The Commentariat -- January 9, 2012
My column in today's New York Times eXaminer is titled "Frank Bruni Resurrects 'The Lost Bush Presidencies." The NYTX front page is here. Contribute here.
Bill Keller of the New York Times makes a very credible case for an Obama/Hillary Clinton 2012 ticket.
NEW. CW: A lawyer friend of mine sends along this commentary by Law Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky in the ABA Journal: "Three election cases from Texas, with potentially enormous legal and political consequences, will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court Jan. 9. The immediate issue ... is: which plan should be used to delineate voting districts in races for the United States House of Representatives, the Texas Senate, and for the Texas State House? ... But lurking in the background of these consolidated cases is the constitutionality of an important civil rights statute: Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The statute requires that for jurisdictions like Texas, with a long history of race discrimination in voting rights, there must be preclearance of any changes in their election systems to ensure that they will not make worse the electoral position of protected minority groups." Unfortunately, I'm afraid the conservatives on the Court are a lot like Stephen Colbert's character: they "don't see race." Such an assertion is flagrant "truthiness," but when Supreme Court Justices exhibit such truthiness, it's not a joke. ...
... Vivica Novak of the American Prospect: "James Bopp Jr. ... is best known as the lawyer behind a case involving a 90-minute film made in 2008 attacking then–presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Bopp’s suit ultimately resulted in the landmark 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.... >Bopp is already well into the next phase of his crusade to topple as many of the state and federal limits on the role of money in politics as can be done in one man’s lifetime." Thanks to a friend for the link.
...Robert Barnes of the Washington Post: "... the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Tuesday about whether the FCC should still have a role in policing the nation’s airwaves or whether its indecency regulations violate guarantees of free speech and due process. The networks have argued successfully in lower courts that in a revolutionized world in which they exist 'side by side' with cable channels that are beyond the FCC’s regulation, singling them out is not only nonsensical but unconstitutional."
Reuters in London: "Most Middle Eastern governments are failing to recognise the significance of the Arab spring and are responding with repression or merely cosmetic change, Amnesty [International] has said. Reform movements showed no sign of flagging despite bloodshed on the streets and arrests last year, the human rights organisation said in its report...."
Right Wing World
Rather than watching the GOP presidential debate in the page below, your time might be better spent watching this video recap of the two weekend debates, which New York magazine compiled:
E. J. Dionne: During Sunday's GOP presidential debate, "both Santorum and Gingrich argued that Romney has been in and out of campaigns since 1994 and has fabricated a misleading public persona that tried to hide just how much of a politician he really is.... Sunday’s raucous encounter suggested that unless Romney closes the nomination struggle quickly, he could suffer further damage."
Open Mouth, Insert Silver Foot. Ben Smith, now of BuzzFeed: "Mitt Romney suggested in today's debate that only rich people should run for office, and then quickly celebrated the fact that he'd forced a rival to take out a loan against his house." ...
... Noblesse Oblige, Vous Savez. Digby: "Really darling, if you have to worry about paying bills you have no business running for office. Needing money for your expenses distracts from your real job -- delivering for your fellow millionaires." ...
... Steve Benen: "It’s why 'just be yourself' probably isn’t good advice for this guy." ...
... Elections Have Consequences. So along comes Paul Krugman, who does not appear to have read Ben Smith's BuzzFeed story and nevertheless writes a column that fits it to a tee: "... where is the evidence that Mr. Romney or his party actually believes in equal opportunity? Judging by their actions, they seem to prefer a society in which your station in life is largely determined by that of your parents — and in which the children of the very rich get to inherit their estates tax-free." ...
... Elections Have Consequences. Rick Hertzberg: "No one, maybe not even Romney, knows if Romney means what he says. But as President, especially if the Republicans complete their takeover of Congress, he would be under irresistible pressure to do what he says. And what does he say? That he would let states recriminalize abortion; that he would seek constitutional amendments outlawing new same-sex marriages and requiring two-thirds congressional majorities for tax increases; that he would sabotage 'Obamacare' (never mind that 'Romneycare' was its prototype) and seek its repeal, destroying its cost savings and consigning tens of millions to the ranks of the uninsured and untreated; that he would replace unemployment benefits with unemployment 'savings accounts'; that he would supercharge income inequality with further huge tax cuts for the wealthy; that he would gut financial regulation; that he would 'double Guantánamo,' reauthorize torture, and deport undocumented aliens en masse (including President Obama’s Kenyan uncle); and more." ...
... The Bain Is His Existence. Mark Maremont of the Wall Street Journal: the WSJ took a detailed look at Romney's tenure as head of Bain Capital. "Among the findings: 22% either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost. Another finding was that Bain produced stellar returns for its investors—yet the bulk of these came from just a small number of its investments. Ten deals produced more than 70% of the dollar gains. Some of those companies, too, later ran into trouble." ...
... The AP weighs in to debunk Mitt Romney claim that he created 100,000 jobs at Bain Capital. Oh, and Willard, John Adams did not write the U.S. Constitution. CW: Because local newspapers publish AP stories, this particular Romney lie should get a wide reading. ...
... Steve Benen: although Romney continues to claim he created 100K jobs, he disagrees with his campaign about how the numbers were calculated. When he lists jobs created, he names those companies in which Bain was at least a partial investor after Romney left the firm; i.e., Romney had zip to do with any jobs creation, though he was still collecting income from Bain. If Romney really created 100,000 jobs, he or Bain should release the "proof." ...
... Steve Kornacki of Salon: "The biggest development in the Republican presidential race doesn’t have much to do with the New Hampshire primary. It’s the news ... that a pro-Newt Gingrich Super PAC has received a $5 million donation from Sheldon Adelson, a casino mogul and close Gingrich ally, and is pouring the money into a South Carolina advertising campaign aimed at taking down Mitt Romney. The ads will apparently portray Romney as a job-destroying corporate raider and feature interviews with people who lost their jobs when Romney’s venture capital firm took over their companies. This poses two threats to Romney, animmediate one in the GOP primaries and potentially a longer-term one, with Democrats itching to caricature him the exact same way in a fall campaign." ...
... AND here's a Gingrich ad featuring Willard as a "ruthless corporate raider":
... Right on cue, the Democratic National Committee weighs in:
Rick Santorum opens SNL:
Alex Seitz-Wald & Travis Waldron of Think Progress: At an event in a Manchester, New Hampshire, restaurant, "Yvan Lamothe, a 59-year-old former New Hampshire state employee and small business owner, drew strong applause from the crowd when he told [Newt] Gingrich that he has never taken welfare or food stamps and was offended by Gingrich’s suggestion that most African Americans do. . Gingrich responded with something like classic 'some of my best friends are black' defense, noting that he has worked with people like Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell in the past."
AND. If you have nothing else to worry about today, a friend has directed me a site called "Jesus Is Savior," a page of which is titled, "Satan Is on Our Dollar!" You can learn all about it. I did not get to the part where I found out I was going to hell. But it must be there.
Obviously, some of my friends need to get new hobbies.
News Ledes
New York Times: "President Obama announced on Monday that William M. Daley, the White House chief of staff, was stepping down, after a frustrating year in which Mr. Daley struggled to find his footing in a ferociously partisan Washington. He will be replaced by Jacob J. Lew, the budget director. Mr. Obama, who recruited Mr. Daley a year ago, announced the departure at 3 p.m. in the State Dining Room. It is the most significant shakeup yet in the Obama White House, which has prided itself on a lack of internal drama, with a tightly knit circle of senior advisers playing a dominant role." Washington Post story here.
New York Times: "In a terse four words, the Supreme Court on Monday issued an order upholding prohibitions against foreigners making contributions to influence American elections. The decision clamped shut an opening that some thought the court had created two years ago in its Citizens United decision, when it relaxed campaign-finance limits on corporations and labor unions. On Monday the Supreme Court, upholding a lower court’s decision in Bluman, et al., v. Federal Election Commission, refused to extend its reasoning in Citizens United to cover foreigners living temporarily here."
New York Times: "After more than a week of not taking questions from his press corps, and after two days of back-to-back comments that his campaign has scrambled to explain, Mitt Romney ... sought to clarify remarks he has made about fearing the 'pink slip' in his private sector career, as well as his statement earlier in the day that he likes 'being able to fire' people or businesses that provide poor service."
New York Times: "Poised to dominate the new Parliament here, Egypt’s largest Islamist group is putting off an expected confrontation with Egypt’s military rulers, keeping its distance from more radical Islamist parties and hoping that the United States will continue to support the country financially, a top leader of the group’s political arm said Sunday. In a wide-ranging interview, Essam el-Erian, a senior leader of the political party founded by the group, the Muslim Brotherhood, said the party had decided to support keeping the caretaker prime minister and cabinet appointed by the ruling military council in office for the next six months."
New York Times: "The head of the Swiss central bank, who has been under fire for personal currency trades he and his wife made last year, will resign effective immediately, the bank said Monday. The resignation of Philipp M. Hildebrand came as a surprise. Just last week, he offered a detailed defense of his conduct and appeared to have the support of the council that oversees the Swiss National Bank."
New York Times: "American drug enforcement agents posing as money launderers secretly helped a powerful and his principal Colombian cocaine supplier move millions in drug proceeds around the world, as part of an effort to infiltrate and dismantle the criminal organizations wreaking havoc south of the border, according to newly obtained Mexican government documents."
New York Times: "’s Revolutionary Court has sentenced to death [Amir Mirzaei Hekmati,] a former United States Marine of Iranian descent, for spying for the Central Intelligence Agency, the semiofficial Fars news agency reported on Monday."
AP: "Diplomats on Monday confirmed a report that Iran has begun uranium enrichment at an underground bunker and said the news is particularly worrying because the site is being used to make material that can be upgraded more quickly for use in a nuclear weapon than the nation's main enriched stockpile."
New York Times: "Tony Blankley, who frustrated and entertained reporters as press secretary to Newt Gingrich during his rise to power in the House, then joined the press corps himself as a columnist and editorial page editor at The Washington Times, died on Saturday in Washington. He was 62."
ABC News: "Novartis Consumer Health Inc. ... announced today that it is voluntarily recalling several over-the-counter products after complaints about broken pills found in some products.... The drugs being recalled are the pain reliever Excedrin and the caffeine tablets NoDoz with expiration dates of Dec. 20, 2014 or earlier, and the aspirin Bufferin, and the stomach medicine Gas-X Prevention with with expiration dates of Dec. 20, 2013 or earlier. The company says these bottles may contain pills of other Novartis products, or pills that are chipped and broken."
13 Comments
Reader Comments (13)
Yes, indeedy! I think Bill Keller has a good point, Marie. Robert Reich agrees. Hillary is too worn out to continue as Secretary of State, and I hear that Joe Biden has always coveted the job. GO JOE! Hillary could certainly help Barry with Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire and Arkansas--HUH? (Didn't mean that last one.)
I like this new forum, Marie. Thanks for keeping on keeping on! And my request of Obama haters, please do not comment on this new forum. We have HAD it with you. Perhaps he is the LOTE. But please do NOT think about "Nadering" him! And keep your 3rd party comments to yourself--or go to another blog! I say this for myself only--with no permission from Marie!
@Kate;
Thanks for answering a lot of questions about this site. No free thinkers allowed. Go along to get along. Hmmmm, where have I heard that before? I'm a misfit, I can take it, and I can take a hint. I won't bother you anymore.
Good bye.
Without revealing any private conversations or circumstances, I can say unequivocally that the Doktor has not left us for reasons having to do with anything Kate Madison wrote in her comment above.
If you wish to advocate for third-party candidates, of course you may do so. However, as always, it's most helpful if your advocacy makes sense and is defensible. For instance, the oft-repeated "there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans" does not stand up to even the most superficial scrutiny.
As someone who frequents this site for it's intelligent, (usually) non-combative, well thought out comments, but rarely (almost never) contributes since others say it so much better - thanks Kate M. especially, I shall miss it terribly if it goes though I can understand the reasons why.
As an aside, why New Hampshire for G-d's sake, and not the terrific little state to the west?
I guess I should clear up the New Hampshire misunderstanding. I was kidding. Three New Hampshire legislators plan to introduce a bill that would require all civil liberties legislation in the state to be based on liberties outlined in the Magna Carta, and each piece of legislation would have to include the line from the MC that validated the legislation. Since the Magna Carta was primarily concerned with the rights of English lords, that would leave a slew of us out of any future civil rights legislation in New Hampshire. And there are some specifics: for instance, requirements of the MC like this one do not bode well for Granite state women: "No-one is to be taken or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of anyone save for the death of that woman’s husband."
I've been to New Hampshire. Several times. It's a lovely state. But I have no plans to move there. Unless I become an English lord.
I doubt whether Hillary would vie for the vice presidential position, nor would it be a good idea for the Obama administration. I say this because there are large slabs of people, the ones who flung the hysterical insults her way when she was running for president, that would come out in droves with their insults, the kind that would be flung at any vaguely liberal mildly feminist woman who shows a bit of spirit, independence, and speaks in declarative sentences without the cadence of a question. For these Clinton bashers it doesn't matter that Hillary has performed so very well in her present role; they would blame her for the Arab spring not being springy enough. Those that followed women like Palin and Bachman are not the kind, I don't think, that would rally around Clinton. As it is Obama has a safe ticket with Biden and their thinking might be that it would be better to keep the status quo–––but who knows what show will be presented, what choices we will be given––stay tuned.
@PD - There you go. Just as I bought the Keller argument, you go and restate all my original questions as I started reading the Keller column. Like....Keller? I didn't think he was so reliable. And then he mentions Caddell and Schoen. Aren't they totally unreliable? But my primary reaction was like PD's - less elegantly stated - Oh god. Are we going to give them ANOTHER cudgel with which to beat us? And how can you dump Joe? I thought Keller handled that little problem rather nicely. But dear god. I'm not up for all these battles. (My fault. I watch all the debates, read Sullivan and Sardonicky.) But I'm also not up for a loss. JJG used to go to work. I think I'll go back to bed.
Has anyone wondered why we have not had one moderator in all these many debates ask any of these clowns what powers they think NDAA authorizes for the president and if they believe it is in conflict with the Constitution? (They can skip Ron Paul.) I don't know that that will help Obama, but it sure does seem to be basic journalism.
@Kate Madison:
I have to disagree with you, for at least two significant reasons:
1) You may find it annoying to contend with what you call the “Obama Haters”, or those who seem fact-challenged, but to borrow the spirit of Willie Sutton’s phrase: that’s where this country is, and that’s where the voters are. If progressives are to have any hope of winning, they had better be willing to refute at least the most damaging alternative ideologies, and be well-practiced at doing so.
2) While this country may seem polarized into two camps, I would argue that is partly an artifact of the two-party system, political manipulation, and politicians’ propensity to claim a mandate. At least across some issues, be they economic, social, law-and-order, the environment, or what not, there is, if not a smooth and level continuum, at least a multi-polar diversity of public opinion. Furthermore, noticeable breakpoints as may exist across these different issues do not all fall in the same place, and certainly not where they are stereotyped to be. (For instance, I consider myself well left-of-center politically on most issues. However, even though I don’t personally “pack heat”, my views on gun control are more similar to JJG’s than you might imagine).
Progressives need to peel votes away from the center- and the right-wing demographics. Stereotyping or dismissing anyone as right-wing on the basis of one or a few issues has no upside, it’ll only lose votes for progressivism. In general, I believe that demanding too much ideological purity is bad strategy and tactics — and is why the Republican Party, despite its supposed power, is traveling towards an evolutionary dead end. Yet I believe that Obama has been a poor leader, and as a voter, I believe in having my say — be it at RealityChex, or elsewhere — long before I step into the voting booth. Too many Democrats have been too quiet about Obama’s failure to aggressively pursue a progressive agenda, and I believe that has resulted in his moving further to the right than would otherwise have occurred. Telling us (or anyone, of any political persuasion) to go away won’t make the problem go away.
@Fred Drumlevitch-
...."Too many Democrats have been too quiet about Obama’s failure to aggressively pursue a progressive agenda, and I believe that has resulted in his moving further to the right than would otherwise have occurred...."
I guess you and I live in separate realities, Fred. In my universe, I have grown weary of the constant Obama-bashing and "anybody but Obama" meme. In fact, on several progressive blogs there is very little mention made of the out-of-sight crazy Republicans--and much more attention given to how evil Obama is. Some progressives say they plan to vote for Bernie Sanders, even though that is a completely wasted vote, and--beyond that--he has no desire to run.
I call it "the politics of resentment." I certainly am, like you, disappointed in Obama, but I hardly think he is the most evil President we have ever had. And though I will not campaign or contribute to him, I will vote for him--for reasons I have mentioned many times--starting with the Supremes and federal court appointments.
Open your eyes and start noticing how much excessive Obama-bashing and useless whining is going on in our progressive movement. This will not help our cause, and I really do not want to hear any more about how he is "just like Bush." That is not to say, people cannot speak their minds. They should and will. But I agree with Marie--let us keep this within the realm of reason, and give facts to back up what we think.
@Fred Drumlevitch—
In three brilliant paragraphs you have summarized a large part of what I have been trying to convey to Progessives via my Conservative participation in Reality Chex OTS and now, over at Sardonicky, too. I will be copying your words off the site and filing them away for further reference and use—always with proper attribution.
(See ya on your web site when Reality Chex is no more. Mrs. Zee's patience is already wearing thin at the amount of time I spend here, so I daren't add another site just yet).
I came to RC OTS because I sensed that I have much in common with Progressives, and I think that that perception has proven to be accurate. I’ve also learned that some Progressives hold some pretty Conservative values themselves in at least some areas of importance to me. I see this as a hopeful sign that with sufficient discussion, by truly listening to one another—and, yes, making some strategic compromises—we can act together for the public good in the really important areas. @Fred says it all.
That’s why it breaks my heart that RC OTS is no more, though I am profoundly grateful that you, @Marie, have given us a brief respite by permitting discussion to go on in this forum for a little longer, at least.
I'm a craven coward. I'd apologize to a mugger that I wasn't carrying more money. I'm not without a list of major disappointments but I think it is really important that Obama be re-elected. So here goes nothing....
I am going to send him money, dammit. And if it wins me a dinner with the Obama's, I'm going to take an autograph book and my 13 year old granddaughter so she can take one of those innertubes video and Marie can post it on Reality Chex!
@Kate Madison:
On stereotyping: Consider religious belief as a basis by which people have been stereotyped. Religion can range from prosperity theology to the view that people are their brothers’ keepers. It can range from a belief that humans have a fundamental, God-given right to use up all of the Earth’s resources for their own benefit, to the view that people are tasked by God to be protective stewards of the natural environment. It has been the handmaiden of Nazism, and also fought against it. It has rationalized a belief that God wants slavery and segregation, and been the inspiration for the risk of life and limb by churchgoers aiding the civil rights movement. So while there have been many offenses against humanity and nature done in the name of religion, and I myself am not religious, I am obliged to acknowledge that under some circumstances, religion has been a highly beneficial force, and some of its believers have been, and should be, an inspiration.
My point is that too much stereotyping and ideological purity are counterproductive in many ways, not the least of which is with regard to achieving political victory in elections in a democratic republic, as well as moving the country forward in a beneficial manner.
One small correction to my earlier post: I meant to say that I significantly agree with “Zee” (rather than “JJG”) with regard to firearms legislation; I don’t remember from past discussions what JJG’s position on the subject was, but from lengthy recent discussions at Sardonicky (mostly not involving myself), I do have a fairly clear sense of Zee’s position. And I know that my beliefs are not unique among left-wing Democrats.
As far as your claim that voting for Bernie Sanders is undesirable, I’ll reiterate the point I’ve made at least twice before at RealityChex: It depends on the state in which you live. My assessment is that in Arizona, Obama has absolutely no chance of victory. Therefore, given the Electoral College per-state winner-take-all system that applies in all states but one, a vote for Bernie or other protest candidate, or failure to cast a presidential ballot, by me wouldn’t prevent a potential Obama win. (That is, provided that the old proposal of a multi-state compact to award their electoral votes en masse to the nationwide popular vote winner has not been passed and implemented; I or some other reader on this forum will need to verify that). Those living elsewhere need to make their own assessments.
With regard to your point about “… noticing how much excessive Obama-bashing and useless whining is going on in our progressive movement”, I would assert: 1) that while significant criticism is visible on the electronic forums, it is not that much when considered across the whole spectrum of potential pro-Democratic voters, many of whom get their entire political knowledge from television, friends, and relatives; 2) that a show of displeasure is warranted, and is being done (at least by some) with the hope that it will not be useless. There have been several notable American historical instances (FDR on economic matters, Kennedy and Johnson on civil rights) where pressure from left of the administration’s positions gave a Democratic president political cover to do what was morally right but otherwise politically problematic.
@Zee: thanks for the compliment.
@Marie: thanks for the compliment on your January 10 Commentariat introduction.