Month: June 2009

Yea!

by digby

Sometimes it’s the little things that make your day:

The discovery of 10 lynx kittens this spring marks the first newborns documented in Colorado since 2006, heartening biologists overseeing restoration of the mountain feline.

The tuft-eared cats with big, padded feet were native to Colorado, but were wiped out by the early 1970s by logging, trapping, poisoning and development. They are listed as threatened on the endangered species list.

Biologists found no kittens the past two years, possibly partly because of a drop in the number of snowshoe hares, the cats’ main food source.

This year, seven male and three female kittens were found in five dens.

.

Chicken Fried Lattes

by digby

He’s just a down home good old boy and she’s just a down to earth country girl:

Mrs. Sanford, 46, was the second of five children born to an prominent, Irish Catholic family in Winnetka, Ill., a lush suburb of Chicago with private drives and palatial homes. She was, as one friend from Winnetka puts it, part of Chicago’s gentry — with a grandfather who helped found the company that made and sold the first portable electric saw, another grandfather and uncle who were leaders at the Winston and Strawn law firm, and even a family tie to Rushton Skakel Sr., the brother of Ethel Kennedy. Despite the wealth and prestige Mrs. Sanford brought to her marriage, friends say she was not one to put on airs. Friends in South Carolina described her as a “down-to-earth” mother who insisted that her four sons set the dining room table even once they were living inside the governor’s mansion and had a staff.[…]
Mrs. Sanford attended a private, Catholic all-girls school in Lake Forest, Ill. At Georgetown University, where she graduated magna cum laude in 1984 with a finance degree, she was viewed as whip smart and a hard worker…It was during her time working at Lazard Freres & Company, the investment bank, that she met Mr. Sanford at a beach party in the Hamptons.

I just love these salt-o’ the-earth, family values, Real Murkins, don’t you? Good thing South Carolina doesn’t truck with those big city elites runnin’ everything.

.

Fixin’ It

by digby

Ezra Klein says that a lot of people think we need to relax and have faith that health care will be fixed in conference:

[H]ere’s a question that few have asked, and that virtually no one knows the answer to: How important is conference committee to the way the White House is looking at health care? I’ve heard it’s pretty important. Heard the same thing about Harry Reid, actually. If that’s true, then this is what the Democratic leadership is thinking: The overriding imperative right now is to keep health reform alive. That’s all that matters. Get it out of the Finance Committee. Get it off the Senate floor. If it’s cut down to half a loaf, fine. You don’t fix it now. You fix it in conference. Or you let Henry Waxman do it for you. That, incidentally, is not an unprecedented strategy. It’s what the Bush administration did with Medicare Part D. The expansion the Senate wrote was genuinely bipartisan: Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle both voted for the legislation. But the version that came out of conference committee was significantly more conservative. Kennedy and Daschle abandoned the bill. Democrats began organizing against legislation they had previously supported. It passed anyway. It passed because it’s hard to filibuster bills emerging from conference. You can’t change them, for one thing. No amendments are allowed. Nor is there time for debate. You vote for the bill, you vote against the bill, or you filibuster the bill. Those are your options. Democrats are likely to walk out of conference committee with 60 senators in their party. Ben Nelson will not be able to ask to change this bit he doesn’t like, and Evan Bayh will not be allowed to offer an amendment weakening that piece. They stand with the White House or against it. And it is, in the estimation of most observers I’ve talked to, hard to imagine them literally filibustering the final vote on health reform. The White House would torture them until they lost reelection. And if no Democrats are willing to filibuster, then the White House could lose as many as 10 of them and still pass the bill.

Sounds like an awesome plan. Except for one thing. Is there any reason on earth to believe that the Democrats in the conference committee will actually come out with a better plan than the one that went in?
I’d like to believe it’s possible that everybody’s just playing 53 dimensional chess in all this, but I am skeptical. I suspect that what you see is what you get. Democrats are as hostile to or afraid of a major change in the status quo as the Republicans are. They want to take credit for “fixing” problems and doing “what works” but I haven’t seen any evidence as yet that they are very willing to take risks to make that happen. Maybe they are all still in thrall to the free market magical thinking that guided most economic decisions of the past quarter century or maybe they just don’t trust their own instincts, but I’m not sanguine in the least that the Democratic leadership will go in a back room and “knock heads” to get real reform. If it isn’t done in the open, after a rousing public debate where public opinion is strongly behind those who are taking the leap, I think it’s highly doubtful they’ll come up with anything better behind closed doors.
The Republicans had absolute faith that what they were doing was right and pushed their agenda through, regardless of what anyone said. And their goals and policies have failed. The Democrats have learned the wrong lesson from that. They have no faith that what they are doing is right and so are afraid to push anything through that doesn’t have total bipartisan consensus. And yet, their goals and policies, if bold enough, would likely succeed. They’re not only fighting the last war, they’re fighting somebody else’s.

