Month: November 2009

Weapons In Their Pants

by digby

I have successfully avoided writing about this “party crasher” story up until now but naturally Tweety has made it impossible not to. He is having a fit, as is half the country apparently, that someone got close enough to the president to shake his hand and as he said, “might have brought in biological or chemical weapons.”(Presumably they would have been smuggled in somehow inside an orifice since they were otherwise searched by the secret service before entering.)

Ok, I get that the White House and the Secret Service screwed up. The idea that someone could actually penetrate the security at the White House is disturbing and it shouldn’t happen. But really, this hysteria is a bit much. After all, the president does rope lines, fundraisers, plant tours and visits to burger joints all the time and he is in the close presence of strangers:

Did they check that guy for biological weapons in his pants? How about these guys?

This “story” is another example of the social corrosion caused by reality TV and the bubble balloon-boy phenomenon and so I suppose it’s worth covering on its own merits. But the idea that people in the White House and Secret Service must be fired because the president could have been killed with a chemical weapon in that woman’s sari is over-the-top.

From what I’m seeing today (Isikoff himself is digging into it, right alongside the Washington Post gossip columnist) it may be leading to another Travelgate style witch hunt in which Michelle Obama’s staff at the very least is going to have to be sacrificed on the alter of Sally Quinn. I hope that makes everyone feel better. It’s been a while.

Update: A former Secret Service agent made the point that they have never assumed that it was impossible for anyone to get close to the president and are well prepared if someone makes a move. Tweety keeps talking about a Clint Eastwood movie about the Secret Service for some reason.

Update II: I don’t mean to suggest that the president isn’t under unusual threat. But this is getting stupid. They’re talking about how this woman could have been wearing an IED.

Update III:

Oh Jesus, now Tweety’s delving into “Tiger’s Troubles.” And I won’t even repeat the tabloid speculation that Tweety and his guests are engaging in. Just read TMZ or the Globe.

Meanwhile, may I assume that the world is no longer going to hell in a hand basket?

.

No, No, No

by digby

Mike Lux reports on Democratic Death Wish 2010 and reveals this egregious little nugget of information:

The quote of the day that has me gnashing my teeth:

White House health reform czar Nancy-Ann DeParle said the president was moving as quickly as possible. She said that the insurance industry cannot be forced to accept people irrespective of preexisting conditions until everyone is required to have insurance, and that the administration does not want such a requirement until the exchanges are up and running.

Insurance companies have been making enormous profits for decades now by hiking prices through the roof and denying care to sick people, and we are going to worry about being fair to them in the transition to a better health care system? When we are going to mandate that people buy insurance, and subsidize them to do so, after the new system is in place? C’mon now. If the insurance companies have to reduce their profit margins for a few years, I don’t think we should be shedding any tears for them.

I just can’t believe it. All along I had been assuming that the one thing everyone agreed upon was that the rescission and denial of insurance based on pre-existing conditions were the things that the Democrats would have to point to as the immediate benefit of all this sturm and drangover health care this year. It’s unfathomable to me that they have decided not to do that.

I guess they think they can just babble a bunch of happy talk and nobody will notice that nothing’s going to change for anyone for years even as the Republicans demagogue it on a daily basis. What kind of lunacy is that?

.

Not Much To Choose From

by digby

They must be so proud:

By a wide margin, Americans consider Rush Limbaugh the nation’s most influential conservative voice. Those are the results of a poll conducted by “60 Minutes” and Vanity Fair magazine and issued Sunday. The radio host was picked by 26 percent of those who responded, followed by Fox News Channel’s Glenn Beck at 11 percent. Actual politicians — former Vice President Dick Cheney and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin — were the choice of 10 percent each.

It’s true, they are the most influential conservative voices. But if anyone still thinks the Republicans are the party of ideas they probably need to think again.

The fight for dominance in this influential sphere is on, with all the above battling for supremacy. Here’s the latest from Beck, via Think Progress:

In recent days, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has indicated that she may be open to a conservative presidential dream ticket in 2012: Palin-Beck (or Beck-Palin). “I can envision a couple of different combinations, if ever I were to be in a position to really even seriously consider running for anything in the future, and I’m not there yet,” Palin told Newsmax. “But Glenn Beck I have great respect for. He’s a hoot.” Fox and Friends plugged the idea yesterday morning and asked Palin whether she would run with Beck. She kept the door open, saying, “I don’t know. We’ll see, we’ll see.” But just a few hours later on his radio show, Beck shot down the idea, saying he was “absolutely” ruling out a Palin-Beck ticket. He explained that if he had the number two job, Palin would always be “yapping” like they were in “the kitchen”:

BECK: I don’t think things are hoots. I don’t. I don’t think it’s a hoot. I would never use the word hoot, and I respectfully ask that every time my name is brought up she would stop using the word “hoot.” […] No, no I’m just saying — Beck-Palin, I’ll consider. But Palin-Beck — can you imagine, can you imagine what an administration with the two of us would be like? What? Come on! She’d be yapping or something, and I’d say, “I’m sorry, why am I hearing your voice? I’m not in the kitchen.”

