The Commentariat -- October 14, 2015
Internal links removed.
Michael Barbaro & Amy Chozick of the New York Times: "Hillary Rodham Clinton, seeking to halt the momentum of her insurgent challenger, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, aggressively questioned his values, positions and voting history in the first Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday night, turning a showdown that had been expected to scrutinize her character into a forceful critique of his record." ...
Dan Balz & Anne Gearan of the Washington Post: "Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders clashed ... Tuesday night over national security, the economy, big banks and gun-control policy in a spirited but largely civil debate that underscored competing approaches to helping the middle class and leading the country." ...
... The Washington Post has a transcript of the debate here. ...
... The Guardian's summary (at 5:15 am) is helpful. ...
... New York "Times reporters will provide instant analysis and fact-checking during the debate. Coverage begins at 8:30 p.m. Follow along on your phone or computer at nytimes.com, facebook.com/nytpolitics and @NYTPolitics. Follow along during the day." (Also linked yesterday.) ...
Glenn Kessler & Michelle Lee of the Washington Post fact-check the candidates. Mostly quibbles about statistics, but a few substantive phony claims. ...
(... CW: I am somewhat exercised about Clinton's blithe claim that Ed Snowden could have just gone the whistleblower route. Besides the legal issue Kessler covered here, I don't see what good it would have done for Snowden to alert Congress or an inspector general. A number of members of Congress already knew a good part of what Snowden leaked, but they never shared with the public the information Snowden revealed, information I think the public had a right to know & the government had an obligation to fix. Nor did they accomplish reforms to rein in the NSA. No, I'm no fan of Snowden's; I think he went overboard & was grossly incautious. But a large portion of what news media have published was surely in the public interest.)
... Dana Milbank writes what is probably the Villagers' collective assessment of the debate performances: "Hillary Clinton was a head shorter than her rivals when they lined up on stage.... But after that moment, she towered over them. Former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley was preachy and self-righteous. Former Virginia senator Jim Webb kept complaining that he wasn't getting enough time to talk. Former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee was more quirky spectator than participant. And Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont shouted as if he were unaware that he had a microphone." What say you? ...
... Jonathan Chait: "Clinton demonstrated that she was, by far, the best presidential candidate on stage.... She is not great at politics, as even many of her supporters concede. (Earlier today, Glenn Thrush and Annie Karni reported, 'Nearly every one of 50 advisers, donors, Democratic operatives and friends we interviewed for this story thought Clinton was a mediocre candidate who would make a good president....') But she is not as awful at it as she has appeared for most of 2015. After the debate, she again resembles what she appeared to be at the campaign's outset: the all-but-certain Democratic nominee." ...
... Rebecca Traister of New York: "[Sanders] gave [Clinton] the night's biggest Valentine, with his declaration that 'The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails,' but she responded in kind, with genuine gratitude and a warm smile. The truth is, Sanders has offered Clinton -- and Democrats -- a million gifts so far this season. Among the most valid fears was that Hillary's candidacy would go unchallenged, would proceed as a coronation." ...
... John Cassidy of the New Yorker: "Clinton didn't have the passion of Sanders or the poetry of O'Malley's sign-off, but she had something else: the self-confidence and killer instinct of a politician who has been down this route before." ...
... D. D. Guttenplan of the Nation: "... over the course of the night [Sanders'] answers ... revealed the fundamental difference between his approach and Clinton's. Although she described herself as 'a progressive,' Clinton typifies all that is good -- and bad -- about Democratic liberalism. She wants to tinker, and tweak, and make the system fairer. Sanders wants to tear it down, and to do that he really will need a movement, not just a mobilization." ...
... Eric Holthaus points out that Hillary Clinton is not going to be the "Environment President." ...
... Gabriel Sherman of New York: "Unfortunately for [Vice President] Biden, Hillary Clinton's adult performance just made it a lot harder for him to take a seat at the table.... And, if she aces next week's Benghazi hearing on Capitol Hill -- and many Democrats I spoke to expect she will -- then she would have effectively eliminated any remaining arguments for a Biden run. Unless, of course, the ongoing FBI investigation into the security of her email server ends in a bombshell that instantly blows open the door. But for now, Biden looks left out in the cold." ...
