Steven Pearlstein rips Michael Steele's face off:
Indeed, Republicans seem determined to preserve the uniquely American system under which health care is rationed today -- on the basis of employment status and ability to pay. According to the respected Institute of Medicine, this market-based approach to rationing has held the number of untimely deaths each year to a mere 18,000 uninsured souls. Thanks to Medicare, all of those victims are younger than 65, but apparently that is the kind of age-based rationing that real Republicans can embrace.
After reading his broadside, one is left wondering exactly what health reform plan Steele thought he was attacking. At one point, Steele claims that Democrats would prevent Americans from keeping their doctors or an insurance plan they like. Later, he warns that government will soon be setting caps on how many heart surgeries could be performed in the United States each year. Where is he getting this stuff? Has the chairman of the Republican Party somehow gotten hold of a top-secret plan for a government takeover of the health-care system that GOP operatives snatched during a break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters?
If all that sounds spurious and unsubstantiated, it is. And like many of the overstated claims in this column, its purpose is to highlight the lies, distortions and political scare tactics that Steele and other Republicans have used to poison the national debate over health reform.
Have you no shame, sir? Have you no shame?
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Stuff I Wish I'd Written
If we make 9/11 a national day of service, that means the terrorists will have won.
This private-public, civilian army of phone-bankers and envelope-stuffers sounds pretty teh awesome, though.
This private-public, civilian army of phone-bankers and envelope-stuffers sounds pretty teh awesome, though.
Monday, August 24, 2009
If it's Monday...
It must be anti-Chavez day at the Washington Post.
But I'm confused, or maybe I'm just missing something.
Isn't the very pro American Colombian president--or at least his honchos in his rubber-stamp legislature--trying to ram through a constitutional amendment to allow him to run again, for a third consecutive term, which is unconstitutional?
Shouldn't we be supporting a military coup in Colombia to prevent such an undemocratic and unconstitutional thing from happening, like we did in Hondurus?
How could The Post not have thought to mention this to us?
But I'm confused, or maybe I'm just missing something.
Isn't the very pro American Colombian president--or at least his honchos in his rubber-stamp legislature--trying to ram through a constitutional amendment to allow him to run again, for a third consecutive term, which is unconstitutional?
Shouldn't we be supporting a military coup in Colombia to prevent such an undemocratic and unconstitutional thing from happening, like we did in Hondurus?
How could The Post not have thought to mention this to us?
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Unhinged
Atrios:
Getting Scarier
SoCal:
WESTWOOD -- A man accused of making threats against the White House led officers on a wild freeway chase that ended in a standoff outside the Federal Building.
MD:
The Secret Service is investigating a man who authorities said held a sign reading "Death to Obama" outside a town hall meeting on health-care reform in western Maryland.
The sign also read, "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids," referring to the first name of President Barack Obama's wife, said Washington County Sheriff's Capt. Peter Lazich.
Dangerous and also super classy.
---------------------------------
But I'm sure that swastika outside that congressperson's office was a fake.
Getting Scarier
SoCal:
WESTWOOD -- A man accused of making threats against the White House led officers on a wild freeway chase that ended in a standoff outside the Federal Building.
MD:
The Secret Service is investigating a man who authorities said held a sign reading "Death to Obama" outside a town hall meeting on health-care reform in western Maryland.
The sign also read, "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids," referring to the first name of President Barack Obama's wife, said Washington County Sheriff's Capt. Peter Lazich.
Dangerous and also super classy.
---------------------------------
But I'm sure that swastika outside that congressperson's office was a fake.
Not Interested in Governing
That, I think, is the basic mind-set behind the townhalls, the worldview promulgated by hate radio, Faux TV, and the various astroturf freedomworks groups for the last ten years and beyond. It manifested itself, of course, in a variety of ways during the W presidency, Katrina and the occupation of Iraq being only the most disasterous examples.
The only legitimate use of government for this crowd consists almost exclusively of starting wars and harranging liberals, academics, uncoverted Hollywood actors, immigrants, secularists, and other perceived unpersons. Beyond that, there just simply isn't any interest in addressing the realities of the modern world.
Ezra Klein's column gets at this somewhat, as well.
The only legitimate use of government for this crowd consists almost exclusively of starting wars and harranging liberals, academics, uncoverted Hollywood actors, immigrants, secularists, and other perceived unpersons. Beyond that, there just simply isn't any interest in addressing the realities of the modern world.
Ezra Klein's column gets at this somewhat, as well.
What Matt Yglesias Said
Big Media Matt:
...Watching McCaskill on TV what I mostly thought of was that I don’t understand why members of congress are holding these town halls. There’s been so much focus on the spectacle of the whole thing that nobody’s really stepped back and explained what the purpose of these events are other than to give us pundits something to chat about. Obviously this is not a good way of acquiring statistically valid information about your constituents’ opinions. And it doesn’t seem like a mode of endeavor likely to increase the popularity of the politician holding the town hall. The upside is extremely limited, and you’re mostly just exposing yourself to the chance that something could go wrong.
I know this is a relatively older post, and with the townhalls that horse is already out of the barn or whatever.
Anyway, this has been another edition of What Matt Yglesias Said.
...Watching McCaskill on TV what I mostly thought of was that I don’t understand why members of congress are holding these town halls. There’s been so much focus on the spectacle of the whole thing that nobody’s really stepped back and explained what the purpose of these events are other than to give us pundits something to chat about. Obviously this is not a good way of acquiring statistically valid information about your constituents’ opinions. And it doesn’t seem like a mode of endeavor likely to increase the popularity of the politician holding the town hall. The upside is extremely limited, and you’re mostly just exposing yourself to the chance that something could go wrong.
I know this is a relatively older post, and with the townhalls that horse is already out of the barn or whatever.
Anyway, this has been another edition of What Matt Yglesias Said.
Friday, July 31, 2009
More Media FAIL
Pardon my French, but who gives a flying f$%$#& what this idiot woman has to say about anything?
She's a "raging Republican" who voted for McCain and that Wasilla wingnut. So, she actually voted to put that hair-brain know-nothing one heartbeat away from the presidency, and she would have us think her bitchy whining about Obama's health plan should be taken seriously? She's a partisan hack who has no business telling any of us what kind of health plan the nation should have.
She's a "raging Republican" who voted for McCain and that Wasilla wingnut. So, she actually voted to put that hair-brain know-nothing one heartbeat away from the presidency, and she would have us think her bitchy whining about Obama's health plan should be taken seriously? She's a partisan hack who has no business telling any of us what kind of health plan the nation should have.
Friday, July 24, 2009
That's Some Spirited Revolution You Got There
Let me see if I can get this straight. Two days ago, the founder of Free Republic, the flagship of the conservative intertubes, basically issued a Fatwah against the entire U.S. government. "The govmit is oppressing us, taking away our guns and bibles, imprisoning us in FEMA trailers, and so on, so we have a natural right to rebel and throw off said oppressive govmit, which is illegally headed by a muslim born in Kenya." Sounds pretty provocative. They even want to unilaterally dispense with some Constitutional Amendments in the process. And while the call to arms is obstensibly peaceful--they merely want everyone in the gov to resign--there's no telling what happens if this demand is disobeyed. Could get violent.
But fear not. They don't really mean it. Stay calm. Because this week, barely a day after Free Republic's call for holy war, or at least for state conventions across the heartland to secede, conservatives got all in a snit because an uppity black man in his own house in the middle of the day in a pretty swanky neighborhood protested being arrested for contempt of cop. And the illegal muslim president said the cops acted "stupidly". This was too much for the die hard patriotic rebels in the conservative movement who, immediately after collapsing onto their fainting couches at such an affront to law and order, rushed to defend the right of socialized police forces everywhere to unapologetically take away a person's Liberty and Freedom, and arrest anyone anywhere for whatever reason, even if the charges are bogus and have to be dropped later.
Sigh.
Not sure what this means for the conservative revolution and the spirit of '09. What happens if during their god-given right to purge the country of heretics, liberals, and humanists, these conservatives are approached nicely by the men in blue and told to stand down? I shudder to think. With this kind of meekness, defeatism, and cut-and-runism, how can we ever hope to have a non-ballot-box revolution?
But fear not. They don't really mean it. Stay calm. Because this week, barely a day after Free Republic's call for holy war, or at least for state conventions across the heartland to secede, conservatives got all in a snit because an uppity black man in his own house in the middle of the day in a pretty swanky neighborhood protested being arrested for contempt of cop. And the illegal muslim president said the cops acted "stupidly". This was too much for the die hard patriotic rebels in the conservative movement who, immediately after collapsing onto their fainting couches at such an affront to law and order, rushed to defend the right of socialized police forces everywhere to unapologetically take away a person's Liberty and Freedom, and arrest anyone anywhere for whatever reason, even if the charges are bogus and have to be dropped later.
Sigh.
Not sure what this means for the conservative revolution and the spirit of '09. What happens if during their god-given right to purge the country of heretics, liberals, and humanists, these conservatives are approached nicely by the men in blue and told to stand down? I shudder to think. With this kind of meekness, defeatism, and cut-and-runism, how can we ever hope to have a non-ballot-box revolution?
The Do-Nothing Caucus
Not sure who’s been spiking Steven Pearlstein's coffee, but this observation by someone in the press is welcome:
The challenge for the Blue Dogs is that they want an America where everyone has insurance but are reluctant to force workers to buy it or employers to help pay for it.
They understand that achieving universal coverage will require subsidies for low-income workers and small businesses, but they insist that none of those changes add to the federal deficit or raise anyone's taxes.
They want to introduce more competition into the private insurance market, but not if it comes from a government-run insurance plan.
They complain constantly about the need to rein in runaway Medicare costs while at the same time demanding higher Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals in rural areas.
The fact is, that unless you have an abortion-restriction idea, or want to eliminate the right of workers to unionize, or have a new grand scheme for "tort reform", the "blue dogs" aren't interested.
Meanwhile, a news flash: McCain voters don't like Obama's health care plan:
Like many in the country, Mr. Brown, a 36-year-old father of four who lives in an Atlanta suburb, has grown increasingly anxious about Washington’s efforts to reconfigure health care and what it may mean for his middle-class family. Although he and his wife, Judith, supported John McCain in the presidential race, they find Mr. Obama an earnest and compelling pitchman. But they remain frustrated by the lack of available detail about his plan’s contours and cost.
"The bottom line is there are so many unknowns," said Ms. Brown, 35, who works part time at her church and cares for her young children. "What we do know is there is going to be more government control, and with more control you’re going to have fewer choices. It’s an innate part of being American to have those choices."
(snip)
But the Browns said Mr. Obama and the Democrats had not convinced them of the need for radical change. They said the notion of establishing a new government health plan to compete against private insurers seemed un-American. They questioned the wisdom and fairness of taxing the rich. And they said individuals should bear more responsibility for staying healthy.
"I know the system is not perfect, but I’m not completely convinced it’s broken," Mr. Brown said. "And even if it’s broken, I’m not sure the government is the solution."
I see. So government "control" means no or fewer innately American guaranteed, employer provided "choices", but the addition of a government health plan "choice" to compete against other private plans is un-American. Teh stupid. It hurts.
I also guess this dude hasn't heard about Medicare. Or Medicaid. Or Social Security. Morans!!!!
The challenge for the Blue Dogs is that they want an America where everyone has insurance but are reluctant to force workers to buy it or employers to help pay for it.
They understand that achieving universal coverage will require subsidies for low-income workers and small businesses, but they insist that none of those changes add to the federal deficit or raise anyone's taxes.
They want to introduce more competition into the private insurance market, but not if it comes from a government-run insurance plan.
They complain constantly about the need to rein in runaway Medicare costs while at the same time demanding higher Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals in rural areas.
The fact is, that unless you have an abortion-restriction idea, or want to eliminate the right of workers to unionize, or have a new grand scheme for "tort reform", the "blue dogs" aren't interested.