These people are so confused.

.

Grand Bargain Redux

by digby

Here’s the latest from The Peterson Billionaire Protection Society:

NEW YORK (November 30, 2009) – There is broad support among Democrats, Republicans and Independents for a bipartisan fiscal commission to address America’s growing debt and deficit challenges according to a new poll commissioned by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. The poll also shows that Americans believe dealing with the debt and deficit should be a top priority and that leaders in Washington are not paying enough attention to this issue.

“The bottom line is that the American electorate is way ahead of Washington policymakers—many of whom don’t seem to realize that we can’t spend and borrow our way to prosperity,” said David M. Walker, President & CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. “Tough choices must be made in connection with budget controls, entitlement reforms, spending constraints and revenue increases. A special bipartisan commission is needed to engage the American people in a discussion about comprehensive reforms and to make a range of recommendations for action by the Congress.”

There is growing recognition among policymakers on both sides of the aisle that a bipartisan commission is the best way to address the fiscal crisis. It was recently reported that the Obama Administration is giving serious consideration to establishing a special commission to address America’s large and growing structural deficits and debt burdens.

The commission would consider policy options on budget controls, reforms to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other spending and tax reforms. Unlike the regular process that Congress currently uses to consider legislative proposals, Congress would be required to vote on the recommended package of reforms from the Commission, with limited opportunity to make changes.

I know it’s boring to harp on this but as someone who lives in California and has seen the results of hamstringing government into total incoherence with gimmicks like this it is a terrifying prospect. So, I’ll (probably foolishly) reprise a piece of a post I wrote last January on this subject after I read E.J. Dionne’s column about Obama’s plan to enact a “Grand Bargain”:

Unfortunately, it would appear that Obama is going to go to China — or rather, he’s going to “reform entitlements,” which is the Democratic equivalent. Dionne reports that they’ve adopted Stephanopoulos’ characterization of a Grand Bargain (which just shows that the beltway echo chamber is in full effect.) Obama told the Washington Post today that he’s doing this in order to prove to somebody (who I’m not sure) that he is “serious.”

Obama To Hold Fiscal Responsibility Summit

President-elect Barack Obama will convene a “fiscal responsibility summit” in February designed to bring together a variety of voices on solving the long term problems with the economy and with a special focus on entitlements, he said during an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors this afternoon.

“We need to send a signal that we are serious,” said Obama of the summit.

Those invited to attend will include Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (N.D.), ranking minority member Judd Gregg (N.H.), the conservative Democratic Blue Dog coalition and a host of outside groups with ideas on the matter, said the president-elect.

Obama’s comments came in a wide-ranging, hour-long interview that came just five days before he will be inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States and become the first African American to hold that title.

Obama said that he has made clear to his advisers that some of the difficult choices–particularly in regards to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare – should be made on his watch. “We’ve kicked this can down the road and now we are at the end of the road,” he said.

Normally another Democratic run bipartisan commission on social security reform wouldn’t alarm me so much as annoy me. After all, Clinton was forced by the incoherent “centrist” Bob Kerrey into appointing a social security commission and Bush promised to appoint one after the failure of his attempt to privatize the system. But this time could be different. The scope and complexity of the economic crisis could lead to politicians rushing forward with some bad plans just to appear to be doing something.

I believe that everything about this is a huge mistake. It validates incorrect right wing economic assumptions, incorporates their toxic rhetoric about “entitlements,” focuses on the wrong problems and continues the illusion that social security is in peril when it isn’t. The mantra of shared sacrifice sounds awfully noble, but it isn’t very reassuring to talk about the government going broke at the moment, particularly when the cause of our problems isn’t the blood-sucking parasites who depend on government insurance when they can’t work, but rather the handiwork of the vastly wealthy who insist on operating without restraint and refuse to contribute their fair share. I would have thought that a bipartisan commission on financial system reform might have at least been on the agenda before social security.

