Page 4 | May | 2010 | TaylorMarsh.com

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

Archive | May, 2010

We Will Never Outlast Our Adversaries in Afghanistan

By Taylor Marsh on 12 May 2010

Everybody here lies. But with the arrival of Hamid Karzai, the mendacity blossomed into absurdity. – The Evil of Lesser Evilism, by Maureen Dowd

As long as I’ve supported Obama’s Afghan strategy, the headline has always been part of that reality. Perhaps that’s because I’m part of the tale end of the Vietnam generation.

Spencer Ackerman has posted an assessment from “a source from Kandahar” on the hopes of the continued counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. It’s as bleak as it gets, because it gets down to coordination between Afghans and the nations involved in stabilizing that country, which are clashing on every level. From “Counterinsurgency is Counterproductive”:

[...] Counterinsurgency methods must make quick and effective use of information. However, the joint environment of the theater of operation makes it difficult for efficient information dissemination. Coalition units are still apprehensive about distributing information to consumers who do not wear the same uniform — and many units still have major breakdowns in following guidance directing the flow of information up to higher decision-making elements; or down to the soldiers on the ground. The result of stove-piped information sharing channels maximizes the amount of time that insurgent forces have to seek out coalition vulnerabilities and exploit them. …

No one ever said this would be easy.

… That will require intense and persistent coordination between NATO militaries, NATO civilians, their governments back home, Afghan security forces, local Afghan government officials and national Afghan government officials. A source in Kandahar considers it all a pipe dream.
That source passed on the following assessment of how counterinsurgency efforts across Afghanistan are shaping up, over a year after Obama embraced them at the strategic level and nearly a year after Obama tapped Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Amb. Karl Eikenberry to implement them. The source’s reluctant viewpoint, which is making its way through official channels in Afghanistan, is that the coordination necessary for successful counterinsurgency between civilian and military forces is not in evidence. Neither is the coordination between NATO and Afghan forces. Lumbering bureaucracy inhibits the rapid application of services and economic aid after military forces clear an area, as Joe Klein recently documented with an Army company based on the outskirts of Kandahar. NATO forces do not adequately control information operations; they do not adequately explain to Afghan civilians the purpose of military or governance operations; and what understanding they have of their area of operations, they don’t adequately share with their partner units. [...]

It was clear from the press conference today with Obama and Karzai that between now and July 2011, when U.S. troops begin to withdraw, it will be a full court press, regardless of assessments roll out.

Obama’s digging in and doubling down this summer. Sect. Clinton leading a delegation to the country, Obama announced today. It’s fitting, as she and SecDef Gates have staked their credibility on our involvement in Afghanistan.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Kagan is Not Gay Conversation Embarrasses Everyone

By Taylor Marsh on 12 May 2010

cross-posted on Huffington Post

“I’ve known her for most of her adult life and I know she’s straight,” said Sarah Walzer, Kagan’s roommate in law school and a close friend since then. “She dated men when we were in law school, we talked about men — who in our class was cute, who she would like to date, all of those things. She definitely dated when she was in D.C. after law school, when she was in Chicago – and she just didn’t find the right person.” – Elena Kagan’s friends: She’s not gay

So much for the So What? defense.

Instead we’re outing heterosexuals. It’s all the rage in the Kagan age.

From the White House going berserk over the CBS blog post that charged Elena Kagan was gay, to Matthew Yglesias who said he thought so too, to the latest Friends Defense, this entire spectacle has embarrassed just about everyone.

The hardest hit is Andrew Sullivan, with Politico asking: Did Andrew Sullivan act irresponsibly in pushing the is-Kagan-gay? story line so forcefully? Sullivan always goes for speculation based on what he doesn’t know instead of what can be proven with facts, so I’m not quite sure why there is a question here. That Sullivan has a track record of disrespecting strong women, whether it’s Hillary, Sarah or Elena, is what actually should be the tell whenever he’s on the warpath. It’s part of the fact free fantasy world Sullivan inhabits that’s at issue.

Pam Spaulding is a better barometer on asking the question, coming up with a secondary point of fact: I will say that the open secondary discussion — that if Kagan did identify as a lesbian privately but was closeted publicly could be a problem in some quarters of the LGBT community was interesting and healthy to have.

It’s as if no one at the White House ever thought of this possibility. Thus cue the I Know Elena Kagan And the Elena Kagan I Know Likes Men faze of Supreme Court vetting, which the White House is clearly pushing, with Kagan proponents on all sides, gay and straight, bending over backwards to prove her feminine credentials, along with her straight man lust.

As a side show to this is softballgate and the photo pictured on the front page of the Wall Street Journal.

“It clearly is an allusion to her being gay. It’s just too easy a punch line,” said Cathy Renna, a former spokesperson for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation who is now a consultant. “The question from a journalistic perspective is whether it’s a descriptive representation of who she might be as a judge. Have you ever seen a picture of Clarence Thomas bowling?” – Softball Question, by Ben Smith

“A punch line?” Talk about touchy. Clarence Thomas bowling? It renders me speechless.

And it makes no difference that Patrick J. Buchanan sees a correlation between softball and lesbians. Are we never going to drag our country into the modern era, the 21st century, and simply laugh at people who remain in the 19th?

All of this misses the most important conversation, an opportunity missed, that the White House and all libertarian minded people should champion: You think Elena Kagan is gay? We have no idea. But so what if she is?

That’s exactly where gay rights groups should be, but instead these small minded people are talking about her possibly looking butch on the Wall Street Journal, though they won’t say that outright, and getting defensive over sporting comparisons with lesbians that are no less stereotypical than when Mike Barnicle squealed that Hillary Clinton reminded all men of their ex-wives.

I’m embarrassed for everyone, especially the White House. They’re obviously so uncomfortable with gays that they trotted out people who know her to out her as a heterosexual.

However, considering this country still thinks to be gay is to practice immoral behavior I certainly don’t expect Pres. Obama to show courage and mount the So What? defense. Because if there is one thing Mr. Obama isn’t doing it’s advancing social issues and the rights of women or gays (see health care and DADT). Can’t get caught being progressive, especially in an election year.

Perhaps we should be talking about this instead:

A 1998 memo shows that Kagan was among advisers encouraging Clinton to deny Medicare funding for abortions in cases of rape or incest – in part to avoid a messy battle with Republicans.

But no.

[...] But Journal officials ridiculed a question about the image, which also appeared among other photographs in the Times’s coverage of Kagan. “If you turn the photo upside down, reverse the pixilation and simultaneously listen to Abbey Road backwards, while reading Roland Barthes, you will indeed find a very subtle hidden message,” said Journal spokeswoman Ashley Huston. “I think your question is absurd,” said Journal Deputy Managing Editor Alan Murray in a separate email. – Softball Question, by Ben Smith

What a sorry spectacle this is.

This essay has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 30 }

If it Sounds Like Political Marketing…

By Taylor Marsh on 11 May 2010

Is this a coming headache for Republicans or the making of a right-wing, Tea Party heroine?

From the AP:

Sarah Palin’s new book has a title, America By Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag, and a release date, Nov. 23, publisher HarperCollins announced Tuesday.
The Alaska ex-governor and former Republican vice presidential candidate, whose memoir Going Rogue has sold more than 2 million copies, has been working on a tribute to American values.
It will include “selections from classic and contemporary readings that have moved her,” according to HarperCollins, along with “the nation’s founding documents to great speeches, sermons, letters, literature and poetry, biography, and even some of her favorite songs and movies.”
The book is inspired not only by her “strong belief in the importance of family, faith, and patriotism,” but by some of the people she met last year while promoting Going Rogue. Palin skipped major cities such as Seattle and Los Angeles, traditional stops on most author tours, and instead focused on smaller communities more receptive to her conservative message. [...]

This is the kind of fluff stuff that usually precedes presidential candidate announcements from people who are looking for a glossy makeover that vaults them above the common rabble. Call it image making.

Few are saying Sarah Palin will run in 2012 or that she can win anything close to a majority in a national election, but somehow I don’t get the sense she cares what anyone else thinks or is saying.

The release date is Nov. 23, 2010, just in time for Christmas, but also prior to something else that’s due to kick off in 2011. Now, what was that? I can’t remember what… .. . something important.. … .

