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 | May, 2011

With Steny Hoyer as the Opening Act

Originally posted at 1:27 p.m.

Obama must be very certain that liberal Jews will enthusiastically support him no matter what. And there is evidence he is right. Josh Block, senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute and a former AIPAC spokesman, e-mailed: “It [the speech] was a strong reformation of the US-Israel relationship, and was an important and positive change from his remarks on Thursday. It reflected an important continuity of US policy going back to President Johnson.”Obama double downs at AIPAC, By Jennifer Rubin



You’ve got to hand it to them, as political theater goes this was good. Of course, Jennifer Rubin’s head has now exploded all over the Washington Post, but her sort of incoming is predictable.

Now, I’m no fan of Rep. Hoyer’s blue-doggedness, but after his red meat rhetoric Sunday at AIPAC, Pres. Obama came on to the stage like a political prize fighter. The one – two punch rhetorical tag team worked, because Hoyer got standing ovation after ovation and even got what sounded like more applause when he was mentioned by Obama than hawk weenie Eric Cantor did.

Steve Clemons tweeted something the other day that got my attention, but now comes with actual footage.

I get Barack “Rocky Balboa” Obama now He’s letting Netanyahu kick crap out of him round after round & wearing Bibi down. Obama stays in ring – Steve Clemons

Pres. Obama today:

Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion’s share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.

By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

If there’s a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. I have done so because we cannot afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades, to achieve peace. The world is moving too fast. The extraordinary challenges facing Israel would only grow. Delay will undermine Israel’s security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve.

In case you didn’t catch it, that sentence in bold was directed at PM Netanyahu, who earned the diplomatic shout out after he conveniently chose to ignore and press Pres. Obama that something had changed when Obama uttered “1967,” because Netanyahu purposefully ignored with land swaps. Rubin characterized Obama calling out the naked political mischaracterization as “blame-the-media and woe-is-me sentiments that were shameful displays by a U.S. president”.

Coming after Hoyer’s phenomenal sound bite rapid fire that had the audience on its feet continually, Pres. Obama delivered the urgency that all parties must acknowledge, while holding the line against forcing Israel to accept terms through U.N. machinations, which would be disastrous for everyone, but especially U.S. interests.

The Hoyer – Obama team truly was tour de force foreign policy theater. That it came at AIPAC had its own sort of magic.

PHOTO: President Barack Obama talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel as they walk from the Oval Office to the South Lawn Drive of the White House, following their meetings, May 20, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Queer Talk: Don’t Say Gay, Do Say Discrimination

Joyce L. Arnold is a liberal Independent whose weekly column “Queer Talk” appears on Saturday.

The current edition of a familiar story is playing out in Tennessee. But the Volunteer State is not alone. For example (and notably, not in “the South”), the Minnesota House and Senate have passed the referendum bill which will put on the ballot the question of amending the state constitution to ban marriage between same-gender couples.

For details about current activities in Tennessee, I’ll provide links at the end. To summarize: If they’d set out to do so, the Tennessee General Assembly couldn’t have done a better job of illustrating the discrimination which LGBT Americans continue to face, in spite of obvious gains. Two bills in particular have gained the national notoriety they deserve.

Last month, the “Don’t Say Gay” bill (as identified by its opponents) passed the Senate with a 20-10 vote. The bill restricts teaching about or discussion of LGBT’s until high school, though an amendment limited the scope somewhat, by saying the measure applies only to prepared materials and instructions. Which is nice, since otherwise any student who mentioned “the gays” for any reason would presumably have to be ignored by the teacher. The House is expected to take up the bill when the General Assembly convenes in 2012.

The “Special Access to Discriminate Act” is receiving lots of attention now, as the Tennessee House and Senate just passed a bill that over-turns the LGBT non-discrimination protection recently enacted in Nashville, and prohibits such protections anywhere in the state. In fact, it bans cities from passing any civil rights legislation. The legislators said it’s all about commerce, and making things fair for businesses across the state.

Lobbying strongly for the “it’s not only okay to discriminate, we’re making it illegal to prevent discrimination” bill was the Family Action Council, whose mission is : “To equip Tennesseans and their public officials to effectively promote and defend a culture that values the traditional family, for the sake of the common good.” Clearly the “homosexuals” are not included in the “common” or the “good.”

The bill gained much attention in the last few days as it became known that the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce had strongly backed the bill. Board members of the TN Chamber: Nissan, FedEx, AT&T, Comcast, DuPont, Pfizer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Caterpillar, KPMG, Whirlpool, Embraer, Alcoa, and United HealthCare.

I spoke, via e-mail, with Chris Sanders, long-time Nashville LGBT activist, and Public Relations Chair of the Tennessee Equality Project, a state-wide organization which, along with the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition, PFLAG and multiple others, work toward equality in the state. I think hearing from local activists is vital, and so want to share with you how Chris responded to a couple of questions.

Fairly often when things like these anti-LGBT bills happen, there’s a tendency among some to start generalizing, painting an entire state with a very broad brush of “ignorance,” “backwards,” and such. Among other things, such generalizations often hide the very hard work of quite progressive people. Chris responded:

It’s hard to say how reflective the negative legislation is of the people of Tennessee. The 107th General Assembly is clearly the most socially conservative in recent history. I don’t believe that many of our lawmakers ran for office on a platform of taking non-discrimination decisions out of the hands of cities and counties or on attacking discussion of our community in elementary and middle schools, so most voters did not see this coming. The response throughout Tennessee is that the Don’t Say Gay bill is a joke. Unfortunately it’s a joke the bill sponsor is determined to push to the end.

Secondly, I asked Chris about the relationship of what’s happening in Tennessee to LGBT equality across the nation. His response:

I think the Don’t Say Gay and Special Access to Discriminate bills are a sign of things to come in red states. Even though much of our community believes that SAD will be struck down based on Romer v Evans, legal experts are not unanimous in that opinion. It appears that SAD was deliberately written in such a way to escape that ruling. If that’s the case, then I would not be surprised if the right wing used the same bill in Georgia, for example, to undo Atlanta’s non-discrimination law. While we’ve seen some progress at the federal level and significant progress in other states, progress across the country is neither linear nor inevitable. I see tough years ahead.

For more details, a few links follow. The first I particularly encourage you to check out. GayAmericaBlog initiated a petition, “Hands off our civil rights!”, in response to the SAD bill’s passage. It confronts the Board members of the TN Chamber of Commerce regarding their support of SAD, and urges them to tell TN Governor Haslam to veto the bill. The petition’s goal keeps being raised (it started at 5000), because so many people are signing it. The latest: 7890 signatures, with a goal of 10,000.

See the petition here.

For more information:
Tennessee Equality Project

Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition

GayAmericaBlog

Pam’s House Blend

Box Turtle Bulletin

The Advocate

These kind of legislative efforts seem to be a key part of conservative planning – no doubt federal efforts will continue, and state and local level efforts aren’t new, of course. But when self-identified conservative legislators take power away from municipal governments (limited government be damned) and explicitly target a group with the intent to limit equality, including in the business world (free market be damned) … it needs to get a lot of attention.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Live-Blogging President Obama’s 10:30 a.m. Speech at AIPAC – **UPDATED** with FULL REMARKS

The speech starts at 10:30a.m. and is live-streaming at cspan.org and whitehouse.gov. I will be live-blogging it so you get the news in real-time. And also because live-blogging is fun.

The big question hanging over the conference is whether or not Obama will back down from his statements regarding 1967 borders when he said“[T]he borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” He is being encouraged to back down by members of his own party.

I apologize in advance for any typos. Any comments I make will be in brackets.

LIVE-BLOG

10:30a.m.: [He's perpetually late.]

10:34: [Ok, it's not Obama's fault, Steny Hoyer is speaking at the podium right now.]

10:37: [I'm not going to blog Hoyer's comments- they'll be over shortly]

10:42: Ok, Hoyer just said that Israel’s borders “must be defensible and must reflect reality on the ground.” [huge applause]

10:43: Standing ovation when Hoyer said “peace must be negotiated without preconditions…” [I know I said I wasn't going to blog Hoyer's comments but hey, I'm here so why not...]

10:44: Hoyer says Palestinians will be defunded if they don’t meet previous conditions. [I wonder if Hoyer knows what Obama is going to say during his speech?]

10:46: [Hoyer seems to be finishing up his comments...]

10:48: [Ok, Hoyer finished, up next, POTUS]

10:49: [President of AIPAC Lee Rosenberg introducing Obama...]

10:50a.m. [That's nice, they clapped when Obama's name was mentioned]

10:52: [Rosenberg reminding people all the things Obama has done for Israel...iron dome, 3 billion in aid, sanctions against Iran...]

