Month: November 2014

I suppose I’ll have a lot to say about him over the next couple of years so I won’t go into it today.  But I thought it would be fun to re-run this most excellent conversation about Webb between Wolf Blitzer and Lynn Cheney from a while back. It’s just so … great:

BLITZER:Let’s talk about another issue in the news, then we’ll get to the book. This — the Democrats are now complaining bitterly in this Virginia race, George Allen using novels — novels — that Jim Webb, his Democratic challenger, has written in which there are sexual references, and they’re making a big deal out of this. I want you to listen to what Jim Webb said today in responding to this very sharp attack from George Allen. 

L. CHENEY: Now, do you promise, Wolf, that we’re going to talk about my book? 

BLITZER: I do promise.

L. CHENEY: Because this seems to me a mighty long trip around the merry-go-round.
BLITZER: I want you to — this was in the news today and your name has come up, so that’s why we’re talking about it, but listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES WEBB (D), VIRGINIA SENATE CANDIDATE: There’s nothing that’s been in any of my novels that, in my view, hasn’t been either illuminated the surroundings or defining a character or moving a plot. I’m a serious writer. I mean, we can go and read Lynne Cheney’s lesbian love scenes, you know, if you want to get graphic on stuff.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

L. CHENEY: Jim Webb is full of baloney. I have never written anything sexually explicit. His novels are full of sexual, explicit references to incest, sexually explicit references — well, you know, I just don’t want my grandchildren to turn on the television set. This morning, Imus was reading from the novels, and it’s triple-X rated. 

BLITZER: Here’s what the Democratic Party put out today, the Democratic Congressional — Senatorial Campaign Committee: “Lynne Cheney’s book featured brothels and attempted rape. In 1981, Vice President Dick Cheney’s wife, Lynne, wrote a book called “Sisters,” which featured a lesbian love affair, brothels and attempted rapes.” 

L. CHENEY: No. 

BLITZER: “In 1988, Lynn Cheney wrote about a Republican vice president who dies of a heart attack while having sex with his mistress.” Is that true? 

L. CHENEY: Nothing explicit. And actually, that was full of lies. It’s not — it’s just — it’s absolutely not a… 

BLITZER: But you did write a book entitled “Sisters”? 

L. CHENEY: I did write a book entitled “Sisters.” 

BLITZER: And it did have lesbian characters. 

L. CHENEY: This description — no, not necessarily. This description is a lie. I’ll stand on that. 

BLITZER: There’s nothing in there about rapes and brothels? 

L. CHENEY: Well, Wolf, could we talk about a children’s book for a minute? 

BLITZER: We can talk about the children’s book. I just wanted to… 

L. CHENEY: I think my segment is, like, 15 minutes long and we’ve had about 10 minutes of… 

BLITZER: I just wanted to — I just wanted to clarify what’s in the news today, given — this is…  

L. CHENEY: Sex, lies and distortion. That’s what it is. 

BLITZER: This is an opportunity for you to explain on these sensitive issues. 

L. CHENEY: Wolf, I have nothing to explain. Jim Webb has a lot to explain. 

BLITZER: Well, he says he’s only — as a serious writer, novelist, a fiction writer, he was doing basically what you were doing. 

L. CHENEY: Jim Webb is full of baloney

How convenient

by digby

Opposition was led by Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell and colleague Sen. Rand Paul, who both voted down the legislation, though for different reasons. McConnell, like many Republicans, voted it down because he believed the reforms went too far, while Paul voted against the bill because it did not go far enough.

Paul said immediately after the vote that he “felt bad” about his vote against the motion.

“They probably needed my vote,” he said, opposing Leahy’s bill because it would extend the sunset provisions for the laws authorizing surveillance. “It’s hard for me to vote for something I object to so much.”

It’s always nice when you can vote with your party and still hold yourself up as superior to them for doing what you say you abhor.

Evunthelibertarian Reason magazine doesn’t think it was such a hot move.

Although his single vote would not have been enough to open up debate, Paul should nevertheless have heeded the insight of the developer of radar Robert Alexander Watson-Watt who explained, “Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes.” I am no parliamentarian, but it appears that under Senate rules because Paul voted with the prevailing side, he could move to have the Senate reconsider the bill, although it seems unlikely that he will do so.

Why should he? This way he can have his cake and eat it too.

.

Help us call on Mark Udall to read the Torture Report into the record

by digby

Blue America sent this out to our members last night asking them to sign this petition asking Senator Mark Udall to read the Torture Report into the congressional record

There have a been many dark days in America during the past decade but the revelation that the government had authorized the torture of prisoners has to be one of the darkest. It took a lot of painstaking journalism  to uncover what we know even as the government did everything in its power to cover up the details, going so far as to destroy evidence and immunize the perpetrators from prosecution.

