishandling of those relations by the Obama administration. Poll data show that Israel is as popular as ever among Americans.

This is the theme of the AIPAC conference, which will convene this time next week.

Then, of course, there’s Sect. Clinton taking it to PM Netanyahu.

Daniel Levy, who also writes for the new Middle East Channel over at FP, wrote in the Guardian on Friday something he’s said on many occasions over the last yeat. That Netanyahu “may be our last, best chance for a two-state peace deal.” Here’s a snippet of Daniel’s piece:

Mainstream Israeli commentators were apparently shocked to discover the power of the settler momentum. Pundits such as Ari Shavit, known for their staunch nationalism and vilification of human rights groups working in the territories, had a rude awakening. In Ha’aretz he described “the settlements in the West Bank that serve the centrifuges in Natanz [Iran]. If sane Israel does not wake up, it will be defeated by the metastasising of the occupation and the lack of the central government’s ability to stop it.”

And that, in a nutshell, is why Benjamin Netanyahu may be our last, best chance for a two-state peace deal.

The extremism and excesses of his government may finally open enough eyes and lead to enough local and international action to roll back this settler behemoth. More moderate Israeli governments, even those perhaps sincerely committed to a variation on the de-occupation, two-state solution theme, have definitively failed to halt the settlements march. When Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert were negotiating on paper potential Israeli withdrawals, the settlements and the occupation were being expanded and entrenched on the ground. Even when Ariel Sharon was removing 7,500 settlers from Gaza, he was adding a greater number to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But under Netanyahu, what you see is what you get.

Laura Rozen has some of the best coverage on this around, which regular readers around here know.

MJ Rosenberg writes on the “US-Israeli Crackup,” also taking a strong, firm shot at AIPAC.

It is now clear to me that Netanyahu and company are only pretending to be worried about the “existential threat” posed by Iran. If they were really worried, they would not have forced a confrontation over settlements at the time they claim to need America to help them deter Iranian nukes.

Obviously, that issue is a fake or they would not have told Obama to go to hell when he will be President for another 3 or 7 years.

The other thing is my fear that Obama will back down as the Democratic party’s top donors start screaming. AIPAC is coming to Washington in a week or so for the annual grovelfest (see the grovelfest video). It is hard to imagine Democrats standing up to the lobby and its subsidiary among House Democrats (see Hoyer, Steny — and the NY, FL and LA delegations).

Matt Duss over at the Wonk Room recently called out Abe Foxman’s Huffington Post rant, saying Mr. Foxman “deployed one of the most serious weapons in the Israel-debate-policeman’s arsenal,” which was dead on.

While much of this is understandable, there needs to be some stepping back so that there are no long-term deleterious results from this contretemps. The vice president’s comments in his Tel Aviv University address softening the U.S. response was helpful. Less helpful were his comments that Israel’s announcement on building in East Jerusalem was endangering American troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the kind of rhetoric that does exactly what Mr. Biden has studiously avoided doing, linking the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to America’s larger Middle East challenges, and it unnecessarily calls into question Israel’s role as an ally and the impact on American interests. The Mearsheimer and Walts of this world will delight in this kind of criticism of Israel.

ka-BOOM!

Take that you who dare to want to hold Israel accountable for making moves that endanger regional stability.

Rachel Tabachnick at Talk2Action covers the strong evangelical ties between Netanyahu and Rev. Hagee.

In 1998 Netanyahu had traveled to the U.S. to meet with President Bill Clinton concerning peace efforts. However, before meeting with Clinton, Netanyahu spoke to hundreds of Christian Zionists assembled by Jerry Falwell and John Hagee at the Mayflower Hotel. In a blatant snub of Clinton and the peace efforts, John Hagee led the crowd in chants of “not one inch,” referring to no withdrawal from the West Bank settlements. With little fanfare and almost no press coverage, Netanyahu and Hagee have pulled the same stunt again. …

Max Blumenthal has the videos of Netanyahu – Hagee, 2010.

Lots in the news this Sunday. You all take it from here.

Read full story · Comments { 33 }

Newsweek’s Mission Accomplished

By on 13 March 2010

newsweek_victoryatlast

Take a deep breath.

A U.S. commander has now publicly stated we may need combat troops in Iraq past the August 31 deadline, something Tom Ricks predicted weeks ago. (Though, to add, Marc Lynch isn’t worried.)

Wonder what Iraqi “victory” cheerleaders Jon Meacham and Thomas Friedman will say about that.

From “Victory at Last,” with Jon Meacham, the editor of Newsweek, going all out to rehabilitate Pres. George W. Bush, something that is becoming all the rage these days.

Bush’s rhetoric about democracy came to sound as bitterly ironic as his pumped-up appearance on an aircraft carrier a few months earlier, in front of an enormous banner that declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. And yet it has to be said and it should be understood—now, almost seven hellish years later—that something that looks mighty like democracy is emerging in Iraq. And while it may not be a beacon of inspiration to the region, it most certainly is a watershed event that could come to represent a whole new era in the history of the massively undemocratic Middle East.

The book end to Meacham being Thomas Friedman.

Former President George W. Bush’s gut instinct that this region craved and needed democracy was always right. It should have and could have been pursued with much better planning and execution. This war has been extraordinarily painful and costly. But democracy was never going to have a virgin birth in a place like Iraq, which has never known any such thing.

Some argue that nothing that happens in Iraq will ever justify the costs. Historians will sort that out. …

Whoa there, cowboys.

Now we’re praising Bush’s “gut instinct that this region craved and needed democracy”, declaring “victory at last”?