Read full story · Comments { 47 }

Afghan Women Have Not Been ‘Betrayed’

By Taylor Marsh on 11 May 2010

“… And we look forward, Mr. President, to the inclusion of women in all aspects of your reintegration and reconciliation efforts and in all aspects of Afghan society. We share your perspective that Afghanistan’s women are critical to the country’s reconstruction and stabilization and must be afforded opportunities to contribute fully. And I am delighted that we have two women ministers from Afghanistan with us today. And women’s issues will be considered in all of the discussions as well as in a separate session co-chaired by Ambassador Verveer and Minister of Social Affairs and Labor Afzali. [...]” – Sect. of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

Moving ancient, misogynistic mindsets is heavy lifting.

There are few people writing on the issue of Afghanistan women who long more to see this country and their situation up close more than myself. I continue to endeavor to make that manifest, but in the interim the research continues even if few definitive answers have been found. However, the one thing I know is that if the Afghan women have been “betrayed” it is not by the United States, NATO or any other group working diligently to aid Afghanistan’s fits, starts and thrusts to become part of the modern era.

The post at FP’s front page on Afghanistan women being “betrayed” is really remarkable, but not in a good way. Of course, the article is written by women to give it credibility. But it is nonetheless stunning that after all the money, blood and American political energy spent in Afghanistan we still get this whining.

Things haven’t changed fast enough, so what the hell’s the matter with you people, get with it, the authors of the piece, Valerie M. Hudson and Patricia Leidl, chide. Because after all, it’s a really simple task moving a tribal, unconnected land where drugs are king into the 19th century. Chop. Chop.

Ms. Hudson is from Brigham Young who has written about sexuality through “Bare Branches,” which evidently explores “The Security Implications of Asia’s Surplus Male Population,” according to FP’s blurb on her. Leidl “an international communications consultant.” It makes some of the conclusions in the piece predictable.

The foundational bankruptcy of the article is to be found in this section.

And the ready availability of pornography on U.S. bases, coupled with seamier depictions of life in the West, not only damages prospects for gender equality but by extension, Western interests. As one young, well-educated 24-year-old Afghan male pointed out, “Your culture has no respect for women at all. Look at your pornography and the way you exploit women in ways that we can’t even imagine. Do you call that progress?” Added another Afghan USAID programmer working in Gardez, a man in his 50s who is the father of three girls, “It would be better for the coalition if they could figure out a way to limit this kind of material.”
We can do better — much better.

Oh, spare me.

The rant of the anti porn people, as if the absence of this form of machismo entertainment in the middle of a hideously dangerous war zone would change Afghanistan in the whirl it would take to whisk it away. The military is made of trained warriors, not armed metrosexual robots.

The Obama administration must instill in all military personnel and senior diplomats the necessity of fully protecting women’s rights. Key to that is educating them about how gender equality furthers Western interests and security.

They write this as if the American military turns on a dime, but also that the majority are not interested in this task. How fast do these women think the military culture changes? For that matter, who doesn’t know that gender equality promotes “Western interests and security,” the reality irony flying right over the heads of Hudson and Leidl.

Afghanistan doesn’t want Western civilization imposed on their culture.

Additionally, both women forget how the Taliban came to power in the first place. Ronald Reagan facilitated their rise beginning with his embrace of the mujahideen, which became the Taliban, that also included fundamentalist Pakistanis trained in madrassas, when the Soviets invaded. On the second observance of Afghanistan Day, back in 1983:

“… In Afghanistan, tens of thousands of people have been killed, millions have lost their homes and their livelihood. Others have been subjected to torture and other atrocities, and many have been victims of the grisly chemical and biological weapons, including yellow rain — weapons the Soviets have used in violation of solemn international agreements. The consequences of this calamity extend to Pakistan, which has assumed the burden of sheltering and feeding nearly 3 million refugees. Yet, while we condemn what has happened in Afghanistan, we are not without hope. To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom. Their courage teaches us a great lesson — that there are things in this world worth defending. To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all Americans that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors.” – Ronald Reagan

The Taliban continued to rise and took control of Kabul, Afghanistan during Bill Clinton’s presidency, while he was fighting off the right-wing assault on all fronts. They solidified their power while Congress had their eyes trained on Pres. Clinton’s zipper.

The problem isn’t that women in Afghanistan have been betrayed. It’s that in the end we can only do so much to aid them. It brings me back to the post I wrote excoriating Steve Clemons for repeating Dana Priest’s notion that in the end we may just have to tunnel the women out, hardly an answer either.

If Afghanistan remains moored in their tribal, misogynistic culture by choice, with women in Parliament only a front for the men who control their votes, what does anyone think we can do from the outside?

No matter what U.S. intentions are today, since the Soviets invaded in 1979, Afghanistan has been in a state of constant revolution. Afghan women are caught in the crossfire of a civilization grappling with their recent fundamentalist history and the modern era of information transparency, where gender barbarism can no longer be hidden.

The U.S. involvement in Afghanistan going back to the Reagan era (Carter funded it initially, but he was gone before anything manifested) and the slow changing reality of this country is why I’ve supported Pres. Obama from the start of his Afghan policy, which after Bush’s neglect was a moral imperative. However, I have always contended we’re nation building not fighting al Qaeda, which the White House mistakenly used as their campaign point. It’s unfortunate no one is being honest about this difference in mission, because it would open the field for a transparent debate, instead of the dishonest notion that terrorism is why we’re in Afghanistan. If the future, long term prospect of oil was broached, that too would be less disingenuous. However, instead we’re left with faulty excuses about our mission in Afghanistan, with the realities on the ground making many skeptical we will succeed, or in fact that we’re succeeding today.

It’s a complicated morass in which we find ourselves in Afghanistan, but it’s not like we just arrived. Simplifying it on the wings of shaky gender arguments of betrayal gets people riled up in order to engender support for our continued presence in a country where we may have finally done all we can do.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Desperation

By Taylor Marsh on 11 May 2010

via Hot Air

Is there any political position John McCain wouldn’t change to further his own survival?

When you think of the anti-incumbent mood this year, especially after long time Sen. Bob Bennett’s demise, it’s clear that John McCain feels he has to do whatever it takes to hold his seat in the Senate, regardless of whether what he’s doing to accomplish it further destroys what once was a respected, if not perfect, reputation.

Put McCain up to Barry Goldwater and what you get is a paltry comparison with Goldwater at least learning a few things, especially on gay rights, while being unwilling to sell his soul.

McCain tried to tack to Goldwater’s theory of the religious right, but it cost him big in South Carolina back in 2000, a moment in political history that changed McCain forever.

“When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.” – Barry Goldwater

We’re reminded of something else out of the Goldwater era, which applies to McCain and other Republicans today, including Mitt Romney, as the GOP establishment faces the wrath of the Tea Party movement.

“The election results of 1964 seemed to demonstrate Thomas Dewey’s prediction about what would happen if the parties were realigned on an ideological basis: ‘The Democrats would win every election and the Republicans would lose every election.’” – Arthur Schlesinger (quoted in “Before the Storm,” by historian Rick Perlstein)

There is little doubt today that incumbents are taking tremendous heat in the lead up to 2010, as is represented by John McCain’s craven caving to the squealing wingnuts over border issues, which cannot be solved by militarizing or fence building. The Tea Party activists on the right, most of whom are Republicans or disaffected conservative Dems, are leading politicians like McCain to move to their way of thinking for the midterm election, but come the national presidential election these choices offer less solace for the national Republican party.

As seen with Sarah Palin’s Tea Party popularity, the hard ideological right wing brand of politics can get out the vote in midterms. However, the negative bent it takes can also depress the vote, because people are far less excited about the prospects offered looking forward, which includes Democratic choices. The politicians from the big two parties from which we have to choose really offering little choice at all, though not even the Tea Party is a panacea, as Palin’s endorsement of Carly Fiorina proves.

We’re now into a Sarah Palin, Charlie Crist, and Joe Sestak era of political independence, less so with Sestak though he is bucking the national party, the winds of which have Sen. John McCain careening once again to gain approval and votes. This time it’s not from the Republican establishment, but from the rag tag Tea Party rabble McCain is trying desperately to appease.

The 1964 Arthur Schlesinger ideology test won’t apply this year.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

The Gay Rumor Rises

By Taylor Marsh on 10 May 2010

The politics of sex has been my turf for well over 16 years. This latest installment about Elena Kagan adds a new element that we’ve never encountered nationally.

Between Andrew Sullivan’s obsession with questioning whether Trig is Sarah Palin’s baby, wanting to know if Elena Kagan is gay, it’s hard to tell if he’s mindlessly curious or simply has an unrelenting problem with powerful women. Regardless, Elena Kagan is now getting the Andrew Sullivan treatment.

