The Commentariat -- March 5, 2012

Paul Krugman writes the anti-Olympia Snowe column (he doesn't mention her, but ...): "... we can take a big step toward full employment just by using the federal government’s low borrowing costs to help state and local governments rehire the schoolteachers and police officers they laid off, while restarting the road repair and improvement projects they canceled or put on hold." ...

... Here was Matt Yglesias of Slate last week on Snowe's "feckless" impact on the 2009 stimulus: "She chose to use her influence to trim down the spending side of the package, with a particular focus on reducing federal financial assistance to state and local governments."

Steven Sloan & Kathleen Hunter of Bloomberg News: "Senate Democrats are considering a debate on ending the George W. Bush-era tax cuts for top earners before the November election because they think they’re in a stronger position than in 2010, said Senator Charles Schumer."

President Obama's Ode to Israel speech to AIPAC yesterday contained a fairly blunt warning to his GOP rivals:

     ... Helene Cooper of the New York Tiimes: "As Republicans on the campaign trail ramped up their support for Israel in a possible military strike on Iran, President Obama used a speech before a pro-Israel lobbying group on Sunday to warn against the 'loose talk of war' that could serve to speed Iran toward a nuclear weapon." ...

     ... ** Amir Oren of Haaretz: "After a speech like that, [President Obama's] meeting with [Israeli PM Benjamin] Netanyahu on Monday is almost superfluous: It already seems clear that Obama is determined not to grant him anything. Obama sent a complex, multifaceted message. He is a loyal friend of Israel, as evidenced by both the record of his actions over the last three years and the testimony of an eminent witness, President Shimon Peres. He is absolutely and unequivocally opposed to Iran having nuclear weapons. But he is first and foremost the U.S. president, whose commitment to do everything possible to thwart Iran's nuclear program has properly been given to the citizens of his own country -- the ones who will pay the price of any war with their lives and their wallets -- rather than to the impudent leader of a foreign country." Read the whole piece.

Josh Gerstein of Politico: President Transparency is mighty opaque -- a sorry assessment of the administration's so-called efforts to create "the most open and transparent government in history." ...

Obama Administration lawyers are aggressively fighting FOIA requests at the agency level and in court — sometimes on Obama’s direct orders. They’ve also wielded anti-transparency arguments even bolder than those asserted by the Bush administration. -- Josh Gerstein

Sari Horwtiz & Peter Finn of the Washington Post: "Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Monday plans to provide the most detailed account to date of the Obama administration’s legal rationale for killing U.S. citizens abroad, as it did in last year’s airstrike against an alleged al-Qaeda operative in Yemen, officials said. The rationale Holder plans to offer resembles, in its broad strokes, those previously offered by lower-ranking officials. But his speech Monday will mark a new and higher-profile phase of the administration’s campaign to justify lethal action in those rare instances in which U.S. citizens, such as New Mexico-born Anwar al-Awlaki, join terrorist causes devoted to harming their homeland."

Robert Barnes of the Washington Post: "Every version of the Supreme Court is different from the one that came before, and the current edition, it has been widely noted, is unusual in many ways."

NEW. Sandra Fluke appears on ABC's "The View":

     ... NEW. Media Matters has some excellent posts on the Limbaugh remarks and his "apology." Here is the post Fluke mentioned in her interview -- Justin Berrier & Eric Schroeck name some of the wingers who rushed to Rush's defense. Here is a roundup of commentators who criticize Limbaugh's "apology"; e.g., conservative David Frum calls it "about the most graceless apology ever": includes videos of commentary. And this one, by Chelsea Rudman, which might be titled, "Explaining Birth Control Methods to Misogynists & Health Insurance to Dummies." ...

Art by David Horsey of the Los Angeles Times.... NEW. David Horsey of the Los Angeles Times: on Limbaugh's attack on Fluke: "But it is nothing new. This is how he has 'entertained' day after day for years. He doesn’t debate. He doesn’t inform. He vilifies, insults, smears, slanders, distorts and misleads. Rush is a schoolyard bully who specializes in picking on girls – or 'feminazis,' as he loves to call them. Limbaugh has led the way in destroying civility in politics. It’s bad enough that his overbearing pseudo-patriotism has been emulated by other right-wing radio and TV commentators; worse is the fact he has become the oracle of the dominant wing of the Republican Party."