I never noticed any regional craving for democracy, leaving aside that it’s not our decision to make that they “need” it; and the last time I looked Bush’s “gut instinct” is why we’re back in Afghanistan. Because after declaring “victory” there once before, we left to preemptively invade Iraq, only to have Afghanistan start to collapse again; a country we’re now taping back together, without much help from Pres. Karzai who rigged his re-election.

And by all means, let’s leave the cost justifications of our misadventure in Iraq to historians, Thomas. We wouldn’t want to make a real time assessment of the allocation of blood and treasure that might jettison you from Mr. Meacham’s cheering section aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, which can now evidently be found in the traditional media’s game room where they’re replaying the Iraqi version of Risk.

Read the back and forth between Tom Ricks and Colin Kahl, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East (and former CNAS senior fellow) on the subject. I’ll just leave you with one rejoinder from Ricks:

Kahl’s a smart guy, and also knows his music. I disagree with him. Why? Because I think a lot of Iraqis are just waiting for the Americans to get out of the way so they can start fighting again. And because I think the incentives that have led to violence in the past are still there. That is, none of the basic questions facing Iraq have been answered.

It matches the flash I saw in Richard Haas’ eyes when he responded on “Morning Joe” this past week that declaring any type of victory for ourselves in Iraq is at best premature.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

War Dogs

By on 13 March 2010

20090819adf8239716_206.JPG

The picture here is of “Solo,” compliments of Tom Ricks. Here’s his description: The photo.. is of another yellow Labrador bomb dog in Afghanistan, this one named “Solo,” wearing his own specially made dust and fragmentation glasses.

As it turns out, even dogs get PTSD.

Reading the WSJ’s Even His Red Squeak Toy Can’t Get First Sgt. Gunner, USMC, to Fight, your heart just breaks.

… The Marine Corps gives each dog a military rank, one notch above his handler’s, to reinforce the idea that the dogs deserve respect. Gunner is formally assigned to a gunnery sergeant, so he’s a first sergeant, a high rank among enlisted Marines, human and canine.

For weeks after he arrived at Camp Leatherneck, Gunner refused to leave the kennel compound. Even now almost any sound sends him into a panic. If a shipping container door slams somewhere nearby, Gunner hunches down and bolts for an open cage door. If an artillery round goes off in the distance, he races into Cpl. McCoy’s tent, then weaves around the cages, his tail low and twitchy. Even the click of a camera shutter can send him flashing back to some bad experience only he can recall.

Lately, the corporal has been able to persuade Gunner to take walks around camp, though the dog tugs at his leash in fear and appears to take no pleasure in the activity. [...]

Here’s to the war dogs.

Rebecca Frankel, Best Defense chief canine correspondent’s latest featured war dog is named Treo, who was just awarded the animals’ Victoria Cross from the British military, presented by Princess Alexandra at the Imperial War Museum in London. Congratulations, Treo!

Read full story · Comments { 31 }

Clinton to Netanyahu: You Screwed Up

By on 12 March 2010

–bumped–

ScreenHunter_04 Mar. 12 16.45

Secretary Clinton also spoke this morning with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu to reiterate the United States’ strong objections to Tuesday’s announcement, not just in terms of timing, but also in its substance; to make clear that the United States considers the announcement a deeply negative signal about Israel’s approach to the bilateral relationship – and counter to the spirit of the Vice President’s trip; and to reinforce that this action had undermined trust and confidence in the peace process, and in America’s interests. The Secretary said she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States’ strong commitment to Israel’s security. And she made clear that the Israeli Government needed to demonstrate not just through words but through specific actions that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process. – State Dept.

I’d have given my last bottle of cold beer to have heard V.P. Joe Biden’s “condemnatory language unfit for print”. It was uttered after he was summarily humiliated by Mr. Netanyahu’s sloppy arrogance on announcing settlements in Arab East Jerusalem.

From the Washington Post we learn that Sect. Clinton has expressed the damage done:

Clinton called the prime minister “to make clear the United States considered the announcement a deeply negative signal about Israel’s approach to the bilateral relationship and counter to the spirit of the vice president’s trip,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters at his regular news briefing. Clinton, he said, reinforced “this action had undermined trust and confidence in the peace process and in America’s interests.”

Crowley added: “The secretary said she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States’ strong commitment to Israel’s security, and she made clear that the Israeli government needed to demonstrate not just through words but through specific actions that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process.”

Laura Rozen quotes from “Missed Opportunities,” by Ben Caspit in today’s Maariv:

It was supposed to be a visit that would restore our trust. It was the visit that destroyed trust. Binyamin Netanyahu kicked over the bucket that contained no milk. Biden was supposed to fill it. Instead, Biden burned with anger. “They stabbed me in the back,” the vice president said last Tuesday in meetings that he held. “They hurt me, President Obama, the United States, the peace process, trust, and everyone who believed that something could be done here.” He was furious. On Tuesday, he spoke with President Obama. The conversation included condemnatory language unfit for print. He was on the verge of canceling dinner with the Netanyahus. Again and again, he changed the speech that he was to give on Tuesday at the university. He did not know what to do with himself, where to take his frustration, his feeling of betrayal, of lost opportunity. [...]

… Next year [Palestinian PM Fayyad] will show the world a quiet PA, a law-abiding PA with institutions and reforms with one military, one law, one authority. And then, he will ask for recognition of the Palestinian state in the 1967 borders. As it seems now, he will get this. From everyone except from us. [....]

MJ Rosenberg’s take on Biden’s speech is worth a read; one section on the realities of Arab East Jerusalem is important to emphasize:

[...] The Palestinian Authority has not engaged in violence for years. But Prime Minister Netanyahu would not accept a settlement freeze that included Arab East Jerusalem. And that is precisely where most of the settlement expansion is taking place, as Palestinians are being forced out of their homes to make way for settlers.