He’s not quite as offensive as Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) who thinks the public should not only know whether Ms. Kagan is gay, but prematurely judges anyone unfit who is. After all, you just can’t trust those homos with the law, you know?

I’m not sure what to make of Sen. Sessions comment, which seems sort of a non sequitur and comes compliments of Politico:

Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said Monday he had no problem supporting an openly gay nominee to the Supreme Court. “I can vote for a gay nominee – we’ll just have to see,” Sessions (R-Ala.) told reporters Monday afternoon. “That’s just not the test really; the thing that I’m concerned about is high legal quality.”

And how exactly did this subject come up?

You can read the other circulating rumors on the subject for yourself.

The White House may love that the left is not thrilled with Ms. Kagan, because Pres. Obama is always delighted when he can pick fights with the people who got him elected. But they are not in the least prepared for the sexuality rumor that is now front and center on day one.

Sexuality is not an issue to be a justice of the Supreme Court, as I’ve said already.

The Catch 22 is that if it’s not, what’s the big deal with Ms. Kagan revealing her personal life, regardless of where that leads?

Answer: Because we all know that any nominee being gay would be a big deal to the right-wing gas bags who drive the negative campaign on Supreme Court nominees, which is played on a scorched earth battlefield.

All this rumor mongering, no doubt nudged along by Ben Domenech’s CBS blog brouhaha, but also by the right who thinks an unmarried woman of a certain age, especially if she looks a certain way, has to be gay reveals the emotional and sexual immaturity of America. We impeached a president with an amazing economic record for a consensual affair, yet we let a president and an entire Administration that concocted false evidence about WMDs in a country in the oil rich Middle East off the hook for taking us to war on lies.

We have our priorities.

So, how can anyone be surprised we’re now dealing with the is Elena Kagan gay rumor?

There is also this weird post from the Nation, which begins with Andrew Sullivan’s sordid sexual background, as the writer takes after Sullivan for his rambling ruminations on Kagan’s sexuality. It’s entitled “Elena Kagan Is Not Gay.”

I don’t know if Elena Kagan sleeps with women or men. I don’t know if she sleeps with anyone at all. I don’t care. What I do know is that she has never claimed to be a lesbian, that she’s never spoken out in the first-person as an advocate of gay rights and that she has never publicly discussed a romantic relationship with a woman. Gay isn’t some genetic or soulful essence; it’s a name you call yourself–and Kagan has not done that. So in my book, case closed. Elena Kagan is not gay. Is she straight? I don’t know, and again, I don’t care. Why does she have to have a sexuality at all?

The author of the post doesn’t know if Kagan’s gay, though the Nation made sure to title the post in a manor that rendered judgment, just in case anyone thought they were unsure, as the author of the piece clearly is. When the Nation is openly uncomfortable with subject matter like this you know we’re headed for trouble.

But this is America, where the truth has not yet set gays free. We won’t even let military soldiers serve openly and these are people taking incoming for our country. It’s why Bill Kristol is starting the Kagan Hates the Military mantra.

The gay rumor simply gives the wingnuts an open playing field to dance on her reputation hoping it can be made into a graveyard.

I don’t care if Kagan is gay. However, I do care that these rumors are swirling and everyone is acting like to be gay is something shameful.

“It’s not anything I’m going to get into,” was Gibbs’ reply today. Good luck with that, because when you have HotAir already asking if Ms. Kagan’s sexuality will be an issue I’d say that whether the White House likes it or not it already is.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

The Era of the Executive Branch Continues

By Taylor Marsh on 10 May 2010

If the Senate confirms Ms. Kagan, who is Jewish, the Supreme Court for the first time will have no Protestant members. In that case, the court would be composed of six justices who are Catholic and three who are Jewish. It also would mean that every member of the court had studied law at Harvard or Yale. – Obama to Nominate Kagan as Justice

Remarks from Elena Kagan, who will mark a
rightward shift away from what Justice Stevens
has represented.

Maybe it began in earnest when Justice Rehnquist politicized the Office of the Independent Counsel in order to prepare for the hunt of Pres. Clinton, so that the presidents who came afterward would make sure their presidency was protected. Perhaps it was Dick Cheney’s remembrance of the Nixon era, so that when he came in with George W. Bush he made sure that his president had a wall in front of his power so no lowly senator or congressperson would impede their judgments, including concocting a case for war. Couple all of this with 9/11 and you’ve got a toxic political cocktail that makes one branch of government all of a sudden take precedence over the others, with the legislative and judicial now simply meant to serve whoever is president. Congressional challenges to the executive branch has been replaced by rubber stamping. Whatever it was that launched this era, it continues with Pres. Obama’s pick of Elena Kagan.

Elections have consequences or at least they’re supposed to, even if what follows isn’t what was promised or expected by some. Ms. Kagan is undoubtedly smart, a member of the privileged class, which today also means she supports the power structure above her. She doesn’t so much buck trends in order for progress to manifest as much as she supports the hierarchy that helped her rise. And so it goes.

We have a political Supreme Court today, unlike what happened in earlier times. Pres. Obama made it clear that he thought the great courts of the ’60s and ’70s proceeded on the road of judicial activism. However, what really seems to irk Mr. Obama is that the Court back then returned and restored rights to we the people. That’s not exactly what presidents in the last two decades have supported when our right to know is pitted against executive privilege, which now has become what the Supreme Court of the United States is to protect. (Interestingly, when the Tower Commission was appointed to investigate Iran Contra, Pres. Reagan refused to invoke executive privilege.)

We no longer have a Congress of which to speak. Republicans or Democrats in Congress exist only to support the executive today. The concentrated power of the big two political parties doesn’t allow independence, which will be greeted with a cutting off of support and money. So, Democrats will simply shrug at more power being represented through Ms. Kagan’s appointment, as the politicians in Congress have no stomach for standing up for pesky things like people’s rights any longer, including those simply suspected of crimes, even if we are protected while investigations ensue. As for Republicans, most will stomp and squeal, but not in any honest manner beyond hyper partisanship, making a mockery of dissent.

…and Pres. Obama gets an executive branch supporter, which will likely aid other presidents in years to come, further solidifying the hyper executive branch that lords itself over Congress, who is now an mostly impotent branch of political rubes, few of whom have any principles on which they will stand to fight.

Read full story · Comments { 27 }

If Kagan’s the Choice, Obama Is on His Own

By Taylor Marsh on 09 May 2010

The Kagan kerfuffle regarding Goldman Sachs isn’t what bothers me about the potential, many consider it likely, appointment of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. There are far graver issues for me, one being her diversity hiring practices, which elevated white men over, well, everyone else, particularly qualified women. I’d no more support a Republican for SCOTUS with Kagan’s record than get behind a known anti women’s rights candidate. There are other issues as well.

However, progressive insiders aren’t really worried about Kagan’s conservative leaning, lack of diversity fetish. Matthew Yglesias on Twitter yesterday:

“Argument will be simple: Clinton & Obama like and trust [Kagan], and most liberals (myself included) like and trust Clinton & Obama.”

Pres. Obama has not earned this wide open trust. To be blunt about it, progressives like Yglesias are part of the left’s problems. They bestow Pres. Barack Obama political prowess that he no longer deserves from those on the left.

It’s clear from Pres. Obama’s drive-by criticism of the great justices of the 1960s and ’70s that he’s less than appreciative of the importance the Supreme Court played in that era of liberalism to trust his judgment without a health dose of skepticism.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I mean, here’s what I will say. It used to be that the notion of an activist judge was somebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignored democratic processes, and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically. And in the ’60s and ’70s, the feeling was, is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach.

Digby wrote yesterday that she’s being told that Kagan is “the only confirmable possibility.

Really? Well that is interesting. The Obama stalwarts pressing the White House line that they’ve already lost the push for a political alternative to the court’s right, for which Pres. Bush campaigned and won, before Obama’s battle for the next nominee has begun.

More of the Obama penchant for cowardice in the face of a potential ideological skirmish worth having, especially when we’re talking about the highest court in the land that is packed to the teeth with political animals who now offer split decisions on everything that comes before them. Kagan’s non-record offering no clues to her ability to bridge the court gap, something that is sorely needed, which is why I prefer Diane Wood or even the long, long shot of Jennifer Granholm.

It’s clear to me that the left needs an issue negotiator, not an executive branch facilitating conciliator.

Glenn Greenwald has a round up of links on Ms. Kagan, which will allow you to read for yourself.

