The Commentariat -- Dec. 13, 2014
Internal links removed.
Alexander Bolton of the Hill: "Sen. Ted Cruz [RTP-Texas] ... has blown up the Senate leadership's plans to have a peaceful weekend by forcing round-the-clock votes on President Obama's nominees and the $1.1 trillion omnibus.... Because of objections from Cruz and his ally Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), the Senate will begin slogging through procedural votes on nominees starting at noon Saturday and vote to end a filibuster of the omnibus spending package at 1 a.m. Sunday morning." ...
... Ashley Parker & Robert Pear of the New York Times: "The Senate on Friday struggled to pass a $1.1 trillion spending package notable for its expansive spending on military and disease fighting abroad, as well as its scaling back of financial and environmental regulations at home. In a late-night twist that is emblematic of the dysfunction plaguing the 113th Congress, partisan maneuvering in the Senate disrupted what leaders on both sides had expected to be a relatively smooth path toward final passage.... Lawmakers plan to reconvene on Saturday and work through the weekend if necessary." ...
... Dave Clarke, et al., of Politico: "Wall Street's success in using the year-end spending bill to weaken a provision of the 2010 financial reform law shows how it plans to wield its clout in the months ahead -- slowly and methodically, piece by piece, leveraging the legislative process. But the sudden uprising by liberals led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also showed that Wall Street's toxic reputation will continue to dog its efforts in Congress.... 'This is an absolute outrage,' former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the law's namesake, said of the deal. 'This is a road map for stealth unwinding of financial reform.'" ...
... Brian Beutler summarizes what "we learned from the raucous debate over the omnibus. Elizabeth Warren is a bigger powerhouse than we thought.... Democrats are divided tactically ... [and] substantively.... Republicans mostly agree ... that they shouldn't shut the government down again.... Obama's priorities are clearer.... Democrats will thus have a hard time playing populist." ...
... Gail Collins offers up an "opinion primer" so you can speak intelligently about the CRomnibus at holiday gatherings. ...
... CW: Collins doesn't mention the "pension reform" in the CRomnibus. As KPCC (NPR) reports, "If you're one of the million or so Americans who work for supermarkets, drive trucks, or build homes, your pension could shrink. Some private pensions are in trouble - they're underfunded and not enough new workers are contributing to the pool. The federal agency that bails out pension funds is also running out of money. A deal that allows these pensions to cut pensions for already retired workers was crafted by retiring Northern California Congressman George Miller, the top Democrat on the Education and Workforce Committee. Critics say it opens the door to slashing pensions in other industries as well." Roll Call: "A statement from Teamsters President Jim Hoffa ... said [pension changes in the bill] would result 'in an untold number of retirees losing a substantial percentage of their fixed income should reductions be required.'" ...
... OR This. Philip Bump of the Washington Post: "Democrats who voted for the giant spending bill on Thursday night received, on average, twice the campaign contributions from the finance/insurance/real estate industry as their colleagues who voted against it." CW: If you think this is a coincidence, I have some swell derivatives I'll sell you. ...
... For a comprehensive review of the bad policies crammed into the CRomnibus, I'd go with David Dayen's summary for the Fiscal Times. His conclusion: "The precedent for making changes on signature issues by tucking rollbacks into must-pass legislation has been set, without much presidential objection, or indeed, with the White House's active cooperation. 'It shows that conservatives can use must-pass legislation to repeal the regulatory state,' said one GOP aide this week. And while big theatrical fights may get waged over single provisions, dozens of others can get pushed through under cover of darkness. In other words, elections have consequences." Dayen also notes that "Obama marginalized the Democratic party" & that almost all of the "policy riders ... benefiting one donor or another [which], offers a window into how Washington will operate in 2015 and beyond." ...
... AND this, from Dylan Scott of TPM: "The CRomnibus ... prohibits the Health and Human Services Department from transferring funds from other sources to fund the [risk corridor] program. The practical impact, one policy expert told TPM, is that HHS can therefore only use money brought into the program to make payouts, effectively making it revenue neutral.... Any negative effects on insurance companies -- and then, by extension, Obamacare -- are a policy win for Republicans, who have derided risk corridors as a taxpayer-funded bailouts." Thanks to Victoria D. for the link. ...