Also, what Israel calls Jerusalem includes a chunk of the West Bank. When Israel annexed Jerusalem after the 1967 war, it tripled its size by fiat so that Palestinian areas — areas never considered part of Jerusalem –were magically transformed into neighborhoods in the holy city.

The United States has never recognized these areas — or any part of East Jerusalem — as part of Israel. And neither does any country other than Israel. …

[...] Biden also stated, to an Israeli audience, that the Palestinian state must be viable, contiguous, and would encompass the territories won during the ’67 war. And he indicated unprecedented support for Palestinian aspirations, on an equal par with Israel’s security.

Mr. Netanyahu has played this very badly, making the situation even worse, especially as Obama and the U.S. continues to attempt to get strong sanctions against Iran. What was done this week was recklessly stupid.

AIPAC conference is March 21-23. Get ready for praise for Netanyahu against Obama’s rightful policy of pressure against more settlements in Arab East Jerusalem. As is customary, Sect. Clinton plans to speak.

Graphic (screen capture) of Huffington Post

Read full story · Comments { 31 }

Obama is Good for Comedy

By on 12 March 2010
The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Health Care: The Ultimate Last Final Push
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes		Political HumorHealth Care Reform


This is classic Jon Stewart.

Just one thing, what’s with the old man t-shirt? Your cool is slippin’, Mr. President.

Oh, and guess who’s going to New Hampshire.

Petraeus Makes Trip to New Hampshire

Expect the 2012 buzz to get louder: Army Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command and earlier the top U.S. general in Iraq, will visit Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire later this month, the St. Anselm Crier reports.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

The Dismissive Treatment of Desirée Rogers

By on 12 March 2010

DesireeRogers

Peter Baker has written a revealing article today about the dismissive way the Obama White House treated a long-time friend, Desirée Rogers. Now, I’m not interested in Ms. Rogers staying or leaving, with the Salahi incident a monumental disaster (especially for the Secret Service), but there’s a way to do things and a way not to. Baker’s article gives you insight into the character of the White House and how they treat even long-time friends.

For Ms. Rogers, associates said the episode proved a searing experience that has soured her on Washington. She believes she was left largely undefended by the White House, by her colleagues, including Mr. Axelrod, Robert Gibbs and even her close friend, Valerie Jarrett. And while she is unwilling to discuss her story publicly, several associates shared her account in the belief that her side has been lost in the swirl of hearings, backbiting and paparazzilike coverage. “As she put it, ‘They never lifted a finger to help me set the record straight,’ ” said one of the associates, who insisted on not being identified to avoid alienating the White House. “She didn’t get any help from Gibbs, no help from Axelrod, no help from Valerie Jarrett. Nobody came to her defense.”

Ms. Rogers is the stunningly beautiful former social secretary who ran into trouble when her own image became more prominent than her position could sustain. Taking “social” to a new level publicly, Ms. Rogers ran afoul of David Axelrod, the man who delighted in vilifying Hillary Rodham Clinton whenever he got the chance during the 2008 primaries. Now, I’m not saying Mr. Axelrod has a problem with strong women, but…

Needless to say, the Salahi party crashing incident was a White House embarrassment, creating an opening for Ms. Rogers to be served up as scapegoat, even if there was a larger problem that what just Ms. Rogers controlled. From Mr. Baker:

After the Salahi incident, these associates said Ms. Rogers was barred by the White House from testifying before Congress or giving interviews or even answering written questions. She was told she could not attend the Kennedy Center Honors, a major annual Washington event. And even her decision to finally resign leaked before she could secure a new job.

So Ms. Rogers is leaving the White House and Washington never having been allowed to describe publicly what happened that night four months ago. But in conversations with associates, she has defended herself by noting that she had positioned a staff member to greet guests at the East Portico landing just as the Social Office had sometimes done in the past. And she has expressed disappointment that her work at creating a “people’s house” for the first couple has been overshadowed by one lapse.

“It’s been very difficult for her,” said Amy Zantzinger, who was President George W. Bush’s last social secretary and has become a friend of Ms. Rogers’s. “And I think what can’t be lost is there are all these unbelievable events they did at the White House when she was there, particularly bringing in all the artists and musicians. I don’t think that’s ever been done before to this magnitude.”

Lisa Caputo also weighed in:

Lisa Caputo, who worked in the East Wing under Mrs. Clinton when she was first lady, said Ms. Rogers had weathered the hothouse glare of Washington with grace. “She’s done a fantastic job of opening the White House,” Ms. Caputo said.

“She was put in a position where the spotlight was put on her in a different way,” Ms. Caputo added, “coming in as someone who was not a Washingtonian, coming into a high-profile senior role and being the first African-American in that role. The combination of all three makes it not easy. I would venture to say she’s had a larger mountain to climb.”

The way Pres. Obama and his White House team handled the departure of Ms. Rogers is wrong, regardless of whether she should have been fired or not.

In the worst of situations, a person who has served faithfully and with distinction doesn’t deserve to be thrown out disrespectfully, which includes not having the opportunity to even procure another position for herself. Just because she appears to be a woman of means is no reason to summarily humiliate her and put her financial security or the future of her career in jeopardy.

I’ve said for a very long time that Obama is as cold as they come. (Being willing to sell women out in health care legislation is an example.) The disrespect with which he treated Ms. Rogers’ departure is more proof. That not even her long time friend Valerie Jarrett intervened to allow Ms. Rogers a graceful exit is illustrative of the brutally short memory and What Have You Done For Me Lately political creed.

Rogers deserved better. Mr. Axelrod is classless.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Obama Eyes History with Health Care

By on 12 March 2010

Mount_rushmore__1-8.17
What Fox News Analyst Pat Caddell and Douglas Schoen ignore is that the November elections are going to be costly for Democrats no matter what they do. Their analysis:

… First, the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate’s reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes.
ad_icon

Nothing has been more disconcerting than to watch Democratic politicians and their media supporters deceive themselves into believing that the public favors the Democrats’ current health-care plan. Yes, most Americans believe, as we do, that real health-care reform is needed. And yes, certain proposals in the plan are supported by the public. [...]