Along with obvious diversity blindness, Ms. Kagan’s place in one particular arena raises the hair on the back of my neck. An article bank in April, of which Greenwald reminded me, raised then answered one question in my mind: Supreme Court Watchers Wonder: How Conservative Is Kagan?

[...] Steve Vladeck, a professor at American University Washington College of Law, has spotted subtle changes in the briefing of some lower court cases that may have been approved, if not devised, by Kagan.
For example, Vladeck said, the new administration has “all but abandoned” a key Bush administration argument that the president has inherent constitutional powers to take broad steps in the war on terrorism. Instead, in the case of Mohammed v. Obama in D.C. district court last year, the Justice Department based its claim of authority more narrowly on the post-9/11 congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force. “Obama has put all his eggs in that AUMF basket,” said Vladeck — a significant shift. Warren of the constitutional rights center agreed that Kagan may be offering different rationales for the administration’s actions, “but it doesn’t make much of a difference.”
Vladeck has also noted that the Obama administration in some cases has been “much more willing” to accept international law and law-of-war standards for detention of aliens. On the other hand, Vladeck said, the Obama Justice Department has vigorously argued against habeas jurisdiction at the Bagram internment facility in Afghanistan, arguing that it is in a “distant and active war zone” and is therefore different from Guantanamo, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of jurisdiction. Deputy Solicitor General Katyal argued against habeas rights at Bagram in the case of al Maqaleh v. Gates before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in January.

I’ve been a lonely feminist supporter of Obama on Afghanistan. I’ve also heard and had many conversations about Bagram in the last year. However, the unknowns on Kagan supporting Pres. Obama’s Bushesque belief in executive power, especially in war zones like Afghanistan, is even more alarming, especially given the hidden disasters inside Bagram that have yet to get the light of day.

On some things I trust Pres. Obama. However, when it comes to other things it’s clear he’s willing to bargain people’s rights away, because of expediency, convenience (see health care), or lack of passion and purpose to defend them.

See Attorney General Eric Holder’s latest “flexible” philosophy on the rights of suspected terrorists for more proof.

“The [Miranda] system we have in place has proven to be effective,” Holder told host Jake Tapper. “I think we also want to look and determine whether we have the necessary flexibility — whether we have a system that deals with situations that agents now confront. … We’re now dealing with international terrorism. … I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public-safety exception [to the Miranda protections]. And that’s one of the things that I think we’re going to be reaching out to Congress, to come up with a proposal that is both constitutional, but that is also relevant to our times and the threats that we now face.”

The Bush-Cheney era lives on.

No, thank you.

I’ve learned enough from what’s out there on Ms. Kagan, but also what’s left unknown, to simply be unwilling to help in this fight. If Kagan’s the choice, Pres. Obama is on his own.

Read full story · Comments { 43 }

Tea Party Activists Defeat Utah’s Bennett

By Taylor Marsh on 09 May 2010

Small government conservatives bagged a big one yesterday, while cutting Sen. Bob Bennett’s ego down to size, making sure one big time Republican insider couldn’t even get through the state convention. But let’s face it, folks, if Tea Party activists cannot win in super conservative Utah where will they win?

Mitt Romney endorsed Sen. Bennett, offering an interesting back drop to this political story, once again cementing Romney’s Republican establishment credentials at a time when they don’t matter. In the long run it simply sets up an interesting question dynamic of what pairing for 2012 will satisfy the conservative base.

As for Bennet’s loss, Chris Cillizza lays out some of what kept Bennett from succeeding, which really plays into the hands of a long time GOP spending nemesis, Club for Growth.

[...] Bennett’s critics cited his vote for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) as well as his seat on the Senate Appropriations Committee — both symbols, conservatives said, of his lack of commitment to shrinking the size of government.
While state Republicans had expressed uneasiness with Bennett, it was the DC-based Club for Growth that helped crystallize that opposition. The Club spent more than $200,000 on a combination of television ads, direct mail pieces and phone calls designed to influence the 3,500 (or so) delegates who attended Saturday’s state convention. [...]
Tea party supporters from across the nation had targeted Bennett as part of the problem in Washington and, with his defeat, are almost certain to be further energized to beat other GOP incumbents and candidates who they feel are not representing the core values of the party. …

Bennett’s loss has got to be sobering for the establishment on both sides of the aisle.

There’s likely to be something stronger than cream in Sen. John McCain’s coffee this Mother’s Day morning.

Read full story · Comments { 71 }

The Precarious Future of Israel and Palestine

By Taylor Marsh on 08 May 2010

This could also be entitled, “John Mearsheimer gives a harrowing speech.”

Couple it with Stephan Walt’s question for David Aaron Miller about his depressing essay that says Middle East peace is no longer possible, and you’ve got grim, uphill road laid out.

The only positive outcome is a two-state solution, which I still believe is possible, because the alternatives are simply awful. That said, the realist inside my head knows that since the Israelis and the Palestinians can’t get past their own myopia, I realize what could result. With Mr. Bush’s legacy of pushing Palestinian elections that handed a huge role to Hamas lingering over the entire debate. Of course, then there is Mr. Netanyahu’s deplorable weakness on supporting the expansion of settlements that reminds everyone of the interminable domestic politics that also drives this debate, something over which the United States has no control.

Whatever credibility Barack Obama had when his presidency began is not gone but has significantly dwindled, especially where Israel is concerned, with Netanyahu betting that domestic politics will soon hem Obama in, too. We are sadly left beyond the time of leadership giants as in decades past who offer the potential picture of a grand signing ceremony that was once the symbol of nations coming together in compromises that benefited all.

Read it, watch it, discuss what Mr. Mearsheimer had to say. It’s provocative and frustratingly frightening.

[...] The story I will tell is straightforward. Contrary to the wishes of the Obama administration and most Americans – to include many American Jews – Israel is not going to allow the Palestinians to have a viable state of their own in Gaza and the West Bank. Regrettably, the two-state solution is now a fantasy. Instead, those territories will be incorporated into a “Greater Israel,” which will be an apartheid state bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa. Nevertheless, a Jewish apartheid state is not politically viable over the long term. In the end, it will become a democratic bi-national state, whose politics will be dominated by its Palestinian citizens. In other words, it will cease being a Jewish state, which will mean the end of the Zionist dream.
Let me explain how I reached these conclusions.
Given present circumstances there are four possible futures for Palestine.
The outcome that gets the most attention these days is the two-state solution, which was described in broad outline by President Clinton in late December 2000. It would obviously involve creating a Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel. To be viable, that Palestine state would have to control 95 percent or more of the West Bank and all of Gaza. There would also have to be territorial swaps to compensate the Palestinians for those small pieces of West Bank territory that Israel got to keep in the final agreement. East Jerusalem would be the capital of the new Palestinian state. The Clinton Parameters envisioned certain restrictions on the new state’s military capabilities, but it would control the water beneath it, the air space above it, and its own borders – to include the Jordan River Valley.
There are three possible alternatives to a two-state solution, all of which involve creating a Greater Israel – an Israel that effectively controls the West Bank and Gaza.
In the first scenario, Greater Israel would become a democratic bi-national state in which Palestinians and Jews enjoy equal political rights. This solution has been suggested by a handful of Jews and a growing number of Palestinians. However, it would mean abandoning the original Zionist vision of a Jewish state, since the Palestinians would eventually outnumber the Jews in Greater Israel.
Second, Israel could expel most of the Palestinians from Greater Israel, thereby preserving its Jewish character through an overt act of ethnic cleansing. This is what happened in 1948 when the Zionists drove roughly 700,000 Palestinians out of the territory that became the new state of Israel, and then prevented them from returning to their homes. Following the Six Day War in 1967, Israel expelled between 100,000 and 260,000 Palestinians from the newly conquered West Bank and drove 80,000 Syrians from the Golan Heights. The scale of the expulsion, however, would have to be even greater this time, because there are about 5.5 million Palestinians living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.
The final alternative to a two-state solution is some form of apartheid, whereby Israel increases its control over the Occupied Territories, but allows the Palestinians to exercise limited autonomy in a set of disconnected and economically crippled enclaves.
It seems clear to me that the two-state solution is the best of these alternative futures. This is not to say that it is an ideal solution, because it is not; but it is by far the best outcome for both the Israelis and the Palestinians, as well as the United States. That is why the Obama administration is intensely committed to pushing it.
Nevertheless, the Palestinians are not going to get their own state anytime soon. They are instead going to end up living in an apartheid state dominated by Israeli Jews.
The main reason that a two-state solution is no longer a serious option is that most Israelis are opposed to making the sacrifices that would be necessary to create a viable Palestinian state, and there is little reason to expect them to have an epiphany on this issue. For starters, there are now about 480,000 settlers in the Occupied Territories and a huge infrastructure of connector and bypass roads, not to mention settlements. Much of that infrastructure and large numbers of those settlers would have to be removed to create a Palestinian state. Many of those settlers however, would fiercely resist any attempt to rollback the settlement enterprise. Earlier this month, Ha’aretz reported that a Hebrew University poll found that 21 percent of the settlers believe that “all means must be employed to resist the evacuation of most West Bank settlements, including the use of arms.” In addition, the study found that 54 percent of those 480,000 settlers “do not recognize the government’s authority to evacuate settlements”; and even if there was a referendum sanctioning a withdrawal, 36 percent of the settlers said they would not accept it.
Those settlers, however, do not have to worry about the present government trying to remove them. Prime Minister Netanyahu is committed to expanding the settlements in East Jerusalem and indeed throughout the West Bank.