Nonetheless, the Senate Intelligence Committee went to great lengths to compile a 6,000 page report on this ugly chapter in our history. It was approved for release by a majority of the committee many months ago but the White House insisted on a further review and approval process even going so far as to insist that pseudonyms be redacted. They are still dragging their feet.  If they have their way the report will be issued with every word blacked out except  “the” and “end”. As of yesterday, the outlook for its release any time soon looked bleak.

The Senate is going to lose one of its foremost civil libertarians at the end of this congress. Senator Mark Udall, who lost his seat  in the midterm election, has been among the few in congress who performed his oversight duties as a member of the Intelligence Committee with independence and integrity and he will be missed. But he could do one last act of conscience before he goes: as a sitting Senator, he can place the Torture Report into the congressional record  as former Senator Mike Gravel did back in 1971 with the Pentagon Papers.

Udall himself has said he is considering it:

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who was defeated in the midterm elections, has threatened to read the unredacted report into the Congressional Record on the Senate floor, a rare and provocative move that is nevertheless protected by the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause.

“I’m not going to accept the release of any version of the executive summary that doesn’t get out the truth of this program,” Udall told the Denver Post last week. “Not only do we have to shed light on this dark chapter of our nation’s history, but we’ve got to make sure future administrations don’t repeat the grave mistakes.”

We are hoping that Senator Udall will cap his Senate career with this act patriotism and have joined with several other groups to petition him to do it. If you would like to sign on to this request along with us, you can click here.

This isn’t an easy thing to ask of any Senator. But torture isn’t just another issue. It goes to the very heart of who we are as a country. Senator Udall can help this nation face up to what happened and let the government know that it must never, ever, happen again.

We don’t ask people to sign petitions very often but this one is special. If this is an issue about which you feel as strongly as we do, please consider signing it.

What kind of people are they?
by Tom Sullivan

Walmart is a store my wife refuses to set foot in. We have that luxury. Then again, there are plenty of Walmarts in rural areas heavily frequented by poorer shoppers who don’t. Then again, Walmart does not seem to have learned what Henry Ford knew: unless you actually pay your employees a decent salary, they won’t be able to buy your products. Walmart’s (and others’) answer is to cheapen everything, customers and employees included. Can’t afford to shop elsewhere? Tough luck.

Since 2000, Public Eye has staged a counter-event to the World Economic Forum to highlight bad corporate actors. Walmart is in their sights again:

Walmart workers in 10 countries joined a global day of action on Wednesday to demand better wages and treatment for employees, as a public interest group nominated the retailer for a Lifetime Award as “worst corporation in the world”.

Organizers with the group OUR Walmart estimated that about 300 protesters would march on Walmart’s headquarters in India and block the gate. Another 200 people were expected to protest at the company’s headquarters in Mexico City. Workers in Argentina, Brazil and Canada were also expected to participate.

Public Eye has nominated Walmart for “worst corporation in the world.” They will have company:

In 2005, Walmart received a Public Eye award in the labor category for “lack of respect for human and labor rights along its supply chain in places such as Lesotho, Kenya, and Thailand”. This year, Public Eye will give a lifetime achievement award to one of its previous winners. Goldman Sachs and Chevron are also among those nominated. Consumers can submit their votes over the next two months.

In an op-ed awhile back, I explored how Sam Walton, the pickup-driving, underdog owner of a small, American-flag-draped chain of five-and-dime stores from Bentonville, AR, went from being Everyman Sam to selling cheap, plastic crap from China as the downtown-killing Prince of Darkness. How many stores did that take? Can you be too successful? How big is too big?

The best I could figure it was when he took his company public. In privately held or closely held companies, one man (or woman) with a vision is its guiding light. He/she has as much of himself/herself invested as money. How the company comports itself is a direct reflection of its founder’s character, and those with any moral compass take the reputation of their firm personally. But once the company goes public, once it is sold to nameless, faceless absentee-landlord investors, that connection is broken. It’s no longer personal. The visionary loses control, the soul and any morality he/she brought to the company is lost, and like a great white shark, its eyes go black and dead. All that remains is appetite and instinct.

