Month: January 2009

Oh, Boo Hoo

by digby

These people can dish it out, but when it comes to taking it they whine and cry like little bitty babies:

On the plane, no longer Air Force One but now Special Air Mission 28000, they talked about the speech. George W. Bush, the former president, was heading home to Texas with his inner circle, having just left the Capitol, where his successor first thanked him for his service and then proceeded to discredit it.

The Bush team had worked assiduously to make the transition smooth for the incoming President Obama and stayed out of the way as he used the postelection period to take leadership of the economy even before being sworn in. And now, as far as some of them were concerned, the new president had used his inaugural lectern to give the back of the hand to a predecessor who had been nothing but gracious to him.

“There were a few sharp elbows that really rankled and I felt were not as magnanimous as the occasion called for,” Karen Hughes, a longtime Bush confidante, said in an interview. “He really missed an opportunity to be as big as the occasion was and, frankly, as gracious as President Bush was as he left office.”

Dan Bartlett, another top adviser, used similar language. “It was a missed opportunity to bring some of the president’s loyal supporters into the fold,” he said. Marc A. Thiessen, the chief White House speechwriter until this week, added: “It was an ungracious inaugural. It was pretty clear he was taking shots.”

It doesn’t matter how much you “reach out” or try to find “common ground” with conservatives, they are so thin-skinned that any criticism is seen as a threat to their honor. Their worldview is formed around the idea that they are a misunderstood and besieged minority who are victimized by traitorous, hedonistic liberals and their lives are organized around their belief in their oppression.

That they are actually saying Obama is ungracious is pretty unbelievable, but there it is.

.

Influencers

by digby

Forbes magazine has named the 25 most influential liberals in the media and astonishingly, seven of them are bloggers: Kevin Drum, Glenn Greenwald, Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Andrew Sullivan, Kos and Josh Marshall.

Considering where the blogosphere was just five years ago, that’s pretty astonishing.

.

Amazingly, Negotiating With Ourselves Didn’t Work

by dday

I know this is going to floor you, but the GOP is not satisfied with $300 billion in tax cuts in the economic recovery package, and Obama’s extended hand of friendship was bitten off.

Just days after taking office vowing to end the political era of “petty grievances,” President Obama ran into mounting GOP opposition yesterday to an economic stimulus plan that he had hoped would receive broad bipartisan support.

Republicans accused Democrats of abandoning the new president’s pledge, ignoring his call for bipartisan comity and shutting them out of the process by writing the $850 billion legislation. The first drafts of the plan would result in more spending on favored Democratic agenda items, such as federal funding of the arts, they said, but would do little to stimulate the ailing economy.

Yep, the entire bill gives $800 billion to Robert Mapplethorpe, according to the GOP, and also the Dems are trying to beat up on those poor noble bankers (Republicans en masse voted against releasing TARP money to those same bankers, so I don’t know how they’ll pull off this “protect the bankers from tax-hiking libruls” trick, though consistency isn’t their goal):

The House bill also would reverse a controversial change in tax regulations that the Treasury Department made last year at an estimated cost of $140 billion in lost revenue. The change, intended to encourage bank mergers, allows banks to shelter their own profits from taxes based on losses at companies they acquire. Treasury made the switch without public notice or congressional approval.

Here’s the very sensible Republican alternative, that would just end taxes for a while and make everyone happy.

As expected, the GOP alternative focuses primarily on tax cuts over increased federal spending. After their meeting with the president, Republicans continued to express concern over the spending in the $825 billion package, even though Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Congress would likely meet Obama’s mid-February deadline.

Instead of a tax credit for individuals making $75,000 or less or families making less than $150,000, Republicans would like to reduce the tax rate by 5 percent on those Americans in the lowest tax brackets, from 15 percent to 10 percent and 10 percent to 5 percent […]

If they had more of a say in the bill, Republicans would also like to allow small businesses to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their earnings to “free up funds for small businesses to retain and hire new employees,” according to talking points released after the meeting.

Republicans in the House would also like assurances in the bill that Congress will not raise taxes to pay down the $550 billion in federal spending laid out in the Democrats’ bill.

In order to stabilize the housing market, Republicans would also like to grant a $7,500 tax credit to homebuyers who put down 5 percent on the purchase price of their home […]

Boehner, in remarks on the White House driveway, warned that “government can’t solve this problem.”