10:54: Killing OBL shows commitment to fighting terrorism

10:55: Lots of applause. Barack Obama: Remarkable crowd…kind introduction…going down memory lane about his friendship with “Rosie” Rosenberg.

11:00a.m.: “No one has a greater stake in the events of today than college students…mentions Thursday speech and meeting with Bibi…”

11:01: “Unbreakable bonds, commitment to Israel iron-clad…a strong Israel in U.S. best interest…America’s commitment to Israel’s security flows from a deeper place…the values we share…”

11:02: [I could have written this speech]

11:03: “Security of Israel a priority…unprecedented military cooperation…despite tough fiscal times we’ve increased economic aid to record levels…iron dome…powerful example of american-israeli cooperation…already intercepted rockets from Gaza…

11:06: “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will be met with opposition from the United States…”

11:08: “Demanding Hamas recognize Israel’s right to exist, recognize all future agreements”…”release Galid Shalit Huge applause [he's hitting all the right notes for the Lobby- bragged about killing Goldstone, UN Veto]

11:11: He mentioned his controversial remarks last week and said the parameters have been the same since the Clinton administration.

More in the comments… …

FULL REMARKS OF PRES. OBAMA’S SPEECH BELOW:

Remarks of President Barack Obama at AIPAC Policy Conference–As Prepared for Delivery

Washington, DC

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Good morning! Thank you, Rosy, for your very kind introduction. But even more, thank you for your many years friendship. Back in Chicago, when I was just getting started in national politics, I reached out to a lot of people for advice and counsel, and Rosy was one of the very first. When I made my first visit to Israel, after entering the Senate, Rosy – you were at my side every step of that very meaningful journey through the Holy Land. And I want to thank you for your enduring friendship, your leadership and for your warm welcome today.

Thank you to David Victor, Howard Kohr and all the Board of Directors. And let me say that it’s wonderful to look out and see so many great friends, including Alan Solow, Howard Green and a very large delegation from Chicago.

I want to thank the members of Congress who are joining you today—who do so much to sustain the bonds between the United States and Israel—including Eric Cantor, Steny Hoyer, and the tireless leader I was proud to appoint as the new chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

We’re joined by Israel’s representative to the United States, Ambassador Michael Oren. As well as one of my top advisors on Israel and the Middle East for the past four years, and who I know is going to be an outstanding ambassador to Israel—Dan Shapiro. Dan has always been a close and trusted advisor, and I know he’ll do a terrific job.

And at a time when so many young people around the world are standing up and making their voices heard, I also want to acknowledge all the college students from across the country who are here today. No one has a greater stake in the outcome of events that are unfolding today than your generation, and it’s inspiring to see you devote your time and energy to help shape the future.

Now, I’m not here to subject you to a long policy speech. I gave one on Thursday in which I said that the United States sees the historic changes sweeping the Middle East and North Africa as a moment of great challenge, but also a moment of opportunity for greater peace and security for the entire region, including the State of Israel.

On Friday, I was joined at the White House by Prime Minister Netanyahu, and we reaffirmed that fundamental truth that has guided our presidents and prime ministers for more than 60 years—that, even while we may at times disagree, as friends sometimes will, the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable, and the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is ironclad.

A strong and secure Israel is in the national security interest of United States not simply because we share strategic interests, although we do both seek a region where families and their children can live free from the threat of violence. It’s not simply because we face common dangers, although there can be no denying that terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons are grave threats to both our nations.

America’s commitment to Israel’s security also flows from a deeper place —and that’s the values we share. As two people who struggled to win our freedom against overwhelming odds, we understand that preserving the security for which our forefathers fought must be the work of every generation. As two vibrant democracies, we recognize that the liberties and freedom we cherish must be constantly nurtured. And as the nation that recognized the State of Israel moments after its independence, we have a profound commitment to its survival as a strong, secure homeland of the Jewish people.

We also know how difficult that search for security can be, especially for a small nation like Israel in a tough neighborhood. I’ve seen it firsthand. When I touched my hand against the Western Wall and placed my prayer between its ancient stones, I thought of all the centuries that the children of Israel had longed to return to their ancient homeland. When I went to Sderot, I saw the daily struggle to survive in the eyes of an eight-year old boy who lost his leg to a Hamas rocket. And when I walked among the Hall of Names at Yad Vashem, I grasped the existential fear of Israelis when a modern dictator seeks nuclear weapons and threatens to wipe Israel off the map.

Because we understand the challenges Israel faces, I and my administration have made the security of Israel a priority. It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels. It’s why we’re making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies. And it’s why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels.

That includes additional support – beyond regular military aid – for the Iron Dome anti-rocket system. This is a powerful example of American-Israel cooperation which has already intercepted rockets from Gaza and helped saved innocent Israeli lives. So make no mistake, we will maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge.

You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Here in the U.S., we’ve imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime. At the United Nations, we’ve secured the most comprehensive international sanctions on the regime, which have been joined by allies and partners around the world. Today, Iran is virtually cut off from large parts of the international financial system, and we are going to keep up the pressure. So let me be absolutely clear – we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Its illicit nuclear program is just one challenge that Iran poses. As I said on Thursday, the Iranian government has shown its hypocrisy by claiming to support the rights of protesters while treating its own people with brutality. Moreover, Iran continues to support terrorism across the region, including providing weapons and funds to terrorist organizations. So we will continue to work to prevent these actions, and will stand up to groups like Hezbollah who exercise political assassination, and seek to impose their will through rockets and car bombs.

You also see our commitment to Israel’s security in our steadfast opposition to any attempt to de-legitimize the State of Israel. As I said at the United Nation’s last year, “Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate,” and “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States.”

So when the Durban Review Conference advanced anti-Israel sentiment, we withdrew. In the wake of the Goldstone Report, we stood up strongly for Israel’s right to defend itself. When an effort was made to insert the United Nations into matters that should be resolved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, we vetoed it.

And so, in both word and deed, we have been unwavering in our support of Israel’s security. And it is precisely because of our commitment to Israel’s long-term security that we have worked to advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Now, I have said repeatedly that core issues can only be negotiated in direct talks between the parties. And I indicated on Thursday that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel’s right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements. And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years.

And yet, no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under the current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option. The status quo is unsustainable. That is why, on Thursday, I stated publicly the principles that the United States believes can provide a foundation for negotiations toward an agreement to end the conflict and all claims – the broad outlines of which have been known for many years, and have been the template for discussions between the United States, Israelis, and Palestinians since at least the Clinton Administration.

I know that stating these principles – on the issues of territory and security – generated some controversy over the past few days. I was not entirely surprised. I know very well that the easy thing to do, particularly for a President preparing for reelection, is to avoid any controversy. But as I said to Prime Minister Netanyahu, I believe that the current situation in the Middle East does not allow for procrastination. I also believe that real friends talk openly and honestly with one another. And so I want to share with you some of what I said to the Prime Minister.

Here are the facts we all must confront. First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian territories. This will make it harder and harder – without a peace deal – to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state.

Second, technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace.

And third, a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region. A just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two Arab leaders. Going forward, millions of Arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained.

Just as the context has changed in the Middle East, so too has it been changing in the international community over the last several years. There is a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process – or the absence of one. Not just in the Arab World, but in Latin America, in Europe, and in Asia. That impatience is growing, and is already manifesting itself in capitols around the world.

These are the facts. I firmly believe, and repeated on Thursday, that peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict. No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state. And the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the UN or in any international forum. Because Israel’s legitimacy is not a matter for debate.

Moreover, we know that peace demands a partner – which is why I said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist, and we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric.

But the march to isolate Israel internationally – and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations – will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative. For us to have leverage with the Palestinians, with the Arab States, and with the international community, the basis for negotiations has to hold out the prospect of success. So, in advance of a five day trip to Europe in which the Middle East will be a topic of acute interest, I chose to speak about what peace will require.

There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. Administrations. But since questions have been raised, let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday.

I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

That is what I said. Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion’s share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.

By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

If there’s a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. I have done so because we cannot afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades, to achieve peace. The world is moving too fast. The extraordinary challenges facing Israel would only grow. Delay will undermine Israel’s security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve.

I know that some of you will disagree with this assessment. I respect that. And as fellow Americans and friends of Israel, I know that we can have this discussion.

Ultimately, however, it is the right and responsibility of the Israeli government to make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a Jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrificed. And as a friend of Israel, I am committed to doing our part to see that this goal is realized, while calling not just on Israel, but on the Palestinians, the Arab States, and the international community to join us in that effort. Because the burden of making hard choices must not be Israel’s alone.

Even as we do all that’s necessary to ensure Israel’s security; even as we are clear-eyed about the difficult challenges before us; and even as we pledge to stand by Israel through whatever tough days lie ahead – I hope we do not give up on that vision of peace. For if history teaches us anything—if the story of Israel teaches us anything—it is that with courage and resolve, progress is possible. Peace is possible.