... Edward-Issac Dovere of Politico: "Now, Biden's orbit has put out word that he's going to take another week to make a decision -- right up against Clinton's appearance in front of the Benghazi Committee that once seemed like it could become an embarrassing inquisition, but that she's now already framing a tedious partisan fishing expedition." ...
... CW: It's probably worth noting that Clinton, et al., had no trouble dispatching Biden in 2008. He dropped out of the race January 3, after getting less than one percent of the Iowa caucus vote. I really can't see any big advantage Biden has over Clinton, other than "his name isn't Clinton." ...
... Seth Stevenson of Slate critiques Donald Trump's critique of the debate: "It's like Trump thinks the election is American Idol, and he's somehow both Kelly Clarkson and Simon Cowell at the same time." Humorous. And true: Trump does see the election as "American Idol." ...
Carrie Dann of NBC News: Donald Trump "will host NBC's 'Saturday Night Live' on November 7, the show announced Tuesday." ...
... CW: I can't be sure, but I'd say Shep Smith does not think this is a good idea:
Andy Borowitz: "The Democrats who participated in the first Democratic Presidential debate of the 2016 campaign garnered a scathing review from the retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who said that none of them offered a concrete plan to protect the Earth from an invasion of bloodthirsty alien dragons." ...
... CW: Actually, Andy, what Doc Sleepy might have said is that "none of them offered a concrete plan to forestall the End of Days." And, no, this is not satire. ...
... GOP Voters Opt for the Crazy. Nick Gass of Politico: "Ben Carson is drawing ever closer to Donald Trump among likely Republican primary voters, according to the results of the latest Fox News poll released Tuesday evening. The retired Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon took 23 percent to Trump's 24 percent, followed by 10 percent for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, 9 percent for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, 8 percent for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, 5 percent each for Carly Fiorina and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and 3 percent for Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. Other candidates earned 1 percent or less, with 7 percent undecided."
** Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker on how the partisan Benghaaazi! committee walked away from an opportunity to highlight President Obama & Secretary Clinton's failure to plan for post-Qaddafi Libya in the same way President Bush had no plan for post-Saddam Iraq. ...
... CW: Here's what we know after decades of misadventures in the Middle East: (1) After deposing a dictator or quasi-dictator, Western micro-management of the "transition" doesn't work. (2) After deposing a dictator or quasi-dictator, leaving the locals to their own devices doesn't work.
David Crary of the AP: "Responding to a furor over undercover videos, Planned Parenthood said Tuesday that it would no longer accept payments to cover the costs of the programs that make fetal tissue available for research.... Planned Parenthood said the videos were deceptively edited and denied seeking any payments beyond legally permitted reimbursement of costs. The new policy -- forgoing even permissible reimbursement -- was outlined in a letter sent Tuesday by Planned Parenthood's president, Cecile Richards, to Dr. Francis S. Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health." ...
... CW: This is pretty sad. I'm extremely sorry Planned Parenthood succumbed to Republican intimidation. The governmental body that authorized reimbursement is the very one that bludgeoned Planned Parenthood to forego it. Their costs of maintaining & transferring the tissue will mean less money to provide other reproductive services. ...
... Update: See Victoria D.'s comment below.
Mujib Mashal of the New York Times: In Afghanistan, ISIS is peeling off Taliban, often by paying bonuses to out-of-work young men. "In a series of quick strikes, the Islamic State fighters began driving out local Taliban units, and officials say the splinter group now has a clear foothold across several districts in eastern Nangarhar Province, in rugged terrain on the border with Pakistan that had long been mostly out of government control. The fighters may mostly be former Taliban, but they appear to have wholeheartedly taken up the calculated cruelty that the Islamic State has become known for, consolidating their hold with a brutality that has been shocking even by the standards of the Afghan insurgency." CW: Ceaseless war. From horrible to worse.