Obama is empowering the Republicans and the Blue Dogs with this fiscal responsibility rhetoric and perhaps he believes they will reward him by acting in good faith. And maybe they will.Or perhaps he thinks he can jiu-jitsu the debate in some very clever way to actually bolster social security and enact universal health care. But it’s a big risk. I believe that all this talk about “entitlements” and fiscal responsibility will make it much tougher to sell universal health care and easier to dismantle some of the safety net at a time when many people have just lost a large piece of their retirements, their jobs and their homes. It’s very hard for me to understand why they think it’s a good time to do this.

I know it’s probably right that we give him a chance before we completely go postal about this, but I also know that if this were a Republican saying these things I’d certainly be doing everything in my power to oppose it. But then that’s the beauty of the Nixon goes to China gambit, isn’t it? It neatly shuts down the most fervent opposition. That’s why it’s so frightening. He might just get it done

Pete Peterson and the Republicans have brilliantly laid the groundwork for this. And I would bet you anything that they’ll even take a short term hit on raising taxes on the wealthy if they can deal a death blow to what they call “entitlements.”

Deficit neutral health care reform is supposed to be the sop to the left that makes this possible, by the way. Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to be convincing.

.

Principles

by digby

What is the lesson here?

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday set aside a lower court’s ruling that had ordered the release of photographs showing American soldiers abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The high court’s action, which had been expected, occurred after the U.S. Congress recently approved a provision to exempt the photographs from disclosure, a measure that President Barack Obama signed into law.

The justices sent the case back to a U.S. appeals court in New York for further consideration in light of the new law and the recent certification by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that release of the photographs would endanger American soldiers.

After initially agreeing to release the photographs, Obama reversed himself in May, siding with his U.S. military advisers and said disclosure could unleash a violent backlash against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The lesson is that if you don’t like a court decision, change the law and have someone “certify” that the older law will endanger troops. Good to know.

.

Huckabee’s Compassion For Violent Criminals

by tristero

Or Are They Just Happy To See Him?

by digby

Heather at C&L helps me fulfill my life’s work.

Hint: It’s about manly salutes in all their permutations. Some even bring a thrill up the leg.

h/t to bb

Whiz Kids

by digby

Larry,Ben and Tim.

They are by all accounts exceedingly brilliant men. So you have to assume it’s their ideology that’s leading them astray.

.

National Shame

by digby

There is no shame in individuals having to use food stamps. And there are a hell of a lot of them: shockingly, 25% of children in this country are on them right now. What’s shameful is the wealthiest 1% who fight tooth and nail against paying their fair share and Masters of the Universe insisting they are worth billions in compensation despite the fact that the economy is in the gutter for everyone else — largely because of their past actions. It should be criminal.

.

Rolling The Dice

by digby

From what I can gather, this climate change pseudo-scandal is going to be with us for a while so if you haven’t delved into it in any detail, it’s probably a good idea to do so. The number of Inhoffian cretins bellowing on TV about hoaxes is growing by the hour. This article by Brad Plumer seems to be a good place to start.

Meanwhile, here’s an example of how the issue is being handled by talking heads on television:

SUZANNE MALVEAUX: What can the president do on this issue, James?

JAMES CARVILLE, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, unfortunately, I hope I’m wrong, but not very much. And I hope that talk radio and the pollution lobby are right that global warming is not a problem, and 940 peer reviewed scientific articles are wrong. That’s about all we can hope for, because right now, I have to tell you that the pollution lobby and talk radio is winning this battle. And the will in the United States to do something about this is not what I think it should be, but that’s the reality of the political situation, as I see it right now.

MALVEAUX: Ben, does — is James right? Does the president have any power to move the ball forward here if he goes to this summit?

BEN STEIN, COLUMNIST, “FORTUNE” Well, calling the people who want to keep Americans free to use the kind of energy they want to use the “pollution lobby” is a wild smear, and I’m very surprised to hear someone as good natured and kindly as James say it. But it’s not the pollution lobby, it’s a lobby for the truth.

The truth is that the global temperature peaked around 1998. It has not gotten any hotter. Instead, it’s gotten cooler.

The truth is that there have been periods in the past a thousand years ago, 2,500 years ago, when it’s been warmer than it is now, when there was no manmade burning of carbon. The truth is that we do not know the exact interaction between all these events and effects and what they do to weather.

The truth is we cannot predict the weather three days from now. To say we can predict it in 2030 or 2080 begs (ph) the imagination. It’s just unbelievable.