Meanwhile, a news flash: McCain voters don't like Obama's health care plan:
Like many in the country, Mr. Brown, a 36-year-old father of four who lives in an Atlanta suburb, has grown increasingly anxious about Washington’s efforts to reconfigure health care and what it may mean for his middle-class family. Although he and his wife, Judith, supported John McCain in the presidential race, they find Mr. Obama an earnest and compelling pitchman. But they remain frustrated by the lack of available detail about his plan’s contours and cost.
"The bottom line is there are so many unknowns," said Ms. Brown, 35, who works part time at her church and cares for her young children. "What we do know is there is going to be more government control, and with more control you’re going to have fewer choices. It’s an innate part of being American to have those choices."
(snip)
But the Browns said Mr. Obama and the Democrats had not convinced them of the need for radical change. They said the notion of establishing a new government health plan to compete against private insurers seemed un-American. They questioned the wisdom and fairness of taxing the rich. And they said individuals should bear more responsibility for staying healthy.
"I know the system is not perfect, but I’m not completely convinced it’s broken," Mr. Brown said. "And even if it’s broken, I’m not sure the government is the solution."
I see. So government "control" means no or fewer innately American guaranteed, employer provided "choices", but the addition of a government health plan "choice" to compete against other private plans is un-American. Teh stupid. It hurts.
I also guess this dude hasn't heard about Medicare. Or Medicaid. Or Social Security. Morans!!!!
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Just Do It
I've been reluctant to delve too deeply into the health care reform debate, mostly because I just haven't kept up with all the ins and outs of the policy details over the years, so I probably don't know what the hell I'm talking about (not that that has ever stopped me before). Better to leave the arguments to people like this, and this dude.
Nonetheless, even though the cat's pretty much already out of the bag in terms of political strategery, here are my thoughts, driven in part by worries over the current stalemate and reactions to Obama's presser last night.
1. Drop the word "reform" from the issue. It sounds too much like "overhaul" and my guess is that's what scares some people, many of whom already have coverage, and provides openings for obstructionists.
2. Focus on the basic goals--expanding access and reducing costs. The first, it seems to me, needs to be addressed by something like a public option, a Medicare-like buy-in. My sense from most polls and political discussion generally is that this is seen by much of the public as a worthwhile objective. The second is related to the first, that the problems of cost are partly a function of higher cost, profit-driven system that's inefficient. Expanding access through a public option could help lower costs.
3. Don't make a big deal of it. Whether in some objective sense the American health care system is in crisis, I'm not sure the public has been so receptive to such an appeal (see: 1994). Leave the alarmism for the conservatives, many of whose concerns have been aptly demonstrated as contradictory.
4. Keep the bill as simple as possible, try to address any reasonable concerns Democratic opponents might have, and if their objections aren't reasonable, subject them to public ridicule. Reach out to certain select Republicans, but since Democrats have large majorities in both houses of Congress, don't fret too much about bipartisanship.
Nonetheless, even though the cat's pretty much already out of the bag in terms of political strategery, here are my thoughts, driven in part by worries over the current stalemate and reactions to Obama's presser last night.
1. Drop the word "reform" from the issue. It sounds too much like "overhaul" and my guess is that's what scares some people, many of whom already have coverage, and provides openings for obstructionists.
2. Focus on the basic goals--expanding access and reducing costs. The first, it seems to me, needs to be addressed by something like a public option, a Medicare-like buy-in. My sense from most polls and political discussion generally is that this is seen by much of the public as a worthwhile objective. The second is related to the first, that the problems of cost are partly a function of higher cost, profit-driven system that's inefficient. Expanding access through a public option could help lower costs.
3. Don't make a big deal of it. Whether in some objective sense the American health care system is in crisis, I'm not sure the public has been so receptive to such an appeal (see: 1994). Leave the alarmism for the conservatives, many of whose concerns have been aptly demonstrated as contradictory.
4. Keep the bill as simple as possible, try to address any reasonable concerns Democratic opponents might have, and if their objections aren't reasonable, subject them to public ridicule. Reach out to certain select Republicans, but since Democrats have large majorities in both houses of Congress, don't fret too much about bipartisanship.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
The "birthers" are sore losers. Plain and simple.
Gosh, times are gettin' so rough, a Republican congressman can't even go to his own townhalls anymore.
Look. In addition to being psycho nutjobs, the "birthers" are just sore losers. Plain and simple.
Look. In addition to being psycho nutjobs, the "birthers" are just sore losers. Plain and simple.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Giving the blue dog dems what they want
From TPM I learn that the blue dog dems are unhappy with the pace of health reform legislation--or that it is being discussed at all--and want Obama and everybody else to slow the hell down on it.
Since these loyal blue dog dems seem to have too much going on for the next five months--maybe they all have really hot dates or something--I thought I would try to solve the impasse by suggesting some alternative timelines for reform, which I hope the loyal blue dog dems will like.
1. December '10 after the congressional elections, that way if the Republicans should happen to pick up even one seat in either house, the Blue Dogs can claim that the public just issued a stinging rebuke to Obama's health reform efforts and any reform if it precedes at all, should be delayed for an indefinite period.
2. December '12, after the presidential elections. If Obama wins by a margin smaller than 8% or so, the Blue Dogs can claim that he lacks a mandate, etc. If Obama loses, then of course, the Blue Dogs can spend their time kissing Repub as#$@. If Obama wins by 8% or more then the Blue Dogs can say that of course health reform should be done right away, just as soon as a comprehensive plan to slash Social Security and Medicare spending is passed.
3. March '15, If Obama wins in '12, this would be an opportune time to cement his legacy during the time he's a lame duck when people really care what he says and about his agenda.
4. August '17, after there's a new president and after entitlement reform.
Since these loyal blue dog dems seem to have too much going on for the next five months--maybe they all have really hot dates or something--I thought I would try to solve the impasse by suggesting some alternative timelines for reform, which I hope the loyal blue dog dems will like.
1. December '10 after the congressional elections, that way if the Republicans should happen to pick up even one seat in either house, the Blue Dogs can claim that the public just issued a stinging rebuke to Obama's health reform efforts and any reform if it precedes at all, should be delayed for an indefinite period.
2. December '12, after the presidential elections. If Obama wins by a margin smaller than 8% or so, the Blue Dogs can claim that he lacks a mandate, etc. If Obama loses, then of course, the Blue Dogs can spend their time kissing Repub as#$@. If Obama wins by 8% or more then the Blue Dogs can say that of course health reform should be done right away, just as soon as a comprehensive plan to slash Social Security and Medicare spending is passed.
3. March '15, If Obama wins in '12, this would be an opportune time to cement his legacy during the time he's a lame duck when people really care what he says and about his agenda.
4. August '17, after there's a new president and after entitlement reform.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Sotomayor
Uh oh:
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's opinions show support for the rights of criminal defendants and suspects, skepticism of corporations, and sympathy for plaintiffs alleging discrimination, an analysis of her record by The Washington Post found. And she has delivered those rulings with a level of detail considered unusual for an appellate judge.
Holy shit, Batman. Support for the rights of criminal defendants and suspects! Skepticism of corporations! Sympathy (empathy!) for plaintiffs alleging discrimination?! That some damn crazy shit. Say it ain't so. See, that's why we can only have old white men on the Supremes.
And apparently, Ms. Mayor delivers opinions with a "level of detail considered unusual...". Really?! Seems like just yesterday when Sotomayor was being cast as an ignorant, Latina dope, unworthy of the majesty required of a Supreme Court Justice.
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's opinions show support for the rights of criminal defendants and suspects, skepticism of corporations, and sympathy for plaintiffs alleging discrimination, an analysis of her record by The Washington Post found. And she has delivered those rulings with a level of detail considered unusual for an appellate judge.
Holy shit, Batman. Support for the rights of criminal defendants and suspects! Skepticism of corporations! Sympathy (empathy!) for plaintiffs alleging discrimination?! That some damn crazy shit. Say it ain't so. See, that's why we can only have old white men on the Supremes.
And apparently, Ms. Mayor delivers opinions with a "level of detail considered unusual...". Really?! Seems like just yesterday when Sotomayor was being cast as an ignorant, Latina dope, unworthy of the majesty required of a Supreme Court Justice.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
GOP now against "the troops"
TPM:
The House GOP will vote en masse against the new war funding bill. What about the troops? For the House GOP, they take a back seat to sticking a finger in the eye of the IMF.
I heard this earlier on Democracy Now when Amy Goodman described how the WH was attempting to "persuade" some more liberal House members NOT to vote with the GOP against the supplemental war funding measure.
I guess the GOP was for the troops before they were against them.
The House GOP will vote en masse against the new war funding bill. What about the troops? For the House GOP, they take a back seat to sticking a finger in the eye of the IMF.
I heard this earlier on Democracy Now when Amy Goodman described how the WH was attempting to "persuade" some more liberal House members NOT to vote with the GOP against the supplemental war funding measure.
I guess the GOP was for the troops before they were against them.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Our sucky political-media establishment
Chris Bodenner, guesting at Andrew Sullivan's pad, sums it up:
The civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan have endured eight years of collateral damage yet our political establishment says we can't handle the collateral fear of a few dozen men in shackles.
The civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan have endured eight years of collateral damage yet our political establishment says we can't handle the collateral fear of a few dozen men in shackles.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Pope in Holy Land: orthodoxy bad
Abroad in the Holy Land, from which Christians, a minority there for centuries, continue to flee, the Pope has a Paul-on-the-road-to-Damascus conversion on the virtues of diversity and the vices of "extremism" and "orthodoxy":
He said: “While understandable reasons lead many, especially the young, to emigrate, this decision brings in its wake a great cultural and spiritual impoverishment to the city. Today I wish to repeat what I have said on other occasions: in the Holy Land there is room for everyone!”
On Sunday in Jordan the pope argued that Christians had a role here in reconciliation, that their very presence eased the strife, and that the decline of that presence could help to increase extremism. When the mix of beliefs and lifestyles goes down, orthodoxy rises, he implied, as does uniformity of the cultural landscape in a region where tolerance is not an outstanding virtue.
So, "tolerance" is now a virtue, while "orthodoxy", "extremism", and "uniformity of the cultural landscape" are now bad? Pretty shocking stuff from the former Head of the Office of the Inquisition, responsible for forcing Roman Catholic orthodoxy. I imagine this new-found appreciation for tolerance and diversity will last as long as it takes for the pope to board his private jet back to Rome, but at least it provides a basis for Christians of alternative views and cultural environments to throw the pope's words back at him when his holiness reverts to the demands of religious conformity.
He said: “While understandable reasons lead many, especially the young, to emigrate, this decision brings in its wake a great cultural and spiritual impoverishment to the city. Today I wish to repeat what I have said on other occasions: in the Holy Land there is room for everyone!”
On Sunday in Jordan the pope argued that Christians had a role here in reconciliation, that their very presence eased the strife, and that the decline of that presence could help to increase extremism. When the mix of beliefs and lifestyles goes down, orthodoxy rises, he implied, as does uniformity of the cultural landscape in a region where tolerance is not an outstanding virtue.
So, "tolerance" is now a virtue, while "orthodoxy", "extremism", and "uniformity of the cultural landscape" are now bad? Pretty shocking stuff from the former Head of the Office of the Inquisition, responsible for forcing Roman Catholic orthodoxy. I imagine this new-found appreciation for tolerance and diversity will last as long as it takes for the pope to board his private jet back to Rome, but at least it provides a basis for Christians of alternative views and cultural environments to throw the pope's words back at him when his holiness reverts to the demands of religious conformity.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
If it's Thursday, if must be Anti-Chavez Day at the Washington Post
Consider, if you will, this statement of breathtaking ignorance:
The administration's strategy -- to open up a constructive dialogue with Venezuela and avoid being cast as Mr. Chávez's Yanqui foil -- is reasonable; it is also the same strategy as was tried, unsuccessfully, by the previous two administrations.
That's true, I guess, if you think that trying to overthrow their democratically elected government (in 2002) and replace it with a military dictatorship amounts to "constructive dialogue".
Then there's this, the logic of which I can't even begin to fathom:
["constructive dialogue"] makes it more rather than less likely that Venezuela, with the help of Iran and Russia, will become a threat to the United States.