Brian Stelter of the New York Times: "On Sunday, a seventh company, ProFlowers, said that it was suspending all of its advertising on 'The Rush Limbaugh Show' despite his apologetic statement a day earlier.... Mr. Limbaugh ... is estimated to make $50 million a year and whose program is a profit center for Premiere Radio Networks, the company that syndicates it. The program makes money both through ads and through fees paid by local radio stations." ...

... Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair, speaks about Limbaugh & contraception coverage:

... Whitehouse.gov has a petition urging Sec. Panetta to take Limbaugh off Armed Forces Radio. You have to establish a White House account to sign the petition. ...

... Will Dunham of Reuters: "... Ron Paul expressed doubt on Sunday that conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh truly meant it when he apologized for calling a law student a 'slut' over her support for President Barack Obama's new policy on insurance coverage of contraceptives. 'I don't think he's very apologetic. He's doing it because some people were taking their advertisements off his program. It was his bottom line that he was concerned about,' Paul told the CBS program 'Face the Nation.'"

Amy Chozick of the New York Times: "The wave of incriminating headlines and the surging stock price reflect the cognitive dissonance generated by News Corporation’s phone hacking scandal."

If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed. -- Mitt Romney, Oracle of Detroit, in a New York Times op-ed, November 18, 2008. Thanks to Greg Sargent for the Reminder ...

... Yo, Willard! Chris Bury of ABC News: Arthur J. Gonzales, "the federal judge who presided over Chrysler’s bankruptcy, told ABC News ... that the ailing company could not have survived without taxpayer money.... President Obama is taking credit for saving more than a million jobs because of the bailouts, while Republican candidates have voiced their opposition to the government loans.... Mitt Romney insists, 'It was the wrong way to go,' and that General Motors and Chrysler should have gone through 'a private bankruptcy process.' ... The former chief judge also denied that the speedy bankruptcy hearing somehow prevented private investors from stepping up, pointing out that the government and Chrysler’s creditors had been seeking a solution for 18 months, to no avail."

Right Wing World

Prof. Neil Gross in the New York Times: Research indicates that attending college does not actually make you more liberal and less religious. The main reason this idea took hold is that it suited the conservative cause: "... attacking liberal professors as elitists ... helps position the conservative movement as a populist enterprise by identifying a predatory elite to which conservatism stands opposed — an otherwise difficult task for a movement strongly backed by holders of economic power."

Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker provides an historical overview of how extremists took over the Republican party; short version: public participation.

Mark Murray of NBC News: "Four in 10 of all adults say the GOP nominating process has given them a less favorable impression of the Republican Party, versus just slightly more than one in 10 with a more favorable opinion."

Art by Bob Staake.

Steve Holland & Jeremy Pelofsky of Reuters: "Mitt Romney closed in on Rick Santorum in Ohio and picked up a crucial endorsement in Virginia on Sunday as he grows in strength ahead of 'Super Tuesday,' the biggest day yet in the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination."

CW: just around to reading this New York Times article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg & Laurie Goodstein on the evolution of Rick Santorum's faith. It's interesting -- and scary, if you think he could be president. ...

... Carrie Budoff Brown of Politico interviews Karen Santorum. ...

A conservative, a liberal, and a moderate walk into a bar. The bartender says, ‘Hi, Mitt.' -- Foster Friess, Rick Santorum's sugar daddy

Ha! Romney Advised Obama to Use the Individual Mandate. Alec Kaczynski of BuzzFeed: "... Mitt Romney often ... says his [healthcare] plan was done on a state level, where the central theme to both plans, the individual mandate, was actually a conservative approach. But in a July 2009 op-ed in USA Today Romney thought the President could learn a thing or two from the plan he signed into law in Massachusetts, including using the individual mandate as an incentive for people to buy insurance."