The Talmud teaches us that so long as a person still has life, they should never abandon faith. And that lesson seems especially fitting today,

For so long as there are those, across the Middle East and beyond, who are standing up for the legitimate rights and freedoms which have been denied by their governments, the United States will never abandon our support for those rights that are universal.

And so long as there are those who long for a better future, we will never abandon our pursuit of a just and lasting peace that ends this conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. This is not idealism or naivete. It’s a hard-headed recognition that a genuine peace is the only path that will ultimately provide for a peaceful Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people and a Jewish state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Thank you. God bless you. God bless Israel, and God bless the United States of America.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Mitch Daniels Not Running in 2012, Cites Privacy

**UPDATED**

This is the bookend to Mike Huckabee.

The GOP Establishment will have to buy bulk anti-depressants for this one, because Mitch was their guy. I never saw it, especially against Obama, but I’m not seeing Tim Pawlenty either, at least not for the big job.

From the AP:

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels says he will not seek the Republican presidential nomination.

In a middle-of-the-night message on Sunday, Daniels said he was taking the advice of his family and would skip a White House bid.

Daniels told his friends and supporters he ultimately decided he wasn’t willing to sacrifice his family’s privacy.

Politico has the email text, which reads in part:

“I hope this reaches you before the public news does,” Daniels wrote. “If so, please respect my confidence for the short time until I can make it known to all.”

He went on, “The counsel and encouragement I received from important citizens like you caused me to think very deeply about becoming a national candidate. In the end, I was able to resolve every competing consideration but one, but that, the interests and wishes of my family, is the most important consideration of all. If I have disappointed you, I will always be sorry.”

I’m a night owl, so I saw this break, but it’s weird as hell for someone so high profile to unload news like this in a wee hours Sunday morning blast. Hey, but everything about the Republicans struggle to find a decent nominee is odd.

The issue with privacy is a real problem, I believe. The intrusiveness of the 21st century new media world is scaring off the families of politicians who didn’t sign on for the scrutiny. It’s such a relentless spectacle, filled with probing and all sorts of intrusion. I’m not speaking of Daniels now, but some of the best minds will simply not be squeaky clean and shouldn’t have to be as far as I’m concerned. One person I’m thinking about is Eliot Spitzer. Looking at 2016, I’d rather have what Spitzer offers than what Gov. Cuomo is serving up.

The calls will go out to Gov. Christie yet again, because Daniels not running is going to freak out the good old boys who believe Obama is beatable, but don’t believe the candidate to take it on is anywhere near the on deck circle.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

We Know What Bibi Netanyahu Stands Against, Now He Needs to Tell Us What He Stands For

*SecyClintonBlog to liveblog Pres. Obama’s AIPAC speech on Sunday *

Guest post by SecyClintonBlog, originally posted “In the News.”

Bibi Netanyahu and Barack Obama had a tense meeting in the Oval Office after the Israeli leader went ballistic about one line in the President’s speech, while simultaneously ignoring all the bones Obama threw in his direction.

After the meeting they spoke to the press and Netanyahu, for his part, continued to reject President Obama’s statements from the speech about 1967 lines while adding some new criticisms- he lectured the President on Middle East history and then he opined that he thinks the US should just tell the Palestinians “no” to the right of return and he essentially said he’d keep troops in the Jordan Valley. Add to this the fact that immediately prior to leaving for Washington, he reiterated that he would retain an undivided Jerusalem, wouldn’t dismantle settlements and wouldn’t sit down with any government that had anything to do with Hamas, and well, it’s hard to make two states out of that recipe. Then Bibi said he was willing to make concessions for peace. I am wondering, what concessions exactly?

Everyone knows that the U.S. is 100% dedicated to Israel’s security and for anyone to claim otherwise is ridiculous. Yes, Hamas poses a big problem but the U.S. has made clear they have to accept Quartet principles. The reality is that unless there is some unification of the Palestinian people, Abbas simply doesn’t have the political strength or support to deal on their behalf. We may not like that, but that’s the way it is.

Some have said “why put all the pressure on Israel? What have the Palestinians done?” Actually, the Palestinians have done quite a bit. There has been unprecedented security cooperation between the PA and Israel, with the PA doing everything in its power to reign in violent extremism in the West Bank. They also acquiesced to supporting the deferment of action on the Goldstone Report at the UN- a move that the U.S. requested and which resulted in Abu Mazen losing credibility with his people. The PA had apparently also repeatedly agreed to not hold elections because the U.S. and Israel were afraid of who might replace Fayyad and Abbas. And anyone who read the Palestine Papers or summaries of their contents knows that the Palestinian Authority was willing to make such huge concessions that their own people were outraged upon hearing about them. You see, the irony of all Bibi’s fear-mongering is that everyone knows that Salam Fayyad and Abu Mazen are the two most moderate Palestinian leaders in history.

While Bibi is very good at recommending other people recognize certain realities in the region, I think he’s not so good at doing that himself. Having read Obama’s speech about 7 times now, it’s clear that his overall point was that the Arab Spring has set forth a tidal wave of change in the region- some of it may be good, some bad, but that sound Israel hears is the Arab Spring knocking at their doors. Israel cannot dig in and simply hope that local dictators of convenience will provide some buffer zone of protection. Nor can the United States continue to expend endless blood, treasure, diplomatic cover, all while squandering our international credibility by unquestioningly rubber-stamping every Israeli action irrespective of their consequences for our own national security.

While there were no burning Israeli or American flags in Tahrir Square, Tripoli, Manama or Tunis, it is pure fantasy to think there is no relationship between the hunger for change in the region and the never-ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I don’t often agree with Andrew Sullivan, but he makes a valid point:

…What strikes me is the visceral and emotional power behind the AIPAC line, displayed in Netanyahu’s contemptuous, disgraceful, desperate public dressing down of the American president in the White House. Just observe the tone of Netanyahu’s voice, and the Cheney-like determination to impose his will on the world, regardless of anyone else, and certainly without the slightest concern for his ally’s wider foreign policy and security needs. It seems clear to me that he believes that an American president, backed by the Quartet, must simply bow toward Israel’s own needs, as he perceives them, rather than the other way round. Has Netanyahu ever asked, one wonders, what he could actually do to help Obama, president of Israel’s oldest, and strongest ally in an era of enormous social and political change? That, it seems, is not how this alliance works. Moroever, an alliance in which one party is acting in direct conflict with the needs and goals of the other is an unstable one. Yes, there are unshakeable, powerful bonds between the two countries, and rightly so. But emotional bonds are not enough if, in the end, core national interests collide – and no compromise is possible.

And before someone comes along and screams “anti-Semite” or “anti-Israel” in this post’s direction, consider a post by one of Israel’s most ardent supporters, conservative Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic:

For whatever reason, I tend to react strongly when a foreign leader disrespects the United States, and its President….

[snip]

And so I was similarly taken aback when I read a statement from Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday that he “expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both House of Congress.”

So Netanyahu “expects” to hear this from the President of the United States? And if President Obama doesn’t walk back the speech, what will Netanyahu do? Will he cut off Israeli military aid to the U.S.? Will he cease to fight for the U.S. in the United Nations, and in the many international forums that treat Israel as a pariah?

I don’t like this word, “expect.” Even if there weren’t an imbalance between these two countries — Israel depends on the U.S. for its survival, while America, I imagine, would continue to exist even if Israel ceased to exist — I would find myself feeling resentful about the way Netanyahu speaks about our President.

Former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy provides a rather cogent analysis of what Obama hoped to achieve with his Mideast speech while also pointing out what the media and Bibi largely ignored- the Palestinians probably didn’t exactly hear what they wanted to hear in much of that speech:

There will also probably be Palestinian disappointment in having, for instance, created symmetries between Israeli and Palestinian actions where those do not exist (the President seemed to compare Israeli settlement expansion with Palestinian non-participation in negotiations; while the former is illegal under international law, the latter is a political tactic), as well as the approach the President took on internal Palestinian political reconciliation and his failure to acknowledge the existing Palestinian nonviolent struggle and the way it has been dealt with by Israel – amongst other things.

According to the pundit class, Bibi’s words and actions over the past few days are aimed at trying to politicize support for Israel. Bad idea. This exact same thing happened during the Clinton years, but it backfired on Bibi. It wasn’t a good idea then and it’s not now. Both political parties are ardent supporters of Israel and Bibi’s attempts to triangulate should be resisted by anyone who really claims to be “pro-Israel” even if we disagree about the best way to support Israel.

