The Commentariat -- July 8, 2014
Internal links removed.
As fighting ramps up in the Gaza strip, President Obama writes an op-ed piece for Haaretz, saying peace as the only real security for Israel & the Palestinians.
Dan Roberts, et al., of the Guardian: "The White House was forced to defend its increasingly fraught relationship with Berlin on Monday as the Central Intelligence Agency maintained a conspicuous silence about new allegations linking it to a spying scandal involving a German intelligence official."
Erica Werner & Jim Kuhnhenn of the AP: "President Barack Obama is preparing to ask Congress for emergency spending of more than $2 billion to deal with the crisis of unaccompanied kids at the Southern border, but for now he won't seek legal changes to send the children back home more quickly. That decision comes after immigration advocates objected strongly to administration proposals to speed thousands of unaccompanied minors back home to El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, where many face gang violence. The White House insists the kids must be returned. Administration officials say they are still working on ways to do it faster, but say that the request for specific legislative changes will move on a separate track than the emergency spending request Obama is sending to Congress on Tuesday."
Steve Benen: "... as they once again position themselves as America's anti-immigrant, anti-contraception party, Republicans appear to have reached an important conclusion: the only changes they're comfortable making involve moving even further to the right, away from the mainstream.... There literally isn't a major issue on which the GOP has shifted towards the mainstream, despite its 2012 losses. Not one." ...
... No, Wait, Steve. There's Hope. They Go to Lunch with Intellectuals! People with Actual Policy Ideas. Sam Tanenhaus in the New York Times Magazine on conservative intellectuals who have been dubbed "reformacons." CW: I didn't read it. ...
... BUT Jonathan Chait did: "Their plans are filled with unreconciled contradictions, gaping policy holes, airy generalities, and, in the few places where they are specific, they are exceedingly small-bore in their focus. Yet ... the movement's true contribution lies in its challenge to Republican apocalypticism.... And the most telling thing about the story is the near-total absence of Paul Ryan.... Ryan's absence is all the more notable since the central protagonist in Tanenhaus's account is Yuval Levin, a Republican house intellectual who gained his current prominence by advising Ryan.... Whether or not the reformicons ever compose a workable domestic agenda, they have come to recognize that they cannot run a presidential campaign promising to rescue America from fire and rubble visible only to themselves." ...
... Charles Pierce quotes extensively from a piece by Rick Hertzberg of the New Yorker on the official crazy Texas Republican party platform (linked here July 4). Pierce writes,
This is the Republican Party. Yuval Levin and Ramesh Ponnuru are not. In fact, I think all those bold conservative thinkers of whom the New York Times thinks so much should bring their Big Ideas down to the next Texas state Republican convention and see how far they get. John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell, and especially obvious anagram Reince Priebus, who nominally presides over Bedlam, need to be asked every day which parts of the Texas Republican platform they support and which parts they don't. They don't get to use the crazies to get elected and then hide behind fake Washington politesse when the howls from the hinterlands get too loud. We allow ourselves only two major political parties. One of them is completely out of its fcking mind. This is a national problem.
Ed Kilgore: "Insofar as it's CW that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is suing the President of the United States to placate a furious conservative 'base' that doesn't think its heroes in Washington are sufficiently standing up to the godless Kenyan socialist, there's evidence it's not working." Kilgore cites "Erick Erickson's contemptuous reaction to the Boehner lawsuit." ...
... Brian Beutler: "John Boehner['s] ... pending lawsuit against President Obama will be the final word on whether the GOP is the party of maximum deportations, including of immigrants eligible for the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals directive.... Boehner will either include the DACA program among his list of the president's supposedly illegal executive actions, and thus cement his party's standing as one that represents the reactionary anti-immigrant minority in the country; or he'll leave DACA out, giving tacit consent to the program and infuriating the anti-immigrant faction of his own conference. And he may have just tipped his hand toward the anti-immigrant bunch."
Carol Leonnig & Manual Roig-Franzia of the Washington Post: "Sen. Robert Menendez [D-N.J.] is asking the Justice Department to pursue evidence obtained by U.S. investigators that the Cuban government concocted an elaborate plot to smear him with allegations that he cavorted with underage prostitutes, according to people familiar with the discussions.... According to a former U.S. official with firsthand knowledge of government intelligence, the CIA had obtained credible evidence, including Internet protocol addresses, linking Cuban agents to ... prostitution claims and to efforts to plant the story in U.S. and Latin American media."