The problem for Democrats is that no one but Democrats in Congress, the White House and their most loyal enablers want the current health care bill. Matthew Yglesias reveals why:

A larger question any member of congress reading the op-ed ought to ask himself is “so what?” If reform passes and is signed into law, then immediately Barack Obama’s position in history is secured.

The White House is thinking about their place in history, not what the American public wants. That’s the embarrassing little secret.

That Democrats continue to ignore the majority of Americans want the public option is stubbornness at its worst, coupled with rank political stupidity. Caddell and Shoen contend, “First, the battle for public opinion has been lost.” Not with the people it hasn’t; only with the White House and Senate is this true.

As I’ve been writing for months, even saying so on MSNBC, the current bill is bad, really bad. What I’ve written for weeks, as Caddell and Schoen also say, is that Democrats need to cull out the parts that would pass immediately, easily, and with the advantage of letting Democrats say they’ve still begun on health care, but have listened to the public on what’s possible right now. Pass the pre-existing condition exemption, insure portability, drug importation, yes, and even tort reform. But don’t pass the current package on the table. Then take the rest of their argument to the public in November.

Nobody is listening, so in that sense passing the current bill will be a disaster. In fact, President Obama is delaying his trip to Asia to continue the health care push.

Obama and his team have their eyes set on making history, and nobody, not even the majority of the American public, will stop them.

That they think the American people will reward them for it in November is folly. Pride comes before the fall.

Read full story · Comments { 27 }

Humiliated in Tel Aviv

By on 11 March 2010

–bumped–

biden_whitehousegov

Vice President Joe Biden was brutally and summarily stabbed in the front upon his arrival in Israel.

Via Laura Rozen, we find out that Biden’s tough comments were saved for private meetings:

“This is starting to get dangerous for us,” Biden castigated his interlocutors. “What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.”

You can almost visualize the cartoon bubble over the Israel heads: Then do something about Iran.

One can only imagine the headlines if this mission had been given to Sect. Clinton, with the welcome Biden received happening as Hillary touched down. I guess there are some advantages to being neutered at State.

So far, Biden’s escaped the Hillary-esque reviews from his humiliation, but he shouldn’t and neither should Pres. Obama, who’s obviously seen as someone having no power at all to wield with Israel. Israel’s “apology” for the settlement building timing simply lip service paid for our unqualified support, no matter how our friends treat us. But that’s been the growing reality with U.S. – Israel relations, because they’ve got our policy wrapped around their flag pole.

Ben Smith has a very interesting tidbit:

One veteran of the U.S.-Israel relationship told me yesterday he was surprised Biden hadn’t simply gotten back on his plane and left the country when the new settlements — a central blow to the U.S. project and the end of a recent shift toward indirect talks — were announced. The outcome inevitably makes him, an the U.S., look weak. But then, the administration’s hand does seem to be weaker than it was a year ago, with bluffs having been called and any sense of a timeline evaporated.

Biden’s unflinching support for Israel was rewarded by disrespect when the settlements were announced purposely to show Israel’s clout over ours. The Obama-Biden administration relegated to words and a strong statement, which blows over the heads of the Middle East powers, because they know the Administration can’t do a thing to manifest change unless the parties involved sanction it.

Everyone knowing that Pres. Bill Clinton got as far as we’re going to get unless someone cries uncle.

Besides, nobody is in the least worried about what the U.S. response will be to anything Israel does. Neither Republicans or Democrats willing to treat Israel and the Palestinians equally accountable for their intransigence on substantive talks, with the right always willing to appease and enable Israel, especially on Iran hyperbole, even at the expense of progress in the region, which would actually make Israel safer and more secure.

Biden in his Tel Aviv speech (full remarks here) said the obvious: “The demographic realities make it difficult for Israel to be a Jewish homeland and a democratic country… The status quo is not sustainable.” And as Laura Rozen reported, the “‘but you have to do things yourselves for peace’ part” was pumped up.

The entire Obama foreign policy team looks feckless in the face of serious regional challenges. With Biden’s embarrassment after a career of non-stop support of Israel a sobering lesson.

Being Israel’s poodle gets the U.S. nowhere, especially in the wider goals for Middle East equilibrium.

Read full story · Comments { 36 }

End of the Day Tidbit

By on 11 March 2010

Scanned Image-500

Liberals asked to suck on it:

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged Wednesday that liberals may be asked to oppose any amendment, including one creating a public option, to ensure a smooth ride for the bill. “We have to tell people, ‘You just have to swallow hard’ and say that putting an amendment on this is either going to stop it or slow it down, and we just can’t let it happen,” Durbin, who supports a public option, told reporters. “We have to move this forward. We know the Republicans are likely to offer a lot of amendments, and some of them may be appealing to Democrats, but we have to urge them to stick with the bill.” [...]

Someone tell Bernie Sanders.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Hillaryland at State

By on 11 March 2010

clinton_latinamerica

After running a presidential campaign that Lois Romano today called a “notoriously insular and unhappy, managing a group of egos and backstabbers whose dysfunction may have cost her the White House,” many wondered what would be the reviews on Sect. Hillary Clinton as steward of the State Department.