Rather than insulting and criticizing the President of the United States, Benjamin Netanyahu should realize that what Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, George Mitchell (formerly) etc. are trying to do is to prevent a possible train wreck at the United Nations in September when the Palestinian seek to declare a state. Yes, the US will veto/kill any such attempt but Obama and Hillary know that Israel’s other allies, and primarily the EU states, are growing tired of the occupation and the never-ending peace process. By mentioning 1967 borders as a starting framework with agreed upon land swaps (a part of the speech Bibi and the media largely ignored), the Obama administration is attempting to prevent Israel’s further isolation in the world community. In other words the U.S. is trying to help secure Israel’s future while Bibi is trying to politicize it.

The big question now is what will Obama say at AIPAC tomorrow morning? Obviously, he shouldn’t be as rude and inconsiderate as Bibi was to him. You don’t accept an invite from a friend and then piss on their carpet. So, no, Obama will not and should not criticize Netanyahu- that goes without saying. But he absolutely MUST rebut Netanyahu’s misleading statements about the 1967 lines and how they would play into any future negotiations. If Obama backs down and refuses to say the numbers 1.9.6.7. then he will once again be sending the message that at the slightest bit of push-back, he caves.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Progressive Notes: RootsAction!, Feingold Names Names, Berstein Debunks Right, Hirono is In

Texan4Hillary offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Louder than Words Mr. President! See the video driving Obamaphiles nuts here.

A new organization called RootsAction has launched promising to get progressives working in the grassroots as a independent force apart from the Democratic Party. They plan to hold electeds accountable and have a youtube vid up that is sending the Obamaphiles mad:

RootsAction is a new online initiative dedicated to galvanizing millions of Americans who are committed to economic fairness, equal rights, civil liberties, environmental protection — and defunding endless wars.

We will not be silent as Congress and the president continue to squander billions of dollars on foreign wars, causing destruction and hatred overseas while failing to meet the needs of the vast majority of people in our country. We will not stand by as people lose their jobs and homes due to Wall Street schemes abetted by both major parties. We will not give the Obama administration a pass as it continues many of the same policies that sparked loud protests under the Bush White House. We will take action — independent of both party leaderships. That’s why the launch of RootsAction has been strongly endorsed by such respected, independent-minded progressives as Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Bill Fletcher Jr., Laura Flanders, former U.S. Senator James Abourezk and Coleen Rowley.

When progressives have fallen into making excuses for corporate-approved “reforms” from the Obama White House, they’ve come across as defenders of an untenable status quo — and helped corporate-funded “populists” of the right wing to masquerade as the agents of change.

RootsAction will mobilize behind policies that actually address the immense economic, social and environmental problems facing our country.

Congressman Quayle (R-AZ) is a nitwit like his famous dad. He in this vid denies oil subsidies! Yep they just do not exist. The Dems have the GOP on the hot seat on the Ryan plan and the oil issue. The folks at his townhall had a good laugh about what he said. Watch here .

Kudos to Russ Feingold for taking on members of his party for their corporate corruption. Some Dems are pressing Obama to not sign a executive order forcing disclosure of certain political contributions. And yes Russ names names:

In addition to Lieberman, McCaskill and Hoyer, Feingold points to three Republicans — Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) and Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.) – who have been swayed by corporations into supporting their position on donor disclosures.

“[N]ot surprisingly, corporate interests in Congress want to keep this process in the dark. Sadly, but predictably, it’s not just Republicans,” Feingold continued.” Some Democrats are joining Republicans in pressing to keep the cycle of political money and federal contracts hidden. Incredibly, they’re claiming that transparency will somehow lead to more corruption. I spent nearly two decades in the Senate, and I can tell you: that’s just baloney.”

In soliciting $5 donations, Feingold said his PAC will place ads intended to “shame” the members, who have all said they believe that if government contractors’ contributions are disclosed, contracts will end up going to the highest bidder.

Jared Bernstein, the last progressive economist in the Obama White House, has launched a blog with withering critique of the Right and of how President Obama has messed up on economic issues. He takes on the Right wing oft repeated lie: that government budgets must be handled like you and your checkbook. The government operates like your checkbook, but not the way Fox News wants folks to believe:

…there’s a… fundamental way in which this family budget analogy gets misused. Families borrow to make investments and to get over rough patches. They run deficits too. I went into pretty deep debt to finance college and grad school and I’m glad I did.

The whole credit system is based on the fact that if we had to pay cash-as-we-go for everything, we’d seriously under-invest. And that’s true for families and governments….

So yes families have to take out loans, use credit cards and more to get through hard times and so must government. Families do not do what this current government is bent on: slash away with no new revenue or using credit to make it through.

A great development, a consulting firm has been created to assist progressives in getting elected among other things. it is compromised of some truly great tough fighters who have won big battles. The whole spectrum of progressive organizing and constituencies are represented in this group:

The firm, known as Democracy Partners, has offices in eight cities including Washington, D.C., Chicago, Minneapolis, Las Vegas, Miami, San Francisco, San Diego, and Portland, Maine.

Read the full list of consultants here and their bios. Mike Lux, Heather Booth, Richard Creamer and many others will be part of this new effort.

For a good laugh Senator McCaskill is at it again! She is getting hammered in tv ads from the League of Women Voters for her vote to kill clean air regulation. Senator Scott Brown is also being hit with the same ad for his vote. So what does Sen. McCaskill do? Attack the League and call it a “front group.” Claire is under growing attack from Feingold, the LWV and others. Here is the ad:

And here is her response . Good grief.

Kudos to the working folks of Ohio who have gathered in just a few weeks 214k signatures to put on the ballot a repeal of SB 5! They need 231k signatures so they are almost there in record time. Polls show voters are ready to repeal SB5!

Finally some late breaking great news for progressives. Hawaii Congresswoman Hirono, a strong progressive woman in the House, is running for the Senate! The seat is being vacated by Senator Akaka. Polls show she would cream any GOP opponent and would be the first woman to represent Hawaii in the Senate!

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Queer Talk: By the numbers

Guest Post by Joyce Arnold.

One way to get a “big picture” overview is through the numbers provided by polls and surveys. One reason it’s important to get a “big picture” perspective is because that’s where local stories and individual lives take place. They add up, or subtract down, to create the big picture.

So, a highly selective “by the numbers” look at Queerdom today follows …

Via a Metro article, “‘Huge progress’ in gay rights,” in which Cary Alan Johnson, executive director of the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, offered the “good news” first.

Every country in Europe has protection for its citizens and many countries have protection of family rights, for example the right to marry. … every country in Latin America has decriminalized homosexuality. And we even have progress in some African countries. We still have two-thirds criminalizing it but some, like Mozambique, have made it clear that they’re committed, while South Africa has the most progressive constitution in the world, even going so far as to uphold the right to marry and to adopt children.

Of course, there is also “bad news.” For example, “In ‘progressive’ South Africa, just last month, Noxolo Nogwaza, a 24-year-old well-known lesbian activist, died after being stabbed with glass shards, during what’s known locally as a ‘corrective rape.’” And, “Those in the Middle East and certain parts of Africa are still mired in a certain type of social conservatism that leads to violence,’ adding that “poverty and religion complicate matters.”

While there are obvious differences, I think it’s worth noting the role of a “certain type” of religion, because that definitely shows up in this nation as well. The comments of Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association provide one reliable source of hyperbolic, homegrown religiously based bigotry. Recently, for example, Fischer likened “the homosexuals” and “the Muslims” to Nazis.

From international to national focus, on May 4 the Pew Research Center released a “political typology” survey, which included questions about homosexuality.

A 58% majority of Americans “say that homosexuality should be accepted, rather than discouraged, by society.” Younger people, not surprisingly, show “broad support for societal acceptance of homosexuality”: 63% of those under 50, and 69% of those under 30.

The good news part of this survey tells us why Republican wannabe’s Pawlenty, Bachmann and Gringrich have all recently appeared on the Bryan Fischer radio show. A significant segment of Tea Party era Republican-land still wants those long-running social wedge issues.

Majorities across most demographic groups say that homosexuality should be accepted by society. But there are wide political and religious differences in opinions on this measure. Two-thirds of Democrats (67%) and 63% of independents say that homosexuality should be accepted, compared with 40% of Republicans.
Among religious groups, substantial majorities of the religiously unaffiliated (79%), white Catholics (66%) and white mainline Protestants (65%) say that homosexuality should be accepted. However, just 29% of white evangelical Protestants agree, while more than twice as many (63%) say homosexuality should be discouraged by society.
There also are gender and racial differences: More women than men favor societal acceptance of homosexuality (64% vs. 52%). Hispanics (64%) and whites (58%) are more supportive of this than are African Americans (49%).

Act on Principle’s “Grading the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus” adds another set of numbers. The Caucus is chaired by four openly gay members of Congress: Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Barney Frank (D-MA), Jared Polis (D-CO), and David Cicilline (D-RI). There are 96 total members.