... CW: I don't think this is a very big deal. The risk-corridor program was designed to be self-sustaining, except perhaps in the first year or two of the program, when, with no experience history, there was a "risk" that it would have to get a public assist. If it isn't paying for itself in future years, HHS should be able to tweak the numbers to make it revenue-neutral anyway.
** Ali Soufan in the Guardian: "The Senate report exposed an orchestrated campaign of deception and lies while I was an FBI agent. But here's the worst part: the lies haven't stopped.... One of the hardest things we struggled to make sense of, back then, was why US officials were authorizing harsh techniques when our interrogations were working and their harsh techniques weren't. The answer, as the long-awaited Senate Intelligence Committee report now makes clear, is that the architects of the program were taking credit for [the FBI's] success [in using normal interrogation techniques to gain useful intelligence]." ...
... Steven Reisner in Slate: According to "recent revelations in James Risen's new book, Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War..., it appears that senior staff members of the American Psychological Association ... colluded with national security psychologists from the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House to adapt APA ethics policy to suit the needs of the psychologist-interrogators. Now, the APA, under enormous pressure because of the allegations reported by Risen, has agreed to an independent investigation to be conducted by David Hoffman, a former inspector general and federal prosecutor.... Other major national organizations of physicians, psychiatrists, and nurses all determined that their ethical obligations prohibited their members from participating in these interrogations." ...
... "I Am Not a Doctor." Ben Kamisar of the Hill: "Former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden on Thursday defended revelations from Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats that the agency used rectal rehydration on detainees. 'These were medical procedures,' Hayden said during a tense interview on CNN's 'The Lead with Jake Tapper.' He added that the method was used because detainees were dehydrated, and that giving them intravenous fluids with needles would be dangerous. 'I'm not a doctor,' he said. 'What I am told is that this is one of the ways that the body is rehydrated.'" The interview is here. Tapper was astounded: "You're really defending rectal dehydration?" ...
... Hunter of Daily Kos: "For the record, Physicians for Human Rights says that using the procedure 'without evidence of medical necessity' is in fact 'torture.' And, for the record, they are doctors." ...
Contrary to the CIA's assertions, there is no clinical indication to use rectal rehydration and feeding over oral or intravenous administration of fluids and nutrients. This is a form of sexual assault masquerading as medical treatment. -- Dr. Vincent Iacopino of Physicians for Human Rights
... CW: Both Tapper & Hayden make a big deal of the fact that the Senate staff did not talk to CIA witnesses. On that point, Daphne Eviatar of the Huffington Post: "One of the biggest criticisms of the Senate report is that it didn't interview witnesses, but the Senate committee has explained that was because many would not have been able to speak about their role while under investigation by the Justice Department." ...
... AND Nino Weighs In: Torture Is Totally Constitutional! AP: In an interview with Radio Television Suisse, conducted Wednesday after the Senate report was released, & aired Friday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said "nothing in the Constitution appears to prohibit harsh treatment of suspected terrorists." CW: Scalia uses the right's "ticking timebomb" defense of torture, which intelligent people know is an absurdist argument. Funny he didn't say anything about torture's being immoral & a violation of our international treaties (at least as reported by the AP). Worth bearing in mind: this brilliant jurist (and moral cipher) also says that the Court is okay with putting an innocent person to death. So naturally, torture is cool. ...
... As Paul Waldman notes, "So: torture? No problem. A mandate to buy health insurance? A horrifying affront to liberty."
Bob's Bad Day. Matt Zapotosky of the Washington Post: "The federal agency that will play a pivotal role in guiding the sentence of former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell has recommended that the onetime Republican rising star spend at least 10 years and a month in prison, according to several people familiar with the matter. The guidelines recommended by the U.S. probation office are preliminary, and even if finalized, U.S. District Judge James R. Spencer is not required to follow them. But experts said that Spencer typically heeds the probation office's advice, and judges in his district have imposed sentences within the recommendations more than 70 percent of the time in recent years."