What is this, Red Dawn? That's the kind of paranoid, fear-mongering lunacy only the commenters at Red State (and I guess Fred Hiatt at the Wash Post) would believe.
The administration's strategy -- to open up a constructive dialogue with Venezuela and avoid being cast as Mr. Chávez's Yanqui foil -- is reasonable; it is also the same strategy as was tried, unsuccessfully, by the previous two administrations.
That's true, I guess, if you think that trying to overthrow their democratically elected government (in 2002) and replace it with a military dictatorship amounts to "constructive dialogue".
Then there's this, the logic of which I can't even begin to fathom:
["constructive dialogue"] makes it more rather than less likely that Venezuela, with the help of Iran and Russia, will become a threat to the United States.
What is this, Red Dawn? That's the kind of paranoid, fear-mongering lunacy only the commenters at Red State (and I guess Fred Hiatt at the Wash Post) would believe.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
When elections are lost
I don't see any connection here between the Pakistani Taliban and American conservatives, do you?
Meanwhile, with Taliban fighters occupying more and more areas in the northwest and vowing to bring Islamic justice to the region, political and professional leaders have fled. Few officials from the ANP (the democratic, secular party--Bulworth) and Zardari's Pakistan People's Party dare visit the constituencies that voted for them in the February 2008 elections. Mohammed Khan, a lawyer from Swat who fled the region last month with his family, recounted how pressure from the insurgents prevented secular candidates from holding rallies or campaigning before the elections. But their two parties swept the polls, while religious ones fared poorly.
"One [Islamist] party used the symbol of a book, telling people it was the Koran, but Swatis voted for the lantern of the ANP," Khan said, referring to the symbols used on ballots to indicate a candidate's party. "Now the ANP has had to swallow the bitter pill of sharia rule, but how can anyone say the people wanted that? They have been pushed into a corner, and now no one is there to defend them."
------
I really don't see any connection here between Pakistani Taliban, which lost out in that country's elections but are now trying to obtain through the gun what they couldn't earn at the ballot box--and the various reichwing American militia movements threatening to conduct an armed "demonstration" march on Washington. No connection at all. Nor do I see any similarity between these Pakistani Taliban and various reichwing leaders who want their states to secede in the aftermath of their party's losing two straight elections at the ballot box; I also don't see anything similar between the Pakistani Taliban's violent behavior and rhetoric after losing an election and Faux news hosts who after their party has lost two straight elections, simultaneously broadcast from a "bunker" while trying to incite their listening audience to claim that they have the nation's capitol "surrounded". I don't really see any comparisons here at all. Nor should anyone draw any conclusions as to the like-mindedness of those Pakistani Taliban who want to enshrine Islamic-biblical law and conservative American reichwingers who want to enshrine Judeo-Christian-biblical law in place of the U.S. Constitution. The fact that religious parties lost in both countries and that both are reacting largely along the same, militaristic lines, should not imply that the American reichwing is just like the Pakistani Taliban.
Meanwhile, with Taliban fighters occupying more and more areas in the northwest and vowing to bring Islamic justice to the region, political and professional leaders have fled. Few officials from the ANP (the democratic, secular party--Bulworth) and Zardari's Pakistan People's Party dare visit the constituencies that voted for them in the February 2008 elections. Mohammed Khan, a lawyer from Swat who fled the region last month with his family, recounted how pressure from the insurgents prevented secular candidates from holding rallies or campaigning before the elections. But their two parties swept the polls, while religious ones fared poorly.
"One [Islamist] party used the symbol of a book, telling people it was the Koran, but Swatis voted for the lantern of the ANP," Khan said, referring to the symbols used on ballots to indicate a candidate's party. "Now the ANP has had to swallow the bitter pill of sharia rule, but how can anyone say the people wanted that? They have been pushed into a corner, and now no one is there to defend them."
------
I really don't see any connection here between Pakistani Taliban, which lost out in that country's elections but are now trying to obtain through the gun what they couldn't earn at the ballot box--and the various reichwing American militia movements threatening to conduct an armed "demonstration" march on Washington. No connection at all. Nor do I see any similarity between these Pakistani Taliban and various reichwing leaders who want their states to secede in the aftermath of their party's losing two straight elections at the ballot box; I also don't see anything similar between the Pakistani Taliban's violent behavior and rhetoric after losing an election and Faux news hosts who after their party has lost two straight elections, simultaneously broadcast from a "bunker" while trying to incite their listening audience to claim that they have the nation's capitol "surrounded". I don't really see any comparisons here at all. Nor should anyone draw any conclusions as to the like-mindedness of those Pakistani Taliban who want to enshrine Islamic-biblical law and conservative American reichwingers who want to enshrine Judeo-Christian-biblical law in place of the U.S. Constitution. The fact that religious parties lost in both countries and that both are reacting largely along the same, militaristic lines, should not imply that the American reichwing is just like the Pakistani Taliban.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The end of the free market as we knew it
Well, a lot's been happening. There was the AIG bonus hullabalu. Who was to blame for these payments going out, and who knew what and when did they know it? And should we really fuss over these bonuses which are a minute fraction of the dough we shilled out to AIG in the first place, some of which has gone to those street people, Goldman Sachs, and foreign companies and on and on. Blah blah blah.
Meanwhile, last year's election losers, and of the election cycle before that, have morphed into tea party people, gathering in small groups around the country to vent about big government, deficits, taxes, and any number of things of which they know little.
Nobody's happy. Everybody's angry. I'm a bit angry, too. Angry, or maybe disallusioned would be a better aproximation, because it seems as if the central facts of the current crisis, the malaise if you will, are still not being made clear. And what are those central facts of which I speak?
Well, while I can't speak with certainty about everything going on today, or to the wisdom or foolishness of the government's latest bailout plan, there are some key facts which seem rather beyond dispute. And those facts are that the free market economy worshipped by our country's elites and conservative yakkers is kaput. It commited suicide last fall, after a long period of deranged and unregulated behavior. And without the government's stepping in to bail out AIG and its cronies, we would be in a lot worse shape than we are today.
Congressional and media Republicans, and the tea people's subsequent complaints about "government" are so 1979. They have no idea of what has happened to their precious market and seemingly no self awareness about anything. If government was the problem in 1980 when Reagan came to power, the free market itself is the culprit today, and the government had to save it (and the rest of us lest the market kill us along with itself). It's as simple as that.
Recommended reading:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0903.galbraith.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover
Meanwhile, last year's election losers, and of the election cycle before that, have morphed into tea party people, gathering in small groups around the country to vent about big government, deficits, taxes, and any number of things of which they know little.
Nobody's happy. Everybody's angry. I'm a bit angry, too. Angry, or maybe disallusioned would be a better aproximation, because it seems as if the central facts of the current crisis, the malaise if you will, are still not being made clear. And what are those central facts of which I speak?
Well, while I can't speak with certainty about everything going on today, or to the wisdom or foolishness of the government's latest bailout plan, there are some key facts which seem rather beyond dispute. And those facts are that the free market economy worshipped by our country's elites and conservative yakkers is kaput. It commited suicide last fall, after a long period of deranged and unregulated behavior. And without the government's stepping in to bail out AIG and its cronies, we would be in a lot worse shape than we are today.
Congressional and media Republicans, and the tea people's subsequent complaints about "government" are so 1979. They have no idea of what has happened to their precious market and seemingly no self awareness about anything. If government was the problem in 1980 when Reagan came to power, the free market itself is the culprit today, and the government had to save it (and the rest of us lest the market kill us along with itself). It's as simple as that.
Recommended reading:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0903.galbraith.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover
Friday, March 06, 2009
Orwell watch: special cram-down edition
I was glad to see the House pass Obama's mortgage plan, and also got a chuckle from this remark by a spokesperson of the Mortgage Association:
The House yesterday passed legislation that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of troubled home mortgages, overcoming fierce opposition from the financial industry.
The bill, a package of housing-related initiatives, passed 234 to 191, largely along party lines. It now heads to the Senate, where it will face a tougher fight but has the backing of some powerful members.
Under the legislation, bankruptcy judges could cut the principal on a homeowner's mortgage as well as reduce the interest rate and extend the terms -- provisions known as cramdowns.
(snip)
This year, the measure also faced opposition from moderate Democrats who forced concessions that require, among other things, a homeowner to share with the lender any profit from the eventual sale of the home if a judge lowers the principal balance. The compromise version also gives preference to reducing a homeowner's interest rate over cutting the principal balance.
"We are pleased that the House moved to limit the harm this bill will do to consumers, and we want to work with the Senate to further contain the damage," David G. Kittle, chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association, an industry group, said in a statement.
--------------
Ah yes. We, the Mortgage Bankers Association of America are expressly concerned about the impact this bill will have for consumers. Including that provision we demanded about making sure lenders get some of any profit from the homeowners, er, "consumers".
The House yesterday passed legislation that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of troubled home mortgages, overcoming fierce opposition from the financial industry.
The bill, a package of housing-related initiatives, passed 234 to 191, largely along party lines. It now heads to the Senate, where it will face a tougher fight but has the backing of some powerful members.
Under the legislation, bankruptcy judges could cut the principal on a homeowner's mortgage as well as reduce the interest rate and extend the terms -- provisions known as cramdowns.
(snip)
This year, the measure also faced opposition from moderate Democrats who forced concessions that require, among other things, a homeowner to share with the lender any profit from the eventual sale of the home if a judge lowers the principal balance. The compromise version also gives preference to reducing a homeowner's interest rate over cutting the principal balance.
"We are pleased that the House moved to limit the harm this bill will do to consumers, and we want to work with the Senate to further contain the damage," David G. Kittle, chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association, an industry group, said in a statement.
--------------
Ah yes. We, the Mortgage Bankers Association of America are expressly concerned about the impact this bill will have for consumers. Including that provision we demanded about making sure lenders get some of any profit from the homeowners, er, "consumers".
John Boehner is on some serious crack
Calls for government spending freeze.
This reminds me of a much quoted story from the Civil War when Lincoln, exasperated with the inaction (sound familiar?) of General McClellan, initiated a war plan on his own, setting a date to begin the battle, and remarking that "if the general isn't using the army, he (Lincoln) would like to borrow it for a while."*
If Boehner, David Brooks, Evan Bayh, Judd Gregg, Lou Dobbs, and CNBC don't want to use the government for anything, we would like to borrow it for awhile.
*quotation approximate
This reminds me of a much quoted story from the Civil War when Lincoln, exasperated with the inaction (sound familiar?) of General McClellan, initiated a war plan on his own, setting a date to begin the battle, and remarking that "if the general isn't using the army, he (Lincoln) would like to borrow it for a while."*
If Boehner, David Brooks, Evan Bayh, Judd Gregg, Lou Dobbs, and CNBC don't want to use the government for anything, we would like to borrow it for awhile.
*quotation approximate
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
On moderation, budgets, and the work of government
I don't know who's been spiking Joe Klein's oatmeal these days, but he is almost starting to make me like him again:
---------------
David Brooks writes today as a moderate-conservative anguished by Barack Obama's budget. I've known David for almost twenty years now. We've had many wonderful conversations, publicly and privately, over those years, and I value the quality of his mind, his decency, his essential sanity. We both consider ourselves moderates, though of different sorts.
But I disagree with him profoundly about the Obama budget--and so, I would venture, do most moderate-liberals. The budget has to be seen in context. We are at the end of a 30-year period of radical conservatism, a period so right-wing that many of those now considered "liberals"--like, say, Barack Obama--would be seen as moderate pantywaists in the great sweep of modern political history. The past 30 years have been such a violent departure from the norm, such a profound destruction of the basic functions of government, that a major rectification is called for now--in rebalancing the system of taxation toward progressivity, in rebuilding the infrastructure of the country, not just physically, but also socially and intellectually.
---------------
Here's hoping the regressives in Congress and the media will not thwart the attempt to undo the havoc of the last few decades and allow us to make our system work again.