“Based on its percentage support of LGBT friendly legislation introduced in the House of Representatives,” AOP graded the Equality Caucus with “one A, three B’s and five F’s.”

The one A is for a 95% support of the Student Non-Discrimination Act. Receiving B’s are the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (87%); Respect for Marriage Act (84%); Uniting American Families Act (82%). The highest F (54% support) is for the Safe Schools Improvement Act. The lowest was 7% for the Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act.

Three members of the Caucus support all nine pieces of legislations: Judy Chu (D-CA);
Michael Honda (D-CA); and Steven Rothman (D-NJ). Ten members support only one or two pieces of legislation.

In the “big picture,” that there are so many pieces of legislation is good news. But the F grades do raise questions about how seriously these various pieces of legislation are taken.

To narrow the picture a bit more, The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and National Center for Transgender Equality released: “Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey,” via a briefing to that same Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus.

The study … reveals that transgender and gender non-conforming people face injustice in many places, including in school systems … workplaces … in doctors’ offices and at emergency rooms, among other settings. Transgender people of color generally experienced the highest rates of discrimination in all areas of life.

The findings include “high rates of harassment and discrimination while in grades K-12: harassment (78 percent), physical assault (35 percent) and sexual assault (12 percent).” Direct housing discrimination was reported by 19 %; unemployment is at “twice the rate of the general population at the time of the survey, with rates for people of color up to four times the national unemployment rate.” On the job harassment, mistreatment or discrimination was reported by 90%.

Finally, the only “numbers” part of this is that two members of Congress have stated they think the one person at the top of the Democratic Party will back marriage equality in 2012.

Via Pam at Houseblend, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) told the Advocate “Definitely” when asked if she thought Obama would do this. Barney Frank (D-MA) said, “This is just my intuition, but I think the President will be supportive of marriage in the states that offer it before the 2012 election.”

Adding up the good and bad news, living our lives in the evolving big picture equals lots of work still to be done, but with clear and steady progress being made. At least that’s my summation. Yours?

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Town Hall Meetings Are No Place for Citizen Journalists?

Guest post by Joyce Arnold.

Rep. Heck's Town Hall Sign

That the 2010 reinvigorated Republicans promised to work in the light of day, and then aren’t, is no surprise, any more than it’s surprising when Dem Electeds do the same. One thing that’s happening in response, though, is worth noting. Think Progress has a short but revealing piece up: “GOP Response To Town Hall Backlash: Ban Recording Devices And Censor Citizen Journalists.”

In town halls across the country, voters are expressing their anger at the GOP priorities of ending Medicare, extending tax breaks for the wealthy, and protecting subsidies for oil companies. …

However, some congressmen are concerned about what could happen if citizen journalists repost their town halls on the Internet. At least two members of Congress have taken extraordinary measures to shut down the spread of information.

Those two members are Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA) and Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV).

Barletta specifically barred citizen journalists and other non-credentialed media from recording the event, while Heck took a more encompassing approach of ‘no recording devices’ at all.

As Think Progress notes, a “central promise” by the new Republican majority House was “to make Congress more transparent.” At least for Barletta and Heck, though, transparency apparently doesn’t apply to district get-togethers with constituents.
The push-back from constituents, in person and otherwise, does seem to be having an effect.

At his town hall, Heck reportedly faced a rowdy crowd upset about his vote for the Medicare-ending House Republican budget. When pressed, he backed away from the plan a bit, saying, ‘I’m not saying it’s the best idea, but it’s the only one and the best being proposed now.’

I can sort of understand why he wouldn’t want that “clarifying” remark made any more public.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

My $0.02/Saturday: Women’s Rights, America’s Infrastructure, and Hillary’s Red Coat

Morning, news junkies…so are you ready for the gazillionth end of the world or what? I have to say, even after reading the FAQ at that link, I’m still a little unclear on the rules here in Texas. Do pregnant women have to get a sonogram before they can get raptured?

This Day in History (May 21)

  • The painting to the right is by New Deal/WPA-era artist Jerry Bywaters. Bywaters was born on this day in 1906, in Paris, TX, and died in 1989. Via the Blanton, at the Univ. of Texas:

In Oil Field Girls, Bywaters used a somber palette to describe the bleak and thinly populated west Texas landscape. With its economically depressed vistas, the town (if it can be called that) is clearly godforsaken. By contrast, the women poised to hitch a ride out of those sad environs are vivid and forceful; although they are most likely working as prostitutes, Bywaters made no apparent judgment of them, instead vesting them with a vitality, even ambition, that offers the picture’s only hope. A canny mixture of reportage and editorial commentary, Oil Field Girls is a history painting that captures a surprisingly humane narrative of a specific time and place.

I chose Oil Field Girls for the spotlight this Saturday because it reflects my mood lately, especially here in Texas. As I look at it, I’m visualizing all of us brazen little hussies at the grassroots hitching a ride out of our politically regressive environs. Something’s gotta give. The headlines, which I’ll get to in a moment, are that dreary.

First, a quick tidbit from Francine Carraro’s Jerry Bywaters: a life in art…

For Bywaters the major contribution of the New Deal art project was the nationwide advancement of art and the decentralization of the art world. The golden age of American art could come for Bywaters only with the developing of “original art of the provinces . . . [rather] than provincial imitations of New York or European art.”

If your interest is piqued by any of the above, you might enjoy a virtual mini-tour of Bywaters’ WPA murals housed in the Paris public library, via someone who was kind enough to put them up on flickr. I especially recommend Paris Fire of 1916 and Rebuilding for the story they tell. Note the young boy at the lower right corner on the first. Bywaters was ten years old at the time of the Paris fire.

And, now for the week-in-review…

Women’s Rights: Texas

I’m going to focus on a bit of what’s been going on in my state. I hope some of you chime in with what’s going on in yours.

The forced sonogram has already gotten ink, so I’m going to try to draw out some of the other angles of abortion politics in the Lone Star state. This item is from the Austin American-Statesman the other day — Abortion fight derails women’s health initiative. If you haven’t been following this development, the article at the link gives a good overview of the dynamics at play.

Also see the Houston Chronicle — Texas House approves key Medicaid funding overhaul:

AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas House voted late Thursday to strip state funding to all hospitals and clinics that perform abortions or even “abortion-related services,” endorsing an obscure amendment tacked onto an already convoluted overhaul of Medicaid funding and disbursements.

It’s despicable enough that, in a state where one in four people are uninsured no less, Rick Perry and his American Taliban flank have fast-tracked their anti-abortion agenda as an emergency legislative priority to “save lives” and this week made forced sonograms and Choose Life propaganda license plate options the law of the land in Texas while sending us on our way to stripping all state-funding from hospitals that provide abortion and abortion-related services. On top of that they’re jeopardizing the healthcare of thousands of low-income mothers and daughters. If the Women’s Health Program is not renewed, not only will it cut access to contraceptives but to screening for cancer, diabetes, blood pressure, anemia, and STDs. Unconscionable.

The control freaks can’t stand that 46% of women who access the program do it through Planned Parenthood, so women’s health be damned. State officials say the Women’s Health Program saved the state $21.4 million in 2008 by cutting back the number of births financed by Medicaid, but the state budget and taxpayer be damned too. Neither fiscally sound nor morally acceptable…but there they are, the Republican “family values” on display.

We already saw how PP’s lawsuit in Indiana went nowhere, but for what it’s worth this is what Planned Parenthood –Gulf Coast has to say:

Planned Parenthood will never back down from providing Texas women affordable reproductive health care. We have delivered a letter to Senator Deuell clarifying that if his bill passes the Senate, Planned Parenthood will pursue litigation on behalf of low-income Texas women who choose Planned Parenthood health centers for their health care.

We need your help. Please call your State Senator today and tell them to vote NO on SB 1854.

This is a freaking mess here in the “Don’t Mess with…” state. Meanwhile, the peanut gallery tried to “draft Rick Perry” again. Even Perry sorta yawned this time, with Perry adviser Dave Carney laying it on extra thick and saying Guv Goodhair “doesn’t have the fire to be president. Well, he sure does have the the fire to gut women’s health and health coverage in general apparently.

A few more notes out of Texas…

  • Check out this wild little extended metaphor/thought experiment from E.R. Bills in Fort Worth, via Dissident Voice — We Have Bigger Abbortive Problems Than Abortion. That’s all you’re going to get in the way of a teaser. If I excerpted, it would ruin the fun.

Maryland abortion provider under attack

Just a quick link on this, but it’s important. The American Independent has the scoop on “Summer of Mercy 2.0″ — Radical anti-choice group targeting new abortion provider, previously went after George Tiller.

American Dystopia: News and Views

I’ve got a lot to cover so I’m not going to quote extensively from BAR this weekend, but I do want to point you to Bruce A. Dixon’s report this week, which echoes what I have long maintained about Obama being more of a “Don’t make ME do it” president than a “Make me do it” one like FDR.