Annals of "Journalism," Ctd.
It isn't only Donald Trump who treats the presidential race like a season of "American Idol." Paul Krugman: "The commentariat seems to have turned on a dime. After trashing Hillary Clinton nonstop, they're all talking her up. And you can see why, given the revelations that (a) the whole Benghazi thing, including the email obsession, was a partisan witch hunt and (b) Clinton herself is smart, articulate, and has a good sense of humor. But the odd thing about these revelations is that they weren't at all revelatory... Anyway, it's quite sad that after all these years political coverage still treats the momentous issue of who will lead the world's most powerful nation like a high school popularity contest."
Dan Merica & Sunlen Serfaty of CNN demonstrate how to profile a candidate's spouse. Rule 1: Don't say anything about her. Rebecca Traister: "The profile is a decent length -- more than 900 words. Here's how many of those words are devoted to describing anything about Jane Sanders that is not related to how she met, reflects, works with, believes in, helps, or otherwise bolsters her husband: 25. I'm actually being generous here because I counted their mention that she was 'born in Brooklyn' even though that seems to have only been included because her birthplace was 'a few blocks from the man who would be her future husband.'" ...
... Here's a CNN segment where we learn Jane is Bernie's "secret weapon." ...
... CW: Best argument I can think of for Hillary for President. The press has already taken a bit of interest in her spouse. Maybe because he isn't a wife. Please don't think that discrimination against women is limited to curtailing reproductive rights, job discrimination, lesser pay, etc. The authors of this "profile" are young people. One might hope -- since they grew up in an era when becoming a wife no longer meant legally ceasing to be a woman with individual rights -- they would recognize that the candidate's wife is an actual person. But no.
Beyond the Beltway
Erik Eckholm of the New York Times: "A jury late Tuesday awarded more than $5 million in damages to two police officers who were severely wounded with a pistol that a local gun shop sold to a straw buyer in 2009."
News Ledes
New York Times: "A Scottish nurse who seemed to recover from Ebola 10 months ago has been rehospitalized and is now critically ill, the Royal Free Hospital in London reported Wednesday. Scientists have long known that the Ebola virus can persist for months in certain tissues of the body that are relatively protected from the immune system, including the eyes and the testes."
Washington Post: "Thousands of Israeli soldiers and border police fanned out across major cities and security forces began to erect checkpoints to close off Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem on Wednesday to stem a wave of Palestinian attacks against Israelis. Military officials say the use of hundreds of Israeli soldiers along highways and in residential areas is the first such deployment in more than a decade, since the second Palestinian uprising, or intifada, in the early 2000s."
Share Article
Reader Comments (29)
My sources tell me that the decision to forego reimbursement for transferring fetal tissue was a fairly easy one for Planned Parenthood to make. California was the only state where clinics even charged a fee so the decision does not have wide financial impact on the organization as a whole.
Caught about a half hour of the debates, probably thirty minutes in...(Dana Milbank pretty much summed up my reactions). I was pleasantly surprised at the new and improved Hillary (she's evidently had a lot of input from 'advisors' since her last run and has learned much. She was prepared and outshone the others. Bernie while good at times (and I like him) was a bit off. His gun stuff explanations, not working!
Jim Webb sounded cranky? Chaffee? The Democrat's Patacki!!!
Thought Anderson Cooper was a PITA (pain in the ass) with his "your time is up, you agreed to these debate conditions, yada yada" Oh, pleeze. At times, it sounded as though CNN was desperately seeking to appear tough and challenging! Whereas, other times allowing talk overruns.
Overall, great to hear real issues discussed!
O'Malley, definitely Vice-Presidential material.
Webb? Stick to your day job. Writing novels.
Chaffee? Bet your grandkids adore you!
I, too, watched the first half of the debate until I couldn't keep my eyes open any longer. It definitely had more substance and less rancor than the Confederate confabs.
There were a few errors in the candidates statements according to Factcheck.org. However, they seem much less egregious compared to the outright lies and blatant bullshit that was spewed forth by the Confederates. I hope the people will start to see the difference and vote accordingly.