I don’t want to say that every tax break should be stricken from this package. Expanding eligibility for the child tax credit seems like a good idea, as does the higher education tax credit for tuition and textbooks. Getting money to those who will spend it is the point of a stimulus, and targeting funds at the low end of the income ladder makes some sense.

But when you start out saying that any bill must have 80 votes, OF COURSE the other side isn’t going to leap at the first proposal. Going halfway at the beginning of the negotiation is a terrible strategy, not to mention the fact that the Republican caucus is far more conservative and unwilling to do anything but feed more tax cuts to their buddies when that’s the worst stimulus multiplier there is.

Obama is still saying the bill will pass by President’s Day, so it’s possible he’s seen the failure of extending the hand of friendship and will now just plow ahead. But we’re still stuck with legislation that may be insufficient to get the economy going. Learning this negotiation lesson would be a plus, but it’s an awful big price to pay.

…my advice would be to offer the best possible plan that would get the votes needed necessary to pass instead of some fantasy of an 80-vote threshold, banking off the public goodwill with both the President and the concept of funding infrastructure, which even Frank Luntz recognizes the public is demanding and would pay higher taxes for.

…OK, I like this.

The top congressional leaders from both parties gathered at the White House for a working discussion over the shape and size of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. The meeting was designed to promote bipartisanship.

But Obama showed that in an ideological debate, he’s not averse to using a jab.

Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.”

I think they call that an “accountability moment.”

.

New BFF

by digby

David Rivkin, neocon torture apologist of the highest order, was on CNN this morning saying that he is very, very happy with Obama’s executive orders and finds it reassuring that Obama is using the vernacular of war to talk about the al Qaeda threat.

Perhaps he’s had a change of heart and no longer thinks the war on terror requires extraordinary methods. Or perhaps the right, with the help of the media, has decided that the best way to hem Obama in on the GWOT is to simply pretend that he hasn’t actually changed any of Bush’s policies. They seem determined to see these executive orders as window dressing.

Update: See also Glenn Greenwald’s post today about the terrorist fear mongering. These seem to add up to a pincer tactic to squeeze the new president. It’s very interesting.

.

Heads On A Stick

by digby

People think that California is run by initiative and it is. But it is also run by a couple of talk show hosts out of LA. (The government is completely dysfunctional.)

The talk show hosts, who were instrumental in the recall of Gray Davis, are still calling the shots:

“Immediately head to your battle stations,” blared John and Ken on their hugely popular Southern California conservative radio show on Thursday.

The conservative duo — blasting on the powerful KFI station — had put the Republican lawmakers quoted in The Bee’s story about potentially raising taxes in their crosshairs.

Their targets were GOP Assemblymen Anthony Adams, Mike Duvall and Roger Niello. (And, later in the show, Sen. Abel Maldonado, who was quoted in a MediaNews story saying he could potentially vote for tax hikes to balance the budget.)

Pictures and phone numbers for all four lawmakers were posted on their Web site at various points.

“Then start calling these bastards. This is war. War!” John and Ken shouted.

The radio shock jocks promised a “huge tax revolt steamroller coming at them.”

If you have any doubt about the conservative pull on GOP lawmakers to never support taxes, Thursday’s program will set you straight.

“We’re going to get these heads on a stick!” John and Ken pledged at one point. “Heads on a stick!”

Two of the GOP foursome braved the program.

Duvall, R-Yorba Linda, said he would never support taxes, which he called “absolutely insane,” but was simply characterizing the state of negotiations in Sacramento.

“I’m not endorsing the situation whatsoever,” he said.

Adams, R-Hesperia, went on to defend the possibility of tax hikes. “I think taxes stink,” he said. “They suck.”

But Adams said raising taxes may be necessary given the political and economic climate.

“I dare with the full knowledge that this will probably be the end of a political career for me. But the fact of the matter is California is in a place where they need people who are willing to sacrifice their own personal agenda for what’s right,” Adams said.

He was raked over by the radio hosts for his stance.

Said one host: “You guys always talked a tough game, but you always rolled over for the Democrats when it came down to the final vote, so I don’t have any sympathy for you. You guys talked, but you didn’t act. You always voted with the Democrats, at least enough of you did every single freaking year. And now you’re going to come to us for money?”

“Yes,” Adam replied.

“No,” said the host, as the other laughed. “How about no.”

He added, “You may be right about your career.”

Torlakson and O’Connell will host twin press conferences together, one in San Leandro in the morning and one in Los Angeles in the afternoon.