.

Transparent Obscurity

by digby

last night on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart did a nice little rundown on all the cases where the Obama administration’s promises of “transparency” and adherence to constitutional norms have turned out to be shall we say, a bit opaque.

There were those who saw the writing on the wall on these issues through the haze of hopenchange. Virtually all presidents want as much power as they can get. Relying on any politician to deny himself the ability to exercise it freely is to fail to understand the power of power.

Glenn writes about the trial balloon being floated that Obama is considering issuing an executive order for preventive detention. He points out that the main difference between this administration and the last is that this administration is pretending to care about what the congress wants (and the constitution requires) but goes ahead and does what they intend to do anyway if the congress fails to act as they wish it to. I often wondered whether we were doing a bit of a disservice to Bush and Cheney for constantly criticizing them for implementing the unitary executive theory so openly. For such a secretive regime, they were surprisingly honest about what they were doing. They said they believed the constitution meant for the president to be all powerful and above the other two branches and they acted on that premise. And the debate over that, once engaged, was pretty robust and very public.

This was in contrast to previous presidencies which pretended, as Obama is doing now, that they believed in the balance of power between the the branches even as they subverted it as often as they deemed necessary. It’s not a partisan thing. Presidents of both parties have done this. Bush and Cheney were actually quite unique in their rare “principled” approach to the American security state dictatorship. Most presidents adhere to the Rush Limbaugh creed, which he articulated yesterday in terms of Mark Sanford, but which can be just as easily applied to the American executive’s common approach to the civil liberties portion of your constitutional program: “Hypocrisy shows that there are moral values in a culture.”

The irony, of course, is that the man who ran on transparency is actually turning out to be less transparent than the president he excoriated on the campaign trail for his secrecy. Bush and Cheney were pretty upfront about the fact that they believed they had the constitutional right to act in any way they saw fit, regardless of the accepted understanding of the constitution or congressional and judicial prerogatives. Bush declared “I’m the decider” and he meant it. This administration obviously believes it has that right as well — it just pretends otherwise.

I suspect they understand that keeping the folks from losing that freedom loving, patriotic illusion of American exceptionalism is an important part of exercising American political power. And they’re probably right. Bush and Cheney’s biggest mistakes were in being honest about something nobody wants to know.

.

Legacy

by digby

If Obama doesn’t pass serious, systemic health care reform that insures everyone in this country from cradle to grave, this will be what he’s remembered for.

.

Congress Sides With The Military-Industrial Complex

by dday

Damn.

Lawmakers defy veto threat on F-22 fighter

Congress on Thursday moved forward with plans to build more Lockheed Martin F-22 fighter jets, disregarding a veto threat from the Obama administration.

Lawmakers also moved to authorize the funding for an alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter F-35.

Congress is setting the stage for a showdown over the 2010 defense authorization bill with the administration and in particular Defense Secretary Robert Gates, as the Office of Management and Budget issued a statement outlining the veto threat Wednesday over both issues.

Gates proposed the cuts earlier this year as part of an effort that he said would better spend taxpayer dollars on military priorities. He has said he’s confident the Air Force will have enough F-22s.

Lawmakers pushing to save the programs say the F-22 and second engine for the F-35 are vital to national security.

They also argue eliminating the F-22 program would kill off jobs during a brutal recession.

I hope even the lawmakers saying that first line aren’t dumb enough to believe it.