The haters now love her, because she’s off the political stage, ensconced over at State, though you can be sure every time a syllable gets uttered that makes news the usual suspects rear their heads. But even the agnostics have been won over. The work horse Clinton has, by all accounts written in the last year, enlivened a building filled with dedicated foreign service officers that were demoralized under George W. Bush, listened to her people without exception, and shown real purpose for diplomacy. Clinton’s demand to have 100% hiring control something for which Pres. Obama deserves a lot of credit, as this was not a customary demand. The “Obama guy” reference in Romano’s article humorous. There are some questions still out, however, but elitist timidity and “circling the wagons” driven strictly by Clintonites isn’t one of them. From Romano:

[...] Several career employees said they were caught off guard initially by Clinton’s level of engagement in internal management, particularly coming on the heels of her more reserved predecessor, Condoleezza Rice. On her first tour of the building, before she was sworn in, Clinton requested a budget briefing. Kennedy said it soon became clear what she meant: not an overview, but a line-by-line review that took three sessions to complete.

Shamila Chaudary — a self-described “backbencher” — had toiled for years as a faceless expert on the Pakistan desk when one day she found herself invited to brief Clinton. Chaudary, 32, said the two sparred over whether it was prudent to engage non-governmental power centers in Pakistan, with Clinton expressing skepticism.

Chaudary held her ground, making the point that “we’ve been seen as not engaging with them, and it’s hurt us a lot.” She said that although she and Clinton “didn’t necessarily agree . . . she said that it’s very important for us to debate like this. . . . This is how she said she wants to do business.”

Within 48 hours of their meeting, Chaudary was promoted to a front-line job in the office of policy planning.

However, what’s Sect. Clinton’s signature on State, her “grand strategic vision,” as Stewart M. Patrick, a former Powell aide and “senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations” asks?

To be sure, Clinton has her share of critics who take aim at her operating style, complaining that she has ceded too much of her power to special envoys and that she has been in a global campaign mode of relentless image-building, intense travel and international media cultivation. Her job-approval ratings top President Obama’s.

One loyalist inside the agency, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid, suggested that Clinton is stretched too thin and has not narrowed her goals or developed signature issues that will define her tenure. “What bothers me is that we’re planting zillions of seeds . . . speeches on every issue, but where’s the thematic coherence?” this aide said.

clinton_palace_crowd_600_1

My own personal experience with the State Hillaryland has been positive. Though I have to say that ambassador-at-large in the Office of Global Women’s Issues, Melanne Verveer, in a position that Sect. Clinton created for her friend, runs an office that is unresponsive and impossible to engage successfully. Back in November, I began to reach out, as I wanted to accompany Ms. Verveer on one of her trips in January 2010. Ruth Bennett, Senior Public Affairs Advisor for GWI quickly returned my emails, after Philippe Reines connected me with her. But once I got to Ms. Verveer’s office… nothing. Waiting, emailing again, no schedule from Ms. Verveer, then radio silence. I simply gave up, having no further interest in trying to get in touch with the “Office of Global Women’s Issues” who didn’t have the time of day to be covered. Mind you, the trip I was going to take had been given a quick nod, which I would have to pay for myself. It’s not like I was asking for anything from them except to watch Sect. Clinton’s OGW in action through Verveer. She has a title and a big fancy “Office of Global Women’s Issues,” but Ms. Verveer seems dense to the notion that the United States is part of the globe, with many women inside this country interested in what she’s doing. Color me unimpressed. Melanne Verveer might be globetrotting, but other than that seems to hold a vanity post. If that’s an incorrect review, well, it’s not for lack of trying to find out what exactly she does.

Needless to say, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s reviews at State are good to hear. But I cannot but feel a little Obamaism in her statecraft and an inability to manifest a wider message and mission through her post. The “planting zillions of seeds . . . speeches on every issue, but where’s the thematic coherence?” rings true to me. That’s particularly true on women’s issues. The trip to war ravaged Congo a first for a secretary of state, but what has been the result? In Afghanistan, Obama and Clinton both talked out against Karzai’s rape law, but women continue to suffer abominable second-class lives in Afghanistan, with no pressure coming from the Obama administration or from State. Nothing on Darfur. I’m not sure I’ve heard of any concrete accomplishments towards women’s self-determination around the globe from Clinton that can be hailed as making a difference in the lives of women going forward. Follow through policy with clout and pressure in a manner that tries to change a situation through muscular diplomatic coercion that comes with teeth. On Iran, the Obama White House and State Department has been muted at best (dipnote blog not mentioning once what was going on in Iran during the uprising, which I noted at length throughout their silence) where support for the Iranian people rising up were concerned.

During Clinton’s tenure at State, there has not been anything close to what First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton said in her earthquake speech in China in 1995, which challenged the Chinese government directly on their treatment and views of women. That’s because as our country’s chief diplomat she can’t. So whereas Sect. Clinton is a powerful voice, at State it’s diversified, uncolored by passion to impact a change, and muted on mission.

clinton_arr_guatemala_600_1

To add by example, Dr. Condoleezza Rice was basically a ceremonial secretary of state, given a jet, but having no clout whatsoever. As State continues to be handed to women, the seriousness of the position is becoming more and more muted. It’s not good. Clinton’s given great speeches, but she’s not a player on foreign policy. She’s become a ceremonial SoS not unlike Dr. Rice. Though it’s clear on managerial issues Clinton is making her mark, which after the failures of her own presidential campaign is a positive. However, there has been no diplomatic muscle illustrated under Sect. Clinton whatsoever, including on women’s international issues and interests.

In the days of Henry Kissinger, secretary of state was once a very powerful office. As it’s been passed to women I’m not sure it has remained that way. Perhaps it’s because when Sect. Clinton utters what is interpreted as a controversial word it’s seen as popping off, being shrill again, her inner Hillary sneaking through. Whenever Sect. Kissinger uttered a single syllable it was seen as sober words from Mount Serious; James Baker, the same. It’s a new development and challenge for any woman that now heads State, if the position is going to be anything but ceremonial.