The problem with the Andy Borowitz comment on Carson is that it isn't funny. Nice that the media is getting a little closer to the reality of Carson's damaged brain (maybe he needs brain surgery) but they need to start getting serious about his truly delusional mental state.
In comparison with the Republican debates, this one was a "gold standard" by far. I thought Rebecca (a very savvy gal) Traister's input on the debates accurate and interesting even though Webb and Chafee were left outside somewhere waving their flags. I especially liked her take on Jane Sanders.
I thought Hillary was at her best and loved how she didn't bite the hook that Chafee tried to fling at her re: her vote on the Iraq war, but deftly proceeded with mention of Obama choosing her as Secretary of State–-a matter of trust...and loved Bernie's "valentine" to her re: the "damn emails"––a moment of camaraderie that was a pleasure to watch.
I'm with MAG:
President Clinton
Vice President O'Malley (training for the top job)
Secretary of the Treasury Sanders (sic Bernie on Wall Street)
Oh, and:
Speaker of the (Democrat Majority) House, Stenny Hoyer
Senate Majority Leader, Barbara Mikulsky (don't let her retire)
I'm admittedly prejudiced here in Southern Maryland, but serious nonetheless.
Secretary of Defense Webb? Maybe
Chaffee, HHS?
Bad move by Planned Parenthood. Very bad.
I'd call this an Obama Miscalculation, a classic category error, the idea that if you try to meet the whackos halfway (thinking that they're rational actors, ergo the category mistake), they'll leave you alone or at the very least not be quite as stupid, and maybe even let you get on, or even help you, with important business.
Nope, sorry.
It never worked for the president and it won't work for PP. I mean, fuck me, it won't even work for other Republicans! What it does do however, is throw more red meat to the savage dogs. It gives them the chance to proclaim that their most outrageous lies have been proven correct. They're not going to be satisfied with this. Now they want everything and PP has demonstrated that they can be bullied into submission.
My question is "Why now?" PP survived the assault. They left the kangaroo court without a noose around their necks. There's less and less chance of the loons shutting down the government over this, and besides, their approval ratings were going up even as that of the Republican begrudgers was going down. So why now? Giving in will only make things worse.
Look, not a single one of the wild animals baying for blood will have their feverish minds changed by anything Planned Parenthood or their supporters or any disinterested third party has to say, or by any facts they may present. Their little brains are only able to operate in attack mode. And their new PP "investigative" committee will be going great guns now, trying to ring down the curtain on the whole shebang.
What does change minds are the services Planned Parenthood has and will (hopefully) continue to supply to women, especially poor women. That has made a difference is what is responsible, largely, for the uptick in their support.
At one point in time perhaps (pre-TP), this move might have seemed a politic thing to do, and maybe not even then, but certainly not now. You can never give in to these animals. They're like wild dogs able to smell fear. They're not going back to the dog house to chill with a soup bone. They're going for the jugular. And scientific inquiries that require tissue samples for research into overcoming terrible diseases will be hampered even more than they've already been by the rabid, anti-science, anti-women Bible beaters.
This is very bad news on so many fronts.
Re Anderson Cooper's performance,
Entirely as expected. The Media, all of it, does not cover events. It covers itself, covering events. The Media must always be the star and center of attention. If it ain't, it didn't happen.
I'm all for Mikulski hanging around for a few more years. I've always liked her no-nonsense approach and her summary rejection of Republican bullshit. I read somewhere (don't recall where now) that Bill Clinton threw her name out as a possible VP for Gore in the 2000 election. Gore, stupidly, chose that idiot Lieberman. Who knows what would have happened had it been Mikulski debating Cheney rather than that supercilious Lieberman.
I've also been jonesing for a good Barney Frank smackdown of the imbecilic wingnuts. Been missing Barney. How many current members of congress could up with something this incisive, and funny, at the drop of a hat, upon being accused of having a "radical gay agenda"?
“I do not think that any self-respecting radical in history would have considered advocating people’s rights to get married, join the Army, and earn a living as a terribly inspiring revolutionary platform.”