Like Walmart, the thing that’s wrong with business today is not the corporation per se, but the disconnected, amoral nature of the public corporate “person”. Writing about megabanks, Matt Taibbi puts it more bluntly:

… what we’ve found out in the last years is that these Too-Big-To-Fail megabanks like Goldman no longer see the margin in being truly trustworthy. The game now is about getting paid as much as possible and as quickly as possible, and if your client doesn’t like the way you managed his money, well, fuck him – let him try to find someone else on the market to deal him straight.

The Public Eye protest in Miami was mostly rained out, but a few people showed up nevertheless:

“I’m standing with protesters all over the world today to send a message to Walmart and the Waltons that we need better pay,” said Emily Wells, one of the protesters. Wells makes $9.50 an hour and relies on food stamps to make ends meet. “As the richest family in America and one of the richest in the world, we all know the Waltons can afford to pay $15 an hour to the workers that make them richer every day.”

Maybe. But that’s not the new business model.

If corporations are people it’s legitimate to ask, what kind of people are they?

#Eventheconservativefederalistsociety

Sam Stein reports:

At the Mayflower Hotel, lawyers gathered for the annual Federalist Society national convention — one of the highest-profile conservative legal events of the year. The day’s big draws were the opening speech by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and an evening event featuring Justice Samuel Alito.

Before the crowd changed into black tie attire for Alito’s appearance, however, a smaller panel convened under the title, “Federalism: The President’s Duty to Take Care That the Law be Faithfully Executed.” Panelists discussed major confrontations between the branches of government, from enforcement of marijuana law and the implementation of health care to Obama’s impending executive order on immigration.

The talk was, well, lawyerly. Every conclusion seemed to have a qualification attached to it. But, by and large, the panelists agreed the president has wide legal latitude to prioritize and shape deportation laws, as regrettable for Republicans or the long-term balance of powers that may be.

Ooops

“I think the roots of prosecutorial discretion are extremely deep,” said Christopher Schroeder, the Charles S. Murphy Professor of Law and Public Policy Studies at Duke Law School. “The practice is long and robust. The case law is robust. Let me put it this way: Suppose some president came to me and asked me in the office of legal counsel, ‘Is it okay for me to go ahead and defer the deportation proceedings of childhood arrival?’ Under the present state of the law, I think that would be an easy opinion to write. Yes.”

Schroeder was speaking specifically about the deferred action program that Obama already has put into place — the one affecting so-called Dreamers who were brought to the U.S. as children. But later, Schroeder expanded his legal reasoning.

“I don’t know where in the Constitution there is a rule that if the president’s enactment affects too many people, he’s violating the Constitution,” Schroeder said. “There is a difference between executing the law and making the law. But in the world in which we operate, that distinction is a lot more problematic than you would think. If the Congress has enacted a statute that grants discretionary authority for the administrative agency or the president to fill in the gaps, to write the regulations that actually make the statute operative, those regulations to all intents and purposes make the law.

“I agree this can make us very uncomfortable. I just don’t see the argument for unconstitutionality at this juncture,” Schroeder added.

Well, they can always look for a typo. They’re definitely unconstitutional, we know that. Or if push comes to shove the Supremes could just hand down a Bush vs Gore style one-off.

On the other hand, the Republicans can take heart in the fact that even if it’s constitutional, it’s still impeachable. High crimes and misdemeanors are something the congress gets to define all by iytself without any pointy headed lawyers interfering.

.

QOTD: libertarian madness

by digby

This is truly amazing:

Sarah Kliff: Are you 100 percent convinced it was Congress’s intent to withhold subsidies in the federal exchange?

Michael Cannon: There are two ways to interpret that question. Did the people who wrote this language mean to withhold subsidies in federal exchanges? My answer to that is, I’m 100 percent convinced that they meant to do that.

The other way to think about it is, “Did the people who voted for this law intend to withhold subsidies in federal exchanges?” That’s a different question, but the answer is the same. I’m 100 percent convinced that’s what the members of Congress who enacted this law meant to do, just the same way I’m 100 percent convinced they meant to throw people off of their existing health plans even though they said, “If you like your health plan, you can keep it.”

It’s not as though we’re pouring over the Federalist Papers here trying to figure out what the founders had in mind. This happened just five years ago. And that just ain’t true.

He states different things throughout the interview — that lawmakers were rushed and didn’t know what they doing, that they were perfectly aware that states would have to create exchanges or their people would not get subsidies, or that Democrats created a federal exchange apparently for their own health since it is completely useless without the subsidies. But at the end of the interview it’s obvious that he knows it was a drafting error and simply sees this as a way to remove the subsidies from millions of people so they will not be able to afford health insurance — at which point the Republicans can blame the Democrats for doing that and then offer some weak tea “reform” removing community ratings, the pre-existing condition ban and required coverage, all of which will raise prices even more.