After all, it wasn’t Sect. Clinton that Obama sent to Israel this week. It was Vice President Joe Biden.


This essay has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 27 }

Karl Rove’s Courage and Consequence: Less Memoir Than Hoax

By on 10 March 2010

I have the distinct pleasure to have interviewed Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame, two people I consider American heroes. So, when Karl Rove’s memoir was published, I obviously was very interested in anything Joseph had to say about it. I’m pleased that he, once again, has allowed me to publish his writings on TM.com, which he has done many times before. Because of Joseph Wilson’s brave Niger op-ed, a torrent of truth landed on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, which resulted in an unholy hell being unleashed on many innocent patriots, including Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. Karl Rove is no longer admired as “Bush’s brain,” as his prediction of a permanent majority lies in the dust, but he does deserve to be remembered in history as the Republican operative in an Administration that lied to get us into war, with Valerie Plame being the pound of flesh Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby and so many others chose was worth serving up as collateral damage amidst their arrogant plundering. It didn’t matter that Ms. Plame was a covert CIA operative working on sensitive material that could impact our national security. Valeria Plame was expendable; after all, she was only a woman. Karl Rove never had to answer for his un-American actions, and neither did Vice President Dick Cheney. Only history will tell the story if their getting away with it will come back to haunt us all.

GUEST POST BY JOSEPH C. WILSON
originally post at Huffington Post

karlrovebook

Karl Rove’s book Courage and Consequence is less memoir than hoax. The chapters that relate to the CIA leak scandal are yet another attempt to deflect attention from his central role in the betrayal of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity as a covert CIA officer.

His distortions and fabrications are consistent with his approach throughout this sordid and criminal affair. Wasting his opportunity to tell the truth, he offers absolutely nothing new, and his selective use of facts and quotes are a transparent effort to continue his long campaign to confuse people, unfortunately consistent with his past behavior.

His book is a pathetically weak defense of the disastrous policies pursued by the Bush administration, involving our country in a war of choice based on false intelligence and badly tarnishing the good name of the United States of America.

Nothing in Karl Rove’s book refutes those facts. His book, however, is illuminating in further exposing his political methods, especially his reliance on personal insults, not simply towards Valerie and myself, but also towards all those who opposed his unprincipled behavior.

If any additional proof to the irrefutable historical record were needed, Rove’s book demonstrates once again the actions of a vindictive, angry and petty man. Karl Rove betrayed his nation; now he has betrayed history.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Meg Whitman Invites Reporters, Won’t Allow Questions

By on 10 March 2010

We need more women to run for office.

What we don’t need are female candidates like Meg Whitman, who invited reporters to evidently watch her work, but refused to let them ask questions. Her behavior in this clip is childish, as she giggles and pauses, clearly not knowing what to do when her briefing/photo-op ends and the press start to do their job.

Just a thought, but how about let them ask questions.

Huffington Post and Chris Cilizza have both posted on it, as well as other blogs.

Embarrassing performance by Ms. Whitman, which only adds to the “imperious” perception of her candidacy. She’s also been charged with wanting to buy the governorship, as if that hasn’t been done by men before.

However, Whitman has definite pr problems, including complaints about her ads, her fudging how long she’s lived in California, statistic cherry-picking, which the California Accountability Project is having loads of fun exploiting.

As it’s reported in the video, Whitman finally understood the disaster this was going to be and called one reporter to apologize. The problem with this is that Whitman sat there and chuckled while her press secretary rounded up reporters and kicked them out of the room, revealing stunted political instincts at best. At worst, the notion that she’s running for queen of California.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Israel Apologizes to Vice Pres. Biden

By on 10 March 2010

–updated–

Having been removed in favor of Israeli nationalist Jews, members of the Palestinian Ghawi family have been sheltering this winter in a tent on the sidewalk opposite their home of more than five decades in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. Other people, including many Israelis, have been taking part in a weekly protest to support the Ghawis, a Palestinian family. [...] – Jerusalem Journal: An Eviction Stirs Old Ghosts in a Contested City

For those who want to see a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the eviction of the Ghawis has touched on two sensitive nerves: the fate of East Jerusalem, where Israel and the Palestinians vie for control, and the abiding grievances of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war.

The Obama administration should take notice. This is what happens when you display unambiguous toughness, especially with countries and on issues where only a steel spine is respected. From the UK Guardian:

[...] Earlier an Israeli cabinet minister apologised for the timing of the settlement announcement but not for its substance. “This should not have happened during a visit by the US vice-president,” the welfare minister, Isaac Herzog, told Army Radio. “This is a real embarrassment and now we have to express our apologies for this serious blunder.”

Aides to the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu said he had been blindsided by the project’s announcement by the interior ministry, run by Shas, an ultra-orthodox nationalist party that is a key member of his governing coalition.

The approval of the plan cast a cloud over Biden’s visit, just hours after he pledged strong support for the Israeli government. …

Poor Bibi, he was “blindsided.” …and we’re also to believe that Mr. Netanyahu appearing with pro-settlement, right-wing pastor Rev. Hagee was a coincidence. More likely the Israeli Prime Minister underestimated what Mr. Biden would tolerate considering his unimpeachable hawk stance on Israel, as well as his old school belief that you never humiliate the United States of American when their top diplomat, other than the President, comes to make peace.

Bidens’ statement yesterday denounced the settlement announcement in East Jerusalem. Mr. Biden continued this them today standing next to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

Standing alongside the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, Biden urged both sides to not to act in a way “that inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of talks”.

“It’s incumbent on both parties to build an atmosphere of support for negotiations and not to complicate them,” he said.

Abbas said Israel’s continued expansion of settlements, especially in Jerusalem, threatened the negotiations before they got off the ground.