Yup, I miss Barney.
@Akhilleus: You're right. From the AP article linked above:
"David Deleiden, who led the undercover video effort, depicted Planned Parenthood's shift as 'an admission of guilt.'...
"Rep. Diane Black, a Tennessee Republican, said she remained intent on seeking to defund Planned Parenthood. 'It is curious that, while Planned Parenthood officials maintain there has been no wrongdoing, they still find it necessary to change their policy,' Black said. 'Clearly, this was a decision motivated by optics rather than the organization's conscience.'"
Marie
Mirabile Dictu,
David Brooks has today a pretty good column:
http://nyti.ms/1Li9ziZ
or so it seems to me, but I may be getting delusional.
Kulcha Sidebar.
So the Man Booker prize was announced yesterday in London. The winner was Marlon James whose novel "A Brief History of Seven Killings" is the first work by a Jamaican writer to score the prestigious award. This surprised the bookies. Bookies? What bookies?
I've always been more than a little amused that Brits take a literary award seriously enough to bet on. The touts had American novelist Hanya Yanagihara's book "A Little Life" a 2 to 1 favorite in the days leading up the announcement.
It throws into a distinctly bad light the lit'ry life in this country. Most people here have never even heard of such things as the National Book Critic's Award or the PEN/Faulkner award, never mind care enough to bet on who might win. Anti-intellectualism is as much a staple of American life as gun violence and reality shows. And you might say, well, some people will bet on anything, it doesn't really mean much that Brits bet on the Man Booker. And that's true, as far as it goes.
Most bettors probably have never even read any of the books in the running. Quite true. But they could also be betting on things like the next royal to stub their toe or how many penalty kicks Man United will turn back this year. At one point, a betting site in England offered punters a chance to wager on live snail racing, and I am not even making that up. But betting on the Man Booker has become a big deal.
In this country, you can find a Vegas line on some pretty obscure stuff, whether or not Tom Brady will look left and throw right on his first pass attempt this weekend against the Colts, or whether the Cubs will bunt in a run during the NLCS. I seem to recall that there were betting lines on the time of the opening gun, so to speak, of Desert Storm.
But betting on books?
'mericans just ain't in'trested in high-falutin' (as Ben Carson likes to say), smartass intellectchall type shit.
And looking at the jackasses up for election on the Republican side, it shows. But a few have actually written books, haven't they? Why, Rand Paul has written a few himself. Oh wait, he "wrote" one with his White Supremacist buddy, and a lot of the best stuff was plagiarized.
Okay, never mind.
Akhilleus: While I completely agree with you about PP's unwise decision concerning fetal tissue, I have a bone to pick about language. I think comparing Republicans to wild animals is unfair to wild animals. Wild animals are wild according their proper nature. Also, I think suggesting that opponents, antagonists, Republicans, etc. are sub-human misses the point. The Republicans are human animals, all right, but feral.
@D.C.Clark: The trouble with Brooks' "pretty good column" today is that he wants it both ways. He sees the proper role of conservatism as promoting good government by bringing the screaming mimis of the the Democratic caucus to the table & "reasoning" them into effective compromise that will enhance the nation & make all right with the world.
But when his side behaves badly -- when his side is the actual haven of the screaming mimis -- he's quite willing to use that to the advantage of nice, genteel conservatives such as himself. Here he is in 2012 endorsing Mitt Romney because his gang behaves badly:
"Republicans in Congress would probably go along [with Romney]. They wouldn’t want to destroy a Republican president. Romney would champion enough conservative reforms to allow some Republicans to justify their votes. The bottom line is this: If Obama wins, we’ll probably get small-bore stasis; if Romney wins, we’re more likely to get bipartisan reform. Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans. He’s more likely to get big stuff done."
Brooks is unhappy now because the Limbaugh-Cruz faction is banging at the heavy doors of Brooks' well-appointed salon. But he didn't mind them at all when it meant he could argue that their insurgency was the route to a very fine Romney administration, one that would be far superior to an Obama administration incapable of controlling the loons or sufficiently flip-flopping his way to their demands.