---------------
David Brooks writes today as a moderate-conservative anguished by Barack Obama's budget. I've known David for almost twenty years now. We've had many wonderful conversations, publicly and privately, over those years, and I value the quality of his mind, his decency, his essential sanity. We both consider ourselves moderates, though of different sorts.
But I disagree with him profoundly about the Obama budget--and so, I would venture, do most moderate-liberals. The budget has to be seen in context. We are at the end of a 30-year period of radical conservatism, a period so right-wing that many of those now considered "liberals"--like, say, Barack Obama--would be seen as moderate pantywaists in the great sweep of modern political history. The past 30 years have been such a violent departure from the norm, such a profound destruction of the basic functions of government, that a major rectification is called for now--in rebalancing the system of taxation toward progressivity, in rebuilding the infrastructure of the country, not just physically, but also socially and intellectually.
---------------
Here's hoping the regressives in Congress and the media will not thwart the attempt to undo the havoc of the last few decades and allow us to make our system work again.
Monday, March 02, 2009
I'm sure more tax cuts and less regulation are the answer
Or we could keep killing off what labor unions are still left.
But whatever we decide to do, more better policy ideas are definitely NOT the answer.
But whatever we decide to do, more better policy ideas are definitely NOT the answer.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
"CPAC is just unpleasant"
Via Firedoglake, one conservative's take on the recently concluded conservative political action committee conference:
Tucker Carlson mildly suggests that conservatives need more than their feelings. That, whatever you think of the bias of the New York Times, they at least care that they spell your name correctly, and they actually do something: gather news.
He was booed and challenged by the audience of course.
Joe the Plumber was the star of the day. I haven't confirmed this, but I was told he recently briefed a group of Republicans on his trip to Gaza. I don't care what your foreign policy is: Joe the Plumber shouldn't be informing it.
All day, the message I got was this: The movement enjoys being hated by its enemies, more than it cares about its own goals. It is populist, and irresponsible. A little popularizing is good, a little political theatre is good.
CPAC is just unpleasant. And it is not just the elites flattening the ambitions of the people, it is the people dumbing down their own elites. Well-adjusted people, even if they feel alienated from certain parts of American society don't wish to be hated by society. People who want to advance some goals, want more responsibility, not less. I hate that CPAC seems to give credibility to Adorno: that conservatives have defective personalities.
------------
Maybe we can pony up the money so the CPAC can bring its freak show to town every six months. The more the better.
Tucker Carlson mildly suggests that conservatives need more than their feelings. That, whatever you think of the bias of the New York Times, they at least care that they spell your name correctly, and they actually do something: gather news.
He was booed and challenged by the audience of course.
Joe the Plumber was the star of the day. I haven't confirmed this, but I was told he recently briefed a group of Republicans on his trip to Gaza. I don't care what your foreign policy is: Joe the Plumber shouldn't be informing it.
All day, the message I got was this: The movement enjoys being hated by its enemies, more than it cares about its own goals. It is populist, and irresponsible. A little popularizing is good, a little political theatre is good.
CPAC is just unpleasant. And it is not just the elites flattening the ambitions of the people, it is the people dumbing down their own elites. Well-adjusted people, even if they feel alienated from certain parts of American society don't wish to be hated by society. People who want to advance some goals, want more responsibility, not less. I hate that CPAC seems to give credibility to Adorno: that conservatives have defective personalities.
------------
Maybe we can pony up the money so the CPAC can bring its freak show to town every six months. The more the better.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Post wants do-overs for Republicans
Balloon Juice's DougJ wonders where the f%$# this is coming from:
Baltimore, Md.: Speaking of junior senators, do you see Al Franken being seated anytime before 2010?
Shailagh Murray: Perhaps, but it seems more and more likely that the Minnesota race will wind up as a re-vote. At this point it seems like the quickest way to resolve the situation.
and later:
Al Franken Revote Really?: Star Tribune just published an article on the front page which discusses Coleman’s dwindling chances. The Politico last week published an article discussing Coleman’s need for a miracle. Election experts from Minnesota are discussing the math which makes a Coleman comeback extremely difficult and the higher courts taking this case an unlikely prospect. How did you arrive at this recount theory? I think the only folks advocating this are a FEW Republicans who see this as Coleman’s only realistic hope for overturning the results of November.
Shailagh Murray: I don’t have a revote “theory.” I’m just wondering how long this is going to sit in the court system. If Coleman looks desperate, why not just hold another election and beat him handily?But there’s a process in place here, and we can only assume both parties will abide by it.
From the comments we see that a non-reporter has recognized that a revote isn't an option. Funny how the Post's political reporter can't seem to figure that out.
And yeah, sure, why not just hold another election? That's what the Post called for in the aftermath of the disputed 2000 presidential elections? Remember? Oh yeah, they didn't. Between Murray who wants a revote for this one special election that the Republicans keep litigating and op-ed writer George Will who thinks state legislatures should take back the selection of U.S. Senators, WTF?
And what if the revote came down to a few votes difference just like this one, Shailagh Dearest? Do we keep demanding a revote until Coleman comes up ahead?
Again from the BJ comments, KC in DC says:
[Murray]If Coleman looks desperate, why not just hold another election and beat him handily?
Maybe because that’s not what the law says? How does that question even make sense? "If Coleman looks desperate"? Hey, McCain seems pretty desperate now, why not have a revote of the presidential election?
Baltimore, Md.: Speaking of junior senators, do you see Al Franken being seated anytime before 2010?
Shailagh Murray: Perhaps, but it seems more and more likely that the Minnesota race will wind up as a re-vote. At this point it seems like the quickest way to resolve the situation.
and later:
Al Franken Revote Really?: Star Tribune just published an article on the front page which discusses Coleman’s dwindling chances. The Politico last week published an article discussing Coleman’s need for a miracle. Election experts from Minnesota are discussing the math which makes a Coleman comeback extremely difficult and the higher courts taking this case an unlikely prospect. How did you arrive at this recount theory? I think the only folks advocating this are a FEW Republicans who see this as Coleman’s only realistic hope for overturning the results of November.
Shailagh Murray: I don’t have a revote “theory.” I’m just wondering how long this is going to sit in the court system. If Coleman looks desperate, why not just hold another election and beat him handily?But there’s a process in place here, and we can only assume both parties will abide by it.
From the comments we see that a non-reporter has recognized that a revote isn't an option. Funny how the Post's political reporter can't seem to figure that out.
And yeah, sure, why not just hold another election? That's what the Post called for in the aftermath of the disputed 2000 presidential elections? Remember? Oh yeah, they didn't. Between Murray who wants a revote for this one special election that the Republicans keep litigating and op-ed writer George Will who thinks state legislatures should take back the selection of U.S. Senators, WTF?
And what if the revote came down to a few votes difference just like this one, Shailagh Dearest? Do we keep demanding a revote until Coleman comes up ahead?
Again from the BJ comments, KC in DC says:
[Murray]If Coleman looks desperate, why not just hold another election and beat him handily?
Maybe because that’s not what the law says? How does that question even make sense? "If Coleman looks desperate"? Hey, McCain seems pretty desperate now, why not have a revote of the presidential election?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
What's wrong with Thomas Frank?
He'd rather have good policy than bipartisanship. (h/t Balloon Juice)
For the Beltway commentariat, however, transcending partisanship is the most meaningful of issues, more important, one senses, than the economic problems that trouble those people at town-hall meetings. "Nothing was more central to [Obama's] victory last fall than his claim that he could break the partisan gridlock in Washington," wrote the Washington Post's David Broder a few weeks ago, in an altogether typical expression of media perceptions.
The way I remember it, the No. 1 issue in the election was the collapsing economy, followed at some distance by the Iraq war. On both of these questions, Mr. Obama prevailed because he was the candidate who promised most convincingly to reverse Republican policies -- not because he planned to meet the GOP halfway across the charred ruins of American prosperity.
(snip)
It is supposed to be high-minded stuff, this longing for a bipartisan golden age. But in some ways it is the most cynical stance possible. It takes no idea seriously, since everything is up for compromise. The role of the political parties is merely to cancel each other out, so that only the glorious centrists remain, triangulating majestically between obnoxious extremes.
-------------
Does anyone in the media commentariate realize that the "golden age" of bipartisanship (the 1950's and 1960's?) was a function of the schizophrenic New Deal coalition, which pitted conservative Democrats from the confederate states of America against more moderate Democrats and Republicans from the North, and since then the golden era of bipartisanship there has been a regional and ideological realignment of the parties?
For the Beltway commentariat, however, transcending partisanship is the most meaningful of issues, more important, one senses, than the economic problems that trouble those people at town-hall meetings. "Nothing was more central to [Obama's] victory last fall than his claim that he could break the partisan gridlock in Washington," wrote the Washington Post's David Broder a few weeks ago, in an altogether typical expression of media perceptions.
The way I remember it, the No. 1 issue in the election was the collapsing economy, followed at some distance by the Iraq war. On both of these questions, Mr. Obama prevailed because he was the candidate who promised most convincingly to reverse Republican policies -- not because he planned to meet the GOP halfway across the charred ruins of American prosperity.
(snip)
It is supposed to be high-minded stuff, this longing for a bipartisan golden age. But in some ways it is the most cynical stance possible. It takes no idea seriously, since everything is up for compromise. The role of the political parties is merely to cancel each other out, so that only the glorious centrists remain, triangulating majestically between obnoxious extremes.
-------------
Does anyone in the media commentariate realize that the "golden age" of bipartisanship (the 1950's and 1960's?) was a function of the schizophrenic New Deal coalition, which pitted conservative Democrats from the confederate states of America against more moderate Democrats and Republicans from the North, and since then the golden era of bipartisanship there has been a regional and ideological realignment of the parties?
Friday, February 13, 2009
Ted Kennedy
Ted Kennedy, apparently in need of continuing rehab or other medical attention related to his recently discovered cancer, will not be present for the Senate vote on the final passage of the stimulus bill. The pro side will probably, hopefully, still gain 60 votes, however.
Nonetheless, and I hate to be inpolitic, but at what point should the appropriate decision makers and thought leaders in the party encourage all involved that (a) Kennedy should retire and (b) the Democratic governor of Massachusetts should appoint a Democratic successor to Kennedy's seat, someone who can be on hand for the important decisions and votes ahead?
Nonetheless, and I hate to be inpolitic, but at what point should the appropriate decision makers and thought leaders in the party encourage all involved that (a) Kennedy should retire and (b) the Democratic governor of Massachusetts should appoint a Democratic successor to Kennedy's seat, someone who can be on hand for the important decisions and votes ahead?
Conservatives and "fiscal discipline"
After eight years of "deficits don't matter" the new Republican minority is now in danger of ridding the world of fainting couches. The blatant absurdity and hypocrisy of it all is staggering. But fortunately not all observers are buying it:
A Republican party that added more than $30 trillion to the future debt in a time of boom has no credible answer but raw partisanship for opposing $800 billion in the swiftest downturn in employment since the Great Depression. That's the bottom line. The party that campaigned for eight years on the principle that "deficits don't matter" has no good faith standing to oppose a measure that provides the minimum to ensure some kind of bottom in the looming depression. To take their fiscal conservatism seriously at this point and in this crisis is to engage in some kind of instant amnesia............
The GOP has passed what amounts to a spending and tax-cutting and borrowing stimulus package every year since George W. Bush came to office. They have added tens of trillions to future liabilities and they turned a surplus into a trillion dollar deficit - all in a time of growth. They then pick the one moment when demand is collapsing in an alarming spiral to argue that fiscal conservatism is non-negotiable. I mean: seriously.
The bad faith and refusal to be accountable for their own conduct for the last eight years is simply inescapable. There is no reason for the GOP to have done what they have done for the last eight years and to say what they are saying now except pure, cynical partisanship, and a desire to wound and damage the new presidency. The rest is transparent cant.
