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.

Tag Archives | right wing

Palin, Miss California & Keith’s Breast Implant Implosion

By on 14 May 2009

–updated–

You know the most popular Democratic position on gay marriage has imploded when a beauty pageant winner and Sarah Palin are using it against you.

Gov. Sarah Palin just nailed Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (both pro civil unions, against same-sex marriage) and any number of other Democratic stars. It’s quite humorous, actually, considering, well, we are talking about Sarah Palin being correct on something. Never mind her statement was partially taken from Miss California’s statement on the same topic, as she stood close to Donald Trump. The visuals of that should give all Democrats pause.

The Alaska governor notes that she can relate to Prejean “as a liberal target” herself.

Here is the full statement:

“The liberal onslaught of malicious attacks against Carrie Prejean for expressing her opinion is despicable.”

“Carrie and I spoke soon after the attacks started; I can relate as a liberal target myself. What I find so remarkable is that these politically-motivated attacks fail to show that what Carrie and I believe is also what President Obama and Secretary Clinton believe – marriage is between a man and a woman.” …

Liberal target, indeed, but Palin actually missed the biggest slam.

But Did Keith Olbermann really do almost 7 minutes on Miss California’s breast implants? Yes, he did. Segue to Bob Somerby:

Why did Olbermann mention those breast implants twice? Rubes! Because that was the actual topic!

That, and the fact that Olbermann has a remarkable, long-time jones about trashing young women.

Miss Prejean’s interview with the Christian king of radio is laughable, all the talk of Satan and standing up for God, but the continued vitriol directed at this woman who simply spoke what she believes?

Prejean is wrong on gay marriage, hypocritical in the extreme when her naked photos and her Satan-God morality pontification are compared, opportunistic to use her military grandfather for a weep at will moment, but what was her original offense? Prejean spoke her mind about gay marriage in a beauty contest. So that should bring the wrath of Keith down on her head, which dissembles into dissecting her body parts and breast implants?

Is it any wonder that Prejean and Sarah Palin joined together to hit the Democratic star gallery for their own hypocrisy on gay marriage, even as people like Keith Olbermann use a beauty pageant queen’s body parts against her?

Memo to Keith Olbermann: Women have been given augmentation for pageants for years. Do your homework if you’re going to cover such drivel.

Better yet, spend your time in covering Roxana Siberi, the gassing of young Afghan girls in school, or the film about stoning women in Iran. Maybe even the slam against Judge Sotomayor, or perhaps the plight of Dawn Johnsen getting stuck in limbo?

Keith Olbermann can’t cover those subjects, now can he. Because he would be compelled to actually do a positive story about women, something he just can’t bring himself to do. “WFT?”, indeed.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Alan Keyes Stars in Notre Dame Protest

By on 08 May 2009

Keyes and his buddy, Randall Terry of Operation Rescue. It’s so retro it’s close to quaint.

Former Illinois U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes and 21 other protesters were arrested this morning when they refused to leave the Notre Dame campus during a protest of President Obama’s upcoming commencement address there, authorities said.

[...] Activists including Randall Terry, founder of the anti-abortion rights group Operation Rescue, who was arrested at the campus last Friday, have begun targeting the school for protests in recent weeks. A student group, Notre Dame Response, has organized its own protests regarding Obama’s visit.

Evidently conservatives have forgotten the point of universities. They don’t call them places of higher learning for nothing. Conventional wisdom is to be challenged. Comfortable arguments greeted with opposing viewpoints.

But Allan Keyes and Randall Terry just make me chuckle. Once again it’s the extremists from last century holding down the fort.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Prayer is Better When Private

By on 07 May 2009

Or at least it should be, was meant to be.

In 1779, Jefferson proposed a bill that would guarantee complete legal equality for citizens of all religions, and of no religion, in his home state of Virginia. Jefferson’s was the first plan in any of the thirteen states to call for complete separation of civil and religious authority, and seven years of fierce debate and political bargaining would pass before a version of his bill was enacted into law. Virginia stood alone in marshaling a legislative majority that, as Jefferson observed, “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.” – Freethinkers, by Susan Jacoby (pg. 19)

…notwithstanding Massachusetts and Connecticut:

Jefferson’s and Adam’s hope for greater liberalization in the New England states would not be realized in their lifetimes. Massachusetts would not strike all religious restrictions from its law until 1833—seven years after Adams’s death—and Connecticut would withhold equal right from Jews for another ten years. (ibid, pg. 32)

It was certainly never intended to be institutionalized by the office of the presidency.

Evidently, conservatives missed Jefferson’s memo.

Today, in case you didn’t know it, is National Prayer Day.

President Obama is signing a proclamation, but he’s decided not to wear his religion on his sleeve by parading it in a public forum represented by the presidency. Needless to say he’s receiving incoming.

But guess what? Nobody cares. The marginalization continues, represented by the usual suspects.

Shirley Dobson, chairwoman of the National Day of Prayer Committee, said the group was “disappointed in the lack of participation by the Obama administration.”

“At this time in our country’s history, we would hope our president would recognize more fully the importance of prayer,” said Mrs. Dobson, who occupied a prominent seat in the front row for the ceremonies during the Bush administration.