Marie
Marie,
That is certainly the problem.
True confession: I can't help feeling a certain amount of pity for Brooks, as he attempts to come across as the Last Conservative Intellectual. Long ago, a callow youth, I considered myself, like Brooks, a William F. Buckley conservative. Becoming disillusioned, I decided, for a blessedly brief period, that I was a Libertarian. Finished growing up, sobered up, and became a Roosevelt Liberal.
I suppose its some sort of perverse nostalgia. Sort of like looking at photos of the Sixties -- feelings of embarrassment at how silly we looked mixed with yearning for our lost youth. Maybe I'm subconsciously hoping that Brooks will grow up too. Hope springs eternal. Or maybe I'm just getting senile.
In any case, thanks for your indulgence.
@MAG and @ D. C. Clark: I value your comments on last night's debate which I was not able to watch. With a line up as compelling as the current Democratic field, it seems unfortunate that the media is so focused on declaring winners and losers. So I was glad to read D. C. Clark's proposal for VP and certain cabinet members. I surely hope he has cast further light on a field of winners. On a lighter side, a local newspaper is reported to have run a headline this morning (freely translated): "Last night's US presidential debate: Denmark won!"
Speaking of nostalgia (now you've got me going) does anyone else remember Joe Pyne?
"Joe Pyne (22 December 1924 – 23 March 1970) was an American radio and television talk show host, who pioneered the confrontational style in which the host advocates a viewpoint and argues with guests and audience members. He was an influence on other major talk show hosts such as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Wally George, Alan Burke, Chris Matthews, Morton Downey, Jr., Bob Grant, and Michael Savage."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Pyne
He was in a way the prototype VideoWingNut.
Akhilleus, re PP getting out of charging fees for the tissue business, and "why now?"
The money does not mean much to their bottom line, it is insignificant. When PP takes away the fees, PP can more easily expose the continued attacks of politicians as attacks on women's choice, depriving the attackers of of the cover of "selling" baby parts.
That will reduce to the question, what do you do with the tissue? Does it become medical waste or continue to be available for research? Another moral question, but much less problematic than defending whether PP profits from selling tissue.
PP's real next problem will come when GOP members start hitting on its political activities, since among other things it is a "get out the vote" organization. They need to clear the decks for that action.
Akhilleus, re PP getting out of charging fees for the tissue business, and "why now?"
The money does not mean much to their bottom line, it is insignificant. When PP takes away the fees, PP can more easily expose the continued attacks of politicians as attacks on women's choice, depriving the attackers of of the cover of "selling" baby parts.
That will reduce to the question, what do you do with the tissue? Does it become medical waste or continue to be available for research? Another moral question, but much less problematic than defending whether PP profits from selling tissue.
PP's real next problem will come when GOP members start hitting on its political activities, since among other things it is a "get out the vote" organization. They need to clear the decks for that action.
It has long been a point, universally conceded by all with a working brain and an active intellectual life, that prognosticators like Brooks are wrong much, if not most, of the time, and yet suffer little to no reduction in respect or consideration as worthy political and social oracles. Meteorologists are often kidded for being wrong about big weather events. But the worst of them would have to be basing their forecasts on divining pig entrails to be as wrong as Brooks has been.
The bit of Brooksian wisdom recalled for us in the quote Marie has selected has this peremptory dismissal of an Obama presidency, tossed off the way one might dispose of a used napkin:
"The bottom line is this: If Obama wins, we’ll probably get small-bore stasis;"
Stasis: a period or state of inactivity or equilibrium.
In other words not much happening.
But Barack Obama's term (and he's not even finished yet) in office will go down, in spite of the hatred and obstructionism foisted on him by Brooks' party, as one of the great presidencies in American history.
The Affordable Care Act alone would put him in the upper brackets of presidential success stories, an accomplishment many believed impossible to achieve and he did it with every single member of the other party and all their media shills actively working against him. Kind of like walking a tight-rope through, not over, Niagara Falls, blindfolded, in the middle of a hurricane and reciting the Gettysburg Address backwards--in Pig Latin--while doing it.