A Republican party that added more than $30 trillion to the future debt in a time of boom has no credible answer but raw partisanship for opposing $800 billion in the swiftest downturn in employment since the Great Depression. That's the bottom line. The party that campaigned for eight years on the principle that "deficits don't matter" has no good faith standing to oppose a measure that provides the minimum to ensure some kind of bottom in the looming depression. To take their fiscal conservatism seriously at this point and in this crisis is to engage in some kind of instant amnesia............
The GOP has passed what amounts to a spending and tax-cutting and borrowing stimulus package every year since George W. Bush came to office. They have added tens of trillions to future liabilities and they turned a surplus into a trillion dollar deficit - all in a time of growth. They then pick the one moment when demand is collapsing in an alarming spiral to argue that fiscal conservatism is non-negotiable. I mean: seriously.
The bad faith and refusal to be accountable for their own conduct for the last eight years is simply inescapable. There is no reason for the GOP to have done what they have done for the last eight years and to say what they are saying now except pure, cynical partisanship, and a desire to wound and damage the new presidency. The rest is transparent cant.
The Republican Opposition
Via Andrew Sullivan, Booman makes what I think is a pretty valid analysis of future presidential-congressional relations:
The Republicans wanted to demonstrate some strength at the outset of this administration. They wanted to prove that they can maintain cohesion in opposition to things they truly oppose. It was important for them to send this message even though it was a discordant rejection of Obama's olive branch. They probably would have sought to send such a message on any major vote, so the stimulus wasn't necessarily the primary cause of their reaction. But there is something important about how the stimulus was put together that also helps explain Republican behavior. The stimulus package wasn't written using 'regular order' and did not come up through the committee and subcommittee process. There was a good reason for this...expediency. But that doesn't change the fact that the Republicans had no opportunity to influence the bill in committee.
Going forward, individual Republicans will have the option to work in a constructive way with the Democrats on the committees on which they serve. This is basically the only way House Republicans can have any influence over legislation over the next four years. Republicans that learn how to play this game will get to co-sponsor bills and bring home projects and appropriations to their home districts. Those that don't learn how to play this game will have nothing tangible to show for being a member of Congress. It might be comforting to be a member of the opposition and a champion among Republican activists, but it doesn't make for much of a day job.
What I'm basically saying is that the Republicans, as a group, want to oppose Obama at every turn. But it will not be easy to keep a unified opposition in place over time. I predict it will fall apart quite quickly. And then the Republican leaders will have to choose their battles very carefully because it will be hard to keep the caucus unified for more than a few key votes. Even on the stimulus, the Republicans lost. They won some important concessions, but they lost.
It will also be impossible to attack Obama as successfully as the Republicans attacked Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was a deeply flawed person who won a plurality of the vote. Barack Obama cannot demonized so easily.
So, no, the Republicans are not going to embrace bipartisanship or suddenly begin wishing the Obama administration well. But they're also not going to maintain a rock solid opposition. They can't.
The Republicans wanted to demonstrate some strength at the outset of this administration. They wanted to prove that they can maintain cohesion in opposition to things they truly oppose. It was important for them to send this message even though it was a discordant rejection of Obama's olive branch. They probably would have sought to send such a message on any major vote, so the stimulus wasn't necessarily the primary cause of their reaction. But there is something important about how the stimulus was put together that also helps explain Republican behavior. The stimulus package wasn't written using 'regular order' and did not come up through the committee and subcommittee process. There was a good reason for this...expediency. But that doesn't change the fact that the Republicans had no opportunity to influence the bill in committee.
Going forward, individual Republicans will have the option to work in a constructive way with the Democrats on the committees on which they serve. This is basically the only way House Republicans can have any influence over legislation over the next four years. Republicans that learn how to play this game will get to co-sponsor bills and bring home projects and appropriations to their home districts. Those that don't learn how to play this game will have nothing tangible to show for being a member of Congress. It might be comforting to be a member of the opposition and a champion among Republican activists, but it doesn't make for much of a day job.
What I'm basically saying is that the Republicans, as a group, want to oppose Obama at every turn. But it will not be easy to keep a unified opposition in place over time. I predict it will fall apart quite quickly. And then the Republican leaders will have to choose their battles very carefully because it will be hard to keep the caucus unified for more than a few key votes. Even on the stimulus, the Republicans lost. They won some important concessions, but they lost.
It will also be impossible to attack Obama as successfully as the Republicans attacked Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was a deeply flawed person who won a plurality of the vote. Barack Obama cannot demonized so easily.
So, no, the Republicans are not going to embrace bipartisanship or suddenly begin wishing the Obama administration well. But they're also not going to maintain a rock solid opposition. They can't.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Democratic unity
One of the aspects of the stimulus debate in the Senate that I'm a bit surprised hasn't gotten more attention is the fact that it has gotten unanimous support from Democrats. That's not really a given, with Mary Landrieaux from La., the two Senators from Arkansas, who have been known to buck the party, along with both Nelsons (FL and NE) sometimes only nominally in the Democratic column. And, let's give credit where credit is due, Joe Lieberman has voted with the Dems as well; again, not a given with his performance during the recent campaign. And of course historically, Democratic unity has not always been forthcoming. If this blog did research it might be able to show whether any Democratic senators went against President Clinton's own, much smaller, stimulus bill in 1993. Off the top of my head, I'd guess he didn't get all of them.
League of Morons
And WATB's.
John Cole says, Get them a binky:
I guess next time you want a final say in the shaping of a piece of legislation (and you already had a ginormous say in the current legislation) in the conference committee, you probably should bring more than three votes to the table in both houses. Kind of funny how that works, as all the people who voted for the bill on the GOP side are right there working with the Democrats to finalize the bill.
You WATB’s demagogued, lied, whined, and had a hissy fit about the bill, then voted against it en masse even though it contained a number of provisions you wanted and you had inserted in the bill, and then took to the air waves pleased as punch with yourselves. The adults watched you and then decided you needed a timeout. This is bad and wrong, why?
You can whine about this, or you can make sure it doesn’t happen again. Any guesses which path the GOP takes?
*** Update ***
Two quick things. Bush’s signature issue in 2000, a tax cut bill a bill designed to deal with the surplus from the Clinton years, was passed in 2001 with 12 Democratic votes in the Senate, 28 in the house, all in the aftermath of a very contentious election and basically written precisely as the Republicans wanted it (with a few concessions, such as sunset provisions).
By comparison, on the heels of an enormous victory, with large majorities in the House and Senate, facing economic collapse, the Republicans were able to provide a whopping three (3) votes to a bill that before it even was introduced was loaded with tax cuts designed to appease Republicans, and then went through a huge revision to remove things that many republicans found offensive to their delicate sensibilities. Three. Votes. The entire Republican party, in both houses, voted overwhelmingly against tax cuts for the middle class because it was beneficial to them politically. Country first, or something.
John Cole says, Get them a binky:
I guess next time you want a final say in the shaping of a piece of legislation (and you already had a ginormous say in the current legislation) in the conference committee, you probably should bring more than three votes to the table in both houses. Kind of funny how that works, as all the people who voted for the bill on the GOP side are right there working with the Democrats to finalize the bill.
You WATB’s demagogued, lied, whined, and had a hissy fit about the bill, then voted against it en masse even though it contained a number of provisions you wanted and you had inserted in the bill, and then took to the air waves pleased as punch with yourselves. The adults watched you and then decided you needed a timeout. This is bad and wrong, why?
You can whine about this, or you can make sure it doesn’t happen again. Any guesses which path the GOP takes?
*** Update ***
Two quick things. Bush’s signature issue in 2000, a tax cut bill a bill designed to deal with the surplus from the Clinton years, was passed in 2001 with 12 Democratic votes in the Senate, 28 in the house, all in the aftermath of a very contentious election and basically written precisely as the Republicans wanted it (with a few concessions, such as sunset provisions).
By comparison, on the heels of an enormous victory, with large majorities in the House and Senate, facing economic collapse, the Republicans were able to provide a whopping three (3) votes to a bill that before it even was introduced was loaded with tax cuts designed to appease Republicans, and then went through a huge revision to remove things that many republicans found offensive to their delicate sensibilities. Three. Votes. The entire Republican party, in both houses, voted overwhelmingly against tax cuts for the middle class because it was beneficial to them politically. Country first, or something.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Stimulus enough to work?
A couple of articles today have me feeling a bit better about the stimulus bill, and its potential effectiveness, despite its weakening in the Senate version.
First is this article in the NYT reporting the amount of money going to education even after the Senate version's cuts:
The Obama administration and Democratic lawmakers proposed unprecedented levels of education spending in both the House and Senate stimulus bills. And even after cuts made Friday by a bipartisan group led by Senators Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, the Senate bill would still provide $80 billion in emergency spending for public schools and state universities, well above the Department of Education’s current $59 billion discretionary budget.
Both the House and the Senate would hugely increase spending on Title I, a program of specialized classroom efforts to help educate poor children, and on education for disabled children.
The House bill would raise Title I spending over two years by $13 billion; for the current fiscal year, spending would rise to $20 billion from about $14.5 billion. The two-year increase in the Senate bill would be $11.4 billion.
Both the House and Senate bills would also increase federal spending on special education by $13 billion over two years.
That even the Senate bill would provide more money than the Department of Ed's annual discretionary budget sounds rather impressive.
And then there is this post by Kevin Drum detailing the combined impact of the stimulus bill along with the expected budget deficits to run over the next few years:
So: With the cut, total fiscal stimulus over the three years starting last October comes to $2.7 trillion and 12 million jobs. If we had kept spending at its higher level, it would have come to $2.8 trillion and perhaps 12.5 million jobs. That's a difference of about 3%.
Now, the nature of that 3% is hardly defensible. State aid and school construction are way better uses of the money than a lot of stuff that was left in the bill. Still, the fact remains that the total amount of stimulus over three years is $2.7 trillion, not the $800 billion number that dominates the discussion. That's a helluva lot of stimulus, and if it doesn't do the job it's doubtful that $2.8 trillion will do it either.
I'm a little dubious as to how accurately X amount of government spending leads to X number of jobs. But if this is the bigger picture as Drum suggests, the ultimate effect of national policy should be a positive one.
It also reinforces something I posted about last week--the ultimate role played by the upcoming budget proposals and discussions, and the filibuster-insulated Reconciliation process that governs it. The stimulus money obviously can get fast-tracked sooner, while the money to eventually to come out of budget reconciliation is several months down the road. Still, the stimulus is far from being the end point of government intervention in the economy.
First is this article in the NYT reporting the amount of money going to education even after the Senate version's cuts:
The Obama administration and Democratic lawmakers proposed unprecedented levels of education spending in both the House and Senate stimulus bills. And even after cuts made Friday by a bipartisan group led by Senators Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, the Senate bill would still provide $80 billion in emergency spending for public schools and state universities, well above the Department of Education’s current $59 billion discretionary budget.
Both the House and the Senate would hugely increase spending on Title I, a program of specialized classroom efforts to help educate poor children, and on education for disabled children.
The House bill would raise Title I spending over two years by $13 billion; for the current fiscal year, spending would rise to $20 billion from about $14.5 billion. The two-year increase in the Senate bill would be $11.4 billion.
Both the House and Senate bills would also increase federal spending on special education by $13 billion over two years.
That even the Senate bill would provide more money than the Department of Ed's annual discretionary budget sounds rather impressive.
And then there is this post by Kevin Drum detailing the combined impact of the stimulus bill along with the expected budget deficits to run over the next few years:
So: With the cut, total fiscal stimulus over the three years starting last October comes to $2.7 trillion and 12 million jobs. If we had kept spending at its higher level, it would have come to $2.8 trillion and perhaps 12.5 million jobs. That's a difference of about 3%.
Now, the nature of that 3% is hardly defensible. State aid and school construction are way better uses of the money than a lot of stuff that was left in the bill. Still, the fact remains that the total amount of stimulus over three years is $2.7 trillion, not the $800 billion number that dominates the discussion. That's a helluva lot of stimulus, and if it doesn't do the job it's doubtful that $2.8 trillion will do it either.
I'm a little dubious as to how accurately X amount of government spending leads to X number of jobs. But if this is the bigger picture as Drum suggests, the ultimate effect of national policy should be a positive one.