Lauren French of Politico: "House lawmakers will hear testimony on Tuesday from whistleblowers who accuse the Department of Veterans Affairs of retaliating against them for exposing shoddy medical care."
Katie Zezema of the Washington Post: "White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday that 'most' unaccompanied minors attempting to enter the United States on the southern border will likely not qualify for humanitarian relief and will be deported." ...
... Dave Weigel of Slate: President Obama, who will not visit the border on his fundraising trip to Texas, is inviting another "Katrina moment." Just like all the previous Katrina moments that derailed his presidency. In other words, this too shall pass.
Dana Milbank: "... the Obama presidency these days is falling a good bit short of imperial on the Alexander-the-Great scale."
Emma Roller of the National Journal punctures Ed Klein's big "scoop" (linked here yesterday) that President Obama is backing Elizabeth Warren for president. "The reports of an impending Warren-Clinton catfight are also overblown.... It's a good rule that when there is a news vacuum, pundits will happily fill the void with 'truthy' theories about 2016. But until you see photos of Warren and Clinton brawling outside a Georgetown bar, you'd do well to take these reports with a big block of Himalayan salt."
Philip Bump of the Washington Post: Not only are sales relatively slow on Hillary Clinton's book Hard Choices, the people who bought it aren't reading it, according to an analysis based on methodology devised by a mathematician.
A Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Ken Vogel of Politico describes Harry Reid's concerted "War on the Kochs" in terms only a Republican could appreciate. Vogel uses terms like "the professional left" & "Koch-bashing politics" & describes the Kochs as "a couple of relatively unknown private citizens." Analysis Politico-style.
Tim Molloy of the Wrap: "Piers Morgan is gone from CNN, but new host John Walsh plans to continue his campaign for gun control. Besides hosting 'America's Most Wanted' and advocating for victims' rights, Walsh has been a longtime advocate of background checks and other safety measures. He said he would continue that fight now that he is joining CNN as the host of 'The Hunt,' a new show about catching fugitives.... He also said Vice President Joe Biden recently agreed with him that politicians are 'scared s--less' of the NRA. 'I said to Joe Biden, "90 percent of Americans are for a responsible background check for a gun, and you know what this Congress has done? Not voted on it, not brought it to the floor, not introduced a bill,'" Walsh said. 'I said, "They're all scared shitless of the NRA, aren't they?"' Walsh said the vice president replied, 'John, every one of them. Because the NRA will run a tea bagger against you.... They'll put 5 million bucks against you.'" CW: So sometimes it's "s--less" & sometimes it's "shitless."
Christopher Dickey of the Daily Beast: ISIS is destroying, or selling off, the antiquities of the ancient city of Ninevah. CW: This really is a tragedy.
Tara Culp-Ressler of Think Progress: "Teen births in Colorado have dropped by 40 percent over the past five years, thanks largely in part to a state program that provides affordable contraception to low-income women, the state's governor announced late last week. The long-lasting birth control that's being partially credited for the dramatic decline is the same contraceptive method at the center of Hobby Lobby's recent Supreme Court case." (Emphasis added.)
When Ignorance Is the Best Excuse. Richard Fausset of the New York Times on North Carolina voting rights. CW: I find it impossible to believe that Alan Langley -- the white Republican guy on the local board of elections -- is as ignorant as he claims to be. Even if he were clueless, when voters' reps came to him & said, "the changes you're making are discriminatory," he would -- if he were as wide-eyed innocent as he says he is -- revisit the decision & get input from the community (which he should have done in the first place). Fausset presents the story as two views of the same action, but I'd say one of those views is completely phony.
Jake Sherman & John Bresnahan of Politico: Eric Cantor's campaign is deep in the red, & Cantor's aides are soliciting House members for donations. CW: Cantor raised millions for them (perhaps a reason for his loss); now let's see if those selfcentered House members will reciprocate.
News Ledes
AP: "The Israeli military launched what could be a long-term offensive against the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip on Tuesday striking at least 50 sites in Gaza and mobilizing troops for a possible ground invasion aimed at stopping a barrage of rocket attacks against Israel."
