The Commentariat -- Dec. 20, 2015
Internal links removed.
Presidential Race
Thank you, good night, and may the force be with you. -- Hillary Clinton, closing the debate
Philip Rucker & Anne Gearan of the Washington Post: "The Democratic presidential candidates presented competing visions for defeating Islamic State terrorists and clashed passionately at a debate here Saturday night over tax policy, the power and wealth of Wall Street, gun control and other domestic issues."
Dan Roberts & Lauren Gambino of the Guardian: "Deep divisions between the Democratic presidential candidates opened up in New Hampshire on Saturday night, as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders sparred over military intervention in the Middle East, healthcare, taxes and their support for big business."
Alan Yuhas of the Guardian highlights key points that emerged during the debate.
Jonathan Martin & Amy Chozick of the New York Times: "Hillary Clinton largely looked past her Democratic rivals in Saturday night's debate, instead repeatedly assailing the Republican field, led by Donald J. Trump. She called Mr. Trump a threat to the nation's safety, saying he was fast 'becoming ISIS' best recruiter.' Deflecting persistent attacks from Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland over gun control, Wall Street and foreign military entanglements, she accused Mr. Trump of undermining the fight against terrorism."
CW: It struck me that one person who didn't get much mention during this debate was Barack Obama.
The Guardian is liveblogging the debate. The Los Angeles Times' liveblog is here. ...
... The Washington Post is running an annotated transcript.
He is becoming ISIS's best recruiter. They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists. -- Hillary Clinton, during the debate ...
... Ben Kamisar of the Hill: "Hillary Clinton has claimed that ISIS is showing videos of Donald Trump's comments about Muslims in an effort to 'recruit more radical jihadists.'... It is unclear whether the former secretary of State was speaking metaphorically or had evidence to back up the specific charge that footage of Trump was being used." ...
... Louise Jacobson of PolitiFact: "We were unable to find any evidence to support this. The Clinton campaign did not provide any evidence that this is already happening -- only that it could be happening, or that it may in the future. If ISIS was using Trump for recruitment videos, we would expect a frenzy of media coverage over it."
Here's the Washington Post's fact-check of claims candidates made during the debate.
John Wagner of the Washington Post: "... Bernie Sanders apologized to Hillary Clinton on Saturday night for his campaign's inappropriate viewing of proprietary voter information that was gathered by her campaign.... Sanders was critical of the DNC's response -- temporarily shutting off his campaign's access to the database -- which he said he said had the effect of 'crippling our campaign.'" CW: Very disappointing. I was hoping for a childish brawl.
Hadas Gold of Politico: "Whether grilling Bernie Sanders for details of his single-payer health proposal or nearly leaping out of her chair to challenge Hillary Clinton on the merits of her proposed no-fly zone in Syria, ABC's Martha Raddatz was an animating force of Saturday's Democratic debate."
Alan Rappeport of the New York Times: How to Watch the Debate: "On television: ABC is kicking off its programming at 8 p.m. eastern and the two-hour debate is expected to start around 8:30 p.m. Online: The debate will be streaming on www.abcnews.com/live and it will be available for viewing on the network's mobile apps, and on Apple TV, Roku and Xbox One. Login credentials or other forms of authentication will not be required. On the radio: People who prefer hearing but not seeing the political action can listen to the debate on ABC Radio. Social media: Facebook and Twitter will be buzzing with #DemDebate chatter for anyone looking to monitor the conversation surrounding the debate in real-time." ...
... CW: Also, too, you can watch it on a New York Times page.
Callum Borchers of the Washington Post: "... intentional or not, O'Malley and Sanders are right...: A small ABC audience helps Clinton, who leads the nominating race by 25 points nationally and by about that same amount in Iowa (New Hampshire is closer). She's the default nominee and has been for, well, years. For voters to latch on to someone else, they need to see someone else. And to see someone else, they need to be watching Bernie and Martin, not Dorothy and Toto."
Amber Phillips of the Washington Post previews some of the issues that may come up in Saturday's Democratic debate. Tops on her list: the voter data breach. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Maggie Haberman of the New York Times: "The Democratic National Committee laid out a detailed timeline Saturday of what happened when Senator Bernie Sanders's campaign aides gained access to and copied Hillary Clinton's proprietary voter data during a technological glitch, revealing new details to explain why it had blocked Mr. Sanders's team from seeing its own data.... During Saturday night's debate, Mr. Sanders repeated his complaint that the punishment was unfair, but he also apologized to Mrs. Clinton. His campaign also said Saturday that it had suspended two aides over the matter. It had earlier fired its national data director." ...
... The DNC's defense of its actions -- described above as a timeline -- is here. ...