Speaking of things Obama doesn’t want any of us to make him do too much about… Scripps Howard columnist Ann McFeatters on America’s Crumbling Infrastructure:

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has been trying to raise the alert, filming short TV commercials in front of such monuments to government efficiency as the Hoover Dam. Individuals, corporations, cities and states do not build such things, she rightly notes; only nations can do it.

For 30 years, the United States has defied the need to repair and upgrade its infrastructure, spending the money on war, on defense, on entitlements — everything but making sure the roof wouldn’t leak. Leaks are appearing.

Of course if the oligarchy can keep the populace regularly fed on urban myths and religious claptrap about how we are all going to be buried under earthquake rubble or some other such hocus pocus within a matter of hours, I suppose they think we won’t disturb our beautiful minds too much over such leaks increasingly appearing in our infrastructure.

McFeatters references the 2011 Infrastructure report from the Urban Land Institute which warns that we will reach a breaking point in 5-10 years.

She ends her editorial with the grim picture of where we are headed:

If we do not act, which looks likely because of the determination in Washington to cut spending — Congress consistently refuses to pass a surface transportation planning act, this is what will happen:

Americans will spend an ever-greater portion of their incomes on services such as tap water, some of which will be undrinkable. There will be new tolls on highway driving and bridges and existing tolls will dramatically increase. Gasoline prices will soar, pushed by higher federal gas taxes.

Some cash-strapped cities will simply stop providing basic services, letting private companies take them over. Road maintenance in rural areas will become problematic. Bridges will collapse and not be rebuilt.

The badly needed new national electric grid to save energy will not be developed. A state-of-the-art satellite air traffic control system will not be built.

In 30 years, there will be almost 100 million more people living in the United States, but the infrastructure will not support 400 million Americans.

The really sad and disturbing part for me is that this seems like the oligarchy’s plan. An entire generation will be left behind so that no profit will.

Next up, a must-read essay in the American Chronicle by Gary Ater — ARE WE TODAY FAILING THE EFFORTS OF OUR PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS? Ater goes through the New Deal Alphabet Soup listing several projects that would have never been built without these government agencies and calling it “one of the greatest infrastructure legacies of anything that could ever have been passed on to its inheritors,” and then asks:

But how are we inheritors treating that legacy today?

Well, as an example, due to a lack of maintenance, thousands of our nation´s bridges, built by our parents and grandparents decades ago, are in the position today to replicate the 2007 collapse of the Interstate 35 bridge in Minnesota. That bridge was listed as being in serious trouble, but it was still allowed to carry 140,000 cars every day until the day it collapsed. This situation could easily be replicated across the country with other federal buildings, hydroelectric dams, coal burning and nuclear power plants, schools, hospitals, libraries, airports, rail stations, levees, canals, tunnels and roads and highways. At any time, any of these old 1930 to 1960 structures, roads, bridges or past projects could go the way of Minnesota´s I-35 bridge.

And as it was in the 1930´s, the conservatives are once again saying, “America cannot afford to spend tax-payers revenue on its critical infrastructure situation”.

I say, as it was back then, in today´s down economy, we can´t afford NOT to invest in American workers and their ability to restore, or build new, all that we have inherited over the past decades.

Ater goes on to say that we need to replace everyone who doesn’t want to rebuild America with everyone who does. Unfortunately, at the end of a piece that was otherwise astute, he seems to suggest that we can do that by making a choice between Republicans and Democrats in 2012. I’d argue that the American people already made that choice in 2008 and look where it got us. It’s not as simple as who we pick on election day.

For a contrast, and since the wingnuts will just reflexively and mindlessly yell “socialist!” at anyone not in their tribe anyway, I would like to take a look at what actual socialists are saying and put it out there for discussion. This is a recent opinion piece in the WSWS by the SEP’s National Secretary Joseph Kishore — The social counterrevolution in America and the tasks of the working class:

The general strikes in Toledo, San Francisco and Minneapolis in 1934, followed by the great sit-down strikes in Michigan in 1936 and 1937, propelled the reforms of the New Deal, including Social Security, and the gains of manufacturing workers throughout the country. Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s were the byproduct of the mass mobilization of workers in the civil rights movement, combined with the militant labor struggles of the post-war period.

For the last 40 years, these gains have been under persistent attack. Vast sums of wealth were transferred upwards, into the hands of the financial and corporate elite, fueling the stock market mania of the 1990s and 2000s.

Now under the Obama administration, this scorched earth policy is entering a new phase. The first step was taken last year under the guise of “health care reform,” a drive to reduce corporate and government spending under the fraudulent slogan of “universal coverage.” Now, there is little attempt to hide the fact that what the administration is seeking is a sharp reduction in access to health care and other social programs.

This assault takes place at the same time as the sums of money controlled by the wealthy reach record highs. Corporate profits in the first quarter of this year are expected to break the record set the previous quarter of $1.68 trillion at an annualized rate. CEO pay for 2010 exceeded the previous record levels set prior to the crash. The combined net wealth of just the 400 richest Americans is, at last count, $1.37 trillion—approximately the same amount that would be saved over an entire decade through cuts in Medicaid that will threaten the lives and health of millions of people.

Another view from the WSWS (which picks up where Dakinikat’s Who are they protecting…? expose left off last weekend) — Victims of Mississippi flood must be made whole:

The Obama administration has allocated only a minimal amount in grants for temporary housing and other emergency needs. It is urging those affected—most of whom have no flood insurance or means of rebuilding—to apply for federal disaster and other government loans. In addition to having to pay interest, those who qualify for federal disaster loans are compelled to buy flood insurance to qualify for future assistance.

Like the Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina, the Obama administration has shown callousness and indifference to the plight of the workers and poor families hit by the latest disaster.

The diversion of floodwaters helps ExxonMobil and other big oil companies operating refineries along the Mississippi River, but the administration has never raised that these corporations—rolling in cash from skyrocketing gas prices—should in any way help compensate those being flooded out of their homes and farms.

I don’t want to end on such a miserable note, so let’s turn to our Energizer Secretary.

Hillaryland

As Obama pointed out this week, Hillary is approaching her one million frequent flier mark. In honor of Hill’s globetrotting, here’s my choice for pic of the month… Hillary wheeling down in Greenland on May 12th, in a cheerful red coat:

A couple more Hillary items from this week, briefly:

On Hillary’s agenda next week: London and Paris…

Mr Toner said Ms Clinton will also deliver keynote remarks in support of the launch of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s (UNESCO) Global Partnership for Girls’ and Women’s Education.

The Global Partnership will bring together companies, non-governmental organisations, and governments to develop innovative programmes to deliver education to women and girls, he said.

Well, now we’re full circle from where I started at the beginning of this post…as Bill Clinton (no doubt influenced by Hillary) said in an interview to Slate’s DoubleX a couple years ago, putting all the girls in the world in school is the only proven stragety to slowing the birthrate (hence less abortions) and raising per capita income.

Sheros on the Screen

A few super quick links to wrap things up:

  • RH Reality Check on why Bridesmaids is striking a chord. Obviously portraying women as human beings is a good start, if in fact that’s what Bridesmaids does. I still would like to judge for myself. I’ll probably go see it this weekend or next.
  • Anyone else following Top Chef Masters right now think they’re dropping the anvils all over the place about a woman actually winning this season? I’m thinking it will come down to Naomi and Traci.

The End! What’s on your blogging list?

[originally posted at Let Them Listen; crossposted at Sky Dancing and Liberal Rapture]

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Meet Jon Huntsman

George Stephanopoulos has the exclusive:

George Stephanopoulos: But I’m asking what you think about him now. Do you believe he’s a remarkable leader, and are you in sync with his foreign policy?

Jon Huntsman: History will show how effective he is. In terms of foreign policy, we have a generational opportunity, George, to reset our position in the world. And it must be done based upon our deployments in all corners of the world, wherever we find ourselves, how affordable those deployments are, whether it’s a good use of our young men and women. Whether it’s in our core national security and interest. We’re fighting an enemy that is far different than any we have got before. It’s a nontraditional kind of war, and I think we need to step back, recalibrate how we go about protecting our borders and protecting our people, and resetting our position in the world.

George Stephanopoulos: But what does that mean? Is the President fighting that war effectively today?

Jon Huntsman: It means that we have too much in the way of boots on the ground in corners of the world where we probably don’t need it. It means that we must prepare for an asymmetrical kind of response. It means that we probably don’t need to be in certain parts of the Middle East where there are domestic revolutions playing out. Where we probably just ought to let them play out.

George Stephanopoulos: Is that Libya?

Jon Huntsman: Libya would be among them.

George Stephanopoulos: You’d stop enforcing the no-fly zone?