New York Times: "Separatist rebels retreated Monday from positions in eastern Ukraine, apparently blowing up bridges, and began building barricades in the two largest cities, Donetsk and Luhansk, in anticipation of a final stand against advancing government troops. While separatist leaders have complained bitterly about being sold out by their allies in Moscow, Ukrainian officials said Monday that they had succeeded in sealing the previously porous border with Russia, stopping the influx of new weapons and fighters."
Share Article
Reader Comments (9)
Yesterday a commenter asked, "Has anyone ever heard of the Obama administration suppression of the Freedom of Info Act called the 'Craig Memo'?"
I replied,
"If you follow the money, you'll find that the recent disclosure of this so-called 'Craig memo' (it's not the only so-called 'Craig memo') was made by a Koch-funded group.
"The supposed memo itself has been 'reproduced' in a pdf that has no letterhead. I'm not saying it's a fake or that the White House doesn't try to control release of info; I'm saying I wouldn't take it seriously. If I see a report in a major news outlet, I'll revisit it. So far the only 'major news outlet' I've seen report on it is Glenn Beck's the Blaze."
James S. also responded to the query. Thanks.
Please bear in mind that I'm no better at Googling than the next person. In this case, it only took me 10 minutes to get some background. Other times, the question is harder -- & more time-consuming -- to answer.
As I've asked before, if you wonder about something you've read, rather than ask other readers to do your homework, do a little research yourself. If you come up with something interesting, whether or not your initial reading was worth your time, we welcome your sharing what you learned.
Thank you.
Marie
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/03/1311556/-Reason-1-SCOTUS-Will-Regret-Hobby-Lobby?detail=email#
This an interesting spin on the Hobby Lobby decision. According to attorney Mike Papantino:
"If Hobby Lobby's owners can give their Corporation religion, their religion gives Hobby Lobby's owners--and any other owner, shareholder, officer, whatever--liability for the actions of the corporation. Mr. Papantonio, who happens to be one of America's preeminent trial lawyers, sees it as an opportunity to sue owners for the company's negligence."
Maybe it's a case of "Be careful of what you wish for."
Here's a piece by Dan Vinik that puts some more meat on how Paul Ryan figures/will figure in the conservative's grand plan. It's a good piggy back to the Tanenhaus and Chait articles; Vinik mentions both of these.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118575/paul-ryans-supply-side-tax-reform-differs-reform-conservatism
@Barbarossa: I have a feeling Johnnie & His Dancing Supremes have already figured out some convoluted "reasoning" for maintaining the separation of church & liability.
Marie
Neo-cons are always whining about how much everyone has to learn from them, since, ya know, they're smart, and stuff.
Okay. So I see US-German relations may be a bit strained, what with our spies spying on their spies and powers that be espying a new spiel.
Not to worry, the president can take a page out of The Decider's playskool book, ask for a face to facet with Angela Merkel, then leap behind her and start massaging her back.
It worked well for Dubya. Di'n it?
I glanced through that long piece of fantasy writing by Sam Tanenhaus in the Times Magazine. Man, that dude is smoking some seriously good shit.
The picture makes them look like dummies in a wax museum. "Look kids. Republicans once had a few intellectuals. Or at least that's what they called themselves. They're all extinct now."
Can the GOP be the Party of Ideas? Well, shit, Sam, it already is.
Here are some of their biggest and best: no taxes, no healthcare, no immigration, no to women, no to minorities, no to expanded access for voting. No to regulation--on anything. No interest in facts, no interest in the environment, except as a source of big money for big business. No interest in keeping children from being slaughtered by nuts with guns. No interest in keeping nuts with guns from prowling the streets, brandishing loaded weapons. No interest in keeping loaded weapons away from the mentally disturbed, from dangerous stalkers, or from blind people. That's right, blind people. No interest in fairness, no interest in equality, no interest in economic opportunity for anyone who is not like them. They're for freedom of religion (one religion), freedom of speech (for corporations), and freedom to carry concealed weapons. They're against reproductive rights, a woman's right to make decisions about her own health without intrusion by the state and state avatars in the guise of "helpful sidewalk counselors", but all for your right to worship as they see fit. Or they'll sic the Supreme Court on you.
Ideas like those.
Oh, sorry Sam, you meant real ideas? Ideas that make sense?