As for the “weaponized Keynesianism” of the second, keep in mind that these are the same people who constantly bite their nails about the budget deficit, who claim that government never created a job, or that a spending bill is not a stimulus bill. Not to mention the fact – a fact I don’t even like – that the total military budget will expand this year, as funding for the F-22 and the needless new engine for the F-35 will shift into other military priorities, ones that also create jobs. My preference would be to shift all this military spending into something creative instead of destructive, but without being able to close out these projects when they outlive their usefulness, we just create a monster. This country spends nearly as much on our military than the rest of the world combined, and far too much of that leaks into the pockets of contractors who build things that go unused, or gets put toward projects which quadruple in cost from projection to completion. The money is wildly inefficient, comparatively speaking, and this entire notion of military spending as sacrosanct makes it impossible to fund the rest of government without the fiscal scolds carping about deficits.

To segue into a separate point, there will be a conference committee on this, and so the White House certainly has the ability to use that tool, which the Republican majority used time and again, to take this funding which the Pentagon did not seek out of the bill. Practically every bill that passed through Congress from 1994-2006 got scrubbed of anything remotely progressive and sent back to each chamber with a nice big “take it or leave it” Post-It Note on the front. Many think that this is the way a decent health care reform bill can be pushed through the Congress, and that this is all part of the 31-dimensional chess the White House is playing. While they’ve already offered the veto threat on the military spending, and that might come about, it’s important to look at the past experience with conference committees and this Administration. The short answer is: they don’t like to use them and are more concerned about their personal schedule. The credit card reform bill can be instructive here.

In the Senate vote for that legislation, Tom Coburn added a supposed poison pill amendment allowing concealed weapons in public parks. The Senate passed the bill, and the House had already passed a version without that amendment. But rather than go to a conference committee, the House just up and passed the Senate’s bill, with the guns in parks amendment, Obama signed it, and now we all can take our snub-noses to Yosemite. The official reason given was that the President wanted a bill on his desk by Memorial Day.

And they did exactly the same thing with the war supplemental. Many people had problems with provisions like the IMF loans or cash for clunkers, which certainly could have been fixed if anyone cared to do so. But the White House wanted it to move quickly, and so the Senate passed the House’s bill.

I should note that at the end of Ezra’s post today comes this:

(The President) wants to sign a bill in October.

I’m happy to believe that the White House has a secret strategy to fix the health care bill in conference, but recent history shows that they are far more interested in scheduling than these fixes. Maybe if they really, really care about a certain provision, it will get excised or included. But none of us actually know what those concerns truly are.

.

Sin Tax

by digby

I don’t care much about the Sanford story except to the extent that I can’t help but feel some shaudenfreude at the downfall of all sanctimonious right wing hypocrites. It’s just such a prosaic, predictable tale that I don’t even want to have to think about it. He sounds to me like the kind of guy who really needs to leave politic and have his embarrassing mid life crisis privately on a boat in the Caribbean somewhere.

But this is a problem:

When South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford added a stop in Argentina to his trade mission to Brazil last June, the side trip should’ve raised eyebrows because he was undertaking a trade mission that the U.S. government was unwilling to make.

I don’t know enough about the Argentine situation to have an opinion about whether US policy was correct. (I suspect not.) But considering what we know about Sanford, it’s a little bit hard to believe that he wasn’t in accord with Bush.

But that’s not the problem. It’s the fact that he added the “stop” on to a taxpayer financed trip to Brazil. He’s agreed to pay the Argentine leg back, but that’s not actually good enough. The press probably needs to look into the whole trip because it’s a little bit too convenient that Sanford was going to South America at all when he just happened to have a mistress there.

This is the kind of stuff that actually is flat out corrupt. The government should not be paying for people to visit their mistresses and when they are caught, simply paying back the money isn’t sufficient. It’s called stealing and it’s against the law.

As far as I’m concerned Sanford’s romantic antics are pathetic and none of my business. But the idea that taxpayers are paying for them is outrageous. If a public servant can’t pay for his own trysts and needs government business trips to cover them up, then he needs to make other plans. When he’s a also person who waxes on about self-reliance and not depending on the government — even to the extent of refusing to take federal money to help the unemployed keep food on the table — then he has disqualified himself from public office. Sexual hypocrisy is venial sin. Stiffing poor people while stealing from government coffers is a crime. He should resign.

.

Fawning

by digby

It appears that our Chief Justice was a dried up old stick even when he was young.