It also reinforces something I posted about last week--the ultimate role played by the upcoming budget proposals and discussions, and the filibuster-insulated Reconciliation process that governs it. The stimulus money obviously can get fast-tracked sooner, while the money to eventually to come out of budget reconciliation is several months down the road. Still, the stimulus is far from being the end point of government intervention in the economy.
$3 Trillion > $800 Billion
Despite all the hand-wringing from Senate Republicans--and their cable teevee enablers--36 out of 41 of them voted for $3 trillion worth of tax cuts last week.
Krugman:
In the Senate, Republicans inveighed against “pork” — although the wasteful spending they claimed to have identified (much of it was fully justified) was a trivial share of the bill’s total. And they decried the bill’s cost — even as 36 out of 41 Republican senators voted to replace the Obama plan with $3 trillion, that’s right, $3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.
Krugman:
In the Senate, Republicans inveighed against “pork” — although the wasteful spending they claimed to have identified (much of it was fully justified) was a trivial share of the bill’s total. And they decried the bill’s cost — even as 36 out of 41 Republican senators voted to replace the Obama plan with $3 trillion, that’s right, $3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Safer food, safer consumers
Hopefully, amidst all the anguish surrounding the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and media gobbledigoop, the little matter of making sure our food is safe and the people who eat it less at risk won't get swept under the carpet.
Fortunately, someone now appears to be on the job (hat tip, Americablog).
---------
WASHINGTON - The peanut recall offers a prime opportunity to merge all federal food safety oversight into one agency, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Friday.
Right now, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture share oversight responsibilities, along with other government agencies, dividing authority along lines that don't always make sense. For example, the FDA oversees eggs in the shell, while the Agriculture Department is responsible for processed egg products.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency share some food oversight as well.
"You can't have two systems and be able to reassure people you've got the job covered," Vilsack said. "This is a grand opportunity for us to take a step back and rethink our approach."
A salmonella outbreak blamed on Peanut Corp. of America has sickened at least 575 people in 43 states. At least eight have died. More than 1,300 foods that used ingredients from the company's processing plant in Blakely, Ga., have been recalled. While the outbreak appears to be slowing down, new illnesses are still being reported.
Fortunately, someone now appears to be on the job (hat tip, Americablog).
---------
WASHINGTON - The peanut recall offers a prime opportunity to merge all federal food safety oversight into one agency, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Friday.
Right now, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture share oversight responsibilities, along with other government agencies, dividing authority along lines that don't always make sense. For example, the FDA oversees eggs in the shell, while the Agriculture Department is responsible for processed egg products.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency share some food oversight as well.
"You can't have two systems and be able to reassure people you've got the job covered," Vilsack said. "This is a grand opportunity for us to take a step back and rethink our approach."
A salmonella outbreak blamed on Peanut Corp. of America has sickened at least 575 people in 43 states. At least eight have died. More than 1,300 foods that used ingredients from the company's processing plant in Blakely, Ga., have been recalled. While the outbreak appears to be slowing down, new illnesses are still being reported.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Yes we can make it worse
What the GOP really wants
Ezra Klein:
Jim DeMint just offered an amendment to the stimulus package. Via Dave Weigel, here's what it contains:
• Permanently repeal the alternative minimum tax once and for all;
• Permanently keep the capital gains and dividends taxes at 15 percent;
• Permanently kill the Death Tax for estates under $5 million, and cut the tax rate to 15 percent for those above;
• Permanently extend the $1,000-per-child tax credit;
• Permanently repeal the marriage tax penalty;
• Permanently simplify itemized deductions to include only home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.
• Lower top marginal income rates from 35 percent to 25 percent.
• Simplify the tax code to include only two other brackets, 15 and 10 percent.
• Lower corporate tax rate as well, from 35 percent to 25 percent.
The amendment was beaten back, but all but five Republicans voted for it. It reminds me of something John Cole wrote earlier today. "I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane," he said.
----------------------
I was going to comment or make some analytical point here, but I think it sort of explains itself.
Jim DeMint just offered an amendment to the stimulus package. Via Dave Weigel, here's what it contains:
• Permanently repeal the alternative minimum tax once and for all;
• Permanently keep the capital gains and dividends taxes at 15 percent;
• Permanently kill the Death Tax for estates under $5 million, and cut the tax rate to 15 percent for those above;
• Permanently extend the $1,000-per-child tax credit;
• Permanently repeal the marriage tax penalty;
• Permanently simplify itemized deductions to include only home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.
• Lower top marginal income rates from 35 percent to 25 percent.
• Simplify the tax code to include only two other brackets, 15 and 10 percent.
• Lower corporate tax rate as well, from 35 percent to 25 percent.
The amendment was beaten back, but all but five Republicans voted for it. It reminds me of something John Cole wrote earlier today. "I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane," he said.
----------------------
I was going to comment or make some analytical point here, but I think it sort of explains itself.
To our league of morons in Congress
Steven Pearlstein: (h/t TPM)
Actually, what's striking is that supposedly intelligent people are horrified at the thought that, during a deep recession, government might try to help the economy by buying up-to-date equipment for the people who protect us from epidemics and infectious diseases, by hiring people to repair environmental damage on federal lands and by contracting with private companies to make federal buildings more energy-efficient.
What really irks so many Republicans, of course, is that all the stimulus money isn't being used to cut individual and business taxes, their cure-all for economic ailments, even though all the credible evidence is that tax cuts are only about half as stimulative as direct government spending.
Many, including John McCain, lined up this week to support a proposal to make the sales tax and interest payments on any new car purchased over the next two years tax-deductible, along with a $15,000 tax credit on a home purchase. These tax credits make for great sound-bites and are music to the ears of politically active car salesmen and real estate brokers. Most economists, however, have warned that such credits will have limited impact at a time when house prices are still falling sharply and consumers are worried about their jobs and their shrinking retirement accounts. Even worse, they wind up wasting a lot of money because they give windfalls to millions of people who would have bought cars and houses anyway.
What adds insults to injury, however, is that many of the senators who supported these tax breaks then turned around and opposed as "boondoggles" much more cost-effective proposals to stimulate auto and housing sales, such as having the government replace its current fleet of cars with hybrids or giving money to local housing authorities to buy up foreclosed properties for use as low-income rental housing.
Personal economic trainers would confirm all this. Until they're on board, however, here's a little crib sheet on stimulus economics:
Spending is stimulus, no matter what it's for and who does it. The best spending is that which creates jobs and economic activity now, has big payoffs later and disappears from future budgets.
Actually, what's striking is that supposedly intelligent people are horrified at the thought that, during a deep recession, government might try to help the economy by buying up-to-date equipment for the people who protect us from epidemics and infectious diseases, by hiring people to repair environmental damage on federal lands and by contracting with private companies to make federal buildings more energy-efficient.
What really irks so many Republicans, of course, is that all the stimulus money isn't being used to cut individual and business taxes, their cure-all for economic ailments, even though all the credible evidence is that tax cuts are only about half as stimulative as direct government spending.
Many, including John McCain, lined up this week to support a proposal to make the sales tax and interest payments on any new car purchased over the next two years tax-deductible, along with a $15,000 tax credit on a home purchase. These tax credits make for great sound-bites and are music to the ears of politically active car salesmen and real estate brokers. Most economists, however, have warned that such credits will have limited impact at a time when house prices are still falling sharply and consumers are worried about their jobs and their shrinking retirement accounts. Even worse, they wind up wasting a lot of money because they give windfalls to millions of people who would have bought cars and houses anyway.
What adds insults to injury, however, is that many of the senators who supported these tax breaks then turned around and opposed as "boondoggles" much more cost-effective proposals to stimulate auto and housing sales, such as having the government replace its current fleet of cars with hybrids or giving money to local housing authorities to buy up foreclosed properties for use as low-income rental housing.
Personal economic trainers would confirm all this. Until they're on board, however, here's a little crib sheet on stimulus economics:
Spending is stimulus, no matter what it's for and who does it. The best spending is that which creates jobs and economic activity now, has big payoffs later and disappears from future budgets.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Why the, or at least "a", stimulus bill will pass
Via LG&M, Kevin Drum explains:
If Republicans really did put up a united front and filibuster the legislation, the Democratic leadership would just turn around and consider the bill under budget reconciliation rules, which require only a majority vote to pass. Sure, they've already said they'd prefer not to do that, but if they have to they will. And since the bill is all about short-term spending, it would obviously qualify under reconciliation rules.
So all the public handwringing seems like standard DC negotiating kabuki to me, not a genuine effort to kill the bill. If Republicans filibuster, the public will view them as bitter obstructionists and the bill will pass anyway. It's hard to see what's in it for them to go down this road.
If Republicans really did put up a united front and filibuster the legislation, the Democratic leadership would just turn around and consider the bill under budget reconciliation rules, which require only a majority vote to pass. Sure, they've already said they'd prefer not to do that, but if they have to they will. And since the bill is all about short-term spending, it would obviously qualify under reconciliation rules.
So all the public handwringing seems like standard DC negotiating kabuki to me, not a genuine effort to kill the bill. If Republicans filibuster, the public will view them as bitter obstructionists and the bill will pass anyway. It's hard to see what's in it for them to go down this road.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Underwhelmed
I've just skimmed through the Congressional Budget Office's report on the Stimulus bill and I have to admit I find it pretty underwhelming--the stimulus that is. Apparently, so do a few others.
It also occurs to me that the price tag frequently cited--usually in the neighborhood of $800-$900 billion dollars--probably overstates the scope of the bill, since this amount will be spread over three years. Here is the CBO statement:
Combining the spending and revenue effects summarized above, CBO estimates that enacting the Inouye-Baucus substitute for H.R. 1 would increase federal budget deficits by $233 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009, by $461 billion in 2010, by $142 billion in 2011, and by $884 billion over the 2009-2019 period.
It also occurs to me that the price tag frequently cited--usually in the neighborhood of $800-$900 billion dollars--probably overstates the scope of the bill, since this amount will be spread over three years. Here is the CBO statement:
Combining the spending and revenue effects summarized above, CBO estimates that enacting the Inouye-Baucus substitute for H.R. 1 would increase federal budget deficits by $233 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009, by $461 billion in 2010, by $142 billion in 2011, and by $884 billion over the 2009-2019 period.
Monday, February 02, 2009
"Israeli operations in Gaza..."
From the land of Newspeak we have somebody named Soner Cagaptay on Turkey, Israel, and the West:
-------------
Turkey is a special Muslim country. Of the more than 50 majority-Muslim nations, it is the only one that is a NATO ally, is in accession talks with the European Union, is a liberal democracy and has normal relations with Israel. Under its current government by the Justice and Development Party (AKP), however, Turkey is losing these special qualities. Liberal political trends are disappearing, E.U. accession talks have stalled, ties with anti-Western states such as Iran are improving and relations with Israel are deteriorating. On Thursday, for example, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked out of a panel at Davos, Switzerland, after chiding Israeli President Shimon Peres for "killing people." If Turkey fails in these areas or wavers in its commitment to transatlantic structures such as NATO, it cannot expect to be President Obama's favorite Muslim country.
(snip)
Then there is foreign policy. Take Turkey's status as a NATO ally of the United States: Ankara's rapprochement with Tehran has gone so far since 2002 that it is doubtful whether Turkey would side with the United States in dealing with the issue of a nuclear Iran. In December, Erdogan told a Washington crowd that "countries that oppose Iran's nuclear weapons should themselves not have nuclear weapons."
The AKP's commitment to U.S. positions is even weaker on other issues, including Hamas. During the recent Israeli operations in Gaza, Erdogan questioned the validity of Israel's U.N. seat while saying that he wants to represent Hamas on international platforms. Three days before moderate Arab allies of Washington, including Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, gathered on Jan. 19 in Kuwait to discuss an end to the Gaza conflict, Erdogan's officials met with Iran, Syria and Sudan in Qatar, effectively upstaging the moderates. Amazingly, Turkey is now taking a harder line on the Arab-Israeli conflict than even Saudi Arabia.