Jon Huntsman: Well, I would have chosen from the beginning not to intervene in Libya. I would say that is not core to our national security interest.

George Stephanopoulos: You also said, in the event, that a draw-down in Afghanistan is inevitable. So would you begin it today?

Jon Huntsman: I would tell you that we have to evaluate very carefully our presence in Afghanistan. And my inclination would be to say that it is a heavy and very expensive presence we have on the ground. That at a point in time where we need to be looking at our asymmetrical threats, what we have in Afghanistan today is not consistent with how we ought to be responding.

Huntsman is very bullish on Rep. Ryan’s budget scheme.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

TIME Reporter to Huntsman Campaign: Bad idea to ‘yell’ at reporters.

Jay Newton-Small is covering Jon Huntsman in New Hampshire. Not long ago she tweeted her experience with the Hunstman campaign:  “Just waited around 2 ask huntsman a question. Alas, he was too busy. Oh well.” The tweets got more interesting from there:

The green in the lower JNSmall tweet is because I re-tweeted it.

Jay Newton-Small identified the person who evidently has a very short fuse as Huntsman campaign communications director Matt David.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

1973 War Powers Act in Oblivion

“He cannot continue what he is doing in Libya without congressional authorization. When a president defiantly violates the law, that really undercuts our efforts to urge other countries to have the rule of law,” Sherman said. [...] The War Powers Resolution passed in 1973 because of concerns about excess executive power in Vietnam. Congress approved it over President Nixon’s veto. – Is Obama about to break the law?

Is Rep. Sherman kidding? Congress long ago lost its power, so forgive me if I find this congressional caterwauling a bit silly. They’re not going to do anything, because they never do anything about any Executive overreach. Congress is feckless, because they don’t come close to representing the people. Every politician simply represents their own ideological bank.

“Make no mistake: Obama is breaking new ground, moving decisively beyond his predecessors,” Yale law professors Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway wrote this week in the Washington Post.

The only thing that comes close is President Clinton’s military effort in Kosovo.

He failed to get congressional approval before the 60-day deadline was up. His administration argued that Congress had effectively authorized the mission by approving money for it, and the Kosovo conflict lasted 78 days.

The Obama administration doesn’t have that option with Libya, because the Pentagon is using existing money. Congress never specifically funded the mission.

Now, the administration is trying to figure out what to do.

Pres. Obama, a man who said he wasn’t going to be like Bush, is on the cusp of making the War Powers Act obsolete by simply ignoring it. Hey, but no worries, he’s the president so we can trust him.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment Thursday. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) is another vocal critic of the Libya intervention. He has vowed to introduce legislation Monday invoking the War Powers Act in an effort to pull U.S. forces from the conflict. “At home, people are being told to sacrifice their own quality of life because our government does not have sufficient resources for healthcare, education, retirement security and job creation,” Kucinich said. “Yet at the same time we are setting the stage for endless war which will bring ruin and poverty.” – Lawmakers largely silent on war powers authority in Libya

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Democratic Super PAC Slams Romney in Early Ad

The ad is significant because it represents the first foray by Priorities USA Action, a so-called “Super PAC” that isn’t bound by limits on donations, into the presidential cycle, where it’s expected to play a big role. – The Hill

Republicans, led by Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie’s American Crossroads, set the stakes and there’s no reason Democrats shouldn’t raise them.

Jeffrey Katzenberg and the Service Employees International Union put up the seed money.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Tim LaHaye Says No Rapture on Saturday (Yes to Sarah Palin)

“[Harold Camping] comes around and trivializes prophecy, and ignores the words of Jesus himself. That’s a disgrace.” – Tim LaHaye interview with The Daily Beast


I’m so relieved. It was going to put quite a crimp in my gardening plans.

For those of you who don’t know, Tim LaHaye is the author of the wacky, wildly successful, reportedly selling 70 million copies, “Left Behind” Rapture series.  But he thinks the guy calling the Rapure for tomorrow is wrong.

What do you think of Harold Camping’s claim that the Rapture will occur on May 21?

Well, coming from a two-time loser on date setting before, I’m not overly anxious. He’s an engineer, not a theologian. He’s got a very meticulous-type mind, and no one can tell him everything. He knows everything. He’s got his mindset that it’s going to be this way, but he’s just flat-out wrong. He violates a very, very important statement of Jesus in Matthew 24: “Surely I say to you this generation will by no means pass way until all these things be fulfilled… but that day and hour knows no one in the angels of Heaven, but my Father only.”

So he’s a false prophet?

Exactly right. And you know the Old Testament rules on false prophets [stoning]. But prophecy is my life. I think we can prove who Jesus was and how authoritative the Bible is by the accuracy of fulfilled prophecy in the past. [Camping] comes around and trivializes prophecy, and ignores the words of Jesus himself. That’s a disgrace.

Fictional prophecy is not any better than “two-time loser” prophecy, but it’s a cinch that it’s more lucrative.

LaHaye also enlightened us on who the “right person” is for 2012:

DAILY BEAST: Of the possible candidates, who is the “right person?”

LAFAYE: I’ve narrowed it down to about four. I really believe Sarah Palin would be a good opportunity. Michele Bachmann is excellent—she’s very sharp and a strong person. [Then] Tim Pawlenty and I’m reserving the fourth one until I decide who it’s going to be.

Well, there’s some good news for LaHaye today.  Palin said on Fox News Channel that she does “have the fire” in her belly.

“The fire in the belly, it’s there!”Sarah Palin

It comes at around 8 minutes in on the video below. 

Palin then segues into a list of the upcoming attacks, without directly mentioning them, coming her way in the form of books, all as she gets close to the moment where she has to make a final decision or be blown out by Michele Bachmann, who’s already garnering the label of much more serious than Sarah.

But at least Sarah won’t have to worry about the Rapture.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Heads Explode Over ’1967′



If Drudge knew anything about Middle East policy his headline would read: OBAMA TO NETANYAHU: BALL’S IN YOUR COURT.

Clearly the Right isn’t on the side of the American President, which is getting more unseemly as we creep closer to election season. It puts U.S. Middle East policy in a political vice, which is why our Mideast policy resembles Swiss cheese.

“President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus. He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace,” Romney said in a statement. “He has also violated a first principle of American foreign policy, which is to stand firm by our friends,” added the former Massachusetts governor. – Obama ‘disrespected’ Israel, threw it ‘under the bus,’ says Romney

Could Romney have said anything more meaningless and less informative? Unlikely.

Pres. Obama and every White House occupant since Truman has pledged to defend Israel. What doesn’t the Right understand about this unflagging commitment?

Drudge answers up in the far left corner of the graphic above: OBAMA SIDES WITH THE PALESTINIANS.

On the contrary, Obama told the Palestinians that declaring statehood through the U.N. is a non-starter.

The idiot Right is so dense they don’t get that the Arab spring is on Israel’s doorstep, making the status quo (even less) unsustainable and everything much more urgent.

As for PM Netanyahu’s reaction, he was not amused.

Daniel Levy, most often my Israel-Palestine guide, weighed in via email, so I thought I’d share some of what he wrote:

The President adopted a position that some have been advocating for over a year by focusing on first setting out parameters for borders and security. The specific language he used in addressing what a border outcome should look like was new for the US President: “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

Establishing the ‘67 lines as the clear reference point takes the Israeli prime minister out of his comfort zone. Unfortunately the President did not explicitly say equal or equivalent land swaps (as the Europeans have done); he did say “agreed”, but that is not new.

In the Cairo speech of June 2009, there was no reference to ‘67. In his UN General Assembly speech of last year the President sufficed with repeating the Road Map language about ending the “occupation that began in 1967.” Other senior officials have referred to ‘67 lines as the basis for a territorial arrangement only in the context of this being a Palestinian aspiration. More significantly and troublingly from the perspective of the Israeli PM, President Obama did not refer to realities on the ground or settlements blocs (and Obama was wise in avoiding this). In so doing, Obama was creating clear distance between this speech and President Bush’s letter to then Israeli PM Ariel Sharon from April 2004.

References

Sec. Clinton, February 3, 2010:

“We believe that through good faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”

Pres. Bush letter to PM Sharon, 2004:

“As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

Road Map, 2003:

“The settlement will resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and end the occupation that began in 1967, based on the foundations of the Madrid Conference, the principle of land for peace, UNSCRs 242, 338 and 1397, agreements previously reached by the parties, and the initiative of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah – endorsed by the Beirut Arab League Summit – calling for acceptance of Israel as a neighbor living in peace and security, in the context of a comprehensive settlement.”

Pres. Obama, remarks to UNGA, September 23, 2009:

“…[T]he goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security — a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.”

I’m just happy I don’t have to tell you what Mike Huckabee said, because he’s now irrelevant.

Also read Josh Rogin’s piece, with comments from former Rep. Robert Wexler, the president of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace.

