Tuesday
Jun042013
The Commentariat -- June 5, 2013
Mark Landler of the New York Times: "In a major shakeup of President Obama's foreign-policy inner circle, Tom Donilon, the national security adviser, is resigning and will be replaced by Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, White House officials said on Tuesday. The appointment, which Mr. Obama plans to make on Wednesday afternoon, puts Ms. Rice, 48, an outspoken diplomat and a close political ally, at the heart of the administration's foreign-policy apparatus.... The post of national security adviser, while powerful, does not require Senate confirmation. Mr. Obama also plans to nominate Samantha Power, a National Security Council official, as Ms. Rice's replacement at the United Nations on Wednesday. "
Advise and Consent
Michael Shear & Jeremy Peters of the New York Times: "President Obama's announcement of three nominees to an important federal appeals court on Tuesday is adding fuel to a larger fight on Capitol Hill over whether the minority party in the Senate has too much power to thwart a president's agenda." ...
... Here, BTW, was Shear & Peters' original lede: "President Obama set a confrontation with Senate Republicans in motion on Tuesday morning by naming a slate of judges to a top appeals court and daring his rivals to block their confirmations." ...
... John Cole of Balloon Juice: "Only in the Beltway Media could the President doing his constitutionally approved duties be considered picking a fight. But, you know, both sides do it, so, let's just move along.... As long as the stenographers keep writing vapid pieces like this, [Republicans] are just going to keep on keeping on." ...
... Emily Bazelon of Slate: "This is an in-your-face response to Republican obstructionism. In other words, it's totally unlike Obama, who has been especially slow to put up nominees for the appeals courts and the district courts. But at this moment in time, it is very much in his self-interest. The president needs these judges to cement his own legacy.... Obama is also safeguarding the power the Constitution gives every president to select federal judges." ...
... Greg Sargent: Republicans deny they have been slow to confirm President Obama's judicial nominees, but some studies demonstrate that their obstructionism is, as Obama said yesterday, "unprecedented." There's even an "Index of Obstruction and Delay," & the winner is -- Republicans in the 112th Congress.
Burgess Everett of Politico: "The Senate will begin considering the landmark immigration reform bill next week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday morning."
Senate Race
David Halbfinger & Kate Zernicke of the New York Times: "Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, in a decision fraught with political implications, announced on Tuesday that he would schedule a special election in October for the Senate seat left vacant by the death of Frank R. Lautenberg. The decision to set the vote for Oct. 16, a Wednesday, was immediately attacked by Democrats in the state, who said the move by Mr. Christie, a Republican, amounted to squandering taxpayer money to protect his own political ambitions.... The special election to replace Mr. Lautenberg, a Democrat, will cost almost $12 million to stage, and will come barely three weeks before the regular November ballot.... The governor also scheduled primary elections for Aug. 13. The cost also will be nearly $12 million." ...
... Josh Kraushaar of the National Journal: "Republicans are fuming over New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's decision to hold an early special election to fill the seat of the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, with several Washington-based operatives suggesting he's putting his own interests ahead of the GOP's. The decision to hold a separate special election in October 2013 -- just two weeks before his own election -- would give any interested Republican candidates little time to announce, organize a campaign, and raise the necessary money to take on a top-tier Democrat.... While none wanted to be quoted publicly, all dripped with disdain for Christie's decision, calling it self-serving." ...
... Daniel Halper of the Weekly Standard: "In a move aimed at saving money, the New Jersey governor last year signed a bill to consolidate local elections." ...
... David Giambusso of the Star-Ledger: " While Newark Mayor Cory Booker is almost certain to jump into a special August U.S. Senate primary, he and his advisers declined to discuss the mayor's plans today after Gov. Chris Christie announced a hyper-abbreviated campaign schedule to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Frank Lautenberg." ...
... Nate Silver: "It may be reasonable to infer ... that Mr. Christie evaluated the Republican field and did not like what he saw -- and that Booker, [a Democrat,] is poised to win the Senate seat with relative ease." ...
... Josh Barro of Business Insider: Chris Christie proved again today that he's a political genius." (link fixed)
Donna Cassata of the AP: "Lawmakers outraged by sexual assaults in the military are moving swiftly to address the problem, tackling legislation that would strip commanders of their authority to overturn convictions in rape and assault cases.The House Armed Services Committee plans to consider a sweeping, $638 billion defense policy bill for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. Debate over numerous provisions on sexual assault, the war in Afghanistan, missile defense and the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is expected throughout the day Wednesday. A final panel vote is likely late into the evening." CW: Outraged? Really? Read the report. The legislators who drew up the House bill are not so outraged that they plan to alter more than a few egregious military practices. ...
... Young Men Are Natural-Born Rapists. David Edwards of Raw Story: "Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) on Tuesday suggested that the 'hormone level created by nature' was to blame for rapes in the military and that all pregnant servicewomen should be investigated to make sure their condition was the result of consensual sex. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on sexual assaults within the military, Chambliss opined that the Pentagon's decision to allow women in combat roles was only going to make the problem worse." With video, if you can't believe anybody would say such stupid stuff. ...
... Sandra Fluke Redux. Stacy Kaper of the National Journal: "The Senate Armed Services Committee takes up the issue of sexual assaults in the military at a hearing Tuesday -- a hearing where witnesses opposed to reform will outnumber supporters 18-2 and not a single sexual assault victim will testify.... With the bulk of witnesses representing the military, whose officers are unsurprisingly adverse to bills that strip them of authority over abuse cases, even reform supporters have little hope for legislation that goes beyond Defense Department recommendations." ...
... Maureen Dowd: "The brass agreed there was a 'cancer' in the military, but their rigid, nonsensical response boiled down to: Trust us. We'll fix the system, even though we don't really believe it's broken. They were unanimously resistant to the shift that several of our allies have made, giving lawyers, rather than commanders, the power to take cases to court." ...
... GOP Deepens Its Problems with Women. Jamelle Bouie in the Washington Post: "Given the wide number of sexual assault cases, it seems hard to argue that the current system is adequate to the scope of the problem. But these influential Republican senators [-- John Cornyn of Texas & James Inhofe of Oklahoma --] have adopted the case for the status quo.... The GOP will be on record as unwilling to take steps to deal with sexual assault in the military.... It's as if some Republicans are actively trying to take the party's weaknesses, and amplify them."
** I Can't Believe I Read It in Politico. Darren Samuelsohn & Lauren French: "The conservative groups testifying about overzealous IRS scrutiny during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing Tuesday can't get around a simple fact: All have been involved in the kinds of political activity that's ripe for red flags. Simple searches on Google, Facebook, Twitter and other news engines point to plenty of political activities that are the essence of what the IRS looks for when deciding who gets an exemption from Uncle Sam. The group leaders attended rallies to stop Obama administration priorities and ripped into the president's work on health care and missile defense. They spoke openly about defeating President Barack Obama in the 2012 election. They pushed for winners in state and local election races."
It's 1999 All Over Again. Dana Milbank: "... House Republicans have shelved a serious legislative agenda this year in favor of 24/7 investigations.... Rep. John Boehner's spokesman wrote on the House speaker's official blog that a speech by Obama on student loans was an attempt 'to change the subject from its growing list of scandals.' It's telling that the GOP leadership would view a student loan event as a distraction from scandals but wouldn't see the obsession with scandals as a distraction from pocketbook issues.... Republicans, after fighting Obama's economic policies for four years, may have no better option than to focus on scandal now that the economy is rebounding." ...
... Darrell, the Darling of the GOP. Shane Goldmacher of the National Journal: "For all the polite Washington handwringing over [Darrell Issa's calling Jay Carney a 'paid liar],' the truth is this: Issa's aggressive approach is just what the Republican House leadership wants. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor singled out Issa for praise at a closed-door GOP conference meeting on Tuesday. Hours later, Cantor gave him plaudits on national television.... Indeed, top House Republicans are lining up behind the Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman, even as it becomes clear that Issa is stretching the evidence to support his claim that the IRS's targeting of tea-party groups was directed from Washington."
Tea Party Tax Policy
I think we ought to abolish the IRS and instead move to a simple flat tax where the average American can fill out taxes on postcard. Put down how much you earn, put down a deduction for charitable contributions, home mortgage and how much you owe. It ought to be a simple one-page postcard, and take the agents, the bureaucracy out of Washington and limit the power of government. -- Sen. Ted Cruz (RTP-Texas)
While it is important for Congress to investigate the most recent scandal and ensure all involved are held accountable, we cannot pretend that the problem is a few bad actors. The very purpose of the IRS is to transfer wealth from one group to another while violating our liberties in the process, thus the only way Congress can protect our freedoms is to repeal the income tax and shutter the doors of the IRS once and for all. -- Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)
Peter Wallsten of the Washington Post: "First lady Michelle Obama experienced a rare face-to-face encounter with a protester late Tuesday -- approaching the activist and threatening to leave a fundraiser if the person did not stop interrupting her speech.... A pool report from a reporter in the room said Obama 'left the lectern and moved over to the protester.' [The protester, Ellen] Sturtz, was escorted out of the room. She said in an interview later she was stunned by Obama's response. 'She came right down in my face,' Sturtz said. 'I was taken aback.'" ...
... CW: Excuuuuse me, Ms. Sturtz, but you repeatedly interrupted Obama, & you're complaining that she got in your face? While I agree with Sturtz's complaint, I don't approve of the way she chose to make it. I think hecklers hurt rather than help whatever their objective is. I've attended innumerable meetings in which public officials spoke, & I've never once interrupted or heckled them. And of course Michelle Obama is not a public official. (Come to think of it, the wife of the local mayor once got in my face after a meeting in which I spoke -- politely & when called upon -- against some proposal of the mayor's. I told her I wished she'd be as courteous to me as I was to her husband.) What do you think? Is heckling effective? Did Sturtz's outbursts advance her cause?
Whaaa, whaaa, whaaa. He never calls. He never writes. [Paraphrase.] -- Sen. Chuck Grassley, [RDopey-Iowa] on President Obama
Another 2012 Post-Mortem. Steven Shepard of the National Journal: "Nearly seven months after President Obama won reelection by a margin of 4 percentage points, the Gallup Organization, the world's best-known polling firm, identified in a new report four main reasons why their 2012 surveys badly understated Obama's support. The report, unveiled at a Tuesday morning event at the firm's headquarters in Washington, detailed the reasons why Gallup believes that its polls failed to predict Obama's victory. Gallup's final pre-election poll showed Mitt Romney leading Obama by a percentage point, 49 percent to 48 percent. But in the previous survey -- conducted immediately before Hurricane Sandy disrupted pollsters' plans in the week before the election -- Romney held a 5-point lead, 51 percent to 46 percent."
Cecilia Kang of the Washington Post: "A U.S. trade agency on Tuesday banned the sale of several iPhone and iPad models for infringing a Samsung patent, dealing a high-profile setback to Apple's crusade against copycats. If upheld, the ruling would show that at least some of Apple's iconic technology duplicated that of its primary competitor in the mobile-device market, an embarrassment for a company that has held itself up as the source of Silicon Valley's most groundbreaking innovations. Samsung, once a bit player in the cellphone market, now sells more smartphones than Apple around the world."
Erin Overbey of the New Yorker: "Forty-five years ago today, Robert F. Kennedy was shot at the Ambassador Hotel, in Los Angeles, shortly after winning the California Democratic primary. Coming on the heels of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., just two months earlier, the assassination of the forty-two-year-old candidate left the nation reeling with grief...."
Local News
Rosalind Helderman of the Washington Post is still all over Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's dealings with Star Scientific: "Top aides to Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) expressed concerns about the governor's participation in a 2011 event at the governor's mansion that marked the launch of a dietary supplement made by a major McDonnell campaign donor, according to newly released e-mails." The governor's wife Maureen spearheaded the event, which, BTW, was billed as a "Lunch for Virginia Researchers." ...
... Washington Post Editors: "... , ethics controversies now threaten to swamp [McDonnell's] last year in office, shadowing not only his putative presidential or vice presidential ambitions but also his gubernatorial legacy.... What appear to be repeated instances of using definitional sleight of hand to skirt state disclosure laws have deepened suspicions that more damaging revelations about the governor may be forthcoming."
Steve Eder of the New York Times: "In early April, as the Rutgers president, Robert L. Barchi, was working to defuse a coaching abuse scandal, he named Gregory S. Jackson, a university administrator, to be his chief of staff. Jackson, though, was already facing his own legal problems. About three months earlier, Jackson was sued by four longtime employees in the university's career services office, all in their late 50s and early 60s. They said that he had engaged in a 'campaign of discriminatory actions' against them because of their age, ostracizing them and ultimately forcing their retirement. Barchi was aware of the lawsuit when he promoted Jackson, according to Rutgers officials."
Chris Gentilviso of the Huffington Post: "A Texas Tea Party activist is in hot water over comments charging that the Republican Party doesn't want black people to vote because of tough odds. Audio posted by Democratic group Battleground Texas on Tuesday has Ken Emanuelson, a leading state Tea Party figure, answering a question about black voters at a May 20 Dallas County GOP event.... Later on Tuesday, Emanuelson backtracked on his remarks, clarifying that it 'was a mistake' and nothing more than a 'personal opinion.'" Thanks to Jeanne B. for the lead.
News Ledes
Politico: 'Following a barrage of criticism from politicians, unions, airlines and consumers, John Pistole, [the TSA administrator,] said on Wednesday knives with blades just under 2.5 inches long and other items that could be used as weapons will not be allowed on board planes after all."
Philadelphia Inquirer: "Two buildings collapsed in a busy commercial strip of Center City Philadelphia this morning leaving 13 people injured and one other person still trapped amid the rubble. An older woman was pulled from the wreckage within the last several minutes. Reporters at the scene said firefighters are still surrounding an area of the building where the last person is apparently trapped, but officials have not given a condition of the last trapped victim."
AP: "U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg's nearly three decades in office and the causes he championed will be remembered at a funeral service in New York. A service was set for 11:30 a.m. Wednesday at Park Avenue Synagogue in Manhattan.... Vice President Joe Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and members of Lautenberg's family were set to deliver eulogies."
New York Times: "In more than six hours of meetings over two days, with ample time for dinner and a sunset stroll beneath the San Jacinto Mountains, administration officials hope Mr. Obama and [Chinese President] Xi [Jinping], who met for the first time last year in Washington, will really get to know each other, while exchanging ideas about how best to manage a complex, sometimes combustible relationship between the world's two biggest economies."
AP: " The American soldier charged with killing 16 Afghan civilians during nighttime raids on two slumbering villages last year is expected to recount the horrific slaughter in a military courtroom Wednesday when he pleads guilty to avoid the death penalty. Staff Sgt. Robert Bales is charged with premeditated murder and other counts in the March 2012 attacks near the remote base in southern Afghanistan where he was posted." ...
... Update: "The American soldier charged with killing 16 Afghan civilians during nighttime raids on two villages last year pleaded guilty Wednesday then described shooting each victim, telling a military judge he has asked himself "a million times" why he did it. To avoid the death penalty, Staff Sgt. Robert Bales pleaded guilty to multiple counts of murder at the hearing at Joint Base Lewis-McChord south of Seattle. He then read from a statement in a clear and steady voice, describing his actions for each killing in the same terms." The Seattle Times story is here.
Guardian: "Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of the biggest intelligence leak in US history, came face-to-face on Tuesday with the man who turned him in to military authorities. Adrian Lamo, a former computer hacker, was giving evidence at the court martial of Manning, whom he had never met but whose life he changed dramatically by informing on him to counter-intelligence officers."
New York Times: "Rebekah Brooks, the former chief executive of Rupert Murdoch's newspaper outpost [in London], appeared in court on Wednesday and denied five counts relating to the phone hacking scandal that forced the closure of one of the country's biggest tabloid newspapers and sent shock waves through the press, the police and the political establishment."
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (11)
Christie's decision seem politically sensible, whether or not I agree is irrelevant. Given the circumstance, I would likely have done the same... if I was smart enough to understand it.
Re: the DC Circuit Court circus go around. Last night on the PBS News Hour (and I imagine on Fox) I heard once again the argument that Obama was "court packing" just like FDR tried to do. Huh? I yelled! When Grassley accused the president of court-packing, it was pointed out correctly that Roosevelt was trying to set up new seats on the Supreme Court that the Congress had not authorized whereas Obama was only nominating judges for judgeships that already existed. So here again we have facts that are ignored and fallacies that get press.
Watching our feisty females launch grenades at all those Generals sitting in a row looking smart and cowardly was such a treat. But they aren't going to budge, are they? They want the control and by god, all this sexual abuse stuff is not going to change it. Will Congress be able to force them to change? Why would legislators vote against this?
On the question of heckling: I'm all for decorum. In all the town meetings I have attended there was a Q&A after the main speaker's talk; time then to air your concerns. I find these voices, as correct as they may be, that interrupt a speaker rude and irritating. The art (skill) of being able to handle controversial concerns ( by the speaker) takes experience and the ability to show respect to whomever is bringing up concerns even if way over the top. Also having a good sense of humor goes a long way.
I would like to believe that decorum and reasoned argument are always more effective than loud and impolite demonstrations, means, if you will, that neatly reflect a desired end.
But...
when the other side is not listening...is impervious to reasoned argument....when the power relationship is so skewed in one direction that the common citizen can count on being brushed aside and ignored (a circumstance not as likely to obtain at a town meeting as, let's say, when a President is speaking), then...
I think what could commonly thought of as rudeness can have a positive effect. For one thing, the behavior could call attention to an issue that would not otherwise be covered by a media addicted to sensation. For another, sometimes an expression of disrespect is an understandable and even justifiable response to a public figure whose behavior has earned it. And depending on the social and political circumstance, if public opinion is at a tipping point, appropriately applied rudeness can help nudge it over the edge in the desired direction.
Of course, I'm thinking of Vietnam here: burning draft cards, shouts of "Hell no, we won't go," far cruder language and exhibitions in public places. I once witnessed baggies of urine pelting a Vice-President's limo as he came to a college campus to justify a war I suspect he did not himself believe in. At the time and still today, I saw that as a natural expression of understandable outrage at a murderous policy and a craven man.
So...like many answers to knotty questions, in this case heckling's effectiveness, I would say it depends and thus allows plenty of room for differing opinions. And as reason would have it, often we won't know who's right until hindsight has its final say.
All that said, personally I have a negative visceral response to impolite behavior. I find it discomfiting. When I'm close to it, I get edgy and immediately want to be somewhere else. I blame it on my ("be polite, Kenny") upbringing...or maybe I'm just timid and don't want to be around when bad stuff happens...
Suspicious individual that I am...the refusal to address sexual assault in the military in any meaningful way, looks like a not so subtle statement against women in the military. That way the degenerates could return to raping local women and the generals could return to issues that really matter - there problem solved.
As I was reading about McDonnell's balls-in-hot-water scenario, I couldn't help but wonder if he took "favors" from the vaginal probe manufacturers too. Perhaps there is a cache of vaginal probe samples somewhere still to be found on the McDonnell premises.
The heckler was out of order.
Read the article that CW linked and Ms. Sturtz was showboating. She wanted to draw attention (and did) from the media. But...'twas an inappropriate place and target. Frankly, I admire Michelle Obama's response. I doubt my reaction would have been that measured. Good for her.
A few words about heckling and hecklers.
Is it effective? I suppose that depends on your goal and what you consider effective. If your goal is to get your name and your cause some publicity it might be. But the publicity sword cuts both ways. If you’re Ellen Sturtz and your group is trying to push the issue of non-discrimination, maybe your heckling pushes your issue higher up the president’s list, especially if it has been languishing.
But perhaps not if he believes others will see that he can be moved (bullied) to action by a rather uncivil outburst, especially if that outburst was directed at his wife (although, as Ken points out, certain circumstances and issues require such outbursts).
Then again, if you’re Joe (“You lie”) Wilson, your heckling puts you on a list of historic assholes (although in Right Wing World he’s a heroe (sic)), whose outburst solidified the view of many that Republicans are disrespectful, hateful scumbags.
In general I side with PD. Having attended scores of public meetings over the years I can say that respectful back and forth, especially if conducted by someone in command of their facts and their composure, can be very effective (if not always successful).
Hecklers, especially the fire breathing, out of control ranters who won’t even let the speaker respond, make themselves look foolish and can possibly hurt their cause in the eyes of those who might be on the fence, and aren’t those the ones you’re trying to convince? Opponents are hard to convince in any case. Those already on your side don’t need convincing, but they also don’t want to be made to look bad by impolitic actions on behalf of a cause they support.
President Obama has come in for a fair amount of heckling. He usually handles it pretty well. The First Lady’s approach was refreshingly direct (she doesn’t suffer such transgressions gladly it seems).
It bears remembering that President Bush, except for the odd shoe hurler, rarely dealt with hecklers, largely because his public appearances were carefully screened by GOP goons. In many cases members of the public were only allowed in after signing some kind of loyalty oath to Bush. Hecklers were allowed at his public speeches, but only in fenced off pens eight miles away, areas with some Big Brotherish name like “Free Speech Bubble” or some other fascist euphemism). So Bush never ever heard dissenting opinions and was free to act on the fantasies bouncing around in his own hollow head unburdened by fact or opposition.
Thankfully heckling is not the dominant mode of communication at public meetings and appearances. If it were, public hearings would disintegrate into the kind of anarchic shouting most often seen in Britain at Parliamentary proceedings and soccer matches, which may actually be the same thing.
Respectful questioning should be the preferred mode of interaction at public events. Except, perhaps, as Ken mentions, in special circumstances under which it’s clear that your message is not wanted and will never be heard. An alternative to that however, is the method adopted by Gandhi and Dr. King, both of whose approaches were ultimately successful.
I tend to restrict my own heckling to baseball umpires who neglect to wipe the sweat off their glass eye or who leave their seeing eye dog back at the hotel.
Sturtz has a problem with Barack, not Michelle. She should learn to differentiate between the two. I'm strongly in favour of political families being off-limits to the public. If not, what are the limits? Throw eggs at the children? Protest Iraq by attacking Barbara? Poison the dog?
The NYT's editorial re: Obama's meeting with China's president, Xi Jinping is entitled "Getting to Know You." Much to discuss between these two leaders, and one hopes their time together is fruitful and is without rancor. How neat it would be if they shared a lunch of some of that Smithfield ham while Spanky and
our Gang's "Like to Get to Know You" played in the background.
Question: If Cruz and Paul want to eliminate the IRS who in the dickens would process all those millions and millions of little postcards that they suggest people could scribble their info on? Flat tax, my ass!
Sturz has confused Michelle with Barack. The First Lady is not the President, she just happens to be married to him. Further, IMO a fundraiser is not the same as a press conference or town hall. Since she isn't a government official, and was at a private meeting, she was within her rights to get in Sturz' face.
(Of course, the Miitster found out what you say at a fundraiser can come back to bite you.)
Save your issues for a town hall where the President, not Michelle, addresses citizen concerns.
@MAG: In Sturtz' case as reported, I agree.
Re: flat tax. Aside from the neat conjunction of the adjective (that was fun!) which suggests a relationship between a flat tax proponent and a flat earther, there is little to recommend the idea. It makes no sense either morally or mathematically. First of all, unless one sets the tax rate much higher than its proponents suggest when they are in their huckster mode, a flat tax does not generate nearly enough revenue; even the madcap Romney and Ryan tax plan made more arithmetical sense. And then there's the moral element, should anyone who wants a flat tax system want to consider it, which I strongly suspect they don't. A flat tax would inevitably perpetuate and increase the already socially unsustainable gap between rich and poor, a yawning gap that is not only politically and socially destabilizing but just (I won't desist) flat wrong.