If something doesn’t shift, at some point the U.S. will simply have to watch the two parties work it out… or not.

Israel is not listening to any of their friends; the Israelis seemingly locked into a one state for all death spiral that won’t give anyone peace. While Palestinian leadership is split, frayed and marginalized.

The Israeli hawks having done a lot of damage though they won’t admit it, reviving the anti-Semitic charges that simply won’t stick this time. There are just too many of us speaking out louder every day about what’s not happening between Israelis and Palestinians.

We’re all watching the door close; some experts believing it’s already shut.

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Is Elena Kagan the Best Obama Can Do?

By Taylor Marsh on 07 May 2010

I know Mike Allen, as well as any number of other sources being cited, including insider White House types, are saying it’s likely Ms. Kagan. I’m still not convinced. Major Garrett has a source saying there’s been no decision, while TPM gets an emphatic no to Allen’s reporting saying it’s likely Kagan, which will be announced on Monday.

Meanwhile, Salon.com has an alarming breakout of part of Kagan’s record as Dean of Harvard Law School. It’s utterly and thoroughly depressing.

… The first woman Dean of Harvard Law School had presided over an unprecedented expansion of the faculty — growing it by almost a half. She had hired 32 tenured and tenure-track academic faculty members (non-clinical, non-practice). But when we sat down to review the actual record, we were frankly shocked. Not only were there shockingly few people of color, there were very few women. Where were the people of color? Where were the women? Of these 32 tenured and tenure-track academic hires, only one was a minority. Of these 32, only seven were women. All this in the 21st Century.
Unfortunately, the White House’s defense of the solicitor general’s hiring record while she was Dean at Harvard is surprisingly weak.
To begin, and most notably, the White House does not dispute our basic facts. When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, four-out-of-every five hires to its faculty were white men. She did not hire a single African American, Latino, or Native American tenured or tenure track academic law professor. She hired 25 men, all of whom were white, and seven women, six of whom were white and one Asian American. Just 3 percent of her hires were non-white — a statistic that should raise eyebrows in the 21st Century.
These are the facts that the White House does not try to defend because these facts are indefensible. [...]

Pres. Obama can do better than Ms. Kagan.

Read full story · Comments { 22 }

What’s the Future of Activism?

By Taylor Marsh on 07 May 2010

Many of us remember the era of “Ohio,” activism and purpose.

It’s long gone.

We’re left with two big bank, big corporation sales entities that put profits ahead of people.

Now we get promises, politicians who break them, and a movement still born on the alter of believing that the other guy being worse should lead to support of a lesser incompetent. Both big party options sell outs to the higher order of political money laundering.

A move to break up major Wall Street banks failed Thursday night by a vote of 61 to 33.
Three Republicans, Richard Shelby of Alabama, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and John Ensign of Nevada, voted with 30 Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, in support of the provision. The author of the pending overall financial reform bill in the Senate, Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, voted against it. (See the full roll call.)
The amendment, sponsored by Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), would have required megabanks to be broken down in size and capped so that their individual failure would not bring down the entire system. [...]

For disaffected Democrats and Republicans that’s not enough, seen by the rise of the Independent voter, Tea Party activists, and to add another reality, the 2010 strikers, the non-voters.

Hotline OnCall captured the Democratic reality in a headine: Dem Turnout Falls Off A Cliff.

… Only 425K voters turned out to pick a nominee against Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC). The 14.4% turnout was smaller than the 444K voters — or 18% of all registered Dem voters — who turned out in ’04, when Gov. Mike Easley (D) faced only a gadfly candidate in his bid to be renominated for a second term.
And in IN, just 204K Hoosiers voted for Dem House candidates, far fewer than the 357K who turned out in ’02 and the 304K who turned out in ’06.
By contrast, GOP turnout was up almost across the board. 373K people voted in Burr’s uncompetitive primary, nearly 9% higher than the 343K who voted in the equally non-competitive primary in ’04. Turnout in House races in IN rose 14.6% from ’06, fueled by the competitive Senate primary, which attracted 550K voters. And 728K voters cast ballots for a GOP Sec/State nominee in Ohio, the highest-ranking statewide election with a primary; in ’06, just 444K voters cast ballots in that race.
Top Dem strategists have promised to spend millions to get their voters to cast ballots, and polls show they will need to succeed in order to avoid an electoral beating. The latest weekly Gallup tracking survey shows 43% of GOPers are “very enthusiastic” about voting, while just 33% of Dems feel the same way.
But some Dems say they don’t worry about low turnout in primaries at the moment. [...]

As I’ve said before, I have no idea what the outcome in November will be. Regardless of outcome there is a tectonic shift happening on the political landscape, with nothing clear at this point except disgruntled dissatisfaction. There’s just no reason to vote for the current crew of Democrats, though I can wholeheartedly recommend Blue America candidates. As for Republicans, well, there hasn’t been in the last thirty years.

However, I’m not so sure Republicans will sustain their enthusiasm, despite Rove’s efforts, but it’s safe to say it will be very tough for Democrats to manifest the thrill this year. I just don’t see how they do it.

There are just too many issues where the activists needed to turn up the heat have been turned away. Even today, after what was perceived as a huge health care win there’s radio silence on that one, as the Gulf oil spill and Obama’s “wait not, drill later” energy policy hit the floor with a thud, with Bushesque domestic security policies still intact, while Democrats fumble around on immigration policy, but only to help save their majority leader.

It’s also a problem when state after state is going after women’s rights yet the Democratic party says nothing.

Nobody recognizes the Democratic party that rose up in 2008. That’s Obama’s fault. Because when you don’t listen to the people who swept you and the Democratic majority into power a feeling of betrayal is what is left.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

Sarah Palin Picks Fiorina Hoping for a Winner

By Taylor Marsh on 07 May 2010

“I share Sarah Palin’s values.” – Carly Fiorina

Sarah Palin continues her habit of being unpredictable. She’s notorious for going in the opposite direction of what’s expected and she did it again with her choice of Carly Fiorina.

In 2008, I interviewed Carly Fiorina, before she fell out of favor with the McCain people for saying McCain “couldn’t run a major corporation.” She also highlighted proudly that he believed in global warming early on. That was then.

As for Fiorina, she’s charming, smart and has a much better chance of winning than the men she’s up against.

Tom Campbell ran against Feinstein in 2000, losing by 19 points and getting beat in his own district. As for Devore, Palin doesn’t want to back a loser.

Ms. Fiorina has been savaged in the press before, as has Sarah Palin. She’s made innumerable mistakes in her life, which she and I talked about in our interview back in 2008. This endorsement makes a lot of sense if you’ve followed Sarah. These two women have both been through the ringer with the press, had serious challenges in their professional lives, failed and gotten back up.

Palin supporters need to get a clue. They’re upset because they haven’t done their homework and don’t know the politician they idolize.

Whether Fiorina can turn her negatives into positives and beat Boxer is another matter entirely.

In the end what you’ve got is too pro selective life, anti feminist women coming together to beat a women’s rights advocate, though Ms. Boxer’s advocacy certainly isn’t what it used to be now that we’re in the age of Obama (see the health care bill).

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Hung Brits or Did Conservatives Bring It In?

By Taylor Marsh on 06 May 2010

Depends on whom you read, but it’s quite likely no one gaining a parliamentary majority.

Nate Silver’s analysis comes down for a conservative win. …with a reminder link to why no one should trust exit polls.

