Wednesday
Sep252013
The Commentariat -- Sept. 26, 2013
NEW. Jonathan Weisman & Ashley Parker of the New York Times: "House Republican leaders shifted the budget battle on Thursday to a potentially more consequential fight over raising the government's borrowing limit, rolling out conditions for a debt-ceiling increase pulled from three years of frustration over efforts to roll back regulations and undo President Obama's first-term achievements." C-SPAN has the video. ...
... NEW. AFP: "President Barack Obama Thursday warned he would never allow Republicans to kill or delay his health care law, raising the stakes in a showdown that could shutter the government or trigger a US debt default. House of Representatives Republicans are refusing to fund a government budget or raise the $16.7 trillion federal borrowing ceiling unless the president agrees to defund or delay ... 'ObamaCare' ..." He gave a (long and) robust defense of & a good explanation of how the ACA works, & he reiterated his refusal to negotiate on the debt ceiling. ...
... No Surprise Here. Lori Montgomery & Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post: "With federal agencies set to close their doors in five days, House Republicans began exploring a potential detour on the path to a shutdown: shifting the fight over President Obama's health-care law to a separate bill that would raise the nation's debt limit. If it works, the strategy could clear the way for the House to approve a simple measure to keep the government open into the new fiscal year, which will begin Tuesday, without hotly contested provisions to defund the Affordable Care Act. But it would set the stage for an even more nerve-racking deadline on Oct. 17, with conservatives using the threat of the nation's first default on its debt to force the president to accept a one-year delay of the health-care law’s mandates, taxes and benefits." ...
... Manu Raju & Jake Sherman of Politico: John "Boehner's strategy all along has been to place outsize importance on the debt ceiling fight.... He thinks Obama's position -- that he will not negotiate on lifting the borrowing limit -- is impossible to maintain. So the speaker has compiled a debt hike bill with a bunch of goodies that they think House Republicans will vote for, and red state Senate Democrats won't want to avoid." ...
... BUT. Jonathan Chait: "Republicans see the magnitude of a debt-ceiling breach as a reason to believe Obama will eventually negotiate. It's actually a reason to believe he won't. The meta-conflict over whether the debt ceiling ought to be held hostage, or simply raised, has implications that extend well beyond the actual demands at hand. If Obama agrees to trade policy concessions for a debt-ceiling hike, he will permanently enshrine debt-ceiling hostage dramas in the practical functioning of American government.... Terrible though it may be, a default may actually be necessary to preserve the constitutional structure of American government and the rest of Obama's presidency." ...
... CW: One has to hope Boehner actually knows this -- Chait isn't sure -- & Boehner's actual "strategy all along" is to string along his Tea Party caucus, then allow House Democrats & a few GOP grownups to vote to raise the debt ceiling. Boehner has relied on Democrats something like 5 times this year to pass legislation which the Tea Party opposes. Surely his Wall Street backers are demanding that he do the same now. ...
... Gail Collins: "Our elected officials are loonier than Iran. Than the pope on sex. Less useful than Vladimir Putin." ...
... More Dr. Snooze:
... BUT. Let's be fair. Ted Cruz doesn't need Jon Stewart to help him look ridiculous. He can do it all by himself:
... OR to be offensive. David Rogers of Politico: "Breaking with the usual traditions of decorum, Cruz repeatedly spoke of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) by name, and not simply his title. He chastised fellow senators for not being on the floor to engage with him on the health care debate...." A few of Ted's remarks about his distinguished colleagues:
Why is Washington broken? Because you have 100 people, a significant number of whom on a daily basis, tell their boss, tell their constituents: I am too busy for you.
It is apparently very important to be invited to all the right cocktail parties in town. I do not go to a whole lot of cocktail parties in town... But there are members of this body for whom that is very important.
It's is a little bit akin to the World Wrestling Federation, wrestling matches where it is all rigged. There are some members of this body, if we could have 100 show votes, saying here is what we are for, but mind you, none of them are actually going to change the law, none of them are going to make one iota of difference to the American people because they will never become law ... that curiously would make a significant number of senators happy.
... Rogers: "Yet after all of this, Cruz himself joined in support of the vote Wednesday for cloture sought by Reid." CW: I hope some of those Tea Party radicals in the House get all upset about that. Cruz told them to stand strong against funding ObamaCare. But he didn't even vote "no" on the cloture vote he supposedly spent 21 hours urging all Republicans & even Democrats to oppose. I don't know how a person can be more hypocritical, but stay tuned: I'm sure Ted will teach us soon enough.