And then their plan will once more be in place. You remember the libertarian health care plan don’t you?

.

Doing the right thing is the best negotiating stance

by digby

Simon Maloy at Salon breaks down the latest polling on Immigration in anticipation of President Obama’s big announcement tonight:

USA Today and Princeton Survey Research … provide us with our first post-election look at the public’s stance on unilateral immigration action, and the results are pretty unsurprising: the country is split almost down the middle, and support for Obama’s proposal breaks down along partisan lines. Given the circumstances, that’s fairly decent news for the White House.

The USA Today poll’s question was curiously worded (more on that in a bit), but the survey found that 42 percent of Americans want the White House to act immediately on immigration, while 46 percent want the White House to wait. Democrats favor immediate action by a huge 60-28 percent margin, Republicans favor waiting by an even huger 76-17 percent, and independents are split 44-46 in slight favor of delay.

If I’m in the White House, then I’m reassured by this poll. After the child migrant crisis during the summer and Obama’s decision to delay taking executive action, the president’s credibility on immigration took a big hit, and for a while it looked like the public was starting to turn away from meaningful immigration reform. Obama’s approval rating on immigration as an issue tanked to 31 percent, according to Gallup. There were also dips in public support for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Gallup hasn’t polled Obama’s approval on immigration since then, but public support for a pathway to citizenship has bounced back. The fact that Obama has fought the executive action issue almost to a draw would seem to indicate that he’s come back somewhat from the summer’s immigration doldrums.

He knew there would be a shitstorm either way and recognized that in such a situation it’s better to do the right thing, for both moral and practical reasons, than it is to try to please the beltway with some bogus excuse about bipartisanship. That is a very good thing.

Republicans terrified that Latinos are going to make them a permanent minority party. Right -wingers just don’t like Latinos. Their media under the likes if Laura Ingraham has persuaded them that immigration reform is a stealthy way to make “illegals” into Democratic voters. Case in point:

Bachmann to Post: immigrants given new protections by the president could become “illiterate” Democratic voters
— Robert Costa (@costareports) November 19, 2014

There is nothing you can do to change these things before taking action. So, Democrats should just do what they can to help human beings and let the chips fall where they may.

The president’s Executive Order is probably not going to be everything we might hope. But he could have succumbed to the Villagers and the Republicans and made a case that the election showed that the nation wasn’t ready for Immigration Reform or that he wants to give the “new congress” a chance to work something out. Advisors like David Axelrod were saying publicly that’s what he should do. Instead, he’s saying I’m doing this and if you don’t like it, pass a bill I can sign and I’ll rescind it. He’s not foreclosing compromise he’s just saying that he’s not going to wait any longer for them to do what they keep saying they are going to do and never actually do it. I don’t know how it’s going to work politically but he has nothing to lose by trying it. And actual humans will benefit. Good.

.

.

The deeper problem with “Intelligence Reform”

by digby

I wrote a piece for Salon today about the debate around the USA Freedom Act and other “reforms” of the Intelligence Community.  I think the problem is that even if it had passed last night and even if it had been much better than it was, there is no reforming them simply by using the law to do it.  The way these agencies are structured in secrecy and with ever changing, complex capabilities means that there must be a different mechanism applied.  Oversight isn’t working. Lawyers find ways to do what they want to do. The congress will inevitably legalize anything they cannot justify.

We need to do a serious re-think about how to deal with this stuff.  The good news is that there are some very smart people doing that. Read the piece if you’re interested in such things.

.

“Influencers”

by digby

For those of you who haven’t been following the Uber flap, it has two parts. The first is the fact that the Uber exec told a bunch of important people and journalists that he thought it was a great idea to dig up dirt on journalists who criticize the company essentially to blackmail them. Lovely fellow, lovely company. (He’s since apologized for the remark. Sort of.)

The second half of the flap is about the fact that journalists routinely attend these gatherings as what PR people call “influencers” and agree to drink their wine and eat their food and keep whatever is said off the record. Buzzfeed’s Ben Smith was invited to the Uber Influencer get-together by journalist Michael Wolff who didn’t tell him that it was on background and so Smith wrote about what he heard. Wolff thinks that was teddibly untoward although, strictly speaking, it was perfectly ethical if you want to get all technical about it:

In an effort to argue its case with more care and professionalism, Uber has recently organized some background meetings with journalists and what are called in the PR trade, “influentials.” I was invited to one such dinner last week in a private room at the Waverly Inn in New York. In turn I asked Ben Smith, BuzzFeed’s editor in chief, if he’d like to come as my guest.

I had understood that the Uber dinner, like other such media meet-and-greets — I’ve been to hundreds over the years — was off the record. I neglected, however, to specifically tell Smith this. And while I might have fairly assumed Smith knew the context, this was my oversight — though surely not Uber’s. I might have thought too that, as my date, he would have asked if there was an understanding — suffice to say, he didn’t ask, and likely, didn’t want to know.

Yes he certainly didn’t want to know that. Because he is a journalist. And journalists are supposed to write about what powerful people are saying behind closed doors when they hear them saying it. What’s telling here isn’t that Smith didn’t seek permission to write about something that nobody told him was off the record — something I would hope most reporters do every day. What’s interesting is Wolff’s comment here:

I had understood that the Uber dinner, like other such media meet-and-greets — I’ve been to hundreds over the years — was off the record. I neglected, however, to specifically tell Smith this. And while I might have fairly assumed Smith knew the context, this was my oversight…

What the hell?

I’m not a member of the New York or LA media cognoscenti by any means. But I have attended a few dinners and fundraisers attended by politicians, businessmen and media celebrities over the years. Never once have the hosts, and often the speakers and guests as well, failed to say explicitly that they were off the record if they were off the record. The idea that anyone would just assume such a thing where media are present is mind-boggling to me. The fact that Wolff and the others who were there have no problem with this says everything you need to know about the cozy insiderism that exists among all these elite players.

But even beyond that, this idea that all these rich people hire PR firms to get “influencers” in the media together to let their hair down and tell it like it is without the riff raff being in on it is pretty sickening. I would never attend such an event if someone told me it was off the record. I can buy my own meals, thank you. And I certainly wouldn’t want to be stuck in the same room for hours with people like this for no good reason.

.

by digby

In doing some research in my moldy archives I came across this memorable email that was making the rounds in 2010.  It’s the sort of thing we shouldn’t forget:

“We are Wall Street. It’s our job to make money. Whether it’s a commodity, stock, bond, or some hypothetical piece of fake paper, it doesn’t matter. We would trade baseball cards if it were profitable. I didn’t hear America complaining when the market was roaring to 14,000 and everyone’s 401k doubled every 3 years. Just like gambling, its not a problem until you lose. I’ve never heard of anyone going to Gamblers Anonymous because they won too much in Vegas. 

Well now the market crapped out, & even though it has come back somewhat, the government and the average Joes are still looking for a scapegoat. God knows there has to be one for everything. Well, here we are.

Go ahead and continue to take us down, but you’re only going to hurt yourselves. What’s going to happen when we can’t find jobs on the Street anymore? Guess what: We’re going to take yours. We get up at 5am & work till 10pm or later. We’re used to not getting up to pee when we have a position. We don’t take an hour or more for a lunch break. We don’t demand a union. We don’t retire at 50 with a pension. We eat what we kill, and when the only thing left to eat is on your dinner plates, we’ll eat that. 

For years teachers and other unionized labor have had us fooled. We were too busy working to notice. Do you really think that we are incapable of teaching 3rd graders and doing landscaping? We’re going to take your cushy jobs with tenure and 4 months off a year and whine just like you that we are so-o-o-o underpaid for building the youth of America. Say goodbye to your overtime and double time and a half. I’ll be hitting grounders to the high school baseball team for $5k extra a summer, thank you very much.
So now that we’re going to be making $85k a year without upside, Joe Mainstreet is going to have his revenge, right? Wrong! Guess what: we’re going to stop buying the new 80k car, we aren’t going to leave the 35 percent tip at our business dinners anymore. No more free rides on our backs. We’re going to landscape our own back yards, wash our cars with a garden hose in our driveways. Our money was your money. You spent it. When our money dries up, so does yours.

The difference is, you lived off of it, we rejoiced in it. The Obama administration and the Democratic National Committee might get their way and knock us off the top of the pyramid, but it’s really going to hurt like hell for them when our fat a**es land directly on the middle class of America and knock them to the bottom.

We aren’t dinosaurs. We are smarter and more vicious than that, and we are going to survive. The question is, now that Obama & his administration are making Joe Mainstreet our food supply…will he? and will they?”

After his mommy gave him a bottle and put him to bed he felt much better.

The sad thing is that this attitude must now be even more pervasive.  None of them paid a price for the ongoing years of pain for average people.  They’re richer than ever and undoubtedly even more arrogant than they were then.  After all, they’ve just “proved” they are the winners.

And the rest of us are the losers.

.

.