From the BBC:

The Conservatives would have 307 MPs, up 97 on 2005, Labour would have 255, down 94, and the Lib Dems 59, down 3. Nationalists and others would have 29.
That means Labour and the Lib Dems together could not have a majority.
There are reports of long queues of people still waiting to vote in some parts of the country after the most closely fought election in decades.

TNR has some great links to guide you.

Bottom line, like the U.S., everyone is disgusted with politicians.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

The NRA Supports Terrorists

By Taylor Marsh on 06 May 2010

It’s amazing but true: we can prevent terror suspects from boarding an airplane, but the FBI doesn’t have the power to block them from buying dynamite or an AK-47. I believe strongly that they should. And so do the 500 mayors who are members of our bi-partisan coalition of Mayor Against Illegal Guns. It is time to close the “Terror Gap” in our gun laws. – Mayor Michael Bloomberg

Why does the Republican party hate America?

Better yet, why is the NRA hell bent on selling guns to terrorists?

We’re gun owners at our house. In fact, my husband is what I’d call a firearms expert, though he demurs from the label. So, the latest insanity on guns and rights of terrorists, brought to the forefront because of the failed Times Square bombing, got my attention for many reasons. It reveals the spinelessness of doing what’s needed in the face of incredible lobbying pressure.

From Dana Milbank:

The bill to close the gun loophole isn’t on the radar of Democratic leaders, making it unlikely that it will reach the Senate floor. Still, Lieberman’s hearing was fascinating because it forced the pro-gun crowd to take their philosophy to its logical extreme: Are they so absolute about the Second Amendment that they’d risk national security by fighting for the right of would-be terrorists to own guns? Alarmingly, they are. [...]
Faced with a choice between conspiracy theories and the testimony of the heroes of Times Square, it was no surprise that pro-gun Republican senators on the committee such as Tom Coburn (Okla.), John McCain (Ariz.) and John Ensign (Nev.) declined to participate in the hearing. Also taking a pass was pro-gun Democrat Jon Tester (Mont.).
“But we’re talking about a constitutional right here,” Graham went on. He then changed the subject, pretending the discussion was about a general ban on handguns. “The NRA — ” he began, then rephrased. “Some people believe banning handguns is the right answer to the gun violence problem. I’m not in that camp.”
Graham felt the need to assure the witnesses that he isn’t soft on terrorism: “I am all into national security. . . . Please understand that I feel differently not because I care less about terrorism.”
But Lieberman wasn’t going to let him get away without a challenge. “I must say I’m troubled by your concerns about this proposal,” the chairman said. “I don’t see an argument that holds up.”
That was particularly so because, as various participants in the hearing had pointed out, the Government Accountability Office found that people on terrorist watch lists had bought guns or explosives from U.S. dealers 1,119 times over the past six years — largely because the federal government has no power to stop them. [...]

Funny how the right won’t give suspected terrorists rights to fair trials, attorneys, stand up against torture, all of which are American ideals, but they want to uphold their rights to buy guns even when this person is hell bent on blowing us all up.

Politicians are more afraid of the NRA lobby and losing their job than doing what’s right for this country.

Fortunately, there are sane people still around.

The NRA and their benefactors are a menace. They’re also siding with terrorists over the safety of American citizens. Unfortunately, so are a lot of gun toting Americans who vote, including the Tea Party crowd, who are all up in arms about the feds over health care, but think it’s okay that we not know who owns guns in this country, when terrorists are among them.

It’s ridiculous we can’t know who’s buying guns in this country. The U.S. is a lot bigger, more diverse, with many more threats focused on us than in the time of our founders. The documents they wrote are meant to breathe and change with the times.

Terrorists have no rights to own guns. That this is a provocative statement in America in 2010 is nothing short of hair raising.

Read full story · Comments { 33 }

Will Bill and Hillary Supporter Haim Saban Make Another Bid for Newsweek?

By Taylor Marsh on 06 May 2010

Something for you to ponder today.

Stopping Israeli settlements has caused an open debate to break out in America that has finally unleashed liberal Israeli supporters to shout from their keyboards, because it’s not allowed to be spoken on TV, that Israelis and Palestinians must come to a two-state solution agreement now, because there is no tomorrow. This begins with ending settlement building, to name just one obstacle. Another being the reality that U.S. favoritism toward Israel can impact our effectiveness in the region, which should be obvious, but has upset the right.

As with all things, this has unleashed a defense of the status quo from all quarters right, regardless of Pres. Obama’s strong stance against further settlement building, which is at the heart of current challenges for peace that has relegated the debate to all process, no solutions.

There’s been an interesting back and forth about statements coming from Administration that has tied Middle East peace to Iran, including Dennis Ross who felt the sting of a broadside shot recently, which reveals that everyone knows how dire the situation is at this point, including on the diplomatic front where everyone is nervous about what comes next.

When you think further of Sen. Harry Reid’s difficult re-election fight, with Sen. Chuck Schumer waiting in the wings, also Dick Durbin, who’s Obama’s guy, you can see the foreign policy playing field when it comes to the Middle East pretty clearly. Sides are lining up and have been, with an opening seen now that it’s been proven that Obama can’t move Netanyahu on settlements if he doesn’t want to move, any more than we can move the Israelis and Palestinians off of where they’ve been since Clinton left office.

Segue to the Newsweek opening.

Mr. Saban, who is a rabid Clinton supporter, has his primary focus on foreign policy, specifically Israel, making sure our relationship stays firm, which isn’t out of the ordinary and is shared by most, including myself, though that in no way precludes criticism of policy where it’s deserved. That said, the desperate nature of the two-state solution situation has brought to the fore a new urgency from hard right Israeli supporters to reaffirm an alliance that once again puts Palestinian focus and rights further off the agenda than is good for anyone.

From the New Yorker, by Connie Bruck: “The Influencer – An entertainment mogul sets his sights on foreign policy.”