Pete Williams of NBC News: "Attorney General Eric Holder has decided against forcing a reporter for the New York Times to reveal the identity of a confidential source, according to a senior Justice Department official. The reporter, James Risen, has been battling for years to stop prosecutors from forcing him to name his source for a book that revealed a CIA effort to sabotage Iran's nuclear weapons program.... But now, according to the Justice Department official, Holder has directed that Risen must not be required to reveal "information about the identity of his source.... The federal judge overseeing the case, Leonie Brinkema of Alexandria, Virginia, gave the government until next Tuesday to declare how much [Risen] would be required to reveal in court."
Here's Jeff Johnson's full interview of President Obama (video & transcript). David Hudson of the White House provides a transcript of excerpts regarding race relations.
Here's Colbert's interview of President Obama. Part 2 is here. A brief extended portion is here:
Danny Vinik of the New Republic on Elizabeth Warren's big week. He holds out hope she will decide to run for president.
Issa's Last Stand. Natalie Villacorta of Politico: "House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa has subpoenaed MIT economist Jonathan Gruber for all documents related to his government work on the Affordable Care Act. At a committee hearing this week, which was prompted in part by his controversial comments about the passage of the ACA, Gruber refused to provide details about how much he was paid by federal and state governments for his consulting services on the health care law." CW: Issa's chairmanship of the Oversight Committee ends with this Congressional session. ...
... Barbara Morrill of Daily Kos explains why: "Saddened that his recent hearing into the Kenyan plot to destroy America by providing health care to millions was largely overlooked because of a pesky report about torture, or maybe because this is his last chance to put on a show, Republican jackass Darrell Issa is at it again." ...
... OR, as Dave Weigel of Bloomberg Politics, reports, Issa's motivation is more sinister: "It's one final pearl dive, albeit one that incoming Chairman and Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz will happily strap on the SCUBA gear for. The goal, as before, is to find Gruber gabbing about something that could bolster the legislative arguments for states to undo the ACA, and bolster the legal arguments for the Supreme Court to rule against the government and argue that state exchanges were never meant to have subsidies."
Darryl Fears of the Washington Post: "With the families of slain black men and children walking with him, the Rev. Al Sharpton will guide a traditional civil rights march from downtown Washington to the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, but it won't be the weekend's only demonstration. In other parts of the nation, a number of younger activists say they will gather in areas as part of a broad National Day of Resistance to protest recent grand jury decisions to not indict officers in the deaths of Eric Garner of Staten Island and Michael Brown of Ferguson, Mo." ...
... Abby Ohlheiser of the Washington Post: "Tamir Rice, the 12-year-old boy who was shot and killed by a Cleveland police officer last month, died from a 'gunshot wound of torso with injuries of major vessel, intestines and pelvis,' according to an autopsy released on Friday. The Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner's report ruled Rice's the death a homicide." ...
... Mary Kilpatrick of Northeast Ohio Media Group: "Tamir's mother, Samaria Rice, is expected to join the Rev. Al Sharpton and the families of Michael Brown, Eric Garner and Trayvon Martin Saturday in Washington D.C. to lead a march against police brutality and excessive force."
In yesterday's commentary thread, Akhilleus pointed to a piece that's a good demonstration of all that's wrong about the right. Eric Hananoki of Media Matters: "Allen West heavily plagiarized from a viral Internet story in a piece attacking the Obama administration for purportedly ignoring the deaths of law enforcement officers. West lifted at least six paragraphs (including typos) from the story, which was previously posted on sites like Yahoo! Answers, Free Republic, Facebook, and the comments section of various websites." The fabulous coda: "West concluded the column by claiming, "I write this missive because I despise hypocrisy." He previously decried plagiarism by Sen. John Walsh (D-MT) in an October 14 post." ...
... Hananoki has updated his piece, & this too is hilarious: "The following sentence has been added to the piece, just before the series of paragraphs Media Matters highlighted as originating with the viral story: 'Then I came across a widely circulated email and viral internet post about a number of stories that seem to have dropped off the radar of the mainstream media, and conveniently ignored by the Department of Justice.' That sentence replaces one from the original version in which West had credited the research in the article to himself, writing: 'I decided to do a little checking and scouring for some information. And it didn't take long to find proof of hypocrisy that reaches the highest levels -- the White House.' The post now includes italicized paragraphs where West had previously committed mass plagiarism. He has also fixed the three plagiarized typos that were originally identified by Media Matters. There is no indication in the post that it has been changed." A staff member fell on her sword for West, claiming she "inadvertently failed to transcribe the quotation marks. As Hananoki notes, her "explanation doesn't pass the smell test." ...
... CW: Not only is the entire post based on a lie (see Hananoki's piece), right-wing "ideas" are so crass & strident & fact-free they lack any originality past making up shit. West, a one-term Congressman, is now head of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), (Oxymoron Alert!) a conservative think tank, which described him as a "visionary leader." His "vision," alas, is entirely plagiarized. There is no vision on the right, unless dystopia passes for vision these days.
Share Article
Reader Comments (10)
The media always plays the word game. The NYT editorial post on the latest attack on the ACA describes it as something where the 'harm could be significant'. How about the right word, death!
Yes the Republican party, as I have said before, is the American Nazi Party.
@Marvin Schwalb: There is already an attack on the provision of the ACA you refer to; the attack is in the CRomnibus, in fact, and has not received much attention. Dylan Scott writes about it in a post entitled, Republicans Dealt a Quiet Blow to O-Care in the CRomnibus. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamacare-cromnibus-risk-corridors
It appears the Republican strategy to kill the ACA is death by a thousand cuts. Due to the continued (imo misguided) public antipathy to the law, they may well succeed, with a little help from their friends at the Supreme Court. The fact that the public remains so opposed is puzzling to me but may relate to misinformation or something more sinister.
This bumper sticker I saw in a parking lot may explain some of the opposition: "Straight, White, Christian and Proud to be a Minority."
Many of these opponents feel oppressed, and they don't like the idea of giving help to "those people." ( I have to confess I was a little surprised to see the sticker, living as I do in a Blue city in a Blue state. I can't imagine what it is like in say, the deep south.)
@Marvin Schwalb: Except where it comes to minority rights, women's rights -- especially reproductive rights -- there is now a significant portion of the Republican party that is vehemently anti-fascist. At the same time, many Nazis were virulent socialists & took an extremely dim view of capitalism, which definitely doesn't fit into the Republican agenda. The Nazis also curtailed private property rights in any instances they deemed not "productive" to the state. I don't think the Nazi brand of totalitarianism applies to Republican ideology. Moreover, the Nazis certainly would not have supported Israel as Republicans do.
Although the mainstream Republican policies that promote racism, sexism, nationalism & warmongering fit the Nazi pattern, I don't think it apt to describe Republicans as the "American Nazi Party," unless they change their name.
Before you use the argumentum ad hitlerum, test your premise. It just might not hold up.
Marie
I'm disturbed by the notion that sin is some extrinsic entity that attaches itself to humans but can be washed off by holy water and a few hymns. Here's a short article by Peter Beinart that demonstrates that Americans have always believed in torturing when doing so is the quick and easy way toward some perceived goal.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/12/torture-is-who-we-are-cia-report/383670/
So, we torture on Tuesday and go to confession on Wednesday. We are restored to holier-than-thou status, and from our lofty perch we can look down upon and lecture far less stable governments that practice the same methods.
I'd like to know where the off switch is. I can't take much more of this, but I imagine much more is coming.
@Jack Mahoney: Thanks for your comment. Here's an interesting academic paper on Americans' views about torture. As the writers point out, the poll questions all framed a "ticking timebomb" scenario, & the effectiveness of torture to produce useful intelligence was presumed. Yet until Obama became president & Dick Cheney started speaking out in favor of torture, a majority of Americans opposed torture in all the polls. The authors hypothesize that "torture may have become a partisan symbol, distinguishing Republicans from Democrats, that demonstrates hawkishness on national security in the same way that being supportive of the death penalty indicates that a person is tough on crime."
Your point about redemption is well-taken. I would add that redemption requires admitting that "we have sinned," something the torture advocates have refused to do. So the "we are awesome" crowd -- which is huge & includes our gutless leaders -- have not been redeemed in fact or in a Christian theological sense.
Further, I would ask President Obama this: if "torture is not who we are," why haven't you fired John Brennan? In my view, retaining Brennan after he snooped on the Senate committee, then lied about it, is one more way Obama is hurting the Democratic brand. Brennan's defense of torture after the Senate report came out is stunning. When the President keeps a torture defender in place, he is no better than Dick Cheney or Michael Hayden in this regard.
Marie
Marie, the Nazi game has multiple parts. While I basically agree with your statement, it misses a basic point which I did not make clear. First, yes the Nazi party was anti-capitalism. They wanted to own everything, but not for the people. But most important is the concept of politics based on hate. Blame the Jews, or today blame the poor (which somehow assumes that there are no white poor).
So my point is that the Republicans are the party of blame and hate all designed to get votes to promote themselves and the rich. That is exactly the game the German and Italian Nazi parties played.
Yes, it is difficult to find the proper name for the current Republican Party's adherents, maybe because so many who adhere to it and support it with their votes are not motivated by any clear set of principles.
The Republicans have been criticized (and have criticized themselves) for not having a big enough tent. Au contraire. Their tent is plenty spacious enough, as elections continue to prove. That most states are in Republican control is not due just to gerrymandering or oceans of money. Whatever we think of the candidates, however much fun we make of the Mitts and Scotts and Ricks, real people have actually voted for the people they elect.
The relevant question is who are these people?
Victoria's bumper sticker provides a partial answer. And Thomas Frank.
The Republican tent, in its current incarnation raised and supported by the interests of Big Money, ala the Powell Memo, has since the sixties formed a succession of cynical alliances with varying groups whose commonalities are fear and resentment. To name a few: The Christian Right, Southern whites--since the sixties expanding to white enclaves everywhere--trade union workers and retirees who have "made it" and want to keep what they have, those who want unlimited access to guns but none for abortion, and law and order groupies who are attracted to order as much or more than they fear its opposite.
What all these groups share is psychology, not principle. In the sense that none wants their lives to change, they are truly conservative, and anyone who promises to keep things as they are, or at least not get any "worse" for them, has their ear and likely their vote. Fundamentally, they are all skeered of something.
And that element of fright, while it does not as Marie said justify calling Republicans Nazis, is nonetheless closely connected to the Nazi's rise. Nazism was a response to Germany's economic woes and its resentments about its humiliating WWI defeat. These factors, among others, provided fertile soil for dictatorship's growth.
From the time of Moses, when things are going poorly or when people perceive a threat, they look for and welcome a leader to take them to the promised land, and at times like these, principle is the least of their concerns. In fact, too much discussion of principle just adds to the confusion.
Obama presented himself as just such a leader. As it happened, the principles he espoused were mostly ones with which I agree. But I don't think it was his stated principles that got him elected. He got elected because he made enough people feel better about themselves and their country. "Hope" is an easy message to grasp and hang onto, and the country needed to hear it.
But the Republicans, in their own rag-tag, unprincipled way make a bunch of people feel better, too, by telling them how bad it is--a different "it" for different groups--gun control, the ACA, choice, whatever--stoking fear and resentment wherever they can, and then suggesting only Republicans really understand and sympathize, a party presenting itself as counselor, friend, and champion of the dominant social group whom they have helped convinced are the real oppressed.
Unfortunately, when they, the R's--the party of resentment, not unlike the Nazi roots--succeed, they make me feel worse.
And since the real (demographic and economic) and imagined assaults on that coalition of the oppressed/dominant groups will likely continue, there's a good chance I'll be feeling worse than I wish for some time to come.
@Ken Winkes: Thanks for your analysis. I think you're exactly right on every point. Which is pretty damned scary.
Marie
For Marvin and Marie: you might find this an interesting read apropos of your discussion: A review by Ian Buruma on Joachim Fest's "Not I: Memoirs of a German Childhood."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/aug/14/joachim-fest-superior-german-liberal/?insrc=toc
Okay, I listened to Colbert interviewing Barack Obama, and zing! I'm back in love...what is it about this guy, who does incomprehensible things sometimes, but that has so much charm, I am drawn back into the fold of HOPE and CHANGE... I guess I really do like him, and like kids, he can disappoint when not doing everything I want him to do; it isn't easy to do the presidentin' while black, to quote Charlie Pierce, and I give him points for staying sane while all around him are going nuts or have gone nuts. Sigh...