It’s obviously difficult for people who make a show of religion to understand that some people prefer to celebrate and utilize their faith privately.

Considering we are talking about the president of a nation that was founded because we were fleeing religious rules that obliterated personal freedoms to choose, it’s ironic the theatrical prayer club is dismayed that God hears prayers even if they’re not televised and marketed.

As an Episcopalian who does practice, but who finds daily meditation a much more powerful force in my life than organized religion these days, which has refused to move into the 21st century, I’ve always found the ostentatious preening of political public prayer unseemly.

Of course, candidate Obama had to make a great show of his religion, because the dog and pony parade for politicians hoping to seek the highest office in the land is not only expected, but the ultimate litmus test.

Concerned Women for America used today’s opportunity to reveal their ignorance of our Founders:

“For those of us who have our doubts about Obama’s faith, no, we did not expect him to have the service,” said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. “But as president, he should put his own lack of faith aside and live up to the office.”

Referencing a remark the president made at a recent press conference in Turkey that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation,” she added: “That was projecting his own beliefs, but not reflecting what the majority of Americans feel. It’s almost like Obama is trying to remake America into his own image. This is not a rejection of Shirley Dobson; it’s a rejection of the concept that America is a spiritual nation and its foundation is Judeo-Christian.”

Aha!

It seems Mrs. Dobson at least admits that we are a spiritual nature first, which seems to be a confession in itself, with the cover of the second half of her statement crafted very carefully. “Foundation is Judeo-Christian,” appears to be a nod to the common religion of the day, but absolutely departs from the “we are a Christian nation” proclamation the religious right has always used.

I don’t need to tell you that weaving religion into politics and issues of state haven’t gotten the world anywhere. It’s cursed our best intentions and been anything but an aid to any plan, godly or mortal, meant to bring peace. If we’ve learned anything from the crusades of the religious right of the world, whatever the country of origin, that much should be clear.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Unions and the Middle Class Crisis

By on 04 May 2009

Paul Krugman’s column today is a clarion call.

Some of the wage cuts, like the givebacks by Chrysler workers, are the price of federal aid. Others, like the tentative agreement on a salary cut here at The Times, are the result of discussions between employers and their union employees. Still others reflect the brute fact of a weak labor market: workers don’t dare protest when their wages are cut, because they don’t think they can find other jobs.

Whatever the specifics, however, falling wages are a symptom of a sick economy. And they’re a symptom that can make the economy even sicker.

…But the unemployment rate is almost certainly still rising. And all signs point to a terrible job market for many months if not years to come — which is a recipe for continuing wage cuts, which will in turn keep the economy weak.

Meanwhile, unions are manning the lifeboats, especially on EFCA, something that Specter opposes, which should give everyone pause. As unions like UAW prove they’re willing to take deep cuts where they’re required, while remaining the last vestige of the further falling paycheck.

Look at what’s happening at the Boston Globe. Read the comments on this latest development, as conservatives believe this is their window, tantamount to Dems complaints about deregulation. As conservatives believe, unions are the problem and why businesses are failing. Keep it up, because it only proves why the blue collar trust in Republicans is unwarranted.

American dreaming you’ll one day be rich doesn’t make it happen when no one’s around to keep your wages from falling to a minimum.

Krugman gives Obama some credit in the last paragraph, while stating more needs to be done.

I’ll second that, with one avenue nobody is talking about. College is one thing, but the importance of having a real skill is another. Pres. Obama never talks about trades. You know, like repairing stuff. As my husband said to me recently upon his first venture into the job wars in over 25 years, air conditioning and heating repairmen are in demand all over Craig’s List. By the grace of the gods, my husband has talent; hand him two toothpicks and he can build you a shopping mall. But there isn’t enough understanding of how much tradesmen and women can mean to this economy.

We’re in deep trouble, as unions continue to step in and step up. With wages falling there is no bottom, except what can be applied by the unions. So goes unions. So go the middle class. Democrats need to continue championing unions, even as they remake themselves completely. They’re the only hope we’ve got, even when your company isn’t union. I’ve seen this myself in my own union life, then through my husband, who knows this first hand.

This nightmare is a long way from over.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Imagine Justice Hill

By on 02 May 2009
Photobucket

This is perfect.

Dear Ms. Scovell:

My mother would have warned me against answering your e-mail and participating in the kind of “devilment” you are up to. ( read more)

Brilliantly delicious. Machiavellian.

What’s not to love?

Read full story · Comments are closed

Culture Break: ‘Brand Obama’

By on 01 May 2009

Not since Jacqueline Kennedy redecorated the White House and used it as a showcase for arts and culture, which helped create the Camelot mystique, has a first family so captured popular fascination, first-lady historian Myra Gutin says. – WSJ.Magazine

Besides being drop dead gorgeous, Desirée Glapion Rogers has a job fit for the gods. Social secretary to the Obama administration, Ms. Rogers is profiled in the WSJ Magazine, in an article that is as fascinating as it is revealing. No spoilers her, just read it.

Unlike previous administrations, which have kept the East and West Wings separate, Rogers and her five-person staff are a vital part of its political operation, according to a White House aide. Every morning at 8:15 a.m., Rogers strides from the East to West Wing, where she attends a meeting with Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, top Obama aide David Axelrod and other senior White House officials. Letitia Baldrige, social secretary to Mrs. Kennedy, says the policy makers in the West Wing “always wanted to take over the social events” during the Kennedy administration. She says she advised Rogers “to fight back tooth and nail.”

It’s here I must insert a bit of reality. Mrs. Kennedy and Letitia Baldrige fought constantly, with the first lady continually going AWOL when Baldrige believed she should be on duty. Like when Jack was navigating the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Jackie was off fox hunting. (A scene which made it into my 2005 one woman show.) Ms. Baldrige didn’t have the access or the respect that Ms. Rogers obviously has accumulated over the many years she has known the Obamas.

On the opposite side of this story we have a tacky attempt to take down Mrs. Obama, which because of Ms. Rogers’ work will not catch wind, except in wingnut quarters, of course.

The case of the expensive shoes.

Any woman who has ever balanced fashion desires knows one thing. Sometimes you have to choose where your money goes. Of course, Mrs. Obama can buy whatever she wants any time she wants. But considering she’s been seen in off the rack threads from the start, this latest story will bring a collective yawn. But it isn’t surprising to me at all to see this purchase by the First Lady. It’s a classic fashion imperative: great shoes, expensive shoes, even.

As any former beauty queen knows, you can be seen in an inexpensive outfit, but the shoes simply cannot be cheap. It was the first advice I got, which happened to come from a man in the pageant syndicate, when I was 13 years-old and trying to find a way to accumulate enough money to put myself through college. It’s also the law of women’s fashion. You can rarely tell the cost of an outfit, especially worn by a woman as pedigreed as Mrs. Obama, but also as slim and fit, which goes a long way to helping you get away with anything. But cheap shoes can be seen a mile away.

Ms. Rogers’ Obama brand magic has been solidified, so attacking the First Lady’s hot French sneakers is just an attack by the mob who can’t seem to land an insult that will stick. Just wait until someone makes a knock off; they’ll sell like inauguration tickets.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Just In Time for the AIPAC Conference

By on 01 May 2009

–updated–

Photobucket

The espionage case against Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman is being dropped. Nice timing, since the AIPAC Policy Conference is meeting May 3-5. So it looks like the nightmare is over for the Chas Freeman swiftboating contingent. Via JTA:

Prosecutors asked a judge to drop charges against two ex-AIPAC staffers accused of passing along classified information.

In a statement Friday, the acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia said restrictions on the government’s case imposed by Judge T.S. Ellis III made conviction unlikely.

“Given the diminished likelihood the government will prevail at trial under the additional intent requirements imposed by the court and the inevitable disclosure of classified information that would occur at any trial in this matter, we have asked the court to dismiss the indictment,” Dana Boente said.

The motion all but guarantees a dismissal. …

I expect the Jane Harman brouhaha will now go puff!. WP has more.

UPDATE: …and right on cue, Jeffrey Goldberg takes a shot:

It’s a sad day for the Walts and Mearsheimers of the world, who believe that AIPAC is a treasonous organization, and it’s a sad day for AIPAC too, because it abandoned the two men to the fates when it should have stood by them. More to come.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Dem Conference Cold on Reid’s Deal

By on 30 April 2009
Photobucket

Well, there is blood in their veins, and according to The Hill, it’s boiling.

After a stupendously stupid promise to Sen. Specter, which has him moving ahead of die hard Democrats on committee seating, some are not being quiet about Reid’s sell out.

One senior Democratic lawmaker told The Hill that the Democratic Conference will vote against giving the longtime Pennsylvania Republican seniority over lawmakers like Harkin, Mikulski and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) when they hold their organizational meeting after the 2010 election.

Under his deal with Reid, Specter would jump ahead of all but a few Democrats when it comes time to dole out committee chairmanships and assignments.

“That’s his deal and not the caucus’s,” the senior lawmaker said of Reid’s agreement with Specter.

The rumor mill is rumbling with all sorts of scenarios, with this the obvious: Specter could bump Harkin after the election from his chairmanship of the powerful Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services subcommittee or return to be chairman of Judiciary if the current chairman, Leahy, takes over the gavel at Appropriations.

Harry Reid doesn’t care about whether Specter is a Democrat in name only, that he voted against the budget just yesterday, any more than he cares that Joe Lieberman backed John McCain in the election. Reid’s job is different. What Reid cares about is “Democratic” bodies in the caucus that can be sold whatever it takes to get them in. To him, a “Democratic” is a Democrat. Principle and political purpose has nothing to do with it.

Oh, and just so we’re clear. I could care less about political purity. But if a Democrat isn’t going to support signature issues of our party that’s a completely different story, especially someone coming from blue Pennsylvania. You expect a little winger juice running through the veins of a Dem coming from the deep south, but even Casey, who is against choice, understands what EFCA means to Pennsylvania workers.

Besides, one of the real reasons Specter jumped ship, besides that he couldn’t beat the tea bag candidate Pat Toomey in the primary, is to stick it to the Club for Growth and the GOP for not standing by their man. This is a revenge move on Specter’s part. That Reid’s allowing him his vengeance and his cake too shouldn’t sit well with the caucus. It’s good to see some reaction, though I’d like to see full scale rebellion against Reid.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Slaps Fox’s ‘Tea Bag’ Constituents

By on 29 April 2009

President Obama speaks tonight, but Fox didn’t give him time. It’s not a coincidence that at their expense, as well as the wingnuts who’d rather hold up tea bags and whine, that both were the brunt of his Missouri straight shot. Via Think Progress:

OBAMA: So, you know, when you see, you know, those of you who are watching certain news channels, on which I’m not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around, let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term how we’re going to stabilize social security. [...] [L]et’s not play games and pretend that the reason is because of the Recovery Act because that’s just a fraction of the overall problem that we’ve got.

Obama suggesting that some are “just waving tea bags around,” while forgetting what Republicans dumped in his lap just 100 days ago.

Read full story · Comments are closed

‘State Secrets’ Privilege Case Goes Forward

By on 28 April 2009

“The extraordinary rendition program is well known throughout the world,” said Steven Watt, a staff attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program. “The only place it hasn’t been discussed is where it most cries out for examination – in a U.S. court of law. Allowing this case to go forward is an important step toward reaffirming our commitment to domestic and international human rights law and restoring an America we can be proud of. Victims of extraordinary rendition deserve their day in court.” – ACLU

Photobucket

Just goes to show you that when you embrace Bush-Cheney arguments on rendition and torture it doesn’t bode well. Using language like “perversely encourage”, the president can’t simply hide things that might be embarrassing, the court ruled.

It wasn’t even close.

“According to the government’s theory, the judiciary should effectively cordon off all secret government actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the CIA and its partners from the demands and limits of the law,” Judge Michael Hawkins said in the 3-0 ruling.

Allowing the government to shield its conduct from court review simply because classified information is involved “would … perversely encourage the president to classify politically embarrassing information simply to place it beyond the reach of judicial process,” Hawkins said.

The court did not address the plaintiffs’ claims that they were kidnapped and tortured, but said judges have an important role to play in reviewing allegations of secret government conduct that violates individual liberties….

Sen. Russ Feingold, in grading Pres. Obama’s first 100 days, gave him good grades. Then lowered the boom when it came to Obama and secrecy. Feingold said this in a conference call, which was picked up by The Hill:

However, Feingold was harsh in his judgment of Obama’s “repeated assertion” of state secrets — a legal defense the administration has invoked three times in court to resist the release of information. That practice earned the lowest grade in Feingold’s report, a “D.”

“So far I haven’t seen the kind of disclosure that is absolutely essential,” he said. “Some habits have carried over.” … “It would have been untenable for the president to not release these memos,” he said. “You simply can’t sweep certain things under the rug. The idea that we’re just going to move on without any kind of accountability is just unacceptable.”

The more pressure the better, especially when you see arguments like this on the op-ed pages of the New York Times, as Ross Douthat of The Atlantic makes his debut, taking over after Bill Kristol bombed out.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Specter: ‘This is a painful decision…’

By on 28 April 2009

“The (Republican) party has shifted pretty far to the right.” – Arlen Specter”

Specter says his stimulus vote was the tipping point to his decision to change parties, but listening to his smackdown on the Club for Growth it’s clear that the efforts to “purify the party” is not just political business to Specter, it’s very personal.

At the presser he adamantly proclaimed he wouldn’t let his future be decided by the Republican primary electorate. Shorter Specter: the right-wing won’t get my political hide. His passion on health issues is another matter, which includes stem cell. Specter is a cancer survivor. There is a lot of talk that this is all about not being able to beat Toomey. No doubt this is a big part of it, but Specter’s tenaciousness on pushing GOP moderation is real if you look at his career. To simply say this is about whether he can get elected is not only cynical, but ignores what Specter has been through and how his life battles have obviously impacted his decision as well.

Specter hinted that to see where he’ll be going forward, look to where he was in 1980.

One of the most interesting analysis so far on the Specter switching parties story comes from George Stephanopoulos, which Specter cited today in his presser:

Part of the reason why a potential Republican primary was becoming so tough for Specter is that the hard-fought 2008 Democratic primary in the state between Obama and now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thinned the Pennsylvania GOP of many of its moderate voters who switched their party registration to Democratic so they could help influence the Obama vs. Clinton race.

On the other side, if Mitch McConnell believes a checks and balance to Obama-Democratic power is a winner, the Republicans are in even bigger trouble than Specter’s switch reveals.

Oh, and that screech! you heard when this happened was Sean Hannity.

But who dropped what in Ambinder’s lunch today? Santorum? Governor, maybe.

Read full story · Comments are closed

BREAKING… 60: Specter to Switch Parties

By on 28 April 2009

–updated–

Happy first 100 Days, Mr. President.

This is just breaking on CNN and MSNBC. First, Cillizza:

“I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary,” said Specter in a statement. “I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.”

He added: “Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.”

It’s the far right that has pushed Specter to the Democratic Party, but let’s also not ignore the broadening of our tent. This includes Blue Dog Dems, which infuriate us all, but allow for a wider political world that includes politicians that represent their districts, even if they don’t mirror what many liberals want to see.

Wingnut radio will be tap dancing as fast as they can. Rush just moments ago, talking about the “drive-by media” framing of Specter’s party switch:

“How can the Rep. Party claim to be a national party if they can’t keep a moderate like Arlen Specter? What’s wrong with that question, Snerdly? … People who are leaving the party aren’t really Republicans… not really conservatives.

Shorter Rush: Specter is really a Dem. Then he quickly segued to the UAW Chrysler news.

DEMOCRATIC Senator Arlen Specter’s full statement is below:

Photobucket

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Nobel Laureate Al Gore Silences Marsha Blackburn

By on 25 April 2009

No doubt, one of the things former Vice President Al Gore expected on Friday was to come face to face with the head in the sand crowd. However, even he was likely a bit surprised when Rep. Blackburn insinuated that the whole purpose of his environmental work is personal greed. This woman is one of the most annoying congresspeople, second only to Michele Bachman. Her insinuation even brought back Gore’s famous sigh and with good reason. She made a fool of herself, which is clear even in the short clip here.

Testifying in front of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Commitee, Nobel laureate and former Vice President Al Gore, founder of The Climate Project, had to deal with the Republican head in the sand crowd. In his statement to the committee Mr. Gore said many things, but one in particular struck my heart:

-This year, a number of groups ranging from the National Audubon Society to the Department of Interior, released the U.S. State of the Birds report showing that nearly a third of the nation’s 800 bird species are endangered, threatened or in significant decline due to habitat loss, invasive species and other threats including climate change. The major shift attributed to the climate crisis related to the migratory patterns and a large shift northward among a vast range of bird species in the U.S.

As much as I love birds, having raised and sheltered peacocks, as well as watching and feeding any number of different species over the years, this one fact alone is worth doing all we can to reverse. But we all, no doubt, have our own personal point of purpose when it comes to reversing global climate change.

It’s really astounding that after all these years ignorant pontificating gas bags like Blackburn still have a job in which they attack people like Al Gore, someone who has given a good deal of his life, time and money to making everyone more aware of global climate change. A purpose that Republicans still refuse to appreciate, regardless of the evidence.

It seems every time a Republican speaks on climate change the world gets dumber and less informed.

Another Republican, Steve Scalise of Louisiana, questioned the scientific basis of some of Mr. Gore’s claims about climate change.

Mr. Gore, clearly exasperated, said, “There are people who still believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”

Read full story · Comments are closed

Middle East Gamesmanship, and Michael Oren

By on 24 April 2009

“For Israel to get the kind of strong support it’s looking for vis-a-vis Iran it can’t stay on the sideline with respect to the Palestinian and the peace efforts, that they go hand-in-hand.” – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Clinton’s response to Bibi’s ultimatum was clear and cutting. Though this is often like tea leaf reading; tantamount to deciphering code. But points are converging on serious dialogue. Thus the rumblings about Netanyahu’s possible appointment of Michael Oren as Israeli ambassador adds another element to the mix.

But let’s start with FT’s analysis, evaluating Obama’s Middle East policy as a break from Bush.

Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, broke with previous US policy yesterday and proclaimed Washington’s support for a Palestinian government backed by Hamas – as long as it met international demands.

… … Her spending proposal would require only that the government itself meet such conditions – an easier standard to reach since recent Fatah-Hamas discussions have focused on setting up a government of technocrats rather than party members. [...] She argued: “We are currently funding the Lebanese government, which has Hizbollah in it and we are doing that because on balance it is the interest of the US”, to back efforts against extremism. She added that the US saw differences between the Hamas leadership in Gaza and its political headquarters in Damascus, which she accused of taking orders directly from Iran.

Clinton’s statement in front of the House drove Obama’s new policy home. The section on the Middle East in Clinton’s statement, clear in its intent and pragmatism.

People also continue to forget that Obama can ask for Palestinian funds but it’s up to Congress to appropriate them. The continuing push by Obama, through Clinton, is an impressive stand, especially considering the Bush-Cheney obstinacy (putting it nicely) of the last 8 years.

Enter Dr. Michael Oren, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s possible Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. One article Oren wrote last fall will give you some of his thinking on national security and Obama (as well as McCain). David Rothkopf, who was his roommate in college, describes Oren: As far as experience is concerned, one can hardly imagine a candidate better qualified for the post. Michael has become perhaps the leading expert anywhere on the history of the U.S.-Middle East relationship and a noted, widely respected, analyst of that relationship. … A former paratrooper and officer in the IDF, Oren was director of Inter-Religious Affairs in the government of Yitzhak Rabin, served as a Prime Ministerial representative to the refuseniks in the USSR, an advisor to the Israeli UN delegation and as a liaison to the U.S. Sixth Fleet during the Gulf War.

Michael Oren has also acted as a pr spokesperson for the IDF. While doing so, he wrote op-eds in leading U.S. newspapers. His stance on “defeating Hamas” during Gaza was militant. In the LA Times piece, Oren is described as: a distinguished fellow at the Shalem Center and a professor at the foreign service school of Georgetown University. But attached to IDF pr nonetheless. This article written back in 2008 is anything but comforting, in my view, though no one can doubt his intellect. A JPost interview from 2007 is also troubling, but then he’d be representing Israel’s interest under Netanyahu. What do we expect?

Jeffrey Goldberg also knows Oren, and weighs in: No one is better qualified to explain America to Israelis and to explain Israel to Americans than Michael. And no one is smarter.

Dubbed Bibi’s “faithful stenographer” by Richard Cohen, Goldberg’s opinion isn’t surprising, but does add an exclamation to Rothkopf.

Other possibilities remain other than Oren, so it’s wait and see.

But on our side it’s clear. Obama is pushing Netanyahu hard, with Clinton, a bonafide Israeli hawk if there ever was one, stating Obama’s policy in no uncertain terms; that if Israel wants movement on Iran they’ll have to do their part and work for equilibrium with the Palestinians.

American interests taking the lead at last?

Read full story · Comments are closed

And Just Like That…

By on 24 April 2009
Photobucket

Between Clinton’s castigation of the Pakistani government, with Adm. Mullen in Pakistan, it seems the Pakistani army might have at least momentarily seen an opening, even if Mr. Zardari seems oblivious living in his “bunkerized luxury.”

There are reports this morning that the threat of the Pakistani army pushing back is causing the Taliban to think again after driving into Buner. If the withdrawal actually happens it’s a very good sign, but it still comes with the promise of sharia being enforced in the Swat region in exchange for “peace.”

Sherry Rehman, a legislator from Zardari’s party, is quoted in the article below as speaking against sharia in Swat, but received nothing but grief for it.

Taliban extremist forces, facing threats of an army assault and a flurry of criticism from Pakistani officials, began withdrawing Friday from a district in northwest Pakistan they had occupied for the past week.

Regional officials announced shortly after noon that the militant forces would leave the Buner district by night, and television news channels showed dozens of masked, heavily armed Taliban fighters driving out of Buner’s main town in trucks and vans.

[...] Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the army chief, told a meeting of senior army officials Friday morning that the army possessed both the will and the capability to defeat armed extremists, according to a statement released by the army. Kayani said the military “will not allow the militants to dictate terms to the government or impose their way of life on civil society.”

[...]“We have a severe leadership crisis,” said Athar Minallah, a lawyer who helped lead a successful, two-year protest movement to restore deposed senior judges. “The Parliament is deaf and dumb, and Zardari is living in bunkerized luxury. If the political elite think everything is so great in Swat, why don’t they send their families to live there instead of abroad?”

Acquiescing to the Pakistani Taliban is not the answer.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Clinton on Pakistan: Zardari Abdicating to Taliban and Extremists

By on 23 April 2009
Photobucket

Tough talk from Secretary Clinton yesterday, which is well placed.

“I think that the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists…” She added that the deterioration of security in nuclear-armed Pakistan “poses a mortal threat to the security and safety of our country and the world.”

Zardari has now sent special police into the area.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen is traveling to Islamabad, obviously because the Obama administration is freaked about the Taliban’s continued push to Islamabad, something that’s been happening at a steady pace. Buner (pronounced boo-NAIR) takeover is the latest disaster for Zardari’s government, with the Pakistani army not having a presence, while police have little pay and no equipment, according to reports.

The collapse of Zardari on sanctioning sharia law in the Swat region has been a disaster.

Ask the citizenry, who also agree with Clinton:

A local politician, Jamsher Khan, said that people were initially determined to resist the Taliban in Buner, but that they were discouraged by the deal the government struck with the Taliban in Swat.

“We felt stronger as long we thought the government was with us,” he said by telephone, “but when the government showed weakness, we too stopped offering resistance to the Taliban.”

The shrine of the Sufi saint Pir Baba is now controlled by extremist thugs, whose presence has scared the women off the streets.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama on OLC Lawyers: ‘a decision for the Attorney General’

By on 21 April 2009

The New York Times reported on this yesterday, citing Justice lawyers as having a different view than the President on torture investigations. Our position around here is that it’s none of Obama’s business, frankly. The Justice Department has its own purview, in which no president should interfere.

Today in his press conference with King Abdullah of Jordan, President Obama was asked about the issue, with part of his response below (via the White House):

For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it’s appropriate for them to be prosecuted.

With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don’t want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.

As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations.

And so if and when there needs to be a further accounting of what took place during this period, I think for Congress to examine ways that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion, outside of the typical hearing process that can sometimes break down and break it entirely along party lines, to the extent that there are independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility, that would probably be a more sensible approach to take.

As for the predictable “Obama caved to the left” line. Tell that to Philip Zelikow, someone who goes back to the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, as well as Clinton, including the last president as well, having also been executive director of the 9/11 Commission.

Nonetheless, the evidence against most — if not all — of the high-value detainees remains damning. But the issue is not about who or what they are. It is about who or what we are.

… Stated in a shorthand way, mainly for the benefit of other specialists who work these issues, my main concerns were:

* the case law on the “shocks the conscience” standard for interrogations would proscribe the CIA’s methods;

* the OLC memo basically ignored standard 8th Amendment “conditions of confinement” analysis (long incorporated into the 5th amendment as a matter of substantive due process and thus applicable to detentions like these). That case law would regard the conditions of confinement in the CIA facilities as unlawful.

* the use of a balancing test to measure constitutional validity (national security gain vs. harm to individuals) is lawful for some techniques, but other kinds of cruel treatment should be barred categorically under U.S. law — whatever the alleged gain.

The underlying absurdity of the administration’s position can be summarized this way. Once you get to a substantive compliance analysis for “cruel, inhuman, and degrading” you get the position that the substantive standard is the same as it is in analogous U.S. constitutional law. So the OLC must argue, in effect, that the methods and the conditions of confinement in the CIA program could constitutionally be inflicted on American citizens in a county jail.

As for Eric Holder, it’s time for him to channel some of Chicago’s own Patrick Fitzgerald. It would certainly get the job done.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Hissy Fit Over a Handshake

By on 20 April 2009

“I thought Pres. Obama did an excellent job of expressing the values and priorities of the United States of America. He allowed a dialogue to take place and a good spirit to animate the room, which I thought made the meetings productive. I think made the United States– took the United States to a higher plain than the Venezuelans of the world.” – Prime Minister Stephen Harper

At least Canada’s Stephen Harper understands. But then he was there so he knew what went down. Call him a sane conservative, if you will.

Then there is the gored ox theory, representing the right-wing, most of whom came off of their collective hinge at the sight of President Barack Obama having a cordial conversation with the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich tore into President Barack Obama Monday for his friendly greeting of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, saying Obama is bolstering the “enemies of America.”

Gingrich appeared on a number of morning talk shows comparing Obama to President Jimmy Carter for the smiling, hearty handshake he offered Chavez, one of the harshest critics of the United States, during the Summit of the Americas.

“Frankly, this does look a lot like Jimmy Carter. Carter tried weakness, and the world got tougher and tougher, because the predators, the aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators – when they sense weakness, they all start pushing ahead,” Gingrich said on “Fox & Friends.” …

Congress’ veterinarian, John Ensign, called Obama’s interaction “irresponsible,” with his perfectly coiffed hair practically standing on end at the thought of our President “laughing and joking” with Chavez. Mr. Ensign also having forgotten that the 50-year embargo never succeeded in dethroning Castro.

But it was on Joe Scarborough’s show today where they pushed the old line that all diplomacy has to be a stiff arm to people we can actually squash with little effort. He got a lot of help from Patrick J. Buchanan who called Obama a “kid on the school yard that can be pushed around because he’s too sweet.”

The Gingrich-Scarborough line, which is basically a you’ve got to be careful strategy, because those tyrants will think you’re weak if you shake their hand, completely ignores that we aren’t in the age of Yalta or Kennedy-Khrushchev. We’re in the post Bush-Cheney era, mending fences with the entire world. Unfortunately, Republicans don’t seem willing to walk into the 21st century and get a grip that post Bush-Cheney, Pres. Obama has got to signal the Bush-Cheney chapter has, at last, finally closed.

Evidently, Newt, Joe and Pat also wanted Obama to address Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega’s outrageous harangue that included the charge the U.S. embargo of Cuba was “a real genocide.”

Seriously, the leader of the free world, the American President, is supposed to respond to Mr. Ortega’s rant? Or worse, acknowledge these outlandish statements? No one’s even talking about them but Newt, Joe and Pat.

When will the right understand that the U.S. is the most powerful nation on planet earth, which actually means we don’t have to rise to every piece of lunatic bait that’s thrown at us?

Did Newt, Joe and Pat not notice that it was Bush who gave Chavez the platform from which he berated the United States continually, to cheers from around the world? And that helped us how?

Besides, take a look at the tape of Chavez handing Obama the book, and you will see plainly that Venezuela’s president was rushing up to Obama like a giddy little boy, handing him a book so he had a reason to squeeze himself into the limelight; getting his picture taken with the man everyone wants to meet, Barack Obama, which was not lost on our President:

Mr Obama pointed out that he held conversations with other critics of Washington, including Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega and Bolivia’s Evo Morales.

“I think it’s just that President Chavez is better at positioning the cameras,” the US leader said.

Read full story · Comments are closed

As Goes Punjab, So Goes Pakistan

By on 19 April 2009

Another drone attack in Pakistan.

A suicide bomber kills at least 20 security forces personnel and policemen in Islamabad.

Meanwhile, leading Red Mosque Islamic cleric Aziz, fresh from a two-year house arrest, calls for sharia law in Pakistan.

While the world joins in at a donor’s conference, pledging $5 billion to keep Pakistan from falling to Islamic extremists, though we’ll have to monitor the money like a hawk, that’s for certain (with Kerry and Lugar promising more). A first, it seems the world has awakened, finally, to the thoughts of Islamic extremists dancing in their heads, all armed with nuclear weapons.

Call this the last, dying result of Bush-Cheney’s “Musharaff policy,” as Biden called it last year, likely as disastrous as what unfolded because of funding started under Carter, but made worse through a sideshow battle against the former Soviet Union under Reagan. It is the unraveling of Pakistan through U.S. policy begun under C.I.A. chief William Casey, continued through many presidents, both Democratic and Republican, which now has come to a head.

Fareed Zakaria’s GPS focused on this subject today. Ahmed Rashid lives in Lahore, and has written several books on the region that are must reads for anyone wanting to try to understand what we’re facing.

Almost a month ago, David Kilcullen had an interview in the Post, one that is worth pointing to today.

Carlos Lozada: What is the real central front in the war on terror?

KILKULLEN: Pakistan. Hands down. No doubt.

Carlos Lozada Why?

KILKULLEN: Pakistan is 173 million people, 100 nuclear weapons, an army bigger than the U.S. Army, and al-Qaeda headquarters sitting right there in the two-thirds of the country that the government doesn’t control. The Pakistani military and police and intelligence service don’t follow the civilian government; they are essentially a rogue state within a state. We’re now reaching the point where within one to six months we could see the collapse of the Pakistani state, also because of the global financial crisis, which just exacerbates all these problems. . . . The collapse of Pakistan, al-Qaeda acquiring nuclear weapons, an extremist takeover — that would dwarf everything we’ve seen in the war on terror today.

So, what to do? Drone attacks are incensing the populace and especially the extremists who are gaining ground. But seriously, considering our investment, is anyone to believe that if we discontinue all drone attacks, especially those that are suggested through good intel, that Pakistan will stabilize all on its own, with extremists finally giving up? That is simply not a credible argument, though it’s being made, though every anti involvement in Afghanistan or Pakistan doesn’t seem to have any clue of an alternative. As for the military side, no doubt John Bolton will soon suggest U.S. military action here as well as Somalia. That will not happen, because Obama has not lost his mind, so he won’t mimic a militaristic madman strapped on the end of a nuclear missile.

Holbrooke continues donor efforts to bolster Pakistan’s horrific economic crisis, but after 8 years of more and more military investment without accountability, Musharaff left the country a mess, with his successor Pres. Zardari weak and disrespected, and his enemies know it.

Meanwhile, the Taliban is on the march.

[...]The Taliban “have now become a self-sustaining force,” author Ahmed Rashid, an expert on the insurgency, told a conference in Washington on Wednesday. “They have an agenda for Pakistan, and that agenda is no less than to topple the government of Pakistan and ‘Talibanizing’ the entire country.”

The U.S. intelligence official, however, said that Pakistan’s elite, dominated since the country’s independence in 1947 by politicians, bureaucrats and military officers from Punjab, have failed to recognize the seriousness of the situation.

“The Punjabi elite has already lost control of Pakistan, but neither they nor the Obama administration realize that,” the official said. “Pakistan will be an Islamist state — or maybe a collection of four Islamic states, probably within a few years. There’s no civilian leadership in Islamabad that can stop this, and so far, there hasn’t been any that’s been willing to try.”

Several U.S. officials said that the Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy that President Barack Obama unveiled last month is being called into question by the accelerating rate at which the insurgency in Pakistan is expanding.

With Pakistan militancy rising, so goes Punjab, so goes Obama’s Af-Pak strategy.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Clinton Statement on Saberi’s 8-year Prison Sentence

By on 18 April 2009
Photobucket

Lesson: Don’t try to buy a bottle of wine in Iran, especially if you’re a woman. That’s what Roxana Saberi was reportedly doing when she was originally detained.

Tried in secret behind closed doors, Roxana Saberi will now spend 8 years in Evin prison for allegedly spying. Abdolsamad Khoramshahi, her attorney, will appeal, but what good that will do is through the act alone.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement on Saberi:

I am deeply disappointed by the reported sentencing of Roxana Saberi by the Iranian judiciary. We are working closely with the Swiss Protecting Presence to obtain details about the court’s decision, and to ensure her well being.

Ms. Saberi was born and raised in the United States, yet chose to travel to the Islamic Republic of Iran due to her desire to learn more about her cultural heritage. Our thoughts are with her parents and family during this difficult time.

We will continue to vigorously raise our concerns to the Iranian government.

“This charge is baseless and it’s without foundation,” Robert Wood, State Department spokesman, added.

Saberi has dual citizenship, with her father in Iran trying desperately to help her. Via NPR:

In an interview with Weekend Edition, Saberi’s father, Reza Saberi, said she was coerced into making incriminating statements and that Iran’s Revolutionary Court has not released any evidence of espionage. He said he was not allowed in the courtroom nor was Saberi’s lawyer allowed to ask the court about bail.

“She is quite depressed about this mater, and she wants to go on hunger strike,” he said. “And if she does, she’s so frail, it can be very dangerous to her health.”

What a nightmare for this woman. A reporter for NPR, but also the BBC, she had her press credentials revoked in 2006, according to all reports.

Secretary Clinton’s diplomatic and hardball skills are surely going to be put to the test on this one.

Read full story · Comments are closed