… At a conference last fall in Israel, Saban described his formula. His “three ways to be influential in American politics,” he said, were: make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets. In 2002, he contributed seven million dollars toward the cost of a new building for the Democratic National Committee—one of the largest known donations ever made to an American political party. That year, he also founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C. He considered buying The New Republic, but decided it wasn’t for him. He also tried to buy Time and Newsweek, but neither was available. He and his private-equity partners acquired Univision in 2007, and he has made repeated bids for the Los Angeles Times. …
[...] At a conference last fall in Israel, Saban described his formula. His “three ways to be influential in American politics,” he said, were: make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets. In 2002, he contributed seven million dollars toward the cost of a new building for the Democratic National Committee—one of the largest known donations ever made to an American political party. That year, he also founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C. He considered buying The New Republic, but decided it wasn’t for him. He also tried to buy Time and Newsweek, but neither was available. He and his private-equity partners acquired Univision in 2007, and he has made repeated bids for the Los Angeles Times. …
[...] Saban’s father had been a sales clerk in a small toy shop in Alexandria. One day, Saban says, he was doing his homework by an open window of the family’s apartment. An Egyptian soldier across the way suddenly pointed his gun at him, and called out, “You, Jew! You, Jew! Bam bam!” In 1956, after the Suez Crisis, the Egyptian President, Gamal Abdel Nasser, effectively ordered Jews to leave the country. The Sabans—his parents and his grandmother, and his younger brother—immigrated to Israel, where they shared a three-room apartment with two other families, next to the old Central Bus Station in Tel Aviv.
… [...] After the Tribune Company went into bankruptcy, in 2009, Saban said he informed the creditors of his interest. “They’re not going to do anything until they get out of bankruptcy. So am I still interested in the L.A. Times? I am, yeah, I am,” he said. Saban also said that he asked the New York investor Steven Rattner to let the Sulzbergers know that he would like to buy the New York Times, but Rattner told him they weren’t interested. “What’s it worth now, the whole thing—a billion dollars?” Saban said dismissively. “But it’s a family legacy or something, I don’t know.” If the Sulzbergers were to change their minds, he said, “I would be jumping all over it.”
… [...] According to Saban, in June, 2008, after the primary battles finally ended, Barack Obama called and asked for his help. “I said to him, Let me coördinate a meeting between you and some of the people who supported Hillary through me. We have a few things we need to clarify.”
For example, Saban continued, “Obama was asked the same question Hillary was asked—‘If Iran nukes Israel, what would be your reaction?’ Hillary said, ‘We will obliterate them.’ We . . . will . . . obliterate . . . them. Four words, it’s simple to understand. Obama said only three words. He would ‘take appropriate action.’ I don’t know what that means. A rogue state that is supporting killing our men and women in Iraq; that is a supporter of Hezbollah, which killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization; that is a supporter of Hamas, which shot twelve thousand rockets at Israel—that rogue state nukes a member of the United Nations, and we’re going to ‘take appropriate action’! ” His voice grew louder. “I need to understand what that means. So I had a list of questions like that. And Chicago”—Obama campaign headquarters—“could not organize that meeting. ‘Schedule, heavy schedule.’ I was ready and willing to be helpful, but ‘helpful’ is not to write a check for two thousand three hundred dollars. It’s to raise millions, which I am fully capable of doing. But Chicago wasn’t able to deliver the meeting, so I couldn’t get on board.”
Saban offered to fly his group of Hillary supporters to meet with Obama anywhere in the country, but he was told that it couldn’t be arranged. “Haim understands message—Obama didn’t have time for him,” a close adviser said. “After that, he met with McCain. It went that far. But, ultimately, he felt he could not abandon the Democratic Party, even though he did not like its candidate.”
He has not spoken with Obama since he became President, Saban said, “because he has no need to speak to me—or, at least, he thinks he has no need to.” He has refused on two occasions to co-chair fund-raising dinners for the President.
Saban called Hillary’s defeat “my biggest loss—and not only mine. I’ll leave it at that.”
[...] … He pointed to news reports that the Obama Administration is considering presenting a peace plan. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that both Netanyahu and Abbas were to sign it, he continued, Netanyahu might still have to bring it to a referendum for approval. “Any deal that is pushed by the U.S. with Obama at a nine-per-cent approval rating in Israel, at the moment, will not go through,” he said. Last August, when Saban was in Washington, he met with both Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel, and he argued that Obama should travel to Israel to speak to the Israeli people. That has been his continuing message. “I told friends of mine in the White House, ‘He goes to Saudi Arabia, he goes to Cairo, he doesn’t even make a stop in Jerusalem?’ If he thinks that having a Seder at the White House is going to mitigate that—no, it’s not.”
Hillary Clinton, in her role as Secretary of State, has taken a stern line “condemning” the construction plans, and upbraiding Netanyahu. But Saban—who likes to describe Hillary as a “team player”—remains protective of her. Before Hillary addressed the AIPAC conference on March 22nd, he urged the organization’s leaders to be sure that the convention crowd treated Hillary well. Dan Gillerman, who came from Israel to attend the AIPAC meeting, said that, at a Washington dinner for Netanyahu, following Hillary Clinton’s speech, “there were many people, including some prominent Jewish leaders, who were very surprised and even disappointed at the warm reception Hillary received, because they felt that after the way she treated the Prime Minister, and the way she admonished him for forty-three minutes on the phone, she should have felt the coldness in the room.”
Gillerman added, “No sooner had she said her last syllable than I got an e-mail from Haim, saying, ‘How was Hillary’s speech?’ ” Saban had listened to it in Los Angeles, and “it was very important to him what we felt about her.”

Read the whole piece by Connie Bruck.

The possibility, however remote, of a Schumeresque foreign policy line on Israel coming from the cover of Newsweek, chiding Obama over settlements, shouldn’t excite anyone.

Now, I’m not saying that the debate would change if Saban purchased Newsweek, but there is clearly a hunger on the American right, no matter the political party, for a pro Israel rallying cry, regardless that none is needed, especially if that wail is no different than what’s come before. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Sarah Channels Reagan Badly

By Taylor Marsh on 06 May 2010

Drill, baby, drill, we have a problem.

Don’t naively trust – verify is the first Twitter stab at channeling Reagan. It’s a swing and a miss for Sarah Palin for several reasons. Jason Linkins was given the heads up from an emailer over at Huffington Post, so we’re reminded that Todd Palin was reportedly employed by BP for 18 years.

However, that’s not the obvious miss in Palin’s Twitter missive. She ostracizes “foreign oil co’s” obviously not knowing some of the basic issues swirling around the Gulf oil disaster, including the cementing issues that involved Haliburton.

But then Sarah Palin warns fishermen and others whose livelihood would be affected by the spill to be careful not to “sign away remedy rights.” Odd to see Palin pushing in this direction. The conclusion isn’t very Reagan like, but what are you going to do when those mean “foreign oil co’s,” even though supermajors come in all colors, including red, white and blue, impact your livelihood?

Sue, baby, sue.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

It’s Not About Politics, It’s About Competence

By Taylor Marsh on 05 May 2010

If you want to know why people are frustrated with our national government, the Obama administration gives you a case to add to what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney left in their wake. It’s why people are sick to death of both political parties. The incompetence and sheer stupidity of not learning lessons and taking advice from commissions, which are forced on the American people, because Congress won’t do their jobs either.

Faisal Shahzad was put on the no-fly list at 12:30 pm ET. According to an “administration official,” Shahzad got on the plane because Emirates doesn’t refresh their system often enough, so his name wasn’t seen, but federal authorities evidently lost him before then. But because of built-in redundancy Customs and Border Protection caught the name and ordered the plane back, or so the story goes at this point.

Enter retired 9/11 commission co-chair Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, whose only purpose is to tell the truth about continued federal incompetence, even after recommendations have been given and plenty of time to put them into place has passed.

Hamilton reminds ABC News that “the 9/11 commission recommended that you had to have biometric evidence, documentarian evidence of people coming in and exiting” the country. “We’ve done a pretty good job on the first part of it people entering the country. But with regard to those exiting the country we simply have not been able to set up a system to deal with that and it showed in this case.”
Hamilton says “we need to have in this country a system of checking people leaving the country so that we can protect against the very sort of thing that happened here — or at least almost happened here.”

To broaden this out to a larger point, which I’ve been talking about a lot lately, the big two parties are failing this country horrifically. It’s politics over competency at every single point (see TM.com reader guyski), including where our domestic security is concerned. Politicians line up on their side to push their ideology, as well as their political bankers’ interests, whether we’re talking Wall Street, insurance companies, oil companies (BP can boatloads of cash to Obama, as did Goldman Sachs), nuclear industry (big giver to Obama), you name the corporate special interest, in lieu of what is in the public’s interest.

The big two parties are collapsing under their incompetence, corporate dependence and lack of integrity on issue after issue. It revolves around the notion that Party First is the way to go. Politicians disagreeing with this motto forced to suck it up even when they’re selling us out. Is there any better example than the “progressive movement” on this one? It’s especially true of the “pro-choice progressive caucus,” whom Nancy Pelosi, Bart Stupak and Barack Obama rendered irrelevant, because these so called “progressives” wouldn’t stand up on principle.

It’s why, even though I’d never support him, I’m thrilled to see Charlie Crist go independent. Even though it’s self-serving, because Crist wants to stay a public person in politics, it’s a sign of the desire to serve the people over party as well. Arrogance comes with politics, but service is intertwined with the bravado that leads men and women to believe they have the answers to solving problems.

The national political failings of both parties and politicians representing them are also tied into the press, who takes political sides when delivering the news, which goes for traditional and new media alike. Ben Smith has a post on this today, citing the Washington Post‘s liberal online tilt with David Weigel, Ezra Klein, and Greg Sargent; never mind that their editorial page is hard right. It’s the Post‘s tilt, as well as other online magazine’s political pandering to the powers that be, often due to the rise of access journalism coupled with monetary necessity, that is just one instance where press bias is part of the problem, not the solution. However, that’s the norm, with new media outlets, especially tiny companies like mine, being financially starved out, our futures very uncertain. That the Post is putting Newsweek on the selling block is a result of the changing press tides.

Then there is the marketing and selling of the news. If Fox News Channel can co-opt “fair and balanced” and actually believe it, with MSNBC going left as they see it, even going so far as having Keith Olbermann co-opting Edward R. Murrow’s sign off even though he hardly resembles the man’s professional prowess, with CNN faltering badly, thus talking again with CBS, as blogs line up on one political side or the other, there is hardly any room for objective reality anymore, which used to be the standard. If you don’t take a side you’re not seen.

It’s easy for me to say this, because I come from a hyper-partisan background of writing and reporting myself. I can smell bias in a hummingbird’s heartbeat. I’ve also come to the conclusion that it’s the inability to decipher the partisan doublespeak that is leading the American people to their cynicism.

“The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter” – Thomas Jefferson

Access journalism predicated on monetary necessity in a country where politicians and leaders are beholden to globalized corporations leaves very little space to keep things right between the people and their government.