These are two of the anti-tax, immigrant bashing Lou Dobbs populist right and I would expect their ilk are going to be heard from frequently as the debate over the economy rages on. They were instrumental in the destruction of California with this anti-tax nonsense and they have a way of appealing to people who are not normally right wingers with their irreverent style and their message has resonance with people who aren’t well versed in economic issues because it has a certain faux common sense logic. They are worth keeping an eye on.

.

Roe vs Wade

by digby

On today’s anniversary of Roe vs Wade, the President of the United States gave an unequivocal support for a woman’s right to choose:

“On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.

While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.

On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work; and to have no limits on their dreams. That is what I want for women everywhere.”

It is a vast relief to have someone speak in clear terms instead of blathering on about “the cultura laahf” (while phoning in his comments lest he be seen by the majority as being one of the crazies.) Obama’s words are the mainstream view, there is no reason he shouldn’t say it.

But, as you all know, I mistrust all this “common ground” business. So far, it’s perfectly fine. We have always been for access to contraception, comprehensive reproductive health care and education and help for expectant mothers. Let’s hear it for the progressive agenda being considered “common ground.”

But, I am curious as to what the people who believe abortion is murder think they are getting out of this. We know that many of them do not believe in birth control and the last thing they want is to educate people in anything but abstinence. Yet they have supposedly signed on to this common ground concept, so they must feel they have made serious concessions. What do they want in return?

Well, perhaps they have already gotten at last part of what they wanted. Natasha Chart has a post up at Open Left citing Fred Clarkson’s sobering account of the reality on the ground for women in America who need abortions. Let’s just say that it may be a “right” but it’s not exactly easy to exercise it.

Natasha writes:

As Clarkson points out, increased access to abortion services isn’t part of any of the healthcare plans floating around DC. It isn’t in the Religious Industrial Complex’s policy agenda. Thirty-six years later, women’s right to comprehensive reproductive healthcare is the elephant. Either the white elephant it’s clear some Democrats would love to get rid of, or the pink elephant they pretend not to see.

And that’s a shame. Literally. It reinforces the idea that reproductive healthcare is shameful, something we should be afraid to talk about unless we’re saying something negative. Whereas, all aspects of reproductive healthcare need to be recognized as necessary and normal. Even if some procedures are more like a triple bypass surgery or hip replacement, in that you hope they aren’t needed but recognize that they must be available for those who require them.

That’s my position too. All this hedging and guilt and social disapprobation is nothing more than updated “Scarlet Letter” puritanism. But there is another American tradition of “live and let live” and under that tradition, abortion is nobody’s business but the person who needs one and the people in whom she chooses to confide. There have been many accommodations to the puritans due to the acknowledged complexity of the situation, the most obvious being the fact that women can only exercise their “right” freely during the first trimester and are now forced into childbirth even in the most dangerous situations in the last one. It has never been a right without restrictions.

But the practical ability to get an abortion is so restricted that it’s a right without practical application for many of the women who need them the most. And our new emphasis on contraception and adoption counseling isn’t going to solve that problem. An unwanted pregnancy can’t always be made a wanted pregnancy with good counseling or financial help, and giving birth for adoption isn’t always as emotionally uncomplicated as in the movie Juno. There are times and circumstances which make abortion a necessity for the individual for reasons that cannot and should not be judged by the state.

So, the battle continues, although I would guess we are going to have a little cease fire while the anti-choice forces fall back and reassess their options. I’m thrilled to hear Obama make an unequivocal support for a woman’s right to choose. It’s important that he says it. But let’s not assume that means the other side has capitulated. They are also winning in small ways every day. It’s a matter of fundamental principle for them, just as choice is a matter of fundamental principle for people like me and they aren’t giving up any more than I am.

.

Spell It Out

by digby

Following up on my post below, I just heard Jim Miklasewski on NBC Nightly News say that Obama’s orders today are designed to give himself wiggle room to distance himself from Bush’s policies but not force him to live up to his campaign promises. Seriously. As I said earlier, I don’t know that this is what Obama intended, but it’s what the political media are interpreting his actions to mean.

I’m sure I don’t need to go into the moral dimension of this issue, but I think the administration needs to set the press straight on this if he means to have a successful foreign policy. Trying to split the baby on these issues is impossible and it will undermine his moral authority in the rest of the world if they think he’s being cute. (You can bet the intelligence community will leak any information that indicates he isn’t sincere.)

If he means to make a clean break, he should make it clear to the media that it’s what he means. They aren’t seeing it that way.

.