There are too many detractors to count (especially on the right, the people who caused it) of what was necessary to revive the economy after Republicans and their imbecile president wrecked it. It could have been badly mishandled. It wasn't and the economy is better now than it's been in nearly a decade. Pundits still whine about it, but if Obama had screwed up on that one, we'd all be in the deep stuff.
The Iran Deal could go down as a first-rate piece of diplomacy and accomplish what Republican bombs and torture and threats never could.
He's the first president to recognize marriage equality. Took him a while to get there but he did. And that recognition has helped slide the country's social tectonic plates in ways few could have predicted. Let's not even mention his place as the first black president and all the problems that's caused him, the disrespect, the insults, people calling his wife a gorilla, etc.
Bush fucked up every crisis he faced and his indolence and "stasis" allowed one of the worst disasters in American history leading him to create another disaster, only one much worse. Obama has been a rock-steady force through the BP spill, the Ebola crisis, the economic meltdown, the ending of Bush's Iraq War (and let's not forget who it was who finally captured Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive") and has attempted to tackle the immigration problem in the face of ridiculous intransigence, ignorance, and racism.
Small bore? Stasis? If this is what David Brooks thinks is small bore stasis, I can't imagine what he thinks an active and successful presidency might look like. And you know what? Neither can he. Because if he thinks Obama has been a failure, which he's declared often, he has no fucking clue what he's talking about.
Let's face it. The guy is a well turned-out fraud. A bumbling know-nothing with a faux academic mien who complains that the mouthbreathers in his party aren't aware of the proper time to use the dessert fork but looks the other way when they're burning down the house.
Stasis my assis.
Patrick,
I wasn't so much criticizing Planned Parenthood for the details of their acquiescence as much as the act itself. The fact that they knuckled under to the thugs is what causes the most distress, for me anyway.
And it's not like the Confederates will leave them alone now. They will still go after their political activities, still use PP as a fund raising issue, and still meet everyday for the next two years in this latest "investigative" committee that will "find" whatever it wants to find.
I think they (PP) should have stood their ground and said "fuck the begrudgers". It's the appearance that matters here. Planned Parenthood striking their colors in the face of the marauders only emboldens them to ever lower depths of mendacity and congressional depravity.
DC
Won't you please reconsider your consideration of Webb for Defense? I kept wondering what the hell that Republican was doing in the Democratic debate.
PS. Let's talk about firing folks. Debbie W. Schultz has to go.
Haley,
OK, how about Veteran's Affairs? Couldn't do much damage there, might do some good. Need a token DINO somewhere.
Akhilleus
And I would add TPP to that non-stasis list. Yeah, I know it's not through the congress yet (and I still don't understand if they can kill it) and it may be a terrible deal, but whatever it is, it is most decidedly not 'stasis'.
Here's hoping he can get something really good out of the December meetings on climate change.
And I look forward to him blowing up the last of the Republican Party when he faces them down over the debt ceiling.
Now if he can just empty Gitmo....
DC
Veteran's Affairs would suit nicely.
Hey, did you see Carter is talking about drafting women if the draft is reinstated?
What do you think of that?
Haley,
I have a solid position on the draft:
Register everybody, no deferments, no exemptions except complete disability. Pentagon decides each year how many conscripts are needed. Call them up in order of their parents net worth -- the rich go first. Plus; mandatory universal service for children and grandchildren of members of Congress. In a combat role when available.
[CW: Content removed for copyright infringement. You can watch a swell video of the content here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy2Ln6-P-V8 ]
~ John Fogerty
DC
I think that's a great idea! I'm pretty certain it will lessen the chance we will be going to war on January 20, 2017.
@D.C.Clark: I see now that Steve M. has a better takedown of Brooks, titled "AFTER A MULTI-YEAR DENIAL OF BARN-DOOR OPENNESS, DAVID BROOKS NOTICES THE ABSENCE OF HORSES."
Marie