For years, Turkey has had normal relations with Israel, including strong military, tourist, and cultural and commercial ties. The Turks did not emphasize religion or ideology in their relationship with the Jewish state, so Israelis felt comfortable visiting, doing business and vacationing in Turkey. But Erdogan's recent anti-Israeli statements -- he even suggested that God would punish Israel -- have made normal relations a thing of the past. On Jan. 4, 200,000 Turks turned out in freezing rain in Istanbul to wish death to Israel; on Jan. 7, an Israeli girls' volleyball team was attacked by a Turkish audience chanting, "Muslim policemen, bring us the Jews, so we can slaughter them."
Emerging anti-Semitism also challenges Turkey's special status. Anti-Semitism is not hard-wired into Turkish society -- rather its seeds are being spread by the political leadership. Erdogan has pumped up such sentiments by suggesting Jewish culpability for the conflict in Gaza and alleging that Jewish-controlled media outlets were misrepresenting the facts. Moreover, on Jan. 6, while demanding remorse for Israel's Gaza operations, Erdogan said to Turkish Jews, "Did we not accept you in the Ottoman Empire?" Turkey's tiny, well-integrated Jewish community is being threatened: Jewish businesses are being boycotted, and instances of violence have been reported. These are shameful developments in a land that has provided a home for Jews since 1492, when the Ottomans opened their arms to Jewish people fleeing the Spanish Inquisition. The Ottoman sultans must be spinning in their graves.
The erosion of Turkey's liberalism under the AKP is alienating Turkey from the West. If Turkish foreign policy is based on solidarity with Islamist regimes or causes, Ankara cannot hope to be considered a serious NATO ally. Likewise, if the AKP discriminates against women, forgoes normal relations with Israel, curbs media freedoms or loses interest in joining Europe, it will hardly endear itself to the United States. And if Erdogan's AKP keeps serving a menu of illiberalism at home and religion in foreign policy, Turkey will no longer be special -- and that would be unfortunate.
------------------------
This might just be the least self-aware op-ed I've ever read. That or it's the most evasive piece of bamboozlement I've ever read. Either way, the column is obstensibly about Turkey's apparent backing away of a "Pro-West" position, but seems primarily a reaction against the country's critique of Israel.
The writer seems so offended that anyone, least of all some country as irrelevant as Turkey's PM would consider "Israel's operations in Gaza..." to include "killing people" he (or she) can't seem to acknowledge the obvious facts of the PM's complaint.
And of course that the Turkish PM would dare meet with "Iran, Syria, and Sudan" (such obvious bad guys) amidst "Israel's operations in Gaza" or remark that " 'countries that oppose Iran's nuclear weapons should themselves not have nuclear weapons' " are also actions and statements that seemingly require no explanation.
-------------
Turkey is a special Muslim country. Of the more than 50 majority-Muslim nations, it is the only one that is a NATO ally, is in accession talks with the European Union, is a liberal democracy and has normal relations with Israel. Under its current government by the Justice and Development Party (AKP), however, Turkey is losing these special qualities. Liberal political trends are disappearing, E.U. accession talks have stalled, ties with anti-Western states such as Iran are improving and relations with Israel are deteriorating. On Thursday, for example, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked out of a panel at Davos, Switzerland, after chiding Israeli President Shimon Peres for "killing people." If Turkey fails in these areas or wavers in its commitment to transatlantic structures such as NATO, it cannot expect to be President Obama's favorite Muslim country.
(snip)
Then there is foreign policy. Take Turkey's status as a NATO ally of the United States: Ankara's rapprochement with Tehran has gone so far since 2002 that it is doubtful whether Turkey would side with the United States in dealing with the issue of a nuclear Iran. In December, Erdogan told a Washington crowd that "countries that oppose Iran's nuclear weapons should themselves not have nuclear weapons."
The AKP's commitment to U.S. positions is even weaker on other issues, including Hamas. During the recent Israeli operations in Gaza, Erdogan questioned the validity of Israel's U.N. seat while saying that he wants to represent Hamas on international platforms. Three days before moderate Arab allies of Washington, including Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, gathered on Jan. 19 in Kuwait to discuss an end to the Gaza conflict, Erdogan's officials met with Iran, Syria and Sudan in Qatar, effectively upstaging the moderates. Amazingly, Turkey is now taking a harder line on the Arab-Israeli conflict than even Saudi Arabia.
For years, Turkey has had normal relations with Israel, including strong military, tourist, and cultural and commercial ties. The Turks did not emphasize religion or ideology in their relationship with the Jewish state, so Israelis felt comfortable visiting, doing business and vacationing in Turkey. But Erdogan's recent anti-Israeli statements -- he even suggested that God would punish Israel -- have made normal relations a thing of the past. On Jan. 4, 200,000 Turks turned out in freezing rain in Istanbul to wish death to Israel; on Jan. 7, an Israeli girls' volleyball team was attacked by a Turkish audience chanting, "Muslim policemen, bring us the Jews, so we can slaughter them."
Emerging anti-Semitism also challenges Turkey's special status. Anti-Semitism is not hard-wired into Turkish society -- rather its seeds are being spread by the political leadership. Erdogan has pumped up such sentiments by suggesting Jewish culpability for the conflict in Gaza and alleging that Jewish-controlled media outlets were misrepresenting the facts. Moreover, on Jan. 6, while demanding remorse for Israel's Gaza operations, Erdogan said to Turkish Jews, "Did we not accept you in the Ottoman Empire?" Turkey's tiny, well-integrated Jewish community is being threatened: Jewish businesses are being boycotted, and instances of violence have been reported. These are shameful developments in a land that has provided a home for Jews since 1492, when the Ottomans opened their arms to Jewish people fleeing the Spanish Inquisition. The Ottoman sultans must be spinning in their graves.
The erosion of Turkey's liberalism under the AKP is alienating Turkey from the West. If Turkish foreign policy is based on solidarity with Islamist regimes or causes, Ankara cannot hope to be considered a serious NATO ally. Likewise, if the AKP discriminates against women, forgoes normal relations with Israel, curbs media freedoms or loses interest in joining Europe, it will hardly endear itself to the United States. And if Erdogan's AKP keeps serving a menu of illiberalism at home and religion in foreign policy, Turkey will no longer be special -- and that would be unfortunate.
------------------------
This might just be the least self-aware op-ed I've ever read. That or it's the most evasive piece of bamboozlement I've ever read. Either way, the column is obstensibly about Turkey's apparent backing away of a "Pro-West" position, but seems primarily a reaction against the country's critique of Israel.
The writer seems so offended that anyone, least of all some country as irrelevant as Turkey's PM would consider "Israel's operations in Gaza..." to include "killing people" he (or she) can't seem to acknowledge the obvious facts of the PM's complaint.
And of course that the Turkish PM would dare meet with "Iran, Syria, and Sudan" (such obvious bad guys) amidst "Israel's operations in Gaza" or remark that " 'countries that oppose Iran's nuclear weapons should themselves not have nuclear weapons' " are also actions and statements that seemingly require no explanation.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Still bitter
After blindly supporting a torture-approving, war-mongering Republican, conservative evangelicals still quibbling over Obama's Christian bonifides.
Wonder how that challenge to President Obama's birth certificate is going?
And by the way, Daddy Dobson...Suck. On. This.
Wonder how that challenge to President Obama's birth certificate is going?
And by the way, Daddy Dobson...Suck. On. This.
Hillary confirmed as SOS
94-2.
The two hold-outs? The very dishonorable David "Yeah I was in the D.C. Madam's little book of john's, what of it?" Vitter, of Louisiana, and Jim DeMint of S.C.
The two hold-outs? The very dishonorable David "Yeah I was in the D.C. Madam's little book of john's, what of it?" Vitter, of Louisiana, and Jim DeMint of S.C.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Israel's Olmert bullies Bush and Rice on Gaza resolution
Even given our national leadership's well known subservience to Israel, this is pretty shocking:
WASHINGTON — In an unusually public rebuke, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel said Monday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been forced to abstain from a United Nations resolution on Gaza that she helped draft, after Mr. Olmert placed a phone call to President Bush.
“I said, ‘Get me President Bush on the phone,’ ” Mr. Olmert said in a speech in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon, according to The Associated Press. “They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn’t care: ‘I need to talk to him now,’ ” Mr. Olmert continued. “He got off the podium and spoke to me.”
Israel opposed the resolution, which called for a halt to the fighting in Gaza, because the government said it did not provide for Israel’s security. It passed 14 to 0, with the United States abstaining.
Mr. Olmert claimed that once he made his case to Mr. Bush, the president called Ms. Rice and told her to abstain. “She was left pretty embarrassed,” Mr. Olmert said, according to The A.P.
The State Department disputed Mr. Olmert’s account. “Her recommendation was to abstain; that was her recommendation all along,” said an official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the matter.
After the vote, Ms. Rice said the United States “fully supports” the resolution, which called for “an immediate, durable and fully respected cease-fire leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza,” but opted to abstain to see the outcome of an Egyptian-French peace initiative.
Ms. Rice did not respond to Mr. Olmert’s remarks, which were unusual even in the context of the secretary’s occasionally bumpy relationship with the prime minister, according to the official.
Privately, Mr. Olmert has said Ms. Rice sometimes had to be reined in for getting ahead of the president on policy. “They have a good relationship, but there have been some ups and downs,” the State Department official said.
UPDATE: Here are Juan Cole's comments.
WASHINGTON — In an unusually public rebuke, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel said Monday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been forced to abstain from a United Nations resolution on Gaza that she helped draft, after Mr. Olmert placed a phone call to President Bush.
“I said, ‘Get me President Bush on the phone,’ ” Mr. Olmert said in a speech in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon, according to The Associated Press. “They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn’t care: ‘I need to talk to him now,’ ” Mr. Olmert continued. “He got off the podium and spoke to me.”
Israel opposed the resolution, which called for a halt to the fighting in Gaza, because the government said it did not provide for Israel’s security. It passed 14 to 0, with the United States abstaining.
Mr. Olmert claimed that once he made his case to Mr. Bush, the president called Ms. Rice and told her to abstain. “She was left pretty embarrassed,” Mr. Olmert said, according to The A.P.
The State Department disputed Mr. Olmert’s account. “Her recommendation was to abstain; that was her recommendation all along,” said an official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the matter.
After the vote, Ms. Rice said the United States “fully supports” the resolution, which called for “an immediate, durable and fully respected cease-fire leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza,” but opted to abstain to see the outcome of an Egyptian-French peace initiative.
Ms. Rice did not respond to Mr. Olmert’s remarks, which were unusual even in the context of the secretary’s occasionally bumpy relationship with the prime minister, according to the official.
Privately, Mr. Olmert has said Ms. Rice sometimes had to be reined in for getting ahead of the president on policy. “They have a good relationship, but there have been some ups and downs,” the State Department official said.
UPDATE: Here are Juan Cole's comments.
Friday, January 09, 2009
U.S. Politicial-Media Establishment Hits Rock Bottom
I was wondering when this would occur and what it would look like when it happened. Well, Israel's latest war seems to have produced about as good an approximation of it as any.
First, Big Media (via Glenn Greenwald) goes Orwellian in describing the Israeli attack/invasion of Gaza as "Israel's war on the Islamist rulers of Gaza".
Then, predictably, a bipartisan chorus of "subservience" erupts on Capitol Hill to declare "Israel's enemies our enemies, and Israel's wars our wars".
Fortunately, the NYT did allow op-ed space to Rashid Khalidi to provide some much needed "balance".
First, Big Media (via Glenn Greenwald) goes Orwellian in describing the Israeli attack/invasion of Gaza as "Israel's war on the Islamist rulers of Gaza".
Then, predictably, a bipartisan chorus of "subservience" erupts on Capitol Hill to declare "Israel's enemies our enemies, and Israel's wars our wars".
Fortunately, the NYT did allow op-ed space to Rashid Khalidi to provide some much needed "balance".
Friday, December 05, 2008
Isn't No Child Left Behind the status quo?