“We call on Israel to cancel these decisions,” Abbas said. “I call on the Israeli government not to lose a chance to make peace. I call on them to halt settlement building and to stop imposing facts on the ground, and to give the efforts of the Obama administration and Senator Mitchell the chance to succeed.”

Point to Vice President Biden, as well as Pres. Obama, for knowing what Biden’s worth would be when he picked him for vice president in the first place and for reiterating the Administration’s policy on Israeli settlements, which is in everyone’s best interest.

But just to be clear, Israel’s apology does not wipe away the embarrassment or purpose of the timing of the East Jerusalem settlement building announcement, which no one should believe was an accident.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Democrats Should Primary Bart Stupak and Dennis Kucinich

By on 10 March 2010

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As the Democrats await news from the CBO, Republicans plot to divide Democrats among themselves, something I wrote about this six days ago. With a lot still in the air on health care, the bottom line for the Democratic Party simply that they have to pass something at this point, fearing the worst if they don’t. However, the latest deadline for getting something done, the Easter recess, doesn’t seem near as firm as when the White House first pronounced it. Fluidity the state of play.

Rep. Kucinich doesn’t think the health care bill goes far enough, so he’s threatening to vote against it in the end. He’s representative of what should never be tolerated in a political party, with the book end to Kucinich Bart Stupak. Of course, the movement progressives will be left to the task of attempting to take these two out, because the Democratic leadership props up their own. It’s how the system works, at least on the Democratic side. Republicans simply fall in line like good little soldiers. It’s one reason why the Tea Party was born.

However, if I was in the leadership of the Democratic Party, I’d do exactly what Markos Moulitsas suggested last night in his appearance on “Countdown.” Primary any Democrat who votes against Obama’s health care plan at the end. As a political analyst looking at the importance of the health care bill to Democratic effectiveness, in the end passing nothing would be catastrophic for the President as well as the Democrats, who having a majority have so far proven they’re absolutely incompetent, which goes to Mr. Obama’s inability to simultaneously pass major domestic policy while also crafting a presidential narrative that proves to voters he knows what he’s doing and where he’s taking the country.

As for Rep. Stupak, it would be a tough fight, because he’s moderate on most other issues, but at some point Democrats need to prove they won’t support someone who thinks women’s self-determination is negotiable.

Lord knows a man’s right to the same freedom is not and never would be.

The truth of politics and parties is that when you have a signature domestic issue that could cement history and give the Democratic Party a win, as leaders you simply must keep your troops on the track. Besides, Mr. Kucinich has proven over the years to be a grandstanding, self-important, me-first politician, who’s not only against women’s self-determination, but is actually taken seriously by people for being righteous when he’s thinking only of himself. Leadership shouldn’t allow it to stand, but considering how weak Democrats are on this stuff I won’t be holding my breath.

Movement progressives, though I’m not one, are the reason that the health care bill is going to turn out as good as it is. Without their push, as well as tough, unrelenting analysis like my own, Democrats would have offered an even worse bill than we’re likely to see when this is all over. I know it’s hard to believe but it’s true. Bravery isn’t a strong suit for Democrats.

For my money, I find the entire leadership of the Democrats’ inept and ineffectual, because they’ve settled for less when their majority provides for much bolder politics, including a health care bill that offers real reform. The other side of the argument that Dems need to pass health care lies the far flung hope of doing something bolder, but is only a fantasy argument…

I would applaud Democrats if they simply allowed the 2010 elections to be a mandate on the public option, stopping the health care debate it its tracks right now if they can’t get the votes unless they cave to Bart Stupak. Having the entire party, led by Pres. Obama, start campaigning now for the November elections, asking the public to vote on the public option. Since the current legislation doesn’t pay for abortion, Stupak should be shown out for who he is, giving a primary challenger that much more lift. It would turn the 2010 elections on its head and the Republicans off their stride.

Ah, if only pigs had wings.

But Democrats aren’t bold, the current leadership still making deals that take the legislation further away from real reform.

Read full story · Comments { 40 }

Glenn Beck on Massa: ‘I think I’ve wasted your time’

By on 09 March 2010

–updated–

The allegations surrounding the former lawmaker date back at least a year, and involve “a pattern of behavior and physical harassment,” according to one source. The new claims of alleged groping contradict statements by Massa, who resigned his office on Monday after it became public that he was the subject of a House ethics committee investigation for possible harassment. Massa had said that the allegations were limited to his use of “salty language” with his staff. He apologized for making some inappropriate comments and argued he was being unfairly vilified. – Massa under investigation for allegedly groping male staffers

At the end of the interview it came to this for Glenn Beck: “America, I think I’ve wasted your time. …for the first time I’ve wasted your time.” His audience simply wanted the hour back.

As the show began, Mr. Massa said nobody forced him out, he “forced himself out.”

Beck joining in saying that there are now new allegations out there– Massa interrupting him to say timing is everything.

Glenn Beck asking if Massa believed in God. “That’s why I’m alive,” replied Massa.

Many Democrats are furious Massa is talking with Glenn Beck, before he even talks to him. However, I remember when Fox News channel was the only cable network giving Hillary Clinton a fair shot. Pres. Obama’s been interviewed by Chris Wallace. When Beck asked him why this network, Massa said he wanted a tough interviewer. Beck said that would be Bill O’Reilly. Massa simply stated, he didn’t call me.

Tweets are here. Let’s just say it didn’t go as Beck hoped. Massa pitched campaign finance reform, which wasn’t exactly what Fox or Glenn Beck planned. “I haven’t heard anything,” Beck whined. …”I’m frustrated.” When Massa asked Beck and others to quit calling people names I thought Beck’s head was going to explode. Beck gone bad, very bad, because he didn’t deliver anything to his audience; not even a Massa bank shot that hit Obama, Rahm, unions or the Democrats.