Lack of trust in government and the press has led to massive cynicism and is why voters who used to be Democrats and Republicans are going Independent, and why the Tea Party is rising up even if they don’t exactly understand why, which isn’t always a pretty reason, as the still affiliated wonder why they bothered voting these incompetent bunglers into office in the first place, wondering why it’s worth voting in 2010.

That Pres. Obama, Democrats and Republicans continue down a dead end path doesn’t surprise me. But it has made me more skeptical than ever of the big two political parties, but also the press, at a time when we need the latter to police the former in a way that was done during Nixon’s era. Because the politicians and our corporations are robbing we the people of our country.

A biased, access press, who prizes getting cozy at swanky cocktail parties, is helping them do it.

We live in an era that has rendered political ideology more important than competency. Where marketing means more than making a difference we the people can see.

We got lucky with the Times Square failed terrorist attack, primarily due to the competence of the New York City anti-terrorism infrastructure, including citizens who have experience with this horror.

We didn’t get so lucky with what looks like criminal negligence by the conglomeration of incompetence between the federal government, corporations, and political hacks who still stand today to hawk oil drilling at a moment in time when our entire Gulf coastal region may collapse because of corporate greed and political coziness with corporations that are taking this country in a direction that minimizes we the people even more.

There’s a reason people don’t believe in their government or political parties. It’s because Party First politics has led to sheer incompetence, something that manifested recently in Arizona’s reactive new law, which makes a mockery of any Cinco de Mayo celebration you may enjoy tonight.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 35 }

Italy Latest to Fine Woman Wearing Burqa

By Taylor Marsh on 05 May 2010

“Husbands must acknowledge that in Italy, a woman is a man’s equal, freedom is fundamental and there must be mutual respect in a family,” the mayor added. – Woman fined for wearing burqa in Italy

Keep the pressure on. In the 21st century, there should be no support for the rightward march against women. Piety and spiritual devotion must not be relegated to ancient customs meant to relegate women to second class citizens who are under their husband’s control.

Italian police have fined a woman 500 euros ($A712) for wearing a full Islamic veil – the first punishment of its kind in Italy but the latest in a wave of sanctions against the burqa in Europe.
The 26-year-old Tunisian woman was walking in a street in the northwestern city of Novara on Monday when she was stopped by a patrol, local police said.
“City police ticketed her last night and she will have to pay a 500-euro ($A712) fine,” Novara municipal police official Mauro Franzinelli told AFP. “As far as I know this is a first in Italy.” [...]

The burqa is barbaric.

Read full story · Comments { 68 }

Heckuva Job Brownie Channels Rush on Fox

By Taylor Marsh on 04 May 2010

This is priceless stuff.

Mr. Brown believes that Pres. Obama actually did this on purpose. After all, how else would Obama change policy? Via Fox, compliments of Neil Cavuto:

[...] This is exactly what they want, because now he can pander to the environmentalists and say, “I’m going to shut it down because It’s too dangerous,” while Mexico and China and everybody else drills in the Gulf. We’re going to get shut down.” [...] [...] And I would not be surprised if the White House said, you know, we might be able to, guess what, do what? Use this crisis to our advantage. Let this crisis get really bad, and then we will step in. We will be able to shut down offshore drilling. We will be able to turn to all these alternate fuels. [...]

If only this were true. However, so far the only person to see the light is California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has backed off of one offshore drilling project because of the BP disaster. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Schwarzenegger, whose administration as recently as Friday defended the proposed Tranquillon Ridge offshore drilling project, said images of the spill in the gulf changed his mind.
“All of you have seen, when you turn on the television, the devastation in the gulf, and I’m sure that they also were assured that it was safe to drill,” he said at a news conference Monday. “I see on TV the birds drenched in oil, the fishermen out of work, the massive oil spill and oil slick destroying our precious ecosystem. That will not happen here in California, and this is why I am withdrawing my support for the T-Ridge project.”
His new stance all but guarantees the demise of the proposal by a Texas oil company to allow the first new drilling in state waters in 40 years.

Robert Gibbs unloaded on a Fox reporter in the briefing today:

“You should call headquarters, my friend. Your network put on the former FEMA director to make an accusation that the well had been purposely set off in order to change an offshore drilling decision.”

I guess once Rush Limbaugh said it (“So we got an oil slick, added benefit, now (Obama) can cancel offshore drilling”), Brownie thought it was true.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

« Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 Next »

TM MUST READS

Hillary Clinton has Attended Last SOTU as Obama’s SoS
“I think after 20 years — and it will be 20 years — of being on the high wire of [...]
U.S. News & World Report Op-Ed
President Obama takes his base for granted on issues like the Bush tax cuts, Plan B, and the economy - US [...]
Ryan Lizza and The Hillary Effect, Case Proved Beyond Any Doubt
The reason I wrote my book was to tell a piece of history. It was to set the record of [...]
Newsweek Asks Correct Question, Gives Wrong Answer
The right is exploding in indignation. As for the left, Tina Brown’s cover title, Why are Obama’s critics so dumb?, [...]
Stephen Colbert, Ron Paul and Others Take on Republicans and Democrats
The Colbert ReportGet More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive As much as our national media deserves [...]
Capitalism Out of the Closet
**UPDATED** Would we be any worse off with Stephen Colbert as president? I doubt it. Politifact has watched the video [...]
Shameless Plugs, UK Guardian Edition for The Hillary Effect
Last week was busy for me. One interview I did was for the UK Guardian, which is up today: Does [...]
Mitt, Newt, that Guy Ron Paul, and Democratic Trouble
UPDATED Before we get to Iowa, something that’s not getting covered deserves mention, because it ties into the opposite [...]
The Party’s Over
There’s a reason Obama reelect doesn’t have a slogan. All they’ve got is a question: Are you in? Symbolic of [...]
Barack Obama, the Sane Republican
The quote to end the year comes from Cenk Uygur in a piece that’s worth a read. I am “uncommitted” [...]
Why Newt Committed The Cardinal Sin Among Conservatives
We should not expect Gingrich to understand this until he understands that his work for Freddie Mac was not, as [...]
The Romney as Hillary Headline Finally Appears
WASHINGTON – Oh, what a set up. Thank you Politico. First it was floated on NBC’s First Read, then came [...]
Obama’s Fight for Cordray Missing for Elizabeth Warren
“But the bottom line is that we are going to stay here as long as it takes to make sure [...]
Pres. Obama’s War on Women’s Reproductive Freedoms Continues
**UPDATED** In a statement, FDA Administrator Margaret A. Hamburg said she had decided the medication could be used safely by [...]
A Word from Amb. Joseph Wilson about The Hillary Effect
“During the primary elections that pitted Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama, Taylor was the leading analyst of, and most articulate [...]
Chris Matthews: ‘There’s nothing to root for.’
“I’m like everybody, I want more action. But I understand that [Pres. Obama's] trying not to piss off a lot [...]
Not Disappointed in Pres. Obama
**Postscript added** President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics [...]
OWS: The Connections are Wide and Deep
The video above is of Sgt. Shamar Thomas. It went viral and now has over 2 million hits. After Scott [...]
Obama’s Lost Moon Shot on Energy
“… We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do [...]
Fan Politics
Despite rising public concern about the federal budget deficit, Americans favor keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are [...]
Money Quote that Would Make Reagan Laugh
“Cantor and Kyl just threw Boehner and McConnell under the bus. This move is an admission that there will be [...]
Getting that 1979 Feeling Again
It’s déjà vu all over again. via David Weigel Pres. Obama has never understood the incredible gift he was handed [...]

TM Connect

We Will Never Outlast Our Adversaries in Afghanistan

Kagan is Not Gay Conversation Embarrasses Everyone

If it Sounds Like Political Marketing…

Afghan Women Have Not Been ‘Betrayed’

Desperation

The Gay Rumor Rises

The Era of the Executive Branch Continues

If Kagan’s the Choice, Obama Is on His Own

Tea Party Activists Defeat Utah’s Bennett

The Precarious Future of Israel and Palestine

Is Elena Kagan the Best Obama Can Do?

What’s the Future of Activism?

Sarah Palin Picks Fiorina Hoping for a Winner

Hung Brits or Did Conservatives Bring It In?

The NRA Supports Terrorists

Will Bill and Hillary Supporter Haim Saban Make Another Bid for Newsweek?

Sarah Channels Reagan Badly

It’s Not About Politics, It’s About Competence

Italy Latest to Fine Woman Wearing Burqa

Heckuva Job Brownie Channels Rush on Fox

Tag Cloud

Follow Taylor on Twitter

TM MUST READS

New Media