I'll admit I don't get the eager anticipation awaiting Obama's choice for Education Secretary (quick, name the current Education Secretary...sorry time's up), nor do I get the anti-union fetish the choice allows David Brooks and the Wash Post op-ed page to indulge in. Take the Wash Post op-ed (please) for example:
We trust that Mr. Obama was serious when he promised change and will select someone who -- instead of just tinkering with a tired, low-performing system -- will be bold in choosing new directions for American education.
The different education factions of the party -- those pushing for radical restructuring and those more wedded to the status quo -- were each convinced during the campaign that Mr. Obama shared their particular viewpoints. So it is not clear whether Mr. Obama is leaning toward the "disrupters," House education committee chairman George Miller's approving description of the reformers, or the "incrementalists" who are allied with teachers unions.
So the Post writers want Obama to pursue "new directions for American education", a path the editors see as "pushing for radical restructuring" in American schools, which, the editors claim, is the opposite path of those "wedded to the status quo".
But what is the status quo, exactly?
Ah:
The choice of Stanford University professor Linda Darling-Hammond to head the education policy transition group, along with speculation that she is a candidate for secretary or deputy secretary, is not reassuring to those in the reform movement. Ms. Darling-Hammond has been more critical than supportive of the No Child Left Behind law, dislikes linking teacher pay to test scores and is no fan of Teach for America. It would be a mistake to retreat from the accountability that No Child Left Behind has brought in improving learning and narrowing the achievement gap for minority students. And the next secretary should encourage the kind of innovation and entrepreneurship typified by Teach for America's success in attracting top college graduates to inner-city schools. Indeed, Mr. Obama might want to look to this new generation of educators -- people such as his adviser Jonathan Schnur, chief executive of New Leaders for New Schools, or the Education Trust's Kati Haycock -- in assembling a team equipped to deal with the new realities of education. Nor should opposition from the forces of the status quo scare Mr. Obama away from considering someone such as New York City Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein, who has helped improve the nation's largest school system.
Get that? Obama's education transition czar is bad, and anti-reform, say the editors, because she doesn't like No Child Left Behind (among other apparent transgressions). But isn't No Child Left Behind (NCLF for short) what amounts to the current regime of federal education policy, i.e. the status quo?
The Post writers conclude by piously hoping that someone who "is not afraid to break with orthodoxy" and who is "more concerned with results than ideology" is chosen for the all-important post of U.S. Education sec. But isn't an anti-union posture, a posture which has been the stance of most "reformers" for decades now, it's own form of orthodoxy and ideology?
Update: This is pretty funny, and a bit more informative.
We trust that Mr. Obama was serious when he promised change and will select someone who -- instead of just tinkering with a tired, low-performing system -- will be bold in choosing new directions for American education.
The different education factions of the party -- those pushing for radical restructuring and those more wedded to the status quo -- were each convinced during the campaign that Mr. Obama shared their particular viewpoints. So it is not clear whether Mr. Obama is leaning toward the "disrupters," House education committee chairman George Miller's approving description of the reformers, or the "incrementalists" who are allied with teachers unions.
So the Post writers want Obama to pursue "new directions for American education", a path the editors see as "pushing for radical restructuring" in American schools, which, the editors claim, is the opposite path of those "wedded to the status quo".
But what is the status quo, exactly?
Ah:
The choice of Stanford University professor Linda Darling-Hammond to head the education policy transition group, along with speculation that she is a candidate for secretary or deputy secretary, is not reassuring to those in the reform movement. Ms. Darling-Hammond has been more critical than supportive of the No Child Left Behind law, dislikes linking teacher pay to test scores and is no fan of Teach for America. It would be a mistake to retreat from the accountability that No Child Left Behind has brought in improving learning and narrowing the achievement gap for minority students. And the next secretary should encourage the kind of innovation and entrepreneurship typified by Teach for America's success in attracting top college graduates to inner-city schools. Indeed, Mr. Obama might want to look to this new generation of educators -- people such as his adviser Jonathan Schnur, chief executive of New Leaders for New Schools, or the Education Trust's Kati Haycock -- in assembling a team equipped to deal with the new realities of education. Nor should opposition from the forces of the status quo scare Mr. Obama away from considering someone such as New York City Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein, who has helped improve the nation's largest school system.
Get that? Obama's education transition czar is bad, and anti-reform, say the editors, because she doesn't like No Child Left Behind (among other apparent transgressions). But isn't No Child Left Behind (NCLF for short) what amounts to the current regime of federal education policy, i.e. the status quo?
The Post writers conclude by piously hoping that someone who "is not afraid to break with orthodoxy" and who is "more concerned with results than ideology" is chosen for the all-important post of U.S. Education sec. But isn't an anti-union posture, a posture which has been the stance of most "reformers" for decades now, it's own form of orthodoxy and ideology?
Update: This is pretty funny, and a bit more informative.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
That's Mighty White of Them
Responding to prez-elect Obama's nomination of New Mexico guv Bill Richardson to the rather insignificant post of Commerce Sec (can anyone name the current Sec, or the one before that?), a spokesman from God's Own Party can't pass up the opportunity--even amidst the Christmas Holiday season, a celebration of the time when, we're told, God's Own Son was birthed among us two centuries ago--to say something chirlish.
Stay classy, guys.
Stay classy, guys.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Catholic neocons in denial
Responding to Catholic neocon George Weigel's complaint about mid-western and northeastern Catholics not voting "correctly" in this year's election fellow conservative Ross Douthat says:
John McCain did not lose this election because the Catholic clergy failed to anathematize Barack Obama loudly enough, or because Pennsylvanians and Michiganders thought they were voting for Roosevelt or Truman. He lost it because his party flat-out misgoverned the country, in foreign and domestic policy alike, and because of late the culture war has mattered less to most Americans than the Iraq War and the economic meltdown. And pro-lifers who see the GOP as the only plausible vehicle for their goals have an obligation to look the party's failures squarely in the face and work to fix them, instead of just doubling down on the case for single-issue pro-life voting.
It's hard to imagine today's GOP, or its neocon enablers, facing the party's problems squarely, since neither have an interest in the basic duties of government. McCain's choice of Sarah Palin was only the most recent case in point. The administration's staffing of FEMA is another, highly representative example. The invasion and occupation of Iraq, obviously, another.
John McCain did not lose this election because the Catholic clergy failed to anathematize Barack Obama loudly enough, or because Pennsylvanians and Michiganders thought they were voting for Roosevelt or Truman. He lost it because his party flat-out misgoverned the country, in foreign and domestic policy alike, and because of late the culture war has mattered less to most Americans than the Iraq War and the economic meltdown. And pro-lifers who see the GOP as the only plausible vehicle for their goals have an obligation to look the party's failures squarely in the face and work to fix them, instead of just doubling down on the case for single-issue pro-life voting.
It's hard to imagine today's GOP, or its neocon enablers, facing the party's problems squarely, since neither have an interest in the basic duties of government. McCain's choice of Sarah Palin was only the most recent case in point. The administration's staffing of FEMA is another, highly representative example. The invasion and occupation of Iraq, obviously, another.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Lieberman and Hillary
While I wanted the Democrats to kick Lieberman out of his homeland security chair--for reasons relating to the potential malignant influence he would have on the Obama administration, not on the basis of "revenge"--Ezra Klein makes some good points about yesterday's vote:
Obama is counting votes, not prosecuting grudges. Lieberman's slingshot into the furthest reaches of the far right was always a sadly transparent reaction to his rejection by the left. Human beings do not enjoy criticism. They gravitate towards affirmation. If he can be flipped yet again, that's a far better outcome from the perspective of passing major pieces of legislation, even if it's not the most "just" outcome from a party perspective.
Regarding the potential for Hillary landing at State, Thomas Friedman provides some caution:
The important question, the answer of which is not at all clear to me, is about the only relationship that matters for a secretary of state — the kind of relationship he or she would have with the new president. My question: Is Obama considering Mrs. Clinton for this job in order to get her off his back or as a prelude to protecting her back?
(snip)
That backing is the most important requirement for a secretary of state to be effective. Frankly, Obama could appoint his dear mother-in-law as secretary of state, and if he let the world know she was his envoy, she would be more effective than any ex-ambassador who had no relationship with the president.
(snip)
Foreign leaders can spot daylight between a president and a secretary of state from 1,000 miles away. They know when they’re talking to the secretary of state alone and when they are talking through the secretary of state to the president. And when they think they are talking to the president, they sit up straight; and when they think they are talking only to the secretary of state, they slouch in their chairs. When they think they are talking to the president’s “special envoy,” they doze off in midconversation.
“It takes America’s friends and adversaries about five minutes to figure out who really speaks for the White House and who doesn’t,” wrote Aaron D. Miller, a former State Department Middle East adviser and the author of “The Much Too Promised Land.” “If a secretary of state falls into the latter category, he or she will have little chance of doing effective diplomacy on a big issue. More likely, they’ll be played like a finely tuned violin or simply taken for granted.”
(snip)
My question is whether a President Obama and a Secretary of State Clinton, given all that has gone down between them and their staffs, can have that kind of relationship, particularly with Mrs. Clinton always thinking four to eight years ahead, and the possibility that she may run again for the presidency. I just don’t know.
Every word that is said between them in public, and every leak, will be scrutinized for what it means politically and whether there is daylight. That is not a reason not to appoint Mrs. Clinton. But it is a reason for everyone around the president-elect to take a deep breath and ask whether they are prepared to have the kind of air-tight relationship with Mrs. Clinton that is required for effective diplomacy.
When it comes to appointing a secretary of state, you do not want a team of rivals.
This seems like a potentially critical issue to me. But as with Obama's intervention on behalf of Lieberman, I'm inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
Obama is counting votes, not prosecuting grudges. Lieberman's slingshot into the furthest reaches of the far right was always a sadly transparent reaction to his rejection by the left. Human beings do not enjoy criticism. They gravitate towards affirmation. If he can be flipped yet again, that's a far better outcome from the perspective of passing major pieces of legislation, even if it's not the most "just" outcome from a party perspective.
Regarding the potential for Hillary landing at State, Thomas Friedman provides some caution:
The important question, the answer of which is not at all clear to me, is about the only relationship that matters for a secretary of state — the kind of relationship he or she would have with the new president. My question: Is Obama considering Mrs. Clinton for this job in order to get her off his back or as a prelude to protecting her back?
(snip)
That backing is the most important requirement for a secretary of state to be effective. Frankly, Obama could appoint his dear mother-in-law as secretary of state, and if he let the world know she was his envoy, she would be more effective than any ex-ambassador who had no relationship with the president.
(snip)
Foreign leaders can spot daylight between a president and a secretary of state from 1,000 miles away. They know when they’re talking to the secretary of state alone and when they are talking through the secretary of state to the president. And when they think they are talking to the president, they sit up straight; and when they think they are talking only to the secretary of state, they slouch in their chairs. When they think they are talking to the president’s “special envoy,” they doze off in midconversation.
“It takes America’s friends and adversaries about five minutes to figure out who really speaks for the White House and who doesn’t,” wrote Aaron D. Miller, a former State Department Middle East adviser and the author of “The Much Too Promised Land.” “If a secretary of state falls into the latter category, he or she will have little chance of doing effective diplomacy on a big issue. More likely, they’ll be played like a finely tuned violin or simply taken for granted.”
(snip)
My question is whether a President Obama and a Secretary of State Clinton, given all that has gone down between them and their staffs, can have that kind of relationship, particularly with Mrs. Clinton always thinking four to eight years ahead, and the possibility that she may run again for the presidency. I just don’t know.
Every word that is said between them in public, and every leak, will be scrutinized for what it means politically and whether there is daylight. That is not a reason not to appoint Mrs. Clinton. But it is a reason for everyone around the president-elect to take a deep breath and ask whether they are prepared to have the kind of air-tight relationship with Mrs. Clinton that is required for effective diplomacy.
When it comes to appointing a secretary of state, you do not want a team of rivals.
This seems like a potentially critical issue to me. But as with Obama's intervention on behalf of Lieberman, I'm inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)