When Cruz walks into future conservative movement gatherings, he'll be welcomed like Jesus riding the donkey into Jerusalem. When other Republicans head home, they will be asked whether they Stood With Cruz, and pilloried if they didn't. -- Dave Weigel of Slate
Fair enough. But you know who else gets welcomed into those gatherings like Jesus? Sarah Palin. Michele Bachmann. Rick Santorum. Cruz's ambitions are bigger than that, but most people who are not Republican activists/primary voters will within a few weeks forget what this whole thing was about. -- Paul Waldman of the American Prospect
Five days after Jesus's big welcome, Jerusalem's leaders crucified him. -- Constant Weader
... Lucy McCalmont of Politico: Experts agree: "Dr. Seuss wouldn't have had much of an appetite for Sen. Ted Cruz reading 'Green Eggs and Ham' on the Senate floor":
Not only would he be offended at the misuse of 'Green Eggs and Ham,' but he'd be offended at almost everything that Ted Cruz stands for, which is to remove the safety net from poor people, poor and vulnerable people, he's clearly more power hungry than he is compassionate and he's a bully. --Peter Dreier, professor of politics
... In some ways Ted Cruz is a Dr. Seuss character.... He is this kind of cartoon character who sort of parodies his own behavior. You could imagine him as being in a Dr. Seuss book without really changing much about him, he's so outlandish. Phil Nel, professor of children's literature
... CW: Over in Right Wing World & among pretend-neutral commentators, there has been an unsurprising cri de media bias in which the less-than-breathless coverage of Tailgunner Ted's talkathon is being contrasted with the fairly positive coverage of Wendy Davis's actual filibuster of a Texas state anti-abortion bill. For a succinct deflation of that bubble, we turn to John Cole of Balloon Juice: "The conservatives yell 'BOO,' and the media flinches. No discussion of the differing circumstances. No discussion that Davis was trying to stop a law being passed under shady circumstances while Cruz is trying to backdoor invalidate a law passed by both houses, signed by the President, and deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court." ...
... Steve Benen adds: "Davis was waging a filibuster Cruz is delivering a long and inconsequential speech. Davis succeeded in blocking progress on a measure she opposed; Cruz isn't actually having any kind of legislative impact whatsoever. Davis was fighting against a proposal that was not yet law; Cruz doesn't like a measure that's already law. Davis enjoyed the support of her party; Cruz has been widely criticized by his party. Davis had to stay on topic; Cruz has read from Ayn Rand novels on the floor of the Senate. Davis was watched like a hawk by Republicans hoping to stop her; Cruz has generally been ignored by Democrats who don't much care about his theatrics." ...
... CW: I'm not the Oracle of Delphi, so I can't confidently predict how Texas Republicans will vote in 2018, but it occurs to me that Ted's Big Stunt may be the beginning of the end of his glorious career. If his potential opponents can paint him as an obstructionist who tried to withhold Granny's Social Security check & Cousin Bob's military paycheck, or just as a total phony who was far more destructive than constructive, voters could reject him. It is not entirely implausible -- tho perhaps unlikely -- that the person who ultimately defeats him in 2018 would be Wendy Davis. Let's hope the Fates have a sense of humor & a fondness for ironic justice.
Lydia Saad of Gallup: "As Washington braces for another budget showdown, this time with the threat of defunding the new healthcare law in the mix, the key political force pushing for conservative policies sees diminished popular support. Fewer Americans now describe themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement than did at the height of the movement in 2010, or even at the start of 2012. Today's 22% support nearly matches the record low found two years ago."
Molly Ball of the Atlantic: "How the Heritage Foundation went from the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement to the GOP's bane -- and how it's hurting the party's hopes for a turnaround." Thanks to contributor Akhilleus for the link.
Paul Lewis & Dan Roberts of the Guardian: "Four senators at the vanguard of bipartisan efforts to rein in US government spying programs announced the most comprehensive package of surveillance reforms so far presented on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. 'The disclosures over the last 100 days have caused a sea change in the way the public views the surveillance system,' said Democratic senator Ron Wyden, unveiling the bill at a press conference alongside Republican Rand Paul." The other two Senate sponsors are Mark Udall (D-Colo.) & Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). ...