David Brooks explains how Mitt Romney decided to run for president:

There he was a few years ago sitting on the front porch of his fourth summer home innocently wondering why the trees of New England are so unpleasantly tall, and he turns to his buddies, who own Nascar teams, hotel chains, political parties and various small emirates, and he asks them if it would be a good idea if he ran for president. They point out that a presidential campaign would allow him to recite obscure verses of patriotic songs all across America, so he agrees to do it.

News Ledes 

New York Times: "Syria's government made diplomatic gestures on Monday toward seeking an end to the uprising that has convulsed the country, agreeing for the first time to allow visits by the top United Nations relief official and by the newly designated envoy who represents the United Nations and the Arab League."

When One (Afghanistan) or Two (Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran) Wars Are Not Enough. Politico: "Arizona Republican John McCain on Monday will become the first U.S. senator to call for U.S.-led air strikes to stop the slaughter of unarmed civilians being carried out by the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad."

New York Times: "With Israel warning that it may mount a military strike against Iran, President Obama welcomed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday to the White House, but signaled that he would press for more time for a campaign of economic sanctions to work on Tehran." Story has been updated.

Guardian: "Al-Qaida militants have launched a surprise attack against army bases in southern Yemen, killing 78 soldiers, military officials say. The scale of Sunday's attack in Abyan province points to the militants' combat readiness as they launch more and more attacks in a region that the US considers a key battleground in the war on al-Qaida."

Haaretz: "Iran has tripled its monthly production of higher-grade enriched uranium and the UN nuclear watchdog has 'serious concerns' about possible military dimensions to Tehran's atomic activities, the agency's chief said on Monday. Yukiya Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, also told the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors about the lack of progress in two rounds of talks between the Vienna-based UN agency and Tehran this year."

Reuters: "American International Group (AIG) is selling part of its stake in AIA Group to raise about $6 billion to help the U.S. insurer repay a huge federal government bail-out."

Al Jazeera: "Russia's presidential elections were 'clearly skewed' in favour of Vladimir Putin and 'lacked fairness', international election monitors have reported as Putin celebrated returning to the Kremlin for a third term. In a statement issued on Monday, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, said that voting had been 'assessed positively overall and had produced a clear winner with an absolute majority'. But it said: 'Voter's choice was limited, electoral competition lacked fairness and an impartial referee was missing.'" ...

     ... New York Times Update: "While Mr. Putin was still celebrating his win, thousands of anti-government protesters gathered in a city square to blast his victory as illegitimate, chanting 'Russia without Putin,' and 'Putin is a thief; we are the government!' When riot police demanded the crowd disperse an hour later, dozens of demonstrators encircled the blogger Aleksei Navalny, the most charismatic figure to emerge in this wave of activism, but officers detained him and pushed him into a police van along with most of the movement’s other prominent leaders. Dozens of other arrests were reported, while determined protesters tried to keep regrouping."

Comments

[Carlyle]

Candidates for the Republican Presidential nominatiom enjoy the privilege of speaking without responsibility. Romney, Santorum and Gingrich may follow Netanyaho into battle tomorrow with impunity bccause it is just a pander to public support of Israel.
Our President, on the other hand, must make certain he is doing what is best for America now and for the future. He can't just go along for the political advantge it might give him.
President Obama must stand his ground against all the pro-Israel political pandering arrayed against him.

[Marie Burns]

@Carlyle. I agree. We'll see what they do. President Obama was pretty direct in his AIPAC speech; he told the GOP nominees to STFU because their saber-rattling was a security risk for both Israel & the U.S.

[Tom / Chicago]

Read the Santorum article, it was scary. Same age as me, same upbringing, amazing how different we all turn out.

Just cancelled my NYT subscription after a few passionate e's to online and exec. editors about the new commenter "community." Geez, they didn't even make Gemli a Trusted. Unbelievable. Then I went renegade and offered brief but caustic (honest) commentaries on many, many of the Trusted's posts. They did not like that. I had tried polite and magnanimous but that didn't get results, so for a few days I had some fun, before script expired.

Sure wish there was a way to contact you, but nevertheless glad I found and bookmarked this blog. You're the best. Losing Frank Rich and you brought the paper down.