... ** David Atkins in the Washington Monthly: "... it's undeniable that the Sanders campaign gleaned valuable information.... It's also quite clear that most of the statements the Sanders campaign made as the story progressed -- from the claim that the staffers only did it to prove the security breach, or that only one staffer had access -- were simply not true.... In this context, it made sense for Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC to suspend the Sanders campaign's access to the data until it could determine the extent of the damage, and the degree to which the Clinton campaign's private data had been compromised. As it turns out the ethical breach by Sanders operatives was massive, but the actual data discovery was limited.... The Sanders camp's reactions have been laughable.... The Clinton camp did nothing wrong in any of this. Sanders campaign operatives did, and then Wasserman-Schultz compounded it by overreacting." ...
... John Wagner of the Washington Post: [Bernie] "Sanders's supporters responded to the dispute [with the DNC & the Clinton campaign] by opening their wallets. By the end of the day Friday, the campaign had collected more than $1 million, the vast majority of it over the Internet, according to the person close to the campaign...." ...
... Gabriel Debenedetti of Politico: "Bernie Sanders has gotten more individual donations than any other presidential candidate ever through the campaign's off-year -- topping President Barack Obama's mark of 2,209,636 donations through Dec. 31, 2011 -- his team announced following Saturday night's Democratic debate. Sanders passed Obama's re-election total during the debate, his communications director Michael Briggs said."
Since we're talking about the Democrats' debate, might as well reprise the last GOP debate:
Apparently, this actual ad ran during the airing of SNL:
... Wolf in Sheep's Clothing. Steve M.: "On one level, this is cringe-inducing. On another level, the ad ... makes him seem like a harmless suburban dad.... The jokes are the usual tiresome right-wing attacks -- Lois Lerner! Obamacare! -- but done up this way, they seem almost gentle.... Cruz has been working hard to make himself seem human and relatable.... This is scary. Cruz could be the nominee, and much of the public really might fall for this sort of thing and imagine that he's not really a bad guy, and certainly not the dangerous extremist he actually is.... Because most people don't follow politics very closely, Cruz's awfulness is not self-evident to the broad public." ...
... Whaddaya Mean, "Dangerous Extremist"? Kevin Cirilli of Bloomberg: "... Ted Cruz said Saturday that he wants one of the Senate's most vocal opponents of illegal immigration as his homeland security secretary. 'For anyone who wonders, "Can we really secure the border?" I've got three words for you: Secretary Jeff Sessions'; Cruz told a Saturday rally in the Alabama, the state that Sessions has represented for four terms in the Senate." CW: In 1986, Ronald Reagan couldn't get out of committee Sessions' nomination to a federal judgeship. Maybe the Senate wouldn't confirm Sessions to a Cabinet post either. Of course it was a very different Senate back in the day; for one thing, Sessions wasn't a member.
Andrew Kaczynski of BuzzFeed: "Donald Trump doubled down Friday on his love for Russian President Vladimir Putin, and said there's 'a lot of truth' to earlier comments he made about the U.S. killing people like Russia." Includes audio, sadly, absent a British accent (see yesterday's Commentariat). ...
... Jenna Johnson of the Washington Post: "Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Saturday that anyone who criticizes the warm compliments he has swapped with Russian President Vladimir Putin is simply 'jealous as hell.' Although Putin has been accused of a lengthy list of human rights violations, Trump has maintained that Russia could be a powerful partner for the United States -- and one that could help the country save some money." ...
... Benjamin Oreskes of Politico: "Four years ago Mitt Romney... definitively stated that Russia was America's biggest 'geopolitical foe.' This week, the far-and-away Republican poll leader Donald Trump gave Vladimir Putin a big, wet kiss.... Trump's warm embrace of the Russian president has shocked and alarmed the Republican establishment.... As the United States and its allies try to beat back Russia's intrusions into Ukraine and Syria, Trump has ruffled countless feathers by cozying up to the Russian leader.... 'Important distinction: thug Putin kills journalists and opponents; our presidents kill terrorists and enemy combatants,' Romney tweeted."
Ashley Parker of the New York Times: Jeb!'s "strategy to save his faltering campaign now involves attacking Mr. Trump, forcefully and frequently.... Nonetheless, Mr. Bush still sits in single digits in the polls, and New Hampshire has become a must-win state for him." ...
... OR, as Joanna Walters of the Guardian suggests, Jeb!, after asserting that "you can't insult your way to the presidency" a la the Donald Trump model, tries to insult his way to the presidency by calling Trump a "jerk" & other stuff.
Other News & Opinion
** Andrew O'Hehir of Salon on the U.S. political landscape. Hint: it's mighty bleak. I'm sure some of you can find nits to pick with O'Hehir's assessment, but I find it depressingly accurate.
** Carlos Lozada of the Washington Post: "Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America explains the U.S. today.