Whoever did the pre-interview on Massa should be fired. Oh right, it was Glenn Beck.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

New Poll Reveals National Security Trouble for Democrats, Economic Confidence Deficit for Obama

By on 09 March 2010

On national security, the poll found that 50 percent of likely voters prefer Republicans, while only 33 percent prefer Democrats. It’s the return of a “security gap” that all but vanished in 2008 because of Obama’s popularity and Bush’s mishandling of Iraq, Bennett said. – Politico

Here we go again. Democrats are once again losing the narrative to Republicans on national security. But it’s only one flaming danger signal. The right track – wrong track in the Democratic Corps poll is frightening.

obama_Demsnationalsecurity

However, no one is mentioning that number. The most alarming reality for Pres. Obama is his low numbers on the economy.

obama_democracycorps

This is truly infuriating. While Obama’s numbers remain high, his handling of terror suspects interrogation and prosecution is low, which conservatives are highlighting, one reason Liz Cheney decided it was worth jumping the shark on this subject though it backfired badly on her.

Democrats on the whole have won great strides in national security over neocon Republicans in the last years. After 9/11 and Iraq, Dems are now are falling back again, which considering the successes of the Obama administration in Pakistan and against al Qaeda is maddening. But that’s what a new poll from Democracy Corps – Third Way reveals, a Democratic polling group, with the number of “drop-off voters” stunning, unless someone can enlighten me on what I’m missing.

Another alarming trend that hits Pres. Obama is our respected status, which had been at highs, now trending down again.

Q.30 And would you say the United States is more respected or less respected in the world than it was two years ago? Total More respected is 42%; Total Less respected: 50%.

ScreenHunter_02 Mar. 09 10.49

Chris Bowers at Open Left stresses Obama’s approval rating using “unlikely registered voters” as the strongest point in the President’s arsenal, his headline rather peculiarly trumpeting: Unlikely voters so disappointed in Obama, they overwhelmingly approve of his job performance. Right, because it’s so important how unlikely voters feel.

Greg Sargent trumpets Obama is better than Bush.

While Spencer Ackerman’s post title says it all: Obama Gets High Marks on National Security but Democrats Don’t.

It’s more foreshadowing of what may manifest in November, especially since Scott Brown’s election, which predicted this poll on national security revealing Democrats once again slipping to the GOP.

It’s the economic numbers, however, that should ring alarm bells for Pres. Obama.

obama_china-econ

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Biden Brings Chris Matthews to Israel

By on 09 March 2010

BREAKING update..:

“I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem. The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I’ve had here in Israel. We must build an atmosphere to support negotiations, not complicate them. This announcement underscores the need to get negotiations under way that can resolve all the outstanding issues of the conflict. The United States recognizes that Jerusalem is a deeply important issue for Israelis and Palestinians and for Jews, Muslims and Christians. We believe that through good faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties for Jerusalem and safeguards its status for people around the world. Unilateral action taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations on permanent status issues. As George Mitchell said in announcing the proximity talks, “we encourage the parties and all concerned to refrain from any statements or actions which may inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of these talks.” – Vice President Joe Biden

The BBC is reporting Israel has approved the new building of 1600 homes in East Jerusalem, which most of the world considers annexed and occupied territory. It’s illegal to build on occupied territory, though Israel considers this area an exception to that rule. This at the very least puts Vice President Joe Biden in an awkward position, which could easily become an embarrassment if the new building overshadows his visit. The timing is certainly a further challenge to Pres. Obama.

Today in Israel, when Vice President Biden signed Shimon Peres’ guest book, he said that he was there “to confirm the unshakable bond” between the U.S. and Israel. Comparing it to “you’ve always got to keep telling your wife you love her,” according to a report from Chris Matthews this morning on MSNBC. Chris Matthews reporting that Biden said, “the U.S. will do whatever is necessary to make sure that Ahmadinejad will not have a nuclear weapon. The interpretation of Matthews on this very old school, as if to imply that worn out old favorite implication, all options are on the table.

As much as things change, the more they stay the same. With Obama sending Biden to Israel, the Bush era signs of old school Israeli signals shines through. From Stanley Fish:

… Meanwhile, Bush’s policies came to seem less obviously reprehensible as the Obama administration drifted into embracing watered-down versions of many of them. Guantanamo hasn’t been closed. No Child Left Behind is being revised and perhaps improved, but not repealed. The banks are still engaging in their bad practices. Partisanship is worse than ever. Obama seems about to back away from the decision to try 9/11 defendants in civilian courts, a prospect that led the ACLU to run an ad in Sunday’s Times with the subheading “Change or more of the same?” Above that question is a series of photographs that shows Obama morphing into guess who — yes, that’s right, George W. Bush. …

Middle East Peace Envoy George Mitchell’s statement yesterday came as Vice President Biden landed in the Middle East, today in Jerusalem, with Chris Matthews in tow, Andrew Mitchell and Hillary Clinton nowhere to be found on this big gun trip. Matthews’ interviews with Biden to air today and tomorrow.

American Task Force for Palestine’s Hussein Ibish, according to Laura Rosen, has labeled the indirect talks a bridging mechanism that could yield direct final status negotiations the Obama administration has long sought to get relaunched.

Netanyahu and Biden have a long history and deep relationship, with Biden an old school Israeli hawk, so the cosmetics of his trip couldn’t be more obvious. Obama sent Biden to vouch for his Administration on Israel. It’s a long way from Cairo and drawing the line on settlements, where Pres. Obama began.

UPDATE II: Netanyahu reportedly appeared with Rev. Hagee the eve of Biden’s arrival to Israel.

UPDATE: Biden’s remarks with Shimon Peres can be found here, via the Vice President’s office.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }