BECK VS. FOX: BLUFFER VS. BLUFFER?
A lot of people think Fox News will dump Glenn Beck when his contract runs out in December, especially after reading David Carr's article "The Fading Power of Beck's Alarms" in The New York Times a couple of weeks ago.
You know when I'll believe Beck's going to be dumped? When I see Fox trotting out possible replacement shows for Beck's hour. In retrospect, it's clear that that's how MSNBC signaled that it could live without Keith Olbermann: by shining a spotlight on the likes of Lawrence O'Donnell and Ed Schultz. Has Fox done anything of the sort? Not so far. We haven't seen any evidence that Roger Ailes is working up a Megyn Kelly Mean Girl Hour as a potential time-slot filler, or maybe The Grandpa Mike Huckabee Soft-Spoken-Explanations-of-the-Coming-Apocalypse Show. When we hear about those, then I'll believe Beck is history on Fox.
I assume that the Carr article stung, and Beck's posse told him that he, too, had to fight the contract-renegotiation battle in the media, so now we have this Times article about how Beck could just quit and start his own channel:
Presuming he leaves, Mr. Beck could follow a road paved by Oprah Winfrey when she started OWN: The Oprah Winfrey Network in January. He could schedule his own talk show and the shows of others on one of the many cable channels seeking a ratings jolt. Or, following Martha Stewart's road to the Hallmark Channel, he could start smaller, taking over a few hours of a channel's schedule.
I dunno, Glenn -- I'm in Manhattan, paying 80-plus bucks a month for cable, and Time Warner doesn't even include Oprah's channel in the lineup at that price point. Oprah! If she can't get her channel on the air wherever she wants it, you're going to have a tough row to hoe.
Maybe Fox and Beck are really going to part ways, but I won't be surprised if they come to terms. It seems to me that Roger Ailes, whose every waking thought is about how he can infuriate liberals, might just keep Beck on because we keep saying he'll dump Beck. More to the point, Beck is still capable of pulling in two million viewers in a non-prime-time slot, and even though he doesn't do it consistently anymore, who else can even come close?
Finally, think about Ailes. He's the Karl Rove of news broadcasting. What I mean is that Rove, instead of moving George W. Bush to the center in his 2004 reelection bid, decided that all he needed was 50% plus one vote, and the way to get that was to fire up the base and go for big turnout from that base.
That's Ailes's media strategy. He may dump Beck, but he's sure as hell not going to dump him because he's too extreme. To Ailes, it's good that Beck is too extreme. That fires up the base. It builds loyalty to Fox, and loyalty to the cause of liberal-hate and Democrat-hate.
Which is just what Ailes will want going into 2012 -- an election year, remember?
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
HALEY BARBOUR'S LOBBYING: THIS IS A PROBLEM WITH GOP VOTERS WHY EXACTLY?
As Haley Barbour contemplates a run for the GOP presidential nomination, The New York Times tells us he's defending his lobbying career -- but wow, he is really going about it all wrong:
... rather than running away from his background, he is embracing it.
A lobbyist? Well, he knows how to promote an agenda.....
Not only does Mr. Barbour make no apology for his work as a corporate lobbyist or try to steer attention to other areas of his résumé, he raises the subject himself and wraps it in folksy packaging. He tells audiences the experience allowed him to learn all facets of government, pausing to amplify his point in a slow drawl: "I saw the sausage factory up close." ...
No, no, no -- that's not what you say if you want to appeal to modern Republican voters.
Here's what you say: I stood up for embattled capitalists. That's what would speak to the teabaggiest GOP voters. These folks love big-ass capitalism. They love corporate personhood. They think horrors like campaign finance reform are a massive threat to the delicate flower that is free enterprise. Go here and read some of the ecstatic reactions of teabaggers when the Citizens United ruling came down. My favorite:
...Think for a minute if it makes sense for AARP or ACORN, both of which operate as businesses, to invest in political discussion while others like Ford Motor Co., Apple, UnitedHealthcare, or Walmart may not. Doesn't Ford have a right to complain about their two primary domestic competitors being given government largesse? Doesn't Apple have a right to weigh in on net neutrality or protection of intellectual property? Doesn't UnitedHealthcare have the right to its views on Obamacare? ...
Our Galtian heroes are under siege! Someone must come to their defense!
That's what Barbour should say. But he simply doesn't speak teabag. So just as he doesn't know that his response to attacks on his racial pronouncements should be to blame the media (the 'baggers would eat that up), he doesn't know that he should talk about his lobbying career as if he was heroic. It would really work.
As Haley Barbour contemplates a run for the GOP presidential nomination, The New York Times tells us he's defending his lobbying career -- but wow, he is really going about it all wrong:
... rather than running away from his background, he is embracing it.
A lobbyist? Well, he knows how to promote an agenda.....
Not only does Mr. Barbour make no apology for his work as a corporate lobbyist or try to steer attention to other areas of his résumé, he raises the subject himself and wraps it in folksy packaging. He tells audiences the experience allowed him to learn all facets of government, pausing to amplify his point in a slow drawl: "I saw the sausage factory up close." ...
No, no, no -- that's not what you say if you want to appeal to modern Republican voters.
Here's what you say: I stood up for embattled capitalists. That's what would speak to the teabaggiest GOP voters. These folks love big-ass capitalism. They love corporate personhood. They think horrors like campaign finance reform are a massive threat to the delicate flower that is free enterprise. Go here and read some of the ecstatic reactions of teabaggers when the Citizens United ruling came down. My favorite:
...Think for a minute if it makes sense for AARP or ACORN, both of which operate as businesses, to invest in political discussion while others like Ford Motor Co., Apple, UnitedHealthcare, or Walmart may not. Doesn't Ford have a right to complain about their two primary domestic competitors being given government largesse? Doesn't Apple have a right to weigh in on net neutrality or protection of intellectual property? Doesn't UnitedHealthcare have the right to its views on Obamacare? ...
Our Galtian heroes are under siege! Someone must come to their defense!
That's what Barbour should say. But he simply doesn't speak teabag. So just as he doesn't know that his response to attacks on his racial pronouncements should be to blame the media (the 'baggers would eat that up), he doesn't know that he should talk about his lobbying career as if he was heroic. It would really work.
BLODGET AND BECK TRY TO CREATE A PARANOIA BUBBLE
A decade ago, Henry Blodget was caught fraudulently hyping tech stocks and was banned from the securities industry. Now Glenn Beck is peddling a ridiculous story that's also being hyped by Blodget at Business Insider -- a story about (wait for it) the coming destruction of capitalism in America by an ex-union guy and his massive leftist army of ... well, you'll just have to read Blodget's write-up:
CAUGHT ON TAPE: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan, Crash The Stock Market, And Redistribute Wealth In America
A former official of one of the country's most-powerful unions, SEIU, is detailing a secret plan to "destabilize" the country.
... The former SEIU official, Stephen Lerner, spoke in a closed session at a Pace University forum last weekend.
... Lerner's plan is to organize a mass, coordinated "strike" on mortgage, student loan, and local government debt payments--thus bringing the banks to the edge of insolvency and forcing them to renegotiate the terms of the loans. This destabilization and turmoil, Lerner hopes, will also crash the stock market, isolating the banking class and allowing for a transfer of power.
Lerner's plan starts by attacking JP Morgan Chase in early May, with demonstrations on Wall Street, protests at the annual shareholder meeting, and then calls for a coordinated mortgage strike.
... Lerner was ousted from SEIU last November, reportedly for spending millions of the union's dollars trying to pursue a plan like the one he details here. It is not clear what, if any, power and influence he currently wields....
First of all, I would be ecstatic if I thought something like this could possibly be done successfully in America in 2011. But not only is organized, widespread progressive action of this kind extraordinarily unlikely, but Lerner's notion of how it would play out (if the voice on the tape is his -- Blodget admits he can't verify this) is ridiculously naive. We're told that he says:
... 10% of homeowners are underwater....
If you could double that number you would you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again....
We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree it would literally cause a new finical crisis for the banks...
The hell it would. If there were even a hint that something like this had been organized -- even in the absence of this tape's disclosure -- the establishment, including the "liberal" president, would agree that it simply could not be allowed to persist. Serious economic, civil, and criminal penalties would be meted out to at least some of those who willfully withheld payments, and who participated in any civil disobedience or trespassing, and certainly to anyone who "conspired" to get others to withhold funds. What's more, the government would spare no expense to repair the damage done to the banks.
If necessary, the propaganda response would be that the dirty radicals were trying to hurt you, Mr. and Mrs. America, by throwing sand in the gears of the recovery and making borrowing and lending (and credit card spending) impossible for you (and for the selfless employers who'd dearly love to hire more of you, if only they could). The right-wing and centrist media would be in full agreement on that message. And soon, so would Mr. and Mrs. America.
Maybe I'm wrong about this. Maybe the public, starved for a messenger who actually says bad things about the fat cats, would rally to the protestors' side. I'll admit that's possible.
What I'm 99% certain is impossible is a protest of this king that would be big enough to even put a scare in the banks -- though I'd really love to be wrong about that.
****
(Rumproast has more. And, needless to say, right-wingers are accepting the "economic terrorism" talking point uncritically.)
A decade ago, Henry Blodget was caught fraudulently hyping tech stocks and was banned from the securities industry. Now Glenn Beck is peddling a ridiculous story that's also being hyped by Blodget at Business Insider -- a story about (wait for it) the coming destruction of capitalism in America by an ex-union guy and his massive leftist army of ... well, you'll just have to read Blodget's write-up:
CAUGHT ON TAPE: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan, Crash The Stock Market, And Redistribute Wealth In America
A former official of one of the country's most-powerful unions, SEIU, is detailing a secret plan to "destabilize" the country.
... The former SEIU official, Stephen Lerner, spoke in a closed session at a Pace University forum last weekend.
... Lerner's plan is to organize a mass, coordinated "strike" on mortgage, student loan, and local government debt payments--thus bringing the banks to the edge of insolvency and forcing them to renegotiate the terms of the loans. This destabilization and turmoil, Lerner hopes, will also crash the stock market, isolating the banking class and allowing for a transfer of power.
Lerner's plan starts by attacking JP Morgan Chase in early May, with demonstrations on Wall Street, protests at the annual shareholder meeting, and then calls for a coordinated mortgage strike.
... Lerner was ousted from SEIU last November, reportedly for spending millions of the union's dollars trying to pursue a plan like the one he details here. It is not clear what, if any, power and influence he currently wields....
First of all, I would be ecstatic if I thought something like this could possibly be done successfully in America in 2011. But not only is organized, widespread progressive action of this kind extraordinarily unlikely, but Lerner's notion of how it would play out (if the voice on the tape is his -- Blodget admits he can't verify this) is ridiculously naive. We're told that he says:
... 10% of homeowners are underwater....
If you could double that number you would you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again....
We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree it would literally cause a new finical crisis for the banks...
The hell it would. If there were even a hint that something like this had been organized -- even in the absence of this tape's disclosure -- the establishment, including the "liberal" president, would agree that it simply could not be allowed to persist. Serious economic, civil, and criminal penalties would be meted out to at least some of those who willfully withheld payments, and who participated in any civil disobedience or trespassing, and certainly to anyone who "conspired" to get others to withhold funds. What's more, the government would spare no expense to repair the damage done to the banks.
If necessary, the propaganda response would be that the dirty radicals were trying to hurt you, Mr. and Mrs. America, by throwing sand in the gears of the recovery and making borrowing and lending (and credit card spending) impossible for you (and for the selfless employers who'd dearly love to hire more of you, if only they could). The right-wing and centrist media would be in full agreement on that message. And soon, so would Mr. and Mrs. America.
Maybe I'm wrong about this. Maybe the public, starved for a messenger who actually says bad things about the fat cats, would rally to the protestors' side. I'll admit that's possible.
What I'm 99% certain is impossible is a protest of this king that would be big enough to even put a scare in the banks -- though I'd really love to be wrong about that.
****
(Rumproast has more. And, needless to say, right-wingers are accepting the "economic terrorism" talking point uncritically.)
THE USUAL HOBSON'S CHOICE
Stephen Walt, blogging for Foreign Policy:
Last Wednesday I spoke at an event at Hofstra University, on the subject of "Barack Obama's Foreign Policy." ...
During the Q & A, I talked about the narrowness of foreign policy debate in Washington and the close political kinship between the liberal interventionists of the Democratic Party and the neoconservatives that dominate the GOP. At one point, I said that "liberal inteventionists are just 'kinder, gentler' neocons, and neocons are just liberal interventionsts on steroids." ...
The only important intellectual difference between neoconservatives and liberal interventionists is that the former have disdain for international institutions (which they see as constraints on U.S. power), and the latter see them as a useful way to legitimate American dominance. Both groups extol the virtues of democracy, both groups believe that U.S. power -- and especially its military power -- can be a highly effective tool of statecraft. Both groups are deeply alarmed at the prospect that WMD might be in the hands of anybody but the United States and its closest allies, and both groups think it is America's right and responsibility to fix lots of problems all over the world. Both groups consistently over-estimate how easy it will be to do this, however, which is why each has a propensity to get us involved in conflicts where our vital interests are not engaged and that end up costing a lot more than they initially expect....
Well, what do you expect? You can call this a betrayal of principles by people who are supposed to be liberals -- there'd be a lot of truth in that -- but really, if you're a Democrat and you don't want to be thoroughly marginalized, you're always constrained by what passes as "acceptable" in our political culture.
Because our political culture overwhelmingly favors right-wing ideas, we regularly learn exactly the wrong lesson from our debacles. What we learn is that we must never apply the liberal solution to ny problem.
When there's a horrifying gun crime, we're told that we must never, ever impose more gun control, and in fact we should make guns more readily available. When there's a financial meltdown, we learn that we must never punish the responsible financial fat cats, but must punish only those who can't afford to be punished.
And, of course, from the debacle of Vietnam we learned that we must never, ever allow a filthy hippie who's genuinely skeptical about the use of American military might anywhere near a position of genuine power -- we must never allow "another McGovern" to even have a shot at the Oval Office.
I could go on. (The death penalty? The War on Drugs?) Yes, it would be nice if someone were to challenge this orthodoxy. But it's no surprise that ambitious Democrats just go along, limiting themselves to what's acceptable (conservatism or lite conservatism), if they want to go far in American politics.
Stephen Walt, blogging for Foreign Policy:
Last Wednesday I spoke at an event at Hofstra University, on the subject of "Barack Obama's Foreign Policy." ...
During the Q & A, I talked about the narrowness of foreign policy debate in Washington and the close political kinship between the liberal interventionists of the Democratic Party and the neoconservatives that dominate the GOP. At one point, I said that "liberal inteventionists are just 'kinder, gentler' neocons, and neocons are just liberal interventionsts on steroids." ...
The only important intellectual difference between neoconservatives and liberal interventionists is that the former have disdain for international institutions (which they see as constraints on U.S. power), and the latter see them as a useful way to legitimate American dominance. Both groups extol the virtues of democracy, both groups believe that U.S. power -- and especially its military power -- can be a highly effective tool of statecraft. Both groups are deeply alarmed at the prospect that WMD might be in the hands of anybody but the United States and its closest allies, and both groups think it is America's right and responsibility to fix lots of problems all over the world. Both groups consistently over-estimate how easy it will be to do this, however, which is why each has a propensity to get us involved in conflicts where our vital interests are not engaged and that end up costing a lot more than they initially expect....
Well, what do you expect? You can call this a betrayal of principles by people who are supposed to be liberals -- there'd be a lot of truth in that -- but really, if you're a Democrat and you don't want to be thoroughly marginalized, you're always constrained by what passes as "acceptable" in our political culture.
Because our political culture overwhelmingly favors right-wing ideas, we regularly learn exactly the wrong lesson from our debacles. What we learn is that we must never apply the liberal solution to ny problem.
When there's a horrifying gun crime, we're told that we must never, ever impose more gun control, and in fact we should make guns more readily available. When there's a financial meltdown, we learn that we must never punish the responsible financial fat cats, but must punish only those who can't afford to be punished.
And, of course, from the debacle of Vietnam we learned that we must never, ever allow a filthy hippie who's genuinely skeptical about the use of American military might anywhere near a position of genuine power -- we must never allow "another McGovern" to even have a shot at the Oval Office.
I could go on. (The death penalty? The War on Drugs?) Yes, it would be nice if someone were to challenge this orthodoxy. But it's no surprise that ambitious Democrats just go along, limiting themselves to what's acceptable (conservatism or lite conservatism), if they want to go far in American politics.
DEAR JAPAN: WHY NOT SHIP THE CONTAMINATED FOOD TO WINGNUTTIA, U.S.A.?
There's contaminated milk and spinach in Japan -- but hey, why just destroy the food?
Send it to Americans who love Fox News!
Poll results on the Fox Nation homepage:
Fox viewers will eat anything they think liberals don't want 'em to eat! Ship it all over!
There's contaminated milk and spinach in Japan -- but hey, why just destroy the food?
Send it to Americans who love Fox News!
Poll results on the Fox Nation homepage:
Fox viewers will eat anything they think liberals don't want 'em to eat! Ship it all over!
WELL, IF WE'RE GOING TO BE RIDICULOUS ABOUT THIS....
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
Monday, March 21, 2011
WHAT ABOUT THE E-MAILS OF THE 14?
This may be significant, but I don't think we know enough to say for sure:
...In the week after {Wisconsin governor Scott] Walker announced his plan to dramatically curtail public employees' collective bargaining rights in the state budget repair bill, a wide majority of the emails to him expressed support, an analysis of those emails indicates.
But that support was significantly boosted by emails from pro-Walker senders from outside Wisconsin.
The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism analyzed a computer-generated random sample of 1,910 emails from the more than 50,000 that flooded Walker's office in the week after he unveiled his plan on Feb. 11....
Of the emails related to the bill, 62 percent supported it, while 32 percent opposed it. The margin of error for the Center’s sample size is plus or minus 2.3 percentage points....
When the Center looked only at emails from Wisconsin, the margin was much slimmer, with 55 percent favoring his bill and 42 percent opposed....
In a situation like this, are people more likely to e-mail a politician on their own side (to say "Give 'em hell" or "Don't go wobbly")? Or are they more likely to fire off an angry message to the opposition? I really don't know what's typical in these cases. We'd need to know in order to figure out what this means.
And shouldn't we also look at the e-mails sent to the 14 fleeing Democrats? Would the ratio of pro-Walker to anti-Walker be the same? Would it be the exact opposite? Of course, we'd also have to look at the Republican senators' e-mails too, wouldn't we?
I'm not surprised that out-of-state e-mails skew the results -- thanks to the right-wing media, Wingnut Nation is on high alert all the time, while progressives across the country are alerted to outrages like this through less reliable means.
But even the in-state e-mail ratio is decidedly in Walker's favor. That doesn't necessarily mean that his position has majority support in the state -- but it may mean that there are more highly motivated Walker supporters in the state than Walker opponents. And if that's the case, it could decide how the recalls go regardless of what public opinion of the Republicans is statewide -- it may be that more people oppose what the GOP did, but the pro-Walker crowd will be more pumped up.
And that large number of pro-Walker messages from out of state makes me worry about financial support for the Republicans in the event of a recall. So, in short: progressives, redouble your efforts.
This may be significant, but I don't think we know enough to say for sure:
...In the week after {Wisconsin governor Scott] Walker announced his plan to dramatically curtail public employees' collective bargaining rights in the state budget repair bill, a wide majority of the emails to him expressed support, an analysis of those emails indicates.
But that support was significantly boosted by emails from pro-Walker senders from outside Wisconsin.
The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism analyzed a computer-generated random sample of 1,910 emails from the more than 50,000 that flooded Walker's office in the week after he unveiled his plan on Feb. 11....
Of the emails related to the bill, 62 percent supported it, while 32 percent opposed it. The margin of error for the Center’s sample size is plus or minus 2.3 percentage points....
When the Center looked only at emails from Wisconsin, the margin was much slimmer, with 55 percent favoring his bill and 42 percent opposed....
In a situation like this, are people more likely to e-mail a politician on their own side (to say "Give 'em hell" or "Don't go wobbly")? Or are they more likely to fire off an angry message to the opposition? I really don't know what's typical in these cases. We'd need to know in order to figure out what this means.
And shouldn't we also look at the e-mails sent to the 14 fleeing Democrats? Would the ratio of pro-Walker to anti-Walker be the same? Would it be the exact opposite? Of course, we'd also have to look at the Republican senators' e-mails too, wouldn't we?
I'm not surprised that out-of-state e-mails skew the results -- thanks to the right-wing media, Wingnut Nation is on high alert all the time, while progressives across the country are alerted to outrages like this through less reliable means.
But even the in-state e-mail ratio is decidedly in Walker's favor. That doesn't necessarily mean that his position has majority support in the state -- but it may mean that there are more highly motivated Walker supporters in the state than Walker opponents. And if that's the case, it could decide how the recalls go regardless of what public opinion of the Republicans is statewide -- it may be that more people oppose what the GOP did, but the pro-Walker crowd will be more pumped up.
And that large number of pro-Walker messages from out of state makes me worry about financial support for the Republicans in the event of a recall. So, in short: progressives, redouble your efforts.
EVERYTHING THEY CAN POSSIBLY THROW AT HIM ALL THE TIME
I may defend Barack Obama more than he deserves, but that's because I can never forget that the people who are trying the hardest to destroy him (and to neutralize genuine progressivism at the same time) don't content themselves with attacks based on genuine policy differences -- they also throw the likes of this:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 20, 2011
Remarks of President Obama Marking Nowruz
Today, I want to extend my best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz in the United States and around the world....
Now, granted, there's no actual criticism of Obama here. But why bring it up at all on the Fox message board dedicated to eliciting strong emotional reactions? Obviously so you can get the winger juices flowing like this:
America! You have your 13th Imam
****
No further evidence needed. This guy is a muzzie, and is bent on destroying America.
****
We are in serious trouble...Please ALL NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCIES, you have a "mole" at the highest level...
Of course, nowhere does Fox Nation point out that President George W. Bush sent out Nowruz greetings in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2003, and 2002 (when he sent separate Norwuz messages to Iranians and Afghans). Nowhere is it pointed out that Laura Bush hosted a Norwuz tea with a a traditional Haft Sin table in 2008 in the State Dining Room of the White House, and that in that same year, on the occasion of Norwuz, George W. Bush gave an interview to the Voice of America's Persian News Network that began:
Q Mr. President, let me thank you first on behalf of the Voice of America, on behalf of the Persian News Network for giving us your time. We really appreciate that, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Q As you know, Mr. President, this is the eve of Nowruz, the Iranian New Year. What is your message to the Iranian people as they face tough economic circumstances and infringement on their freedoms?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, Nowruz a tan Mubarak.
("Nowruz a tan Mubarak" means "Happy Norwuz.")
All that matters is that people who hate Obama hate him more, and think he's more dangerous. And this from an outfit that insists it's a news organization and no more.
I may defend Barack Obama more than he deserves, but that's because I can never forget that the people who are trying the hardest to destroy him (and to neutralize genuine progressivism at the same time) don't content themselves with attacks based on genuine policy differences -- they also throw the likes of this:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 20, 2011
Remarks of President Obama Marking Nowruz
Today, I want to extend my best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz in the United States and around the world....
Now, granted, there's no actual criticism of Obama here. But why bring it up at all on the Fox message board dedicated to eliciting strong emotional reactions? Obviously so you can get the winger juices flowing like this:
America! You have your 13th Imam
****
No further evidence needed. This guy is a muzzie, and is bent on destroying America.
****
We are in serious trouble...Please ALL NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCIES, you have a "mole" at the highest level...
Of course, nowhere does Fox Nation point out that President George W. Bush sent out Nowruz greetings in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2003, and 2002 (when he sent separate Norwuz messages to Iranians and Afghans). Nowhere is it pointed out that Laura Bush hosted a Norwuz tea with a a traditional Haft Sin table in 2008 in the State Dining Room of the White House, and that in that same year, on the occasion of Norwuz, George W. Bush gave an interview to the Voice of America's Persian News Network that began:
Q Mr. President, let me thank you first on behalf of the Voice of America, on behalf of the Persian News Network for giving us your time. We really appreciate that, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Q As you know, Mr. President, this is the eve of Nowruz, the Iranian New Year. What is your message to the Iranian people as they face tough economic circumstances and infringement on their freedoms?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, Nowruz a tan Mubarak.
("Nowruz a tan Mubarak" means "Happy Norwuz.")
All that matters is that people who hate Obama hate him more, and think he's more dangerous. And this from an outfit that insists it's a news organization and no more.
HEY, YOU REPUBLICRAT -- GET OFF MY LAWN!
I think what amuses me most about Ralph Nader's call for Barack Obama's impeachment is that, at the precise moment that Obama has U.S. forces attacking Libya, Nader rouses himself to say that Obama is committing "war crimes" ... in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wow -- timely, Ralph!
Look, Nader has a point, but it took him two years to reach this conclusion about Obama? It's as if, in a digital age, he's just an old guy with a stack of Sunday Timeses gathering dust in his living room, and he's only now managed to read his way through all the Week in Review sections from mid-2009.
(For the record, Nader first called for Bush's impeachment, as far as I can tell, in February 2004, "accusing him of falsely claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to lead the nation to war," as the New York Daily News put it. That was less than a year after that war started. So I guess he read his papers a bit faster then.)
I think what amuses me most about Ralph Nader's call for Barack Obama's impeachment is that, at the precise moment that Obama has U.S. forces attacking Libya, Nader rouses himself to say that Obama is committing "war crimes" ... in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wow -- timely, Ralph!
Look, Nader has a point, but it took him two years to reach this conclusion about Obama? It's as if, in a digital age, he's just an old guy with a stack of Sunday Timeses gathering dust in his living room, and he's only now managed to read his way through all the Week in Review sections from mid-2009.
(For the record, Nader first called for Bush's impeachment, as far as I can tell, in February 2004, "accusing him of falsely claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to lead the nation to war," as the New York Daily News put it. That was less than a year after that war started. So I guess he read his papers a bit faster then.)
SHORTER ROSS DOUTHAT
Wars fought the Obama/Clinton way are doomed to failure, unlike the really successful wars fought by cowboys like Bush.
No, really, that's what he says:
In its month-long crab walk toward a military confrontation with Libya's Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Obama administration has delivered a clinic in the liberal way of war.
Just a week ago, as the tide began to turn against the anti-Qaddafi rebellion, President Obama seemed determined to keep the United States out of Libya's civil strife. But it turns out the president was willing to commit America to intervention all along. He just wanted to make sure we were doing it in the most multilateral, least cowboyish fashion imaginable....
This is an intervention straight from Bill Clinton's 1990s playbook, in other words, and a stark departure from the Bush administration's more unilateralist methods. There are no "coalitions of the willing" here, no dismissive references to "Old Europe," no "you are with us or you are with the terrorists." Instead, the Obama White House has shown exquisite deference to the very international institutions and foreign governments that the Bush administration either steamrolled or ignored.
...there are major problems with this approach to war.... Because liberal wars depend on constant consensus-building within the (so-called) international community, they tend to be fought by committee, at a glacial pace, and with a caution that shades into tactical incompetence....
Yes, that's the risk when you don't do things the unilateralist, cowboy way -- you might have a war conducted "at a glacial pace" and with "tactical incompetence." I sure wish we had Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al., to save us from those possibilities!
Wars fought the Obama/Clinton way are doomed to failure, unlike the really successful wars fought by cowboys like Bush.
No, really, that's what he says:
In its month-long crab walk toward a military confrontation with Libya's Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Obama administration has delivered a clinic in the liberal way of war.
Just a week ago, as the tide began to turn against the anti-Qaddafi rebellion, President Obama seemed determined to keep the United States out of Libya's civil strife. But it turns out the president was willing to commit America to intervention all along. He just wanted to make sure we were doing it in the most multilateral, least cowboyish fashion imaginable....
This is an intervention straight from Bill Clinton's 1990s playbook, in other words, and a stark departure from the Bush administration's more unilateralist methods. There are no "coalitions of the willing" here, no dismissive references to "Old Europe," no "you are with us or you are with the terrorists." Instead, the Obama White House has shown exquisite deference to the very international institutions and foreign governments that the Bush administration either steamrolled or ignored.
...there are major problems with this approach to war.... Because liberal wars depend on constant consensus-building within the (so-called) international community, they tend to be fought by committee, at a glacial pace, and with a caution that shades into tactical incompetence....
Yes, that's the risk when you don't do things the unilateralist, cowboy way -- you might have a war conducted "at a glacial pace" and with "tactical incompetence." I sure wish we had Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al., to save us from those possibilities!
Sunday, March 20, 2011
HOW CRAZY IS THIS WAR GOING TO MAKE GLENN BECK?
We were told yesterday that the president shifted to a pro-war stance in Libya under the influence of Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice ... and Samantha Power. At the blog of Glenn Beck's site The Blaze, Power's involvement has created a synapse overload in the brain of Beck flunky Jonathon Seidl, in part because -- wait for it -- Power is married to the hated Cass Sunstein.
There are a staggering number of baseless smears floating around the right-o-sphere regarding Sunstein, most easily debunked, even (at times) by fellow right-wingers. This isn't just a Beck thing -- Sean Hannity listed Power and Sunstein as the third- and second-most "dangerous" Obamaites. So if Power is married to Sunstein and she's a prime mover behind this war, the conspiracy theories in Beck Land are going to fly thick and fast.
(The main charges against Sunstein involve alleged coercive do-goodism -- he wants to force people to donate organs! He wants animals to be able to sue humans! These are distortions, but they fit the Beckite Grand Unified Theory of liberal evil. And so, I guess, does the Libyan intervention.)
Elsewhere on The Blaze, Seidl quotes a John Podhoretz column on Hillary Clinton's involvement in the decision to go to war. Key passage:
...Hillary Clinton is, in the final analysis, primarily motivated by what the late Michael Kelly called, in 1993, the politics of "do-goodism."
That philosophy combines, in [Michael] Kelly's words, "a generally 'progressive' social agenda with a strong dose of moralism."
Seidl then turns to the subject of Samantha Power:
Let's put aside the concerns about America becoming (or solidifying its position as) the world's "Casey the Punisher" and think for a moment about the prominent position an interventionist such as Power is poised to take. That's right, I think that in Power you're looking at either the next secretary of state or defense, or at least someone who will take a larger role in one of those offices. Remember, Gates and Clinton are both on their way out, and before calling Clinton a "monster" in 2008, Power was poised for such a role.
Should that happen, we could long for the "early days" of the Obama administration. You know, when we were only involved in two wars. That's scary.
I didn't think a military campaign against Libya would be attacked by the right, but this could be the way it'll be done: this war is liberal social engineering! So it's not really war at all!
We were told yesterday that the president shifted to a pro-war stance in Libya under the influence of Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice ... and Samantha Power. At the blog of Glenn Beck's site The Blaze, Power's involvement has created a synapse overload in the brain of Beck flunky Jonathon Seidl, in part because -- wait for it -- Power is married to the hated Cass Sunstein.
There are a staggering number of baseless smears floating around the right-o-sphere regarding Sunstein, most easily debunked, even (at times) by fellow right-wingers. This isn't just a Beck thing -- Sean Hannity listed Power and Sunstein as the third- and second-most "dangerous" Obamaites. So if Power is married to Sunstein and she's a prime mover behind this war, the conspiracy theories in Beck Land are going to fly thick and fast.
(The main charges against Sunstein involve alleged coercive do-goodism -- he wants to force people to donate organs! He wants animals to be able to sue humans! These are distortions, but they fit the Beckite Grand Unified Theory of liberal evil. And so, I guess, does the Libyan intervention.)
Elsewhere on The Blaze, Seidl quotes a John Podhoretz column on Hillary Clinton's involvement in the decision to go to war. Key passage:
...Hillary Clinton is, in the final analysis, primarily motivated by what the late Michael Kelly called, in 1993, the politics of "do-goodism."
That philosophy combines, in [Michael] Kelly's words, "a generally 'progressive' social agenda with a strong dose of moralism."
Seidl then turns to the subject of Samantha Power:
Let's put aside the concerns about America becoming (or solidifying its position as) the world's "Casey the Punisher" and think for a moment about the prominent position an interventionist such as Power is poised to take. That's right, I think that in Power you're looking at either the next secretary of state or defense, or at least someone who will take a larger role in one of those offices. Remember, Gates and Clinton are both on their way out, and before calling Clinton a "monster" in 2008, Power was poised for such a role.
Should that happen, we could long for the "early days" of the Obama administration. You know, when we were only involved in two wars. That's scary.
I didn't think a military campaign against Libya would be attacked by the right, but this could be the way it'll be done: this war is liberal social engineering! So it's not really war at all!
ANOTHER MILLIONAIRE PUNDIT UNDERESTIMATES THE CRAZY
Tom Friedman in The New York Times today:
At a time when Japan is suffering a nuclear catastrophe that is likely to make the world even more dependent on oil and gas, at a time when the world's top oil and gas producers are entering what will be, at best, an unstable, and, at worst, a viciously violent transition from autocracy to, one hopes, democracy, and at a time when the combination of the two could slow down global growth while we're still trying to climb out of recession, America has no energy policy, no climate policy and no long-term plan to deal with its unsustainable deficit.
We're basically saying to the market and Mother Nature: "Bring it on. We're going to be dumb as we wanna be and put off all these big decisions, possibly until 2013, after the next presidential election, because our two political parties would rather focus on winning the next election and blaming the other guy than making hard choices."
Is this really what big-cheese pundits and other insiders think? That this is all going to be resolved in an adult manner after the 2012 elections? That all the right-wing insanity is just temporary?
Friedman is talking about right-wing insanity, as I'll explain below. I know most of you assume he's pure evil, but what he's advocating these days is a maddening combination of conventional-wisdom claptrap and (yes, I'm serious) good sense. In the column he sings the prases of Simpson/Bowles as a template for deficit reduction, but he also calls (as he frequently does) for serious green-energy efforts, because (sensibly) he thinks our present course is geopolitically and climatologically dangerous. So, really, the guy isn't completely awful.
He writes:
President Obama has the right convictions on all these issues, but he has not shown the courage of his convictions. The Republicans have just gone nuts.
I give Friedman credit for saying that Republicans are nuts -- on green energy, on infrastructure and education spending, and on raising any taxes on anyone, ever. But does he really believe this might end after the next election? Is that what other insider pundits and savants think?
How do we get it across to the insiders that right-wingers are crazier than that, that unless rising public outrage utterly crushes them -- i.e., crushes them much more thoroughly than in 2008, which is extremely unlikely -- they will continue to force a choice between stalemate forever and total Koch-o-crat, Scott Walker-style wingnut victory nationwide? How do we explain that they will never accept any other alternative?* They will not back down, no matter what happens to America. They won't back down even if Obama/Biden beat Palin/Bachmann in a Nixon-in-'72-size landslide (because even if that happens, they'll still probably win both houses of Congress, as the Democrats did in '72).
Friedman thinks that some point in the future the right-wingers will start acting like responsible adults who actually care about this country? Tom, that's an extremely dangerous myth. It would be extremely helpful if you and other political insiders eventually grasped this reality.
*Of course, in the interim, they will win many concessions from compromised Democrats, from the president on down.
Tom Friedman in The New York Times today:
At a time when Japan is suffering a nuclear catastrophe that is likely to make the world even more dependent on oil and gas, at a time when the world's top oil and gas producers are entering what will be, at best, an unstable, and, at worst, a viciously violent transition from autocracy to, one hopes, democracy, and at a time when the combination of the two could slow down global growth while we're still trying to climb out of recession, America has no energy policy, no climate policy and no long-term plan to deal with its unsustainable deficit.
We're basically saying to the market and Mother Nature: "Bring it on. We're going to be dumb as we wanna be and put off all these big decisions, possibly until 2013, after the next presidential election, because our two political parties would rather focus on winning the next election and blaming the other guy than making hard choices."
Is this really what big-cheese pundits and other insiders think? That this is all going to be resolved in an adult manner after the 2012 elections? That all the right-wing insanity is just temporary?
Friedman is talking about right-wing insanity, as I'll explain below. I know most of you assume he's pure evil, but what he's advocating these days is a maddening combination of conventional-wisdom claptrap and (yes, I'm serious) good sense. In the column he sings the prases of Simpson/Bowles as a template for deficit reduction, but he also calls (as he frequently does) for serious green-energy efforts, because (sensibly) he thinks our present course is geopolitically and climatologically dangerous. So, really, the guy isn't completely awful.
He writes:
President Obama has the right convictions on all these issues, but he has not shown the courage of his convictions. The Republicans have just gone nuts.
I give Friedman credit for saying that Republicans are nuts -- on green energy, on infrastructure and education spending, and on raising any taxes on anyone, ever. But does he really believe this might end after the next election? Is that what other insider pundits and savants think?
How do we get it across to the insiders that right-wingers are crazier than that, that unless rising public outrage utterly crushes them -- i.e., crushes them much more thoroughly than in 2008, which is extremely unlikely -- they will continue to force a choice between stalemate forever and total Koch-o-crat, Scott Walker-style wingnut victory nationwide? How do we explain that they will never accept any other alternative?* They will not back down, no matter what happens to America. They won't back down even if Obama/Biden beat Palin/Bachmann in a Nixon-in-'72-size landslide (because even if that happens, they'll still probably win both houses of Congress, as the Democrats did in '72).
Friedman thinks that some point in the future the right-wingers will start acting like responsible adults who actually care about this country? Tom, that's an extremely dangerous myth. It would be extremely helpful if you and other political insiders eventually grasped this reality.
*Of course, in the interim, they will win many concessions from compromised Democrats, from the president on down.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
YOU FORGOT POLAND!
Headline at Fox Nation:
Obama Outsources War to the French?
This is based on the following:
French fighter jets fired the first shots at Muammar al-Qaddafi's troops on Saturday, launching the broadest international military effort since the Iraq war in support of an uprising that had seemed on the verge of defeat....
Excuse me, you Murdoch bastards, but weren't you the people who always got upset when we described Iraq as a war the Bush administration fought "unilaterally," because the "coalition of the willing" included so gosh-darn many nations (even if most of them were bit players)? Didn't you insist back then that coalition-building, however superficial, was admirable?
Well, then you should admire the hell out of this:
Hours after French, British and American military forces unleashed cruise missiles and fighter jets, a defiant Moammar Gadhafi said Libya will fight back against undeserved "naked aggression."
A coalition that includes Canada and Italy made good Saturday on international warnings to Gadhafi, hammering Libyan military positions in the first phase of an operation that will include enforcement of a no-fly zone.
More than 110 Tomahawk missiles fired from American and British ships and submarines hit about 20 Libyan air and missile defense targets in western portions of the country, U.S. Vice Adm. William Gortney said at a Pentagon briefing....
Is a coalition of the willing only OK if you're a Republican? Is it only OK if it's fake? Please clarify.
Headline at Fox Nation:
Obama Outsources War to the French?
This is based on the following:
French fighter jets fired the first shots at Muammar al-Qaddafi's troops on Saturday, launching the broadest international military effort since the Iraq war in support of an uprising that had seemed on the verge of defeat....
Excuse me, you Murdoch bastards, but weren't you the people who always got upset when we described Iraq as a war the Bush administration fought "unilaterally," because the "coalition of the willing" included so gosh-darn many nations (even if most of them were bit players)? Didn't you insist back then that coalition-building, however superficial, was admirable?
Well, then you should admire the hell out of this:
Hours after French, British and American military forces unleashed cruise missiles and fighter jets, a defiant Moammar Gadhafi said Libya will fight back against undeserved "naked aggression."
A coalition that includes Canada and Italy made good Saturday on international warnings to Gadhafi, hammering Libyan military positions in the first phase of an operation that will include enforcement of a no-fly zone.
More than 110 Tomahawk missiles fired from American and British ships and submarines hit about 20 Libyan air and missile defense targets in western portions of the country, U.S. Vice Adm. William Gortney said at a Pentagon briefing....
Is a coalition of the willing only OK if you're a Republican? Is it only OK if it's fake? Please clarify.
AS IF THIS COULD EVER HAPPEN
In The New York Times today, Joe Nocera sings the praises of Elizabeth Warren, and I'm grateful for that. He has justifiable contempt for House Republicans who grilled her this week in a subcommittee hearing:
To listen to the House Republicans, you'd think the financial crisis of 2008 was like that infamous season of the long-running soap opera "Dallas," the one that turned out to be a season-long dream. Subprime mortgages? Too-big-to-fail banks? Unregulated derivatives? No problem! With the exception of their bete noire, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Republicans act as if nothing needs to be done to prevent another crisis. Indeed, they act as if the crisis never happened.
Nocera praises Warren for her work with the attorneys general of the fifty states on a proposed settlement with the big banks that would impose fines and new regulations in response to foreclosure abuses (although the editorial page of Nocera's own newspsper questions the toughness of the settlement). Nocera would like to see Warren formally nominated to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, even though he knows that Senate Republicans will do everything in their power to see that she's not approved.
Here's what he says about that:
Senate Republicans have vowed to block her appointment if President Obama nominates her. Yet even if her nomination goes down in flames, Senate confirmation hearings would be clarifying. Americans would get to hear Ms. Warren explain why the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has the potential to help Americans. And they would get to hear Republicans explain why the status quo -- including the everyday horror of the foreclosure mess -- is just fine.
That's where I part company with Nocera. In what way would this be beneficial or "clarifying"? In the political life of modern America, how often does a hearing of this kind ever have the slightest impact?
James O'Keefe or Andrew Bretbart can crank out a deceptively edited video and the entire political culture -- the entire culture -- is sent into a tailspin within 24 hours. What could be said at confirmation hearings for Elizabeth Warren that could possibly have a comparable impact?
And why is that? To some extent, it's because the things Republicans would say at those hearings that Joe Nocera thinks would be so self-condemning are things Republicans know they can get away with saying, because only a small percentage of Americans (most ly angry lefties) know how outrageous they are. No one's primed the general public to be infuriated at Republicans who are apologists for fat cats the way the right-wing noise machine primes people to despise, say, NPR elitists or alleged white-hating black racists like the Shirley Sherrod of Breitbart's disgraceful video.
I'd love to live in a country where Elizabeth Warren could shame some Senate Republicans. As it is, hardly anyone in America knows who Elizabeth Warren is, or what she says and does. And on the other side, hardly anyone thinks it's outrageous that Senate Republicans won't criticize the big banks, probably because nobody in a position of political prominence, left, center, or right, criticizes the big banks -- certainly not in a way that portrays them for anything other than taking money from the real enemy, namely the Evil Government.
Once upon a time, what Nocera imagines would happen could possibly happen. Not in modern America, though. Why is that?
In The New York Times today, Joe Nocera sings the praises of Elizabeth Warren, and I'm grateful for that. He has justifiable contempt for House Republicans who grilled her this week in a subcommittee hearing:
To listen to the House Republicans, you'd think the financial crisis of 2008 was like that infamous season of the long-running soap opera "Dallas," the one that turned out to be a season-long dream. Subprime mortgages? Too-big-to-fail banks? Unregulated derivatives? No problem! With the exception of their bete noire, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Republicans act as if nothing needs to be done to prevent another crisis. Indeed, they act as if the crisis never happened.
Nocera praises Warren for her work with the attorneys general of the fifty states on a proposed settlement with the big banks that would impose fines and new regulations in response to foreclosure abuses (although the editorial page of Nocera's own newspsper questions the toughness of the settlement). Nocera would like to see Warren formally nominated to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, even though he knows that Senate Republicans will do everything in their power to see that she's not approved.
Here's what he says about that:
Senate Republicans have vowed to block her appointment if President Obama nominates her. Yet even if her nomination goes down in flames, Senate confirmation hearings would be clarifying. Americans would get to hear Ms. Warren explain why the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has the potential to help Americans. And they would get to hear Republicans explain why the status quo -- including the everyday horror of the foreclosure mess -- is just fine.
That's where I part company with Nocera. In what way would this be beneficial or "clarifying"? In the political life of modern America, how often does a hearing of this kind ever have the slightest impact?
James O'Keefe or Andrew Bretbart can crank out a deceptively edited video and the entire political culture -- the entire culture -- is sent into a tailspin within 24 hours. What could be said at confirmation hearings for Elizabeth Warren that could possibly have a comparable impact?
And why is that? To some extent, it's because the things Republicans would say at those hearings that Joe Nocera thinks would be so self-condemning are things Republicans know they can get away with saying, because only a small percentage of Americans (most ly angry lefties) know how outrageous they are. No one's primed the general public to be infuriated at Republicans who are apologists for fat cats the way the right-wing noise machine primes people to despise, say, NPR elitists or alleged white-hating black racists like the Shirley Sherrod of Breitbart's disgraceful video.
I'd love to live in a country where Elizabeth Warren could shame some Senate Republicans. As it is, hardly anyone in America knows who Elizabeth Warren is, or what she says and does. And on the other side, hardly anyone thinks it's outrageous that Senate Republicans won't criticize the big banks, probably because nobody in a position of political prominence, left, center, or right, criticizes the big banks -- certainly not in a way that portrays them for anything other than taking money from the real enemy, namely the Evil Government.
Once upon a time, what Nocera imagines would happen could possibly happen. Not in modern America, though. Why is that?
Friday, March 18, 2011
NOW WE REALLY GET TO SEE WHO WANTS IT MORE
I don't know who really wins as a result of this, in Wisconsin:
Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi issued a temporary restraining order Friday, barring the publication of a controversial new law that would sharply curtail collective bargaining for public employees.
Sumi’s order will prevent Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law until she can rule on the merits of the case. Dane County Ismael Ozanne is seeking to block the law because he says a legislative committee violated the state's open meetings law....
"It seems to me the public policy behind effective enforcement of the open meeting law is so strong that it does outweigh the interest, at least at this time, which may exist in favor of sustaining the validity of the (law)," she said....
As Steve Benen notes,
... the ruling is based on procedural concerns -- Republicans were supposed to jump through certain hoops in order to pass the legislation properly. Apparently, they didn't.
But they still can. If the legal process plays out, and the courts all agree that GOP officials violated Wisconsin's open meetings law, Republicans will very likely start over, jump through the right procedural hoops, and simply do all of this again.
Of course, if/when that happens, will we also see a replay of the protests and quorum avoidance from Democrats, workers, and their allies? That seems fairly likely.
But the point is that the bill was altered so (at least according to the Republicans) it didn't need that quorum. Unless that assertion is overturned by the courts, the Republicans can rubber-stamp the bill even if Democrats leave town again. And if a quorum is necessary, who's to say the GOP wouldn't use law enforcement to physically prevent the Dems from skipping town?
Protests? Republicans clearly don't give a crap how many people protest.
The only risk for Republicans, it seems to me, is the recall threat. What if Democrats get three GOP senators recalled before this goes to a revote (assuming the courts rule that it must)?
Well, the possibility that that will be the sequence of events is likely to motivate both parties -- nationwide. I keep saying I don't believe Democrats have as much momentum as they seem to have regarding the recall; I really expect the GOP and the right to start deploying the big guns soon. This court decision guarantees that, doesn't it? This is going to be a hell of a motivator for every wingnut in America, right?
Which means that now we'll see which side really has the public in its corner, and which side really has the muscle to win an ugly fight. As someone who's lived through the past thirty years, I always worry that the right will dominate every full-tilt battle of this kind. I'm worried now. I hope I'm worried without reason.
I don't know who really wins as a result of this, in Wisconsin:
Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi issued a temporary restraining order Friday, barring the publication of a controversial new law that would sharply curtail collective bargaining for public employees.
Sumi’s order will prevent Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law until she can rule on the merits of the case. Dane County Ismael Ozanne is seeking to block the law because he says a legislative committee violated the state's open meetings law....
"It seems to me the public policy behind effective enforcement of the open meeting law is so strong that it does outweigh the interest, at least at this time, which may exist in favor of sustaining the validity of the (law)," she said....
As Steve Benen notes,
... the ruling is based on procedural concerns -- Republicans were supposed to jump through certain hoops in order to pass the legislation properly. Apparently, they didn't.
But they still can. If the legal process plays out, and the courts all agree that GOP officials violated Wisconsin's open meetings law, Republicans will very likely start over, jump through the right procedural hoops, and simply do all of this again.
Of course, if/when that happens, will we also see a replay of the protests and quorum avoidance from Democrats, workers, and their allies? That seems fairly likely.
But the point is that the bill was altered so (at least according to the Republicans) it didn't need that quorum. Unless that assertion is overturned by the courts, the Republicans can rubber-stamp the bill even if Democrats leave town again. And if a quorum is necessary, who's to say the GOP wouldn't use law enforcement to physically prevent the Dems from skipping town?
Protests? Republicans clearly don't give a crap how many people protest.
The only risk for Republicans, it seems to me, is the recall threat. What if Democrats get three GOP senators recalled before this goes to a revote (assuming the courts rule that it must)?
Well, the possibility that that will be the sequence of events is likely to motivate both parties -- nationwide. I keep saying I don't believe Democrats have as much momentum as they seem to have regarding the recall; I really expect the GOP and the right to start deploying the big guns soon. This court decision guarantees that, doesn't it? This is going to be a hell of a motivator for every wingnut in America, right?
Which means that now we'll see which side really has the public in its corner, and which side really has the muscle to win an ugly fight. As someone who's lived through the past thirty years, I always worry that the right will dominate every full-tilt battle of this kind. I'm worried now. I hope I'm worried without reason.
GLAD TO SEE WE'RE GOING TO THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM
Fox Nation is all excited about the fact that sharia law may finally have met its match -- in Alaska!
An Alaskan lawmaker hopes to guard against Islamic Sharia law by prohibiting state courts from honoring foreign law that violates Alaskan or U.S. constitutional rights.
Though the bill's language does not specifically target Sharia, Rep. Carl Gatto, R-Palmer, said the legislation is a reaction to what he sees as the growing use of international law codes in courts that have robbed people of their constitutional rights....
Gatto called the law a preventative measure necessitated by the religious beliefs of recent immigrants.
"As a kid, we had Italian neighborhoods, Irish neighborhoods ... but they didn't impose their own laws," Gatto said. "When these neighborhoods are occupied by people from the Middle East, they do establish their own laws." ...
Gatto grew up in Brooklyn. I grew up in an Italian neighborhood in Boston. Um, I'm not sure I would say various faith communities refrained from establishing their own statutes, since I grew up with the blue laws of Massachusetts, which closed down all sorts of businesses on Sundays.
But never mind. Is Gatto -- who, by the way, attends the same church as Sarah Palin -- really sure he wants to go after international law in Alaska, without being specific? I'll remind you that Lynette Clrk, the chair of the Alaska Independence Party (of which Todd Palin may or may not have been a member), has asserted that Alaska statehood is "illegal and in violation of [the] United Nations charter and international law." Wonder how she feels about this?
Fox Nation is all excited about the fact that sharia law may finally have met its match -- in Alaska!
An Alaskan lawmaker hopes to guard against Islamic Sharia law by prohibiting state courts from honoring foreign law that violates Alaskan or U.S. constitutional rights.
Though the bill's language does not specifically target Sharia, Rep. Carl Gatto, R-Palmer, said the legislation is a reaction to what he sees as the growing use of international law codes in courts that have robbed people of their constitutional rights....
Gatto called the law a preventative measure necessitated by the religious beliefs of recent immigrants.
"As a kid, we had Italian neighborhoods, Irish neighborhoods ... but they didn't impose their own laws," Gatto said. "When these neighborhoods are occupied by people from the Middle East, they do establish their own laws." ...
Gatto grew up in Brooklyn. I grew up in an Italian neighborhood in Boston. Um, I'm not sure I would say various faith communities refrained from establishing their own statutes, since I grew up with the blue laws of Massachusetts, which closed down all sorts of businesses on Sundays.
But never mind. Is Gatto -- who, by the way, attends the same church as Sarah Palin -- really sure he wants to go after international law in Alaska, without being specific? I'll remind you that Lynette Clrk, the chair of the Alaska Independence Party (of which Todd Palin may or may not have been a member), has asserted that Alaska statehood is "illegal and in violation of [the] United Nations charter and international law." Wonder how she feels about this?
GANGSTER CAPITALISM
Paul Krugman today:
More than three years after we entered the worst economic slump since the 1930s, a strange and disturbing thing has happened to our political discourse: Washington has lost interest in the unemployed.
... one-sixth of America's workers — all those who can't find any job or are stuck with part-time work when they want a full-time job -- have, in effect, been abandoned.
... you have to wonder what it will take to get politicians caring again about America’s forgotten millions.
I used to wonder why the business community didn't feel it had a vested interest in getting people back to work -- but then I started thinking about organized crime. What happens when drug mobs take over a neighborhood -- or large swaths of a country (e.g., Mexico)? Sure, the people in the occupied territory suffer. But does that reduce the dealers' profits? Hardly. All they need is a base from which to operate more or less with impunity, and lots of revenue coming in from somewhere -- it doesn't matter where. Then they don't seem to care whether they're killing the host neighborhood -- they still thrive.
As long as lawmakers continue to create opportunity for the corporate class to make big piles of money, corpocrats probably won't care if the economy ever recovers, at least as you and I would define recovery. And as long as we're not willing to go into the streets to demand that either the phony-liberal Democrats or teabagging Republicans we've elected make good on their promises to stick up for the little guy, then the status quo can hold.
In other words: Paul, this may be the new normal.
Paul Krugman today:
More than three years after we entered the worst economic slump since the 1930s, a strange and disturbing thing has happened to our political discourse: Washington has lost interest in the unemployed.
... one-sixth of America's workers — all those who can't find any job or are stuck with part-time work when they want a full-time job -- have, in effect, been abandoned.
... you have to wonder what it will take to get politicians caring again about America’s forgotten millions.
I used to wonder why the business community didn't feel it had a vested interest in getting people back to work -- but then I started thinking about organized crime. What happens when drug mobs take over a neighborhood -- or large swaths of a country (e.g., Mexico)? Sure, the people in the occupied territory suffer. But does that reduce the dealers' profits? Hardly. All they need is a base from which to operate more or less with impunity, and lots of revenue coming in from somewhere -- it doesn't matter where. Then they don't seem to care whether they're killing the host neighborhood -- they still thrive.
As long as lawmakers continue to create opportunity for the corporate class to make big piles of money, corpocrats probably won't care if the economy ever recovers, at least as you and I would define recovery. And as long as we're not willing to go into the streets to demand that either the phony-liberal Democrats or teabagging Republicans we've elected make good on their promises to stick up for the little guy, then the status quo can hold.
In other words: Paul, this may be the new normal.
REPUBLICANS HATE OBAMA, BUT THEY WON'T EVEN CRITICIZE THIS WAR AS MUCH AS THEY DID CLINTON'S
In the worst days of the Iraq War, when Republicans were making great sport of questioning war critics' patriotism, I added a 1999 story from Slate to my blogroll: "Yankee Go Home: Who's Leading the Anti-War Movement? Congressional Republicans." In 1999, the U.S. government (under Bill Clinton) and NATO were at war in the Balkans, and Republicans -- usually a bellicose lot -- had suddenly turned anti-war. Trent Lott, for instance, warned of a "quagmire" and sought compromise with Slobodan Milosevic ("I think something can be worked out").
Now, Republicans hated Bill Clinton, but they despise Barack Obama. And America was flush in 1999, but now we're broke -- and Republicans really, really care about excessive government spending, right? So they should be really dubious about impending U.S. involvement in a military campaign against Libya -- right?
Forget it. All you need to know is that this week Haley Barbour suggested possibly reducing troop levels in Afghanistan and looking to the Pentagon for budget savings -- and (despite Joe Klein's prediction that other Republicans would soon follow suit) he was immediately attacked by Bill Kristol and Tim Pawlenty. The Wall Street Journal says "GOP Contenders Split on Military Cuts," but if you read the story, you see that the only "contenders" who support cuts are Ron Paul, Barbour, and another guy who's despised by too many hardcore Republicans to ever be the nominee, Mitch Daniels. And as for the rank-and-file, we're told:
A poll taken by the Pew Research Center earlier this year showed that only 18% of self-identified Republicans want to cut defense spending, while 41% would like to increase it.
So here's a chance to attack the hated Obama and recommend some genuine spending cuts -- and nearly all Republican politicians are passing it up. I know, I know -- D.C. "deficit hawks" think all wars are free. But it's more than that. They seem to need to call Obama an America-hater almost more than they felt they needed to say the same thing about Clinton the draft-dodger, so either they call him "weak" or, when he rattles sabers, they say nothing. They just can't bring themselves to move to his left. And, of course, Qaddafi is a dirty filthy Muslim, as are the folks we're fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq (so are the folks we're fighting for, but never mind), and of course they feel the need to sustain that line of hatred.
So, no, they're not going to criticize this. Unless it becomes a quagmire -- then it'll be because Obama has us fighting "with one hand tied behind our backs."
****
UPDATE: Whoops! Sorry, there's one Republican who doesn't approve of the no-fly zone in Libya and who criticizes it in budget terms: Richard Lugar. But he's already been damned as one of the worst RINOs, so he really doesn't count.
In the worst days of the Iraq War, when Republicans were making great sport of questioning war critics' patriotism, I added a 1999 story from Slate to my blogroll: "Yankee Go Home: Who's Leading the Anti-War Movement? Congressional Republicans." In 1999, the U.S. government (under Bill Clinton) and NATO were at war in the Balkans, and Republicans -- usually a bellicose lot -- had suddenly turned anti-war. Trent Lott, for instance, warned of a "quagmire" and sought compromise with Slobodan Milosevic ("I think something can be worked out").
Now, Republicans hated Bill Clinton, but they despise Barack Obama. And America was flush in 1999, but now we're broke -- and Republicans really, really care about excessive government spending, right? So they should be really dubious about impending U.S. involvement in a military campaign against Libya -- right?
Forget it. All you need to know is that this week Haley Barbour suggested possibly reducing troop levels in Afghanistan and looking to the Pentagon for budget savings -- and (despite Joe Klein's prediction that other Republicans would soon follow suit) he was immediately attacked by Bill Kristol and Tim Pawlenty. The Wall Street Journal says "GOP Contenders Split on Military Cuts," but if you read the story, you see that the only "contenders" who support cuts are Ron Paul, Barbour, and another guy who's despised by too many hardcore Republicans to ever be the nominee, Mitch Daniels. And as for the rank-and-file, we're told:
A poll taken by the Pew Research Center earlier this year showed that only 18% of self-identified Republicans want to cut defense spending, while 41% would like to increase it.
So here's a chance to attack the hated Obama and recommend some genuine spending cuts -- and nearly all Republican politicians are passing it up. I know, I know -- D.C. "deficit hawks" think all wars are free. But it's more than that. They seem to need to call Obama an America-hater almost more than they felt they needed to say the same thing about Clinton the draft-dodger, so either they call him "weak" or, when he rattles sabers, they say nothing. They just can't bring themselves to move to his left. And, of course, Qaddafi is a dirty filthy Muslim, as are the folks we're fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq (so are the folks we're fighting for, but never mind), and of course they feel the need to sustain that line of hatred.
So, no, they're not going to criticize this. Unless it becomes a quagmire -- then it'll be because Obama has us fighting "with one hand tied behind our backs."
****
UPDATE: Whoops! Sorry, there's one Republican who doesn't approve of the no-fly zone in Libya and who criticizes it in budget terms: Richard Lugar. But he's already been damned as one of the worst RINOs, so he really doesn't count.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
QUESTIONING THE TIMING OF DUBIOUS "SCOOP" FROM MURDOCH'S FAILED iPAPER
There's nothing unusual about a Murdoch media property publishing a provocative-sounding story that's embarrassing to a political enemy and that's based on suspiciously anonymous quotes, so of course we should take this story, from Murdoch's iPad paper The Daily, with many grains of salt. The question is: Why now? I'll make a guess below.
Fed up with a president "who can't make his mind up" as Libyan rebels are on the brink of defeat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is looking to the exits.
At the tail end of her mission to bolster the Libyan opposition, which has suffered days of losses to Col. Moammar Gadhafi's forces, Clinton announced that she’s done with Obama after 2012 -- even if he wins again.
"Obviously, she's not happy with dealing with a president who can't decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can't make his mind up," a Clinton insider told The Daily....
So when does this story -- the first Daily story ever to get the slightest bit of attention on the Internet at large -- appear on our radar? Why, it appears the very day The New York Times announces a plan to start charging for online content. Murdoch has customized the Daily for the iPad; the Daily's stories are on the larger Internet, but they're not getting any traction with those of us who are iPadless. And, well, iPad users aren't really ponying up for the damn thing -- paid subscriptions seem to be a whopping 5,000. (The Murdoch people deny the numbers are that low, but they would, wouldn't they?)
So -- on the very day the Times announces that it's ceding the circulation advantage it gets from making its content available free -- the Daily floats this story, in what seems to be a desperate attempt to get people to notice an online publication that's utterly failed to get noticed in the marketplace. In other words, "Now that you're going top have to pay to read the Times on your iPad, um, did you know we have an iPad paper?"
Hell yeah I question the timing -- and the truthfulness of the story.
Politico's Ben Smith is also skeptical. The anonymous source in the Daily story is quoted as saying,
“If you take a look at what's on her plate as compared with what's on the plates of previous Secretary of States -- there's more going on now at this particular moment, and it's like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs...."
Smith writes:
Secretary of States? People a bit closer to Foggy Bottom typicially use the plural, "Secretaries of State."
The other bit of the story that doesn't quite make sense is the claim that PJ Crowley's resignation was a DoD power play, rather than a)inevitable and b)the dearest wish of Clinton's inner circle anyway.
Ouch.
And as for Hillary's decision not to stay on past 2012, don't forget that we haven't had an eight-year Secretary of State since Dean Rusk, under JFK and LBJ; only one other SoS in the 20th century, Cordell Hull (under FDR), served more than one full presidential term. One-and-done is how the Secretaries of State for both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush served. So what's the surprise?
There's nothing unusual about a Murdoch media property publishing a provocative-sounding story that's embarrassing to a political enemy and that's based on suspiciously anonymous quotes, so of course we should take this story, from Murdoch's iPad paper The Daily, with many grains of salt. The question is: Why now? I'll make a guess below.
Fed up with a president "who can't make his mind up" as Libyan rebels are on the brink of defeat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is looking to the exits.
At the tail end of her mission to bolster the Libyan opposition, which has suffered days of losses to Col. Moammar Gadhafi's forces, Clinton announced that she’s done with Obama after 2012 -- even if he wins again.
"Obviously, she's not happy with dealing with a president who can't decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can't make his mind up," a Clinton insider told The Daily....
So when does this story -- the first Daily story ever to get the slightest bit of attention on the Internet at large -- appear on our radar? Why, it appears the very day The New York Times announces a plan to start charging for online content. Murdoch has customized the Daily for the iPad; the Daily's stories are on the larger Internet, but they're not getting any traction with those of us who are iPadless. And, well, iPad users aren't really ponying up for the damn thing -- paid subscriptions seem to be a whopping 5,000. (The Murdoch people deny the numbers are that low, but they would, wouldn't they?)
So -- on the very day the Times announces that it's ceding the circulation advantage it gets from making its content available free -- the Daily floats this story, in what seems to be a desperate attempt to get people to notice an online publication that's utterly failed to get noticed in the marketplace. In other words, "Now that you're going top have to pay to read the Times on your iPad, um, did you know we have an iPad paper?"
Hell yeah I question the timing -- and the truthfulness of the story.
Politico's Ben Smith is also skeptical. The anonymous source in the Daily story is quoted as saying,
“If you take a look at what's on her plate as compared with what's on the plates of previous Secretary of States -- there's more going on now at this particular moment, and it's like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs...."
Smith writes:
Secretary of States? People a bit closer to Foggy Bottom typicially use the plural, "Secretaries of State."
The other bit of the story that doesn't quite make sense is the claim that PJ Crowley's resignation was a DoD power play, rather than a)inevitable and b)the dearest wish of Clinton's inner circle anyway.
Ouch.
And as for Hillary's decision not to stay on past 2012, don't forget that we haven't had an eight-year Secretary of State since Dean Rusk, under JFK and LBJ; only one other SoS in the 20th century, Cordell Hull (under FDR), served more than one full presidential term. One-and-done is how the Secretaries of State for both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush served. So what's the surprise?
MAYBE THEY CAN ALL SECEDE AND CALL THE NEW COUNTRY "IDIOCRISTAN"
Wow -- I don't think there's ever been this much ignorance in one room since the last time George W. Bush dined alone:
Nevada Republican Sharron Angle will continue to court Tea Party activists outside her home state as she makes a run for the House.
Angle became a national figure last year during her race against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), which helped her raise some $28 million for the campaign. With an eye toward maintaining that donor base, Angle is set to appear at a March 24 event billed as "an evening with the Joes."
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Samuel "Joe The Plumber" Wurzelbacher and former Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller are coming together at a Montara, Calif., fundraiser....
(By the way, when Angle runs, do you think anyone will bring up the fact that her pal Joe Miller is a close friend of a militiaman who's charged in a plot to kill judges and state troopers? Or will Democrats, as usual, think mentioning something like that would be too harsh?)
Meanwhile, if rumors are to be believed, The Senate race in Joe Arpaio's home state of Arizona could be getting a fresh new face:
Democrats in Arizona are already taking full advantage of rumors that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin could use the state as a base for a 2012 presidential campaign, but how about a run for the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Jon Kyl?
The Arizona Republic noted that a Democratic state lawmaker talked up the rumor last week and at least one Republican strategist in Washington, D.C. doesn't think it's completely far-fetched.
Writing for the Daily Caller on Thursday, Republican Ford O'Connell, who heads Civic Forum PAC, argues that Palin could sweep into Arizona and win a GOP primary for the seat over Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who's the only Republican currently in the race....
I agree -- she probably could win the nomination. The general election? Maybe not so much. Public Policy Polling (PDF) reports her approval/disapproval in Arizona as 39%/57%. So O'Connell would see to have it exactly backwards when he and coauthor Steve Pearson write:
If Palin is able to secure the GOP nomination for Senate, her candidacy could be a game changer, because she would give Team Obama fits in the Grand Canyon State or even push them to drop it off their list of potential conquest states.
I think Obama's in trouble in Arizona without Palin in the Senate race; with her, people will turn out in droves just to vote her down.
At least I think they will. Most of non-liberal America still doesn't grasp how nasty and toxic conservatism is, but most people (apart from hardcore Republicans) just don't like Palin. So please: Run, Sarah, run!
Wow -- I don't think there's ever been this much ignorance in one room since the last time George W. Bush dined alone:
Nevada Republican Sharron Angle will continue to court Tea Party activists outside her home state as she makes a run for the House.
Angle became a national figure last year during her race against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), which helped her raise some $28 million for the campaign. With an eye toward maintaining that donor base, Angle is set to appear at a March 24 event billed as "an evening with the Joes."
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Samuel "Joe The Plumber" Wurzelbacher and former Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller are coming together at a Montara, Calif., fundraiser....
(By the way, when Angle runs, do you think anyone will bring up the fact that her pal Joe Miller is a close friend of a militiaman who's charged in a plot to kill judges and state troopers? Or will Democrats, as usual, think mentioning something like that would be too harsh?)
Meanwhile, if rumors are to be believed, The Senate race in Joe Arpaio's home state of Arizona could be getting a fresh new face:
Democrats in Arizona are already taking full advantage of rumors that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin could use the state as a base for a 2012 presidential campaign, but how about a run for the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Jon Kyl?
The Arizona Republic noted that a Democratic state lawmaker talked up the rumor last week and at least one Republican strategist in Washington, D.C. doesn't think it's completely far-fetched.
Writing for the Daily Caller on Thursday, Republican Ford O'Connell, who heads Civic Forum PAC, argues that Palin could sweep into Arizona and win a GOP primary for the seat over Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who's the only Republican currently in the race....
I agree -- she probably could win the nomination. The general election? Maybe not so much. Public Policy Polling (PDF) reports her approval/disapproval in Arizona as 39%/57%. So O'Connell would see to have it exactly backwards when he and coauthor Steve Pearson write:
If Palin is able to secure the GOP nomination for Senate, her candidacy could be a game changer, because she would give Team Obama fits in the Grand Canyon State or even push them to drop it off their list of potential conquest states.
I think Obama's in trouble in Arizona without Palin in the Senate race; with her, people will turn out in droves just to vote her down.
At least I think they will. Most of non-liberal America still doesn't grasp how nasty and toxic conservatism is, but most people (apart from hardcore Republicans) just don't like Palin. So please: Run, Sarah, run!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)