Eric Yoder of the Washington Post: "President Obama has finalized a pay raise for federal employees in January, the last step in a year-long process that started and ended at the same number, 1.3 percent. Obama issued an order Friday evening making the raise effective for most federal employees, as of the first full biweekly pay period of the new year, which will start Jan. 10 for most." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Dan Lamothe of the Washington Post: "In an interview with Foreign Policy magazine published Friday, [former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel] said he remains puzzled why [Obama] White House officials tried to 'destroy' him personally in his last days in office, adding that he was convinced the United States had no viable strategy in Syria and was particularly frustrated with National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who he said would hold meetings and focus on 'nit-picky' details." The interview is here. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post: "For the past two years, the Pentagon has acknowledged having a severe problem with sexual assault in the ranks. Military leaders have promised Congress, the White House and their own troops that they are redoubling efforts to protect victims and punish offenders. But those pledges have been undermined by a string of previously undisclosed cases in which soldiers entrusted with key roles in the campaign against sexual assault and harassment have, in turn, been accused of committing those very offenses, according to a Washington Post investigation.... Last year, the [Army] fired or reassigned 588 people from their jobs as victim counselors, military recruiters and 'positions of trust' after background checks revealed a history of sex crimes, child abuse, drunken driving and other offenses."
Michael Rosenwald of the Washington Post: "Spooked by a year of high-profile rampages, hundreds of companies and organizations ... are racing to train their workers how to react to a shooter in their workplaces. And after decades of telling employees to lock down and shelter in place, they are teaching them to fight back if evacuating is not an option. The idea: Work as a team to disrupt and confuse shooters, opening up a split second to take them down. The paradigm shift in response -- from passive to active -- has been endorsed and promoted by the Department of Homeland Security."
Where Assault Rifles are "Good, Clean Fun." Erik Eckholm of the New York Times: "In his Oval Office address on Dec. 6, [President] Obama expressed the exasperation shared by millions of Americans: How can we not limit weapons that can kill dozens in minutes? Why would any sport shooter need extra hand grips and a magazine holding 30 or even 100 cartridges? Many gun enthusiasts express deep exasperation of their own. They argue that most non-shooters do not understand the technology and appeal of modern weapons that are widely used for target shooting and, increasingly, hunting. They say proposed bans would do nothing to prevent crime or even lessen the toll of mass shootings.... Variants of the AR-15 design, a civilian version of the military's M-16 without the capacity to fire in automatic bursts, have in recent years been the highest-selling rifles in the country...."
Brian Bennett, et al., of the Los Angeles Times: "The Pentagon is considering increasing the pace and scope of cyberattacks against Islamic State, arguing that more aggressive efforts to disable the extremist group's computers, servers and cellphones could help curtail its appeal and disrupt potential terrorist attacks. Military hackers and coders at Cyber Command, based at Fort Meade, Md., have developed an array of malware that could be used to sabotage the militants' propaganda and recruitment capabilities, said U.S. officials...." ...
... CW: Weirdly, I think this is kinda what Donald Trump has in mind when he says he wants to "shut down parts of the Internet," even though he doesn't know what he's talking about. Hillary Clinton, who admitted she didn't know how to cut off ISIS's lines of communication, suggested something similar in last night's debate, tho she isn't stupid enough to have described the process as "shutting down parts of the Internet."
Beyond the Beltway
Elahi Izadi of the Washington Post: "Old Dixie Highway is no more in Riviera Beach, Fla. Instead, motorists are driving on President Barack Obama Highway. Riviera Beach officials renamed the portion of the highway in their city limits, and the new sign carrying the name of the nation's first black president went up Thursday. Old Dixie, officials said, paid homage to an era that glorified slavery." CW: Old Dixie Highway is the main street of many towns along Florida's east coast. Here's hoping other towns get with the Riviera Beach program. (But I'm not counting on it.) (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
News Lede
AP: "Kenyan authorities are interrogating several suspects who were on an Air France flight from Mauritius to Paris that was forced to land early Sunday in the Kenyan coastal city of Mombasa after a device suspected to be a bomb was found in a lavatory. A few passengers are being questioned, said Kenya's Interior Minister Joseph Nkaissery, speaking at a press conference at the Mombasa airport. Bomb experts are inspecting the device to see if it was an explosive, he said."
Share Article
Reader Comments (9)
There seems to be some confusion about the relationship between Adolf and Putin. The deal is simple. They are a perfect match. In both cases if you want to be respected or even loved all you need to do is kiss the others ass.