The truth is we’ve now got a lot of data coming out that the scientific community around the side of anthropogenic global warming were cooking the data and were suppressing data to those who are questioning their data. So I think the whole thing of fighting global warming may be based on a false premise. Maybe it isn’t, but the fact is we just don’t know at this point.

MALVEAUX: What the truth, is too, is that Americans are divided politically over this issue. If you look at the poll, “Washington Post”/ABC News here, among Republicans, 54 percent believe that global warming is really happening, but Democrats, 86 percent believe that it is really — it is taking place here.

CARVILLE: Look, again, I hope that talk radio and the pollution lobby is right, because I — but I’m afraid that 950-something peer reviewed scientific articles and almost the entirety of the non-paid-for by people that study this think that climate change is real.

I hope they are wrong for the sake of my children. And it seems as though that they’ve spent a lot of money and have been very successful here.

MALVEAUX: Well, what do you make of that, Ben? Do you think it’s just a lobbying effort?

STEIN: Actually, no, there are huge number of scientists who are questioning that. I mean, you say 950 peer reviewed articles. We now learn that the peers are in a kind of cabal — not all of them, but some of them are in a kind of cabal to suppress any information that challenges the consensus on global warming and the manmade effects on the climate.

There are many, many scientists not paid for by the energy companies. In fact, the energy companies pretty much have backed off and washed their hands of this. They find they just don’t want to question the conventional wisdom on this. This is being done, this questioning about the effects of manmade activity on the climate, is being done just by brave independent souls, and it’s just not proved.

MALVEAUX: Well, we could debate whether or not this is real or not, but I covered Bush for eight years, and he said that global warming did not exist, that science didn’t back it up. But here’s a poll that shows that a lot more people are actually agreeing with the former president.

Three and a half years ago, 76 percent of Republicans believed it was happening. Well, now it’s down to 54 percent.

Take a look at the Independents. Eighty-six percent thought it was happening. Now it’s down to 71 percent.

Democrats, 92 percent. Now it is down to 86 percent.

Is that not going to make it even harder for the president to convince the rest of the world that we need some sort of global initiative here?

CARVILLE: Yes.

MALVEAUX: Climate change?

CARVILLE: The answer is yes.

MALVEAUX: What does he do?

CARVILLE: The pollution lobby is winning. They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars and they are winning.

MALVEAUX: So what does he do? What does the president do, James?

(CROSSTALK)

MALVEAUX: If you could give him some sort of advice, could you advise the president? What does he need to do if he’s going to change this and is going to turn it around, or is it hopeless?

CARVILLE: Well, I don’t know if it’s hopeless. Still, you’ve got a good majority of the people believing that.

And in the end, scientific truth is going to win out. But right now, you’ve got to say ExxonMobil was paying tens of thousands of dollars for any “scientist” that would dispute these facts. And over a period of time, this is building up and they are winning.

I don’t know why you’re not happy about it, Ben.

STEIN: Well, you know, James, with all due respect, I hate to say this because I respect you very much and always love it when I’m on with you, but you just made that up about ExxonMobil. They are not paying tens of thousands of dollars to any scientists…

CARVILLE: Sure they did. They did.

STEIN: … who will dispute global warming. This is a cabal of global warming — anthropogenic global scientists who are suppressing anyone questioning them.

It’s not the pollution lobby versus the clean air lobby. It’s the truth lobby versus those who want to suppress the truth lobby. Look, I don’t like pollution either. I don’t like those little microparticles that go up in the air and they get in my lungs and they cause cancer. But whether or not — and I’m all for cleansing the air of as much as possible. But whether or not manmade activity is changing the climate of the Earth, that is very much in dispute, and whether or not we should have giant global policies based on suppressing something which may be a hoax, that’s very much up in the air.

CARVILLE: It’s very much not very up in the air by the scientific community. But, again, nobody is suppressing it. You’re right here saying this, and you all are winning.

The scientific community and the evidence is losing, and that happens. You know? It happens.

He’s right. The “skeptics” didn’t want to hear Galileo either. Of course, Galileo didn’t observe a massive man made phenomenon that would fundamentally alter the way humans live on the planet (if they can live at all.)

For the sake of future generations I hope they’re right too. But I can’t for the life of me understand why they are so hellbent on taking the risk that they’re not. The only thing I can conclude is that they love their gashogs and fighting wars more than they love their own children.

* And notice the tack Malveaux takes. If Americans don’t believe it, does that mean it isn’t true?

.