[Haley Simon]

I'm in full agreement that the comment section has lost all its brilliance. However I'd bet that Gemli was offered the "Trusted" status, but turned it down because of the noxious Facebook requirements. What I don't understand is why they don't admit their error, dump the new format, and maybe regain some of the great writing that appeared in the comments.

[Marie Burns]

@Haley Simon. You're right. The Times did "trust" Gemli, but Gemli works in a sensitive position, & Facebook requires users to register with their real identities.

Of all of the frequent commenters with whom I was in contact, I was the only one the Times decided not to "trust." Before I learned this, I didn't take their treatment of me personally; I just thought imposing a hierarchy was a lousy way to treat commenters. But since I found that the Times had singled me out among all the frequent commenters, I have to assume they had a "reason." A commenter on this site claimed the Times "mistrusted" me because he had complained to them about my deleting some of his incendiary comments here. But I'm sure the Times doesn't give a flying fuck what I do on my own site, so surely they had some other reason. Since my comments were usually pretty popular & almost never got dinged for "abuse," I have no idea what that reason might be.

I have to say I don't at all miss commenting on the Times site. It was a daily hassle, and now that they have limited the character count to 1,500, it really is impossible to write a substantive response.

[UncleAlbert]

I agree that the Times lost the two best reasons for me to open the link. I generally come here to get some advice and use the links to get to the story behind the comments. Funny how the system now seems reversed: comments first, story second.

[Carlyle]

Marie: For the record, I miss your comments at the Times. I always looked for Marie Burns and Karen Garcia, particularly at Paul Krugman's blog.

[cakers]

As a West Coaster who is not going to get up in the middle of the night just to be able to post a comment on the Times opinion pages before the comments are closed, I find it even more annoying now to see some "Trusted" commenters who will have 3 or more comments showing, while many of us were, and are, rarely ever able to even get one posted. But, that's okay. There are plenty of intelligent and insightful comments from all over the world, and I've learned which ones to read and which ones to ignore. I find myself intentionally skipping over the Trusted commenters unless its someone like "Gemli" who I do trust.

[Akhilleus]

Ryan Lizza’s New Yorker piece, available here via a handy link provide by Marie, states the obvious but in a way that offers crystalline correction of the disingenuous (cynical, gleefully mendacious, see: Lying) prattle spitting out of the mouths of the far-right Supremes who claim, with all the disdain of lifetime members of the House of Lords, that Citizens United in no way will affect the political process or have any power to sway elections. His Lordship Clarence of Thomas has even attacked any who have questioned the high court in their great and glorious wisdom as—get this—traitors who are trying to undermine America, as if Citizens United is not designed with that very goal in mind. That Clarence. He just slays me!

But it seems they’re getting closer to that goal all the time. Elections bought and sold. Oh, certainly not every election will be bought, but enough so that it has already started to matter. As Lizza mentions, outrageous fringe candidates like Gingrich and Santorum would, in any other election year, have been handed their hat and coat with a polite note that said “Thanks for coming. Maybe next time.” But in this season of unbridled (and untraceable) funding by who knows what billionaires and corporate groups (even foreign corporations-and remember, multinational corporations are ALL foreign; they have no fealty to the United States, only shareholders), who will be handed the marionette strings if their puppet, er, candidate, “wins” the “election”, anything is possible. Howdy Doody, if he could be portrayed as human and garner the favor of Teabagger wingnuts, could win a few primaries (just like Gingrich!).

This has several effects, all of them bad. First, more and more money is thrown into the race. Rich people and corporate bosses don’t like to lose and, like all of us, don’t like throwing good money after bad, but if they can throw enough money into the ring they can sway the electorate ever so slightly (and sometimes quite a bit) in whichever direction suits their needs. So once enough money has been injected and the stakes have become sufficiently high, there is the danger that an “anything goes” sensibility takes over. Anything goes to recoup their money or get the jackpot of unlimited political influence, especially if your puppet becomes president. So why not pull out the stops?

Even more possibility for corruption and further warping of democracy through electoral shenanigans ensues. Republicans stole two presidential elections even before Citizens United. What makes anyone think they won’t do the same with added billions riding on the line?

But never fear, Fox is here to explain the problems of Citizens United. Their conclusion? Obama is not a man of his word and can’t be trusted. There. Don’t you feel better now?

Yup. This is according to an interview by Greta Van Susteren with Republican analyst Eliza Newlin Carney. Van Susteren asked Carney if most of the money filling up the coffers of Republican Super Pacs is coming in the form of $5 contributions (seriously, Greta?). Carney is flabbergasted to find that this ISN’T the case. In fact, it actually looks like millionaires and billionaires are getting involved. Well, who’da thunk it? Stop the presses! Billionaires are trying to influence elections! But they quickly turn their attention away from right-wing moneybags contributors trying to buy themselves candidates at the Dollar Store, and direct it to Obama who, they both agree, has told a big fat lie about taking Pac money himself. They’re unhappy that Obama, learning how much money was being aligned against him in the general election (no matter which puppet won the primary), decided that rather than allow himself to be hit in the face with a brick every time he opened his mouth, he’d have to start learning the new rules of the game. The Fox interview made it clear that the right wants it both ways. They want to be able to build an enormous war chest of hundreds of millions in untraceable donations, from any corporation who wants a seat at the table when the next carving up of America party takes place, but they also want to be able to blame Obama for being a liar because he’s decided he might have to play by the rules established by the right-wing Lords of the Manor sitting on the high court.

The upshot is that the money game is spinning out of control and it will inevitably corrupt everyone in its path. When that much money is on the line, everyone gets crazy. We also are guaranteed that fringe candidates who had no chance getting past a handful of primaries now get to ride to the top, courtesy of untraceable, unlimited funds to throw at negative ads, purchasing favors, influence, and who knows what else.

But don’t blame Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, and poor Lord Thomas.

They had nothing to do with it.

[Marie Burns]

@Akhilleus. Bought and paid for? How unkind. I'm sure Justice Thomas was merely reciprocating a courtesy when he ruled in favor of Citizens United. If an organization spent $100,000 running ads in favor of your confirmation to the Supreme Court -- as Citizens United did for Clarence Thomas in 1991 -- wouldn't you be polite enough to cut them a little slack when their case came before the Court?

Unbeknownst to me -- until I just looked it up -- Citizens United is a two-parter. "An often-overlooked part of the Citizens United decision actually upheld disclosure requirements, saying that 'transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.'” The infamous part of Citizens was a 5-4 decision. This second part, upholding disclosure, was decided 8-1. I'll give, oh, one guess as to who the hold-out justice was. If you guess Justice Reciprocity, you'll be right. Sometimes gentlemen are really thankful for a favor once granted, and will go to any lengths to repay it.

It's just good manners, for Pete's sake!

[Haley Simon]

Marie: Not much that surprises me anymore in these days of slash and burn, but I am surprised that they deliberately denied you status. Ironically, it gives you even greater status - at least to those of us who now know. It's easy for me to imagine that you could walk into an editorial meeting and EVERYONE would know who you are and, indeed, take you very seriously.

I deeply regret (maybe "fear" would be a better choice) the changes, diminishment and disbaragement of the NYT. Marie and others made it a better paper and I wish she had chosen to stay. I want, and we need, the Times to succeed. All I can do is send them my lousey $15 per month. Marie? She could run one hell of an editorial board meeting.

[Akhilleus]

It's true that there are some areas of political donations under Citizens that require transparency, but, according to the Sunlight Foundation there are some pretty tricky ways to get around letting everyone know who you're purchasing, er, picking, to win:

"Perhaps the most opaque political players since pre-Watergate days of anonymous cash contributions to candidates are a group of tax-exempt non-profit organizations organized under 501(c) of the tax code. Depending on the type of group, the various 501(c) organizations have different limitations on the amount of political activity in which they may participate. The focus on this election cycle has been on 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, 501(c)(5) labor organizations and 501(c)(6) trade associations and chambers of commerce. All three are able to engage in political activities as long as these activities are not their “primary purpose.” At the same time, donors to these groups need not be disclosed.

By lifting the prohibitions on corporations’ ability to make direct expenditures influencing federal elections, the Citizens United decision allows 501(c)s to fund unlimited independent expenditures and electioneering communications from their general treasuries. Citizens United created an environment in which it is perfectly legal for a shell non-profit corporation to engage in election-related spending on behalf of a hidden interest."

This is perfect. Those wishing to stay anonymous don't even have to go all "Tricky Dicky" to put their money down. In fact, this is how Turd Blossom Rove and his American Crossroads front group handles a substantial amount of their untraceable contributions to their chosen candidates (through a 501(c) subsidiary).

I don't think it would be difficult to set up dummy corporations with 501(c) status which would allow even Vladimir Putin to donate a couple of Faberge eggs pilfered from the Hermitage at St. Petersburg to make sure some commie Kenyan like, say, Obama, gets elected to do his nefarious bidding.

I'm sure Comrade Thomas wouldn't mind a bit! Especially if Vlady forked over a few hundred grand for Ginni and her propeller hatted Teabagger buddies.

After all, you know those legal types are big on Latin expressions, and the Thomas family motto seems to be "Quid Pro Quo". It could be "Pay for Play" but that sounds a bit too gauche for the elegant Justice Thomas.

[DreamsAmelia]

Bless you, Tom/Chicago, for going "renegade"(and Cakers, Carlye, Haley and Uncle Albert, whose laments missing Marie and the old comment system I echo)--right on, and may I add that losing Bob Herbert brought the paper down too. I have written 2 polite letters that I'm sure will go nowhere, but the "what is the Times thinking" thread is perfectly evident in Akhellius resounding post--massive stashes of cash have to obliterate democracy to smithereens---the antithesis of equal opportunity for all is favoritism---not innocent preference or affection for one thing over another, but tyrant-wielding, soul-crushing Kingmakers, which is the definition of unholy sums of money collected in the hands of a few off the backs of hard-working, lowly paid stiffs.
In such an atmosphere, why would a newspaper be some lone outpost of democracy, of truly inviting everyone, without exception, to step up to the table and comment, rave, dream-- a voice just as valued as any other--whether they were a homeless person commenting from a public library or Bernie Madoff from his jail cell?
No, since our government is now set up to sabotage real equality by favoring the influence of rich people (corporations), then it was only a matter of time before the breathtakingly democratic NYTimes comment system would be crushed by the dictates of a corporation--in this case, Facebook---to make more and more money off their advertisers, gin up more customers--without understanding that the strongest voices, like Marie's, Karen's, Kate Madison, Phil in the Mountains of Kyushu, Gemli, Akhellius, and other worthy jewels of democracy, were devotees of principles, like exposing hypocrisy, improving the quality of dialogue, evoking unexpected and wide-ranging emotions---and the beauty and pique of the comments had not one iota to do with profiteering or advertising.
But the Times showed we were getting too airy fairey in our Love of Democracy. It's there to make money. Tant pis all you romantics who held a torch to Democracy. And no thanks for the headaches and countless hours of love's labor lost in the likes of Marie Burns, is what it feels like the Times desk is saying to all her fans. (Although I don't think she was the only one not invited. I commented a fair bit on the news articles, and I was not invited. I also get 1/4 to 1/2 of my comments rejected, but I think everyone should strive to push the outer bounds of "acceptable" norms of decency and thought. Otherwise, we're just bland nitwits, as the Trusted ones, who stay meekly in the confines of their harness, evince.)

It is consoling to hear you say it was a "hassle," Marie, as no doubt you put in soul-aching numbers of hours--and the 1,500 limit would indeed cut you off at the knees, and thus we would still miss you even if you came back to such an untenable format.

The death of a beloved niche of Democracy nestled in the comment sections of the NYTimes is part and parcel of the blasphemy-on-parade siege of any shred of common good, shared fate, or quaint notion of "country," particularly these ever-tenuously United States. But from the ashes arise these blogs, the still going strong Constant Weader... carry on...

[Carlyle]

Everyone should know that with patience any NYTimes article can be found on Google almost immediately. You can google Krugman Thursday night after Friday's column comes out and it will be there. Just google the column title and add Paul Krugman.

[DaveS]

Marie,

The senate has passed a bill that now sits on the presidents desk dramatically redistricting the right of protest.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/prot-m03.shtml