A Plan Called Mitchell

by digby

I had to laugh a little bit when I heard that George Mitchell was being called upon as Mideast Envoy, not because there’s anything funny about him or the mideast, but because of something that George W. Bush used to say back in the beginning of his tenure that always cracked me up.

No matter what happens, out new president will not be saying silly things like this:

Tuesday, April 2, 2002
“We’ve got a plan,” Bush said. “It’s a security plan called Tenet; it’s a political plan called Mitchell.

And remember, at the time, this was the man everyone was comparing to Churchill.

.

Zombie Lies Still Find Targets

by dday

I was on this phone call today with Tom Malinowski from Human Rights Watch and others discussing the Obama executive orders on torture, and everyone is guardedly optimistic about what this means for the rule of law. If the gray areas on “other dispositions” besides trying or releasing Gitmo detainees and the wiggle room on extra-legal torture techniques are cleared up, we have a blueprint for restoring the rule of law. We need to be vigilant, however, to close whatever loopholes there may be.

This didn’t seem to matter to one reporter on the call, who up front ADMITTED HE HASN’T BEEN FOLLOWING THE ISSUE and asked what would happen if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had to be set free because we waterboarded him. This is someone who has confessed to practically every terrorist act of the last 40 years, wants to be a martyr, and for whom there is enough evidence untainted by torture to progress to trial.

The question was certainly colored, if not outright prompted, by a false report from the Pentagon in the waning days of the Bush tenure, claiming that 61 freed detainees from the prison camp have “returned to the batlefield.” Expect to hear a lot about this in the coming days, like from this Kyra Phillips bobblehead report:

Kyra Phillips: It’s one of the biggest fears about releasing terror suspects from Gitmo, that they’ll go back to their alleged old ways.

New Pentagon figures actually say 61 released detainees have been linked to some kind of terror activity, up from 37 as of March, 2008. About 520 Gitmo prisoners have been freed or transferred to other prisons around the world.

Let’s be clear: the Pentagon report itself only cited 18 “confirmed” cases of former detainees returning to the battlefield, and offered NO EVIDENCE on that beyond an assertion. The other 43 are “suspected of participating in terrorist activities.” Moazzam Begg is a writer who has led activist efforts to close Guantanamo. I’m willing to bet that he’s included in the 61. The three detainees featured in the movie “The Road To Guantanamo” are ALSO included in the 61. In short, anyone who has criticized the United States is part of that number.

But Mark Denbeaux of Seton Hall University Law School has represented some of the detainees and says the Pentagon has failed to produce evidence of early claims that former detainees have returned to the battlefield.

“The numbers are wrong about who has returned to the fight; their numbers and names are wrong about who has been in Guantanamo. And, of course, the characterization of ‘returned to the fight’ is far broader than they would like to admit,” said Denbeaux. “What they would like is to be understood to mean as ‘return to the battlefield,’ but, of course, that hasn’t happened. So what they mean by ‘return to the fight’ is engaging in propaganda battles and criticisms of the United States at home and abroad.”

This is a propagandistic lie designed to ensure that those loopholes stay open. And the media is totally complicit in aiding and abetting this. I heard on the radio coming in this morning some talking head yammering about how some detainees are “too dangerous to release, but they haven’t committed a crime yet so we can’t prosecute them.” What is this, Minority Report? All of this nonsense designed to preserve the status quo has to be coming from somewhere. The media is just a conduit.

Given all this, it’s a wonder how people have enough information to reject torture and indefinite detention. Maybe it’s because, unlike the Christopher Hitchenses and media sycophants of the world, they have a value system.

The media’s war on America continues.

.

Supreme Ruler

by digby

Steve Benen reports:

Just when it seemed we could finally move from complaints about Barack Obama’s oath of office, the right finds something new to whine about. When Obama took the oath on Tuesday, he used the same Bible that Lincoln used in 1861. When he followed up with another oath last night, he raised his right hand, but kept his left hand by his side. This, apparently, is making some people unhappy. The lead story on Drudge right now reports, in all caps, “No Bible Used At Obama Re-Swear.”

This re-oath thing seems to have gotten the media sleuths all excited too. At the Gibbs presser this afternoon, there were half a dozen questions about it, with a lot of suspicion about why they did it without a lot of fanfare and without a video of the ceremony. These muckrakers obviously think they smell a story, but it’s unclear what in the world it might be. Do they think Obama isn’t really the president?Obviously, the simple truth is that Drudge still rules their world. And that tells you everything you need to know about the political press corps.
.