... Agence France Presse: "The National Security Agency eavesdropped on civil rights icon Martin Luther King and heavyweight boxer Muhammad Ali as well as other leading critics of the Vietnam War in a secret program later deemed 'disreputable,' declassified documents revealed. The six-year spying program, dubbed 'Minaret,' had been exposed in the 1970s but the targets of the surveillance had been kept secret until now. The documents released Wednesday showed the NSA tracked King and his colleague Whitney Young, boxing star Ali, journalists from the New York Times and the Washington Post, and two members of Congress, Senator Frank Church of Idaho and Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee."
Ben Hubbard & Michael Gordon of the New York Times: "As diplomats at the United Nations push for a peace conference to end Syria's civil war, a collection of some of the country's most powerful rebel groups publicly abandoned the opposition's political leaders, casting their lot with an affiliate of Al Qaeda. As support for the Western-backed leadership has dwindled, a second, more extreme Al Qaeda group has carved out footholds across parts of Syria, frequently clashing with mainline rebels who accuse it of making the establishment of an Islamic state a priority over the fight to topple President Bashar al-Assad." ...
... Somini Sengupta of the New York Times: "After months of crippling deadlock, members of the United Nations Security Council have inched closer to the details of a binding resolution on Syria, Western diplomats said Wednesday, though Russia, one of Syrias strongest allies, denied that a consensus had been reached."
Michelle Nichols of Reuters: "The United States signed a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty regulating the $70 billion global trade in conventional arms on Wednesday and the Obama administration sought to allay the fears of the powerful U.S. gun lobby which says the pact will violate the constitutional rights of Americans. The treaty, which relates only to cross-border trade and aims to keep weapons out of the hands of human rights abusers and criminals, still requires ratification by the U.S. Senate and has been attacked by the influential gun rights group the National Rifle Association (NRA)." ...
... Keith Wagstaff of the Week doubts the Senate will ratify the treaty because of NRA opposition & right-wing animosity toward the U.N. "Last year, Republican senators voted down a U.N. human rights treaty based on the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act because, in the words of Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla), it gave too much power to 'overzealous international organizations with anti-American biases that infringe upon American society.'" CW: this was after the aged Bob Dole, a disabled American veteran, former GOP Senate Leader & presidential nominee, came to the Senate to lobby for a relatively innocuous treaty aimed at protecting the rights of the disabled.
This is pretty disturbing, but since it will be all over the Internet, here it is: video of Aaron Alexis entering a building at the Navy Yard:
... Peter Hermann & Ann Marimow of the Washington Post: "The government contractor who killed 12 people at the Navy Yard last week was driven by delusions that he was being controlled by low frequency radio waves, and he scratched the words 'End the torment!' on the barrel of the shotgun used in the killings, the FBI said Wednesday, offering new, chilling details of the killings. Valerie Parlave, assistant director in charge of the FBI's Washington field office, confirmed that Aaron Alexis, 34, had a performance issue at work that was addressed the Friday before the shooting. But she said there was no indication that Alexis targeted 'anyone he worked for or worked with.'" ...
... Marjorie Censer of the Washington Post: "Technology giant Hewlett-Packard said Wednesday that it has terminated its relationship with The Experts, following a shooting at the Navy Yard in which an employee of the subcontractor, Aaron Alexis, is alleged to have killed 12 people. In a letter sent to Thomas Hoshko, chief executive of the Florida-based company, an HP executive wrote that the tech giant 'has lost all confidence in The Experts' ability to meet its contractual obligations and serve as an HP subcontractor.'"
CW: I'm posting this link because everyone but me thinks it's interesting. Alec MacGillis of the New Republic on Doug Band, a sleazy Clinton factotum ("a gatekeeper who charged tolls") who facilitates the Clintons' sleazy activities. MacGillis calls this a scandal; sorry, but the Clintons have been a sleazy couple since Doug was in diapers. I learned a lot from the Clintons, and what I learned mostly was that relentless ambition, combined with amoral cunning, can have a very big payoff. Beyond question, they are extraordinary people, but they are not admirable people, either of them.
George & Babs, Menches. Washington Post: "Former President George H.W. Bush and his wife Barbara served as ... official witnesses Saturday at the Maine wedding of Bonnie Clement and Helen Thorgalsen, co-owners of a Kennebunk general store."
The Godless Irish. Henry McDonald of the Guardian: "... atheists in Ireland have secured the right to teach the republic's primary schoolchildren that God doesn't exist. The first ever atheist curriculum for thousands of primary school pupils in Ireland has been drawn up by Atheist Ireland in an education system that the Catholic church hierarchy has traditionally dominated. Up to 16,000 primary schoolchildren who attend the fast growing non-denominational Irish school sector will receive direct tuition on atheism as part of their basic introduction course to ethics and belief systems.... All primary school pupils, including the 93% of the population who attend schools run by the Catholic church, can access their atheism course on the internet and by downloading an app on smartphones." CW: Hey, let's try this in Texas!
Gubernatorial Race
Laura Vozella & Fredrick Kunkle of the Washington Post: "Democrat Terry McAuliffe and Republican Ken Cuccinelli II brought their bitterly personal battle for governor to a crucial debate in Northern Virginia on Wednesday night, each casting the other as unfit for office, untrustworthy and wrong for the commonwealth."
News Ledes
New York Times: "Viewing the deadly siege at a shopping mall in Kenya as a direct threat to its security, the United States is deploying dozens of F.B.I. agents to investigate the wreckage, hoping to glean every piece of information possible to help prevent such a devastating attack from happening again, possibly even on American soil." ...
... AFP: "Kenya on Thursday buried victims of a four-day mall massacre by Islamist gunmen as international forensic and security experts scanned the rubble for bodies and clues."
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (11)
Here's my take on Cruz (I'm a Texas liberal!).
He never had a shot at the presidency because he's too radical and outspoken. But he did have a very good shot at a high level office with the Department of Justice or the Supreme Court under a Republican Administration.
But his rhetoric and demeanor would seem too inflammatory for the Supreme Court, which leaves Secretary of Dept of Justice and Solicitor General. I think his recent antics probably torpedoes his chances for those positions as well.
Hey, we already know Texas has a conservative/tea party streak. Ted Cruz is just the voicebox. Maybe our demographics will work against him in 10 years. But by not comporting himself appropriately, he makes it impossible to be taken seriously for other office. Unless of course Americans forget about his youthful indiscretions...
His legal talent would make him a contender for a high level
" Beyond question, they [the Clintons] are extraordinary people, but they are not admirable people, either of them."
Like many extraordinary people they certainly have displayed not very admirable qualities, but––they both have accomplished some admirable feats and the defeats they both encountered seemed only to strengthen them. Power hungry people like these two are determined to win that brass ring in whatever way they need to which is the stuff of power hungry people. So given this, do we vote for Hillary if she decides to run?
I agree that the story of Doug Brand isn't really a scandal since it's what a person does when they have set their sights higher and can rub elbows with the rich and famous.
Menches, George and Barb, fer sure––in this case.
Hard to believe the Irish tale––quite amazing. I love it!
@P.D. Pepe: I've voted for the lesser of two evils countless times, & I'll do so again. I don't believe at all in the popular ultra-liberal strategy of letting a Republican win "so people can see how bad s/he is" or because the Democratic candidate has "disappointed us" or because "there's no difference between Democrats & Republicans."
There is a difference between Democrats & Republicans, even when the Democrat in question has "disappointed us," & I consider it downright unpatriotic to give Republicans carte blanche to make things worse. That's why on some occasions when Obama does the right thing -- and he often does -- I'll preface the news item on it with "Elections Matter."
So, no, I doubt I'll vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary -- unless her only opponents are Evan Bayh, Chris Dodd & Al Sharpton (sorry, Al) -- but if she wins the nomination, I'll vote for her in the general without hesitation, no matter who her GOP opponent is.
Marie
McAuliffe and Cuccinelli are both right. Both are "unfit for office, untrustworthy and wrong for the commonwealth."
@Robert Nagle. Quite right. I can imagine a right-wing president appointing him as Solicitor General. I expect he'd be a very good one -- from a winger POV -- unless he couldn't help but tell a few of the Supremes they were idiots. That last is certainly a possibility because, as we've noted here, he doesn't mind likening his colleagues to Nazi appeasers & wrestling fakers & saying they're more interested in socializing than in doing their jobs. Cruz has already lectured Dianne Feinstein on the Constitution; it wouldn't be surprising if he told Sonia Sotomayor that she really didn't understand the Constitution & she should spend more time studying the law & less time doing "Sesame Street" & writing her autobiography.
Marie
I'm with Marie on not allowing wingnuts to do any more damage than they already have.
I have no illusions that they will continue to work as much mischief (a great editorial euphemism for massive clusterfucking) as possible on all levels of government, but giving them the keys to the car and letting them joy ride the country into another ditch, à la George Bush, or subsidize dictators and human rights annihilators as Reagan did (among many other terrible, terrible things) is not, in my opinion, a good idea.
Anyone who says "Oh let the Republicans rule for the next eight years so people can see how bad they are" needs some kind of intervention. Or therapy.
In 1992 I voted for Bill Clinton. In '96, I held my nose and voted for him again. And anyone who wants to complain about the '92 vote, I would advise taking a look back at that election first. If you recall, Bush père was still taking victory laps from the first Gulf War. He looked unbeatable. Could we really take another four years of Reagan/Bush policies after the first 12??
So we really needed Democrats to stand up, get in the ring and start punching. But all the big guns took a seat. Every one. David Boren, Mario Cuomo (remember Hamlet on the Hudson?), Bill Fucking Bradley, fer chrissakes! George Mitchell, Sam Nunn, Dick Gephardt, Ann Richards, Pat Schroeder, Al Gore, D.P. Moynihan. They all said no thanks. But not Clinton. And not guys like Paul Tsongas (would have loved Tsongas).
Clinton stood up when all those others sat on their asses thinking that Poppy was too tough to beat. Despite the seamy baggage he brought along, I admired him for standing up to the Republican machine.
So I voted for him.
I still remember election night. It was only the second time in my life that the guy I voted for became president. My friends and I partied all night. It was great. The next eight years (especially the last four) were tough but mostly because of Clinton's libido and Republican belief that no one but them should be in charge. But think how bad it would have been if they were.
Elections matter.
AK: I did the same and was thrilled when Clinton,a moderate Democratic governor of Arkansas, that small state where politics were based more on personal relations than party divisions, won the election–-even the second time. Here was the touchy feelie guy who felt everyone's pain including his own but perhaps not his wife's. He was bound to do great things, this kind of guy. He tried. But he had to become a true centrist since the Republican Party was moving so far to the right––so within that muddle he grabbed the middle and stayed there. NAFTA, (which wasn't the panacea that was promised) healthcare (which fell by the wayside), the Brady Bill (which was watered down), and the raise in taxes not to mention the demise of Glass/Segall all figured in the loss of Democratic control of both House and Senate in the 1994 off-year congressional elections. He was haunted by all the allegations of wrong doing like Whitewater et al. and of course by Gingrich and his malicious minions who were determined to bring him down. His sexual indiscretion almost cinched it; luckily reason prevailed. Some would say by this time the populace recognized the awful hypocrisy that the Republicans were displaying and found it more distasteful than Clinton's dalliance with an intern.
And yes, I do think how bad it would have been if the Republicans had been in charge and the prospect now of that happening gives me chills––– except they are doing a bang-up job of preventing anything from happening. Don't they know they are shooting themselves in the foot?
The congressional funding story seems to be shifting from the CR/shutdown, to the potential for using the debt ceiling to extort the GOP’s laundry list of desires. But I believe that NY/Chait has it right – there is no way that the President can pay ransom for that (or any) hostage, it would change the dynamics of the separation of powers. The President would be foolish to do anything but stand pat on the ceiling.
John Boehner has it within his power to put both of these faux crises behind us – but possibly at the expense of his speakership.
Few people become major names in the history books because of one act or omission, and often that one act is “bad”; think Arnold, Booth, Quisling. Most Speakers are in the history books as minor characters in the continuing drama. Speaker Boehner should be mindful of history and hope to be just a footnote. If he does not create the scenario whereby the House Democrats can help pass a clean ceiling increase, and thereby from cowardice causes Global Depression II, he will have one of those names in history that are only associated with causing calamity. He could even become a noun or verb, like Mr. Boycott.
Or, he could be a footnote, a principled man who laid down his speakership for his country.
I hope he realizes that history goes on pretty much forever.
The "Hers to Lose" video at NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/26/nyregion/christine-quinn-documentary.html?hp) is both entertaining and interesting inspite of its rather amateurish production quality.
Yes, Akilleus, elections do matter. But so does Presidential behavior (said by someone who was among the millions who were screwed by William Jefferson). Had he not shared a cigar with M. L., Bush II would never have been President, and while I voted for Clinton twice, happily enough, I cannot forget or forgive him that. Sometimes a cigar may be just a cigar, but sometimes it can change the course of history. It's handy to blame the Righties on the SCOTUS for Gore's defeat (by one vote, and they deserve their share of blame, but I still believe it's Clinton and his cigar that did it to us.
I listened to that damned C-Span video was sickened by their statements. Regarding their list of "demands", Sullivan says they might as well add Obama's resignation to the list. Can anyone doubt that he has the worst job in the world? We're going to need a Shakespeare to write the story of this presidency.