Sorry. Fer crissakes, the fucking Senate Minority Leader is talking about a fictional character in the first paragraph of your story. I don't care that he's saying Republican voters are not all John Galts, the fact is that a made up guy is still an important icon for wingnuts. I don't care how smart you think your guys are, and by the way, the fact that some of these "smart guys" worked as policy advisors for criminals like George W. Bush, or studied with neo-con Emperors of the World at Chicago, doesn't bode well for my taking seriously anything they have to say, I wouldn't hire the guy who advised the Titanic to speed up and go straight to give me advice on how to operate a toy boat.
So when you describe this event, this momentous event of a colloquy of Conservative Intellectuals (oxymoron alert...beep, beep, beep...) as an unqualified success, you must mean in some marijuana haze hanging above your own living room.
Call up Louie Gohmert and Ted Cruz and Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum and Rick Perry and run some of these big ideas by them. See how far you get.
"Welcome to the Titanic, Ma'am. If you don't like that deck chair, there are plenty of very nice ones over here. Step right this way..."
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/08/this_is_a_religious_civil_war_hobby_lobby_only_the_beginning_for_new_religious_theocrats/
Paul Rosenberg really captures the mentality and tactical maneuvers behind Hobby Lobby. ""The Supreme Court’s actions are not taking place in a vacuum — though they are filling one: As Tea Party Republicans in the House increasingly bring democratic self-government to a halt, contracting the power of we the people to act as a cohesive self-governing whole, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority shifts ever more everyday power into the hands of private dictatorships.....This, then, is the bottom line: Conservatives (including libertarians) stand for the preservation and reinforcement (if necessary) of purportedly “natural” inequalities, which automatically structure all of society into overlapping forms of dominance and submission, in which the vast majority of people are inherently unfree “by nature.” Any collective action taken to free people from such dependent, powerless living conditions is anathema to them. Democracy itself is anathema to them. And Hobby Lobby is just the latest signal that they are firmly in charge.....This helps explain why, for example, today’s Tea Party Republicans reject unemployment insurance as “socialist” — if someone out of work has any freedom at all to hold out for a job that will cover their mortgage, say, that’s socialism as Mises would describe it. And he has a point: socialism really is just another word for collectively removing the hidden and semi-hidden forms of coercion that otherwise shape and control our everyday lives. That’s why public education is socialist, too — and why Democratic politicians as well as Republicans are so eager to destroy it nowadays. But none of these other examples is quite as visceral or far-reaching as that of giving women reproductive autonomy equal to that of men."
Lisa,
In a very elemental way, controlling the sex lives of women is the only legal thing--abusive relationships being largely frowned upon outside of right-wing world--men can do to display their dominance.
Men can't create life. Men can't give birth. Only women can do that. It's a tad simplistic to say that men would be nothing without women, the species would die off within a century or so, and women could certainly carry on as long as there were sperm banks around, but men who think in terms of zero sum power relationships probably don't like the fact women are a necessary part of life apart from playtoys and punching bags.
Since the single biggest elemental force, that of life, resides unilaterally with women, the only thing men of a certain mindset can do is lock them down and try to corral that power as much as possible. Being the ones to decide who can and who cannot control women's lives is what the Supremes and their right-wing supporters hope will be a sufficient enough way to assert their own power. Show 'em who's boss.
Contraceptives and abortion, even basic family planning (another reason Planned Parenthood is so hated by the right) give women power to choose how they will live without consulting with or begging permission of men, so out they must go.
Theocracies have always been, by far, the best way to control women. Why settle for anything less if a huge part of your ideology insists that women must submit to the power of men?
Johnny and the Dwarfs are on the case.
@Akhilleus: A guy friend (who seemed to be a bit bitter about relationships) once told me that women only want security from a man. I was defensive, convinced that did not describe my relationship. But now I realize the truth in his statement for many women and because of that they are willing to put up with being submissive and being treated poorly. I shake my head in wonder at women like Susan Patton, the Princeton Mom, or the many evangelical women who are willing to take a subservient role in a marriage, rather than an equal partnership, but to them there is the comfort of security as well as relief from having to make decisions or manage things on their own. If it makes them happy, I guess I shouldn't judge, but they should not be forcing their definition of a woman's role on society.