Hagel is pissed. Well, that seems to be par for the course given our history of Generals, Defense Secretary's and other military brass' bad ass connections with administrations.(After Kennedy's Bay of Pigs fiasco and a few other mistakes he stopped listening to his generals and the CIA) We should not be surprised that contretemps happen especially between a president that will do almost anything to keep us out of another full blown war and others who see intervention as the best solution at all costs. Which brings me to this "Red Line" business––something the Republicans love to being up––the "weak and feckless" president dithered and disappointed. My understanding of this :
When Obama drew the Red Line he indeed put himself in a sticky position–-he announced this in the Rose Garden––perhaps the scent of those flowers affected his thinking––but in essence he was right to say it. When it was clear that Assad was using chemical weapons Obama needed to act––and the way he acted was to ask Congress to declare intervention in Syria. Whether Congress would have acted on this we never knew because at that time John Kerry, giving some speech somewhere said that wouldn't it be ducky if Russia would intervene and put pressure on Assad to quit using those awful chemicals and insist they be rounded up and disposed. And by Jove, Putin, always an ear out for glory, did just that. Now––why on earth does this scenario make Obama the guy that didn't follow through?
Yes, O'Hehir's piece is bleak, but probably right on the money (an apt coinage given our landscape). Years ago Walter Lippmann, ace commentator of all things political, said that our system worked so well because the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans were bridgeable. If there were radical differences between the parties, he claimed, we could not have a stable, mature society. "If they were profound the minority party would be constantly on the verge of rebellion. an election would be catastrophic, whereas the assumption in every election is that the victors will do nothing to make life intolerable to the vanquished and the vanquished will endure with good humor policies which they do not approve."
Lippmann wrote this in 1925.
Perhaps Edward Snowden can host Trump in Russia. There Trump can express his Putin love up close. Who knows, after the visit, Putin may be the proud owner of a dead squirrel hairdo and Trump will return to the US shirtless.
Would second Carlos Lozada's de Tocqueville nod. Have long thought that it is the second most insightful book on American government ever written, the first being the Federalist Papers, and like the Papers, today also mostly unread.
My older son and I used to joke about how many copies of "Democracy in America" (each blessedly abridged) a well-read household should have lying around. Because we had three, we concluded that was the exact, right number.
In his American travels de Tocqueville did see and understand enough to, as Lozada says, formulate some generalizations about the country and its character that still apply. The book is a classic for many reasons, always worth dipping into yet again..
But one of those reasons has little to do with today. Like the Bible or Shakespeare, "Democracy in America's" vision of humanity and its foibles is much wider than its immediate subject. It says so many things about so many people and places, one can pick and choose among its comments and observations to support almost any point. I suspect that over they years the many uses to which his book has been put would very much surprise de Tocqueville himself.
(Reminds me of the time I used selections from Shakespeare to illustrate effective educational management techniques. Turns out t hat man had something to say about everything.)
So is the book conservative or liberal? The answer is refreshingly yes.
But is it crazy? Absolutely not.
We even have (somewhere) a more contemporary meditation/reprise/update of de Tocqueville's work "American Journey" by Richard Reeves. which I don't think I ever finished. Guess it's time to put that one back on the list.
In his time Reeves (his book was published in the 1980's and he may still have a newspaper column) did/does? have a good grip on American politics.
Might be pleasant to spend some time with someone who has, because I think I'm losing mine.
PD:
Perfect Lippmann quote. Thanks.
Again the linkage between good humor and sanity. And absent that good humor, crazy times.
Maybe that's why I'm losing my grip.
The American episode in Dickens' "Martin Chuzzlewit" is also a pretty good peek at our culture in the 19th century -- and today.
Some have said that Ted Cruz resembles a greased-up lizard:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/iowa-ted-cruz-donald-trump-cbs-polls-217012
IMHO, with a make-artist's palette & a magenta chapeau . . .
(apologies for the lengthy link):
https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&ei=Ev12Vo7LLYiamQGV_JRg&q=boy+george+photos&oq=boy&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.1.41l2j0i131j0j0i131.67443.73382.2.77160.6.4.1.1.1.0.234.791.0j3j1.4.0....0...1.1.64.mobile-gws-hp..13.43.6476.3.c8oJqfIdZe4#imgrc=IThfLkokTch4-M%3A
FYI: For any interested in Democracy in America, the Gutenberg Project has a fine, annotated ebook:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/815
and for us Luddites, Adobe has an excellent free ebook reader for use on laptops.
The charges of "micro-managing" by the Administration, made by Panetta, Hagel, and Gates may or may not be true. However, given the frightening actions of some of Bush's cabinet holders, perhaps Obama was reluctant to let these guys run free. Not to mention the very real f-ups of Generals Petraeus and McCrystal, who left skid marks on the Administration. I guess trust would be an issue for me too.
I suspect if Obama was seen as more of the stereotype of a "man's man", instead of an outsider, he would have been given a pass. Bush actively avoided military service and showed up in a crotch hugging jumpsuit on the deck of a aircraft carrier. He was heralded as a tough guy, a tough white guy. If you're black and smart, you must be weak. I've always thought Obama was anything but weak and I wouldn't want to be in his sights (see Osama bin Laden). Many folks confuse bellicose bullying with strength.