From Charlie Savage in the NY Times today, here’s John Roberts when he worked in the White House counsel’s office in 1984:

I hate to sound like one of Mr. Jackson’s records, constantly repeating the same refrain, but I recommend that we not approve this letter. Sometimes people need to be reminded of the obvious: whatever its status as a cultural phenomenon, the Jackson concert tour is a massive commercial undertaking. The tour will do quite well financially by coming to Washington, and there is no need for the President to applaud such enlightened self-interest. Frankly, I find the obsequious attitude of some members of the White House staff toward Mr. Jackson’s attendants, and the fawning posture they would have the President of the United States adopt, more than a little embarrassing. It is also important to consider the precedent that would be set by such a letter. In today’s Post there were already reports that some youngsters were turning away from Mr. Jackson in favor of a newcomer who goes by the name “Prince,” and is apparently planning a Washington concert. Will he receive a Presidential letter? How will we decide which performers do and which do not?

Auntie Roberts was 29 when he wrote that. He was a real man of his time. The 1890s.

And the idea of someone criticizing fawning over show business figures in the Reagan White House is just funny.

.

Making The Tough Call

by digby

The Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade bill is going to come to a vote in the House today and it’s very hard to know what to root for. People I respect on this issue are on both sides and it’s not entirely clear to me whether it would be better to pass it or let it fail on the merits. The politics are a little bit more clear — if it fails with a Democratic majority, Obama suffers a big defeat and they worry that it will stall his momentum and make it impossible to come back with anything even this good. The right and their energy company allies have organized better and the results are as per usual.

So, it seems that members are being faced with a number of unpalatable choices on this one, not the least of which is the fact that the right will cast this bill as a huge tax and jobs loser, a vote for which will have to be explained for many years to come. The environmental groups are all pushing it, however, and the president himself is whipping hard for the bill, so the political calculus for congresspeople is very complicated. On the merits, if the Senate worsens the thing even the slightest, it probably won’t be worth passing in the end. But at this point, there are respectable reasons to vote both for and against.

A lot of Democrats in tough districts are going to vote against the bill and it’s hard to blame them under the circumstances. But there are a handful who are holding fast because they think this bill is important even though it’s imperfect, and they are doing it espite the fact they are in districts that will almost definitely punish them for it. They are Tom Periello, Martin Heinrich, Betsey Markey, Steve Dreihas, Dan Maffei and Ben Chandler and they deserve some credit for standing up for their principles under tough circumstances.

And the president owes them big time for doing it. He is personally calling members and asking them to take this tough vote because it’s the right thing to do. And he needs to reward those who are taking a big risk with a ton of support in the mid-terms — camp out in their districts if he has to. Obama has to do everything he can to ensure they don’t lose their seats over this. Leaving people hanging out to dry as Clinton did on the BTU tax back in the early 90s is a recipe for losing your authority — and your majority.

Darcy Burner has more on this and has set up an Act Blue page so that people can show their appreciation for these members making a tough vote on behalf of the planet when they not only won’t gain anything politically for it, but stand to lose a lot. It’s a rare thing.

*BTW: It’s less about the money, although I’m sure they are happy to get it. It’s more about the number of people. So if you only have 10 bucks to spread around, that’s ok. It’s just a way of letting them know that we have noticed and that we appreciate it.

.

General Bongo’s War

by digby

Back when I first started writing this blog I think the thing that was the most fun was getting the occasional nice note about something I’d written and having it turn out to be a writer I knew and respected. One of the first was Lucian Truscott IV, who you all probably know from his novels and screenplays, as I did, but who has a very special place in liberal history as an iconic practitioner of the “new journalism” of the 60s and 70s. Today, he has written a fascinating remembrance of the Stonewall Riots for the NY Times, which he covered in real time for the Village Voice.

But his latest project is why I’m highlighting this because I think it may be his boldest yet — he’s going to blog his latest novel, which is called “General Bongo’s War.” We ran into each other in Austin last year and he mentioned to me that he wanted to do this and I was fascinated by the concept. Writers are habitual creatures, and someone like Truscott is used to working as most writers do, alone and pretty much inside his own head. But he’s taking the process public and he’s going to actually write it online.

I won’t go into the details of the story. You should check out the site and then go back on a regular basis to read the novel as he’s writing it. If the plot is what he roughly outlined to me last year, it’s going to be a lot of fun to read.

General Bongo’s War

.