It’s long past time that the American people cringed at Republicans taking the side of the Israeli president over the American president. Just maybe Pres. Obama is attempting to put it back in the Israeli-Palestinian court, while also flanking Netanyahu after he gave a hard-line speech to the Israeli Knesset last Monday.

Pres. Obama backing PM Netanyahu into a corner at home is also nothing but good news, especially since even the op-eds on Haaretz agrees with Pres. Obama.

Israel’s prime minister doesn’t have to agree to withdraw to the 1967 borders. Such a withdrawal is impossible. But he will have to agree to give the Palestinians land equivalent to the territory captured in 1967. Such an agreement is vital. Without accepting the principle of 1967, Netanyahu’s other principles will remain full of holes. The Palestinians will mock them and the world will reject them. They will end up the latest unimportant remarks by an unimportant prime minister who left no lasting mark. – Netanyahu must move forward and accept 1967 borders

What the Right is concerned with is having an election year talking point and a plan to drive into Obama with constituents, insisting he’s — to paraphrase Drudge — on the side of only the Palestinians, which is untrue, but their campaign isn’t predicated on facts. It lies in the status quo, which is a path to war.

Map via New York Times

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

The Democratic Plan: Protect & Defend Medicare

“It is a flag we’ve planted that we will protect and defend. We have a plan. It’s called Medicare.” – Rep. Nancy Pelosi

The following campaign strategy is brought you by Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich and the Tea Party House.

The Democratic Party thanks you very much.

What’s below is obviously not an ad, because it’s too long and clunky, but instead it sets out foundation bullet points for many, many 2012 ads to come. It sends a shot across the bow of the Republican Party. As they say in sports, game on.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Obama’s Next Move in the Middle East

**UPDATED with OBAMA’s FULL REMARKS**
Originally posted at 11:30 a.m.

With the majority of the population under the age of 30, and more than 4 million people entering the labor force annually, the demographics of the Middle East and North Africa pose challenges. Unemployment rates are high across the region, particularly among the burgeoning youth population. In Egypt, youth unemployment is estimated at over 30 percent. The ability to address the growing demand for jobs – which was one of the drivers behind the revolution – will require significant structural changes and economic reform. – Economic Support for Middle East and North Africa, from the White House

Pres. Obama will speak at the State Dept. If he makes the case for humanitarian intervention based on Libya he’s going to lose me, because there remains no justification for our military involvement in that country. The ICC has acted on Ghadaffi, even if the U.S. isn’t a member, with how we weigh in usually with might. But perhaps a deft touch is being added.

Obama’s speech comes at a time when PM Netanyahu is backing away from a peace plan, as Israel takes in the Arab spring to decide what exactly he can do next. Color me skeptical about anything that includes the words peace and Netanyahu in the same sentence. He’s made me cynical about anything he does.

I’m very ambivalent about Pres. Obama’s speech today, even after seeing the administration’s talking points. There’s not a lot the United States can deliver, though the focus on economic development is one that’s long overdue in Arab countries. But this is about the Arabs deciding what they want in their own country, not what the U.S. hopes might unfold.

Just think what things might look like if George W. Bush had started on economic development instead of preemptively invading Iraq, which led to the revelations it was all done on a lie, that opened out on torture, Abu Ghraib and the disgrace of our country’s most vital asset, our brand.

A snippet from the briefing yesterday:

Senior Administration Official: Our approach is based around four broad pillars, and I’ll mention the broad pillars and my colleague will go into further details under several of these. First is support for better economic management. As we’ve learned from the transition experience in Central and Eastern Europe, it’s important to provide support on policy formulation and economic management, along with our support for democratization. We’ll use a number of programs to support NGOs, universities, think tanks, and others who can help contribute to economic policymaking in the region.

Second pillar is support for economic stability. Clearly, as part of this — of the upheaval, there’s been a series of economic implications. Growth forecasts have been revised downward. International reserves have decreased. Budget deficits are widening. And the international community will need to come together to take steps in the context of reform to ensure financial stability across the region. And my colleague will go into more details about specific steps that the U.S. is prepared to take in that context.

Thirdly is support for economic modernization and reform. And very much key to the future of this region is the development of a strong private sector, entrepreneurial sector that can create jobs and bring young people — who I mentioned earlier — suffer from high unemployment rates into the workforce. There are institutions and experience out there in facilitating this transition, and he’ll be taking a number of steps to ensure that the international financial institutions and others are supportive of this modernization.

And finally, fourth, it’s important to develop a framework for trade integration and investment. If you take out oil exports, the countries of this region, 400 million people, export about the same amount of goods as Switzerland does with only 8 million people. The countries are not terribly well integrated with each other, nor are they terribly well integrated into the global economy. And we’ll be taking a number of step-by-step initiatives to facilitate more robust trade within the region and to facilitate — do trade facilitation, to build on existing agreements, to promote greater integration with the U.S. and Europe, and to open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement.

White House didn’t send out Obama’s remarks until deep into his speech, revealing he was tinkering until the end. Speech below the fold…

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

Maria Shriver Hires Divorce Attorney

From People magazine:

Prominent Los Angeles family law attorney Laura Wasser is now representing California’s former first lady, according to sources close to Shriver.

“Maria hasn’t decided yet if she wants to end her marriage,” says one source. Wasser was hired before the news of the affair went public, sources say.

I don’t know how anyone puts a marriage back together after the humiliation Maria Shriver has suffered.

It’s one thing when your spouse cheats privately and begs forgiveness. It’s quite another when he’s made a fool of you for over ten years, not only hiding a long-term affair, but one with someone who worked inside your home for two decades, who knows your children and the intimate details of your married life.

When you top it off that there is also a child that is his from the paramour, which was conceived and grew up while she was inside your house, it’s beyond overwhelming.

When your husband is a public person whom you’ve defended for years and you aided his case to become governor, because you stood up against over a dozen women saying he was a scoundrel, it’s insurmountable.

However, some people believe that marriage is for life, that no act is beyond redemption. I just wouldn’t be one of those people, not with all the facts laid out in this case. I’m just not that forgiving.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Dominique Strauss-Kahn Resigns from IMF Under Pressure

**UPDATED**

“… The real debate isn’t just going to be between Europeans versus others. The real debate should be who brings a genuine vision to that institution (IMF), because to some degree Strauss-Kahn saved the IMF and repurposed it, if you will.. [..]“ – Steve Clemons, New America Foundation (interview on MSNBC)

Post Strauss-Kahn, French finance minister Christine Lagarde becomes “favorite” to replace him.

“It is with infinite sadness that I feel compelled today to present to the Executive Board my resignation from my post of managing director of the I.M.F.,” he said in a statement issued Wednesday, shortly after midnight, by the I.M.F. “I think at this time first of my wife — whom I love more than anything — of my children, of my family, of my friends.” – Strauss-Kahn Resigns From I.M.F. in Wake of His Arrest

Strauss-Kahn isn’t thinking “first of my wife,” he’s sitting at Rikers Island thinking how he’s going to get out of the United States and back to the comforts of France and the people who played his beard for so long.

The rumors have been around for many years, but Strauss-Kahn’s mistake was getting caught acting out in the United States, with his sexual addictions hanging out.

The case in New York City reflects another dimension of the problem in France. “If I try transposing the situation in New York on Sunday to France, I just can’t do it,” says Diallo. “Not only because the woman is black and apparently an immigrant. But also because she’s a housekeeper. Perhaps even more than her race, her station in society would probably prevent authorities [in France] from taking her accusations against a rich and powerful man seriously. Racism is on the rise here again, but class discrimination has never gone away.”

The pattern of French political behavior — in which class, rank and gender trump all — is long established. It probably had its archetypal manifestation during an off-the-record chat between then President François Mitterrand and a group of journalists. The President was widely known to have had a daughter out of wedlock, a fact that was never published or mentioned in the media. But one journalist had the temerity to bring it up. Mitterrand fixed the daring journalist in the eye, leaned across the table toward him, and mockingly replied, “Yes, I have a [bastard] daughter. Et, alors?!” The message was clear: Yeah, and it’s none of your business, so keep your mouth shut and paper clear of it until I’m ready to inform the public, if you know what’s good for you. There was no further mention of the situation until Mitterrand’s funeral, when his mistress and the daughter appeared as chief mourners with his widow.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Kathy Hochul Takes on Pakistan Aid

Dave Weigel captured the ad below himself, which isn’t on Hochul’s website yet.

Hochul says straight out that she wants to look at the Defense budget, but also that “we need to reevaluate some of those relationships.”

Is Pakistan’s free ride over? For Hochul to get this far out on this issue is an interesting add to a combative special election in a strong Republican district. But since she’s saying what Sen. Diane Feinstein has already voiced she’s in some pretty good company.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }