The Commentariat -- Sept. 8, 2012
My column in the New York Times eXaminer is on David Brooks' "analysis" of President Obama's acceptance speech. The NYTX front page is here.
President Obama's Weekly Address:
... The transcript is here.
New York Times Editors: "In a scalding opinion issued on Thursday, Judge Royce Lamberth of Federal District Court rejected new rules imposed by the Obama administration last spring that limit access to counsel for prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, who are not actively challenging their detention.... Judge Lamberth ... is completely right."
Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times writes the story behind the conviction of Bishop Robert Finn for misdemeanor failing to report suspected child abuse. Plea bargains save taxpayer money, but really -- misdemeanor, my ass. ...
... New York Times Editors: "At a minimum, Catholic officials concerned about church credibility should press for the resignation of Bishop Finn for having abetted the scandal."
"Freaky Freon Friday." Elisabeth Rosenthal & Andrew Lehren of the New York Times: smuggling a banned A/C coolant has become big business in the U.S. & Europe.
Presidential Race
Frank Newport of Gallup: "President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party look as if they are getting at least a preliminary bounce from their convention. Today's (Friday, Sept. 7) Gallup Daily tracking update puts Obama's job approval rating at 52%, the highest it has been since May 2011, after the killing of Osama bin Laden. Obama has also moved to a 48% to 45% lead over Mitt Romney among registered voters in the election tracking, up from Obama's 47% to 46% margin over the last nine days."
Republican know-it-all Joe Scarborough in Politico: "Maybe there seemed to be such a disparity between the two conventions because the Republican Party has never been the least bit excited about its nominee. Or maybe it's because Democrats were simply blessed with a deeper bench of political athletes in 2012. But whatever the reason, Republicans were lapped by their rivals and may ultimately pay in November for botching Mitt Romney's debut. And that means that these conventions will have mattered -- a lot." CW: hey, Scarborough gets some things right.
Howard Kurtz of Newsweek: "While the pundits are generally calling the president's Thursday night address mediocre, Obama and his advisers had taken great pains to avoid soaring rhetoric that might have been derided as empty. Indeed, they extensively tested the president's speech in dial groups, a type of focus group where voters twist dials to register approval or disapproval of specific passages, and say it tested off the charts." ...
... John Harris, et al., of Politico: "A surprisingly long parade of Democrats and media commentators described the [President's] speech less as a failure than a fizzle -- an oddly missed opportunity to frame his presidency or the nation's choice in a fresh or inspirational light. Even those who liked the president's performance generally went no further than saying that he was effective in doing a job that needed to be done, in a tough-minded if prosaic style." ...
... CW: my impression is that the speech holds up better on paper than it did in delivery -- which is kinda surprising in an Obama speech. But I also think Ken Winkes' commentary in today's Comments is exactly right. Winkes points to some critical facts that Obama should have included in his speech -- facts low-information (i.e., most) voters simply don't know. ...
... Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker titled on the front page (but not on the post), "How Obama Might Lose": "There was an odd mismatch between Obama's claim about the enormous stakes of this election and his own preview of what he would do if re-elected." CW: Lizza's analysis is in line with my own observation (see NYTX column, linked above) that Obama is promising only to be the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dike. He's planning to save us from the flood but doesn't think he can actually effect flood control. ...
... Also in line with my NYTX column, Rick Hertzberg of the New Yorker: "... if Obama is re-elected, he will almost certainly face a Republican House and a Senate that, whichever party is nominally in control, is paralyzed by Republican filibusters. That is why there were no big plans, no sweeping visions." ...
... AND Hertzberg, Lizza, John Cassidy & Dorothy Wickenden discuss the conventions & the what-all to expect next:
Mark Warren of Esquire on Joe Biden. A lovely encomium, but the takeaway is Your Analogy of the Day -- Joe Biden : Violence Against Women Act :: Paul Ryan : forcible rape. That alone should tell all voters, women and men, who has the better judgment -- Obama or Romney.
Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from Alaska. Mitt Romney talks like he's only seen Russia by watching Rocky IV. -- John Kerry, speaking before the Democratic convention (video in yesterday's Commentariat)
Quote of the Day. I think he diminished himself by even mentioning my name. How does he even know my name? I mean aren't these guys supposed to be these big wig elites who don't waste their time on the little people like me -- me representing the average American who, yeah I did say in Alaska you can see Russia from our land base and I was making the point that we are strategically located on the globe and when it comes to transportation corridors and resources that are shared and fought over [in] Alaska and I as the governor had known what I was doing in dealing with some international issues that had to do with our resources that could help secure the nation. -- Guess Who (no prizes for this one!) on John Kerry's speech
Good question, Guess Who. How could a 2004 presidential candidate possibly find out the name of a 2008 vice-presidential candidate? Obviously, Kerry's research team did some deep diving. And you're right: mentioning you in beneath Kerry's dignity. And mine. Oops! -- Constant Weader
Afghanistan, U.S. Troops Aren't "Important" Enough to Mention. Ben Ambruster of Think Progress: "In an interview with Fox News..., Mitt Romney shot back at critics who complained that he didn't mention Afghanistan or praise U.S. troops in his convention speech last week....
When you give a speech you don't go through a laundry list, you talk about the things that you think are important and I described in my speech, my commitment to a strong military unlike the president's decision to cut our military. And I didn't use the word troops, I used the word military. I think they refer to the same thing. ...
... "His speech did mention the military, but only to say that he wants to 'preserve' a strong military (incidentally so does Obama)." ...
... Markos Moulitsas: "Wrong answer. You thank the fucking troops. They are not a laundry list. And while Romney might not think they are important, they kind of are. Romney then goes on to claim that he talked about a 'strong military,' which was totally the same as thanking the troops for their service. Except that it's not. One of them speaks to the institution, the other speaks to the individuals who do the work of the institution. It's the same distinction as corporations and the people who work for them -- a distinction that Romney famously fails to understand." ...
... CW: when Mitt talks about increasing "the military," what he's really talking about is increasing military contracts. And, yeah, I know military contractors, like all corporations, are people, too -- people like the ones that wacko leftie Ike warned about. Ike was warning about Mitt Romney, too.
Lady Romney Refuses to Answer Again. David Nelson of KWQC (Iowa): "Mrs. Romney ... said she wanted to speak about women's issues.... 'My message, really, was "women, I hear your voices."' ... When asked if she believes a lesbian mother should be allowed to marry her partner, Mrs. Romney said, 'I'm not going to talk about the specific issues.' ... When asked if she believes that employer-provided health insurance should be required to cover birth control, Mrs. Romney said 'Again, you're asking me questions that are not about what this election is going to be about.' ... [Nelson cited] an April 2012 Pew Research Center poll [which] found that 46% of women voters under age 50 said birth control is 'very important' to their vote this November.... Mrs. Romney responded 'but I personally believe, and this is what I'm hearing from women all across the country that they are going to look for the guy that's going to pull them out of the weeds and get them job security and a brighter future for their children. That's the message." The full transcript of the interview is here. The video is here. Quite a show. ...
... Tara Culp-Ressler of Think Progress: "... Ann Romney declin[ed] to address whether she believes women should have access to contraception through their employer-based insurance plans. Such questions are irrelevant, Romney said, because this election is not going to be about birth control.... In fact, women's access to reproductive health services is inextricably linked to the economic issues that countless women face." ...
... Joan McCarter of Daily Kos: Mitt Romney's "women's ambassador" says women's issues don't matter.
Congressional Races
McCay Coppins of BuzzFeed: "At a rally in the most conservative county in Iowa, Mitt Romney enthusiastically endorsed conservative lightning rod Rep. Steve King.... Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith issued a statement: ... 'If his speech today praising Rep. Steve King -- who has questioned whether women get pregnant from rape and incest and said hateful things about immigrants -- is any indication, we know [Romney] wouldn't stand up to the most strident voices in his party.'" ...
... For more on King's immigrants = animals remarks, see Jillian Rayfield of Salon. And to get a fully picture of the Real Steve King, Hunter of Daily Kos has a good overview of the guy Romney wants to "partner" with in Washington.
Bob Salsberg of the AP: "Joseph Kennedy III, the first of his famous political family's generation to seek elective office, defeated two little-known Democrats in Thursday's primary in Massachusetts' 4th Congressional District. Kennedy, 31, will face the winner of a three-way Republican primary in the November election for the seat currently held by longtime liberal Democratic Rep. Barney Frank."
News Ledes
Washington Post: "The bleak [jobs] report is all but certain to spur the Federal Reserve to expand its efforts to generate faster economic growth and lower unemployment. The central bank, whose policymakers meet next week, is strongly considering pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the mortgage market." CW: I'm not holding my breath.
New York Times: "Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged on Saturday that the United States would soon lift cold-war-era trade sanctions on Russia, but she did not address related legislation in Congress that has so far blocked the move, infuriated the Kremlin and become an unexpected issue in the American presidential race." CW: the presidential race part, spelled out in the story, is interesting.
Reuters: "Nearly seventeen years after O.J. Simpson walked away from his murder trial a free man..., former Los Angeles deputy district attorney Christopher Darden on Thursday accused Simpson defense lawyer, the late Johnnie Cochran, of 'manipulating' one of the infamous gloves that the prosecution said linked Simpson to the grisly double murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman."
Share Article
Reader Comments (13)
Marie, thanks for reading Brooks for me. I heard the same speech you did and thinking over it today, filtered by the disappointing unemployment numbers, I think the President did tell the truth, just not all of it. He and his advisors may know what they are doing. I certainly hope so, but if he loses and the Democrats lose seats, as you say they might, in both the House and Senate, I will look back on last night and wish he had been even more truthful.
The truths he did not utter but should have include:
Employment depends wholly on demand for goods and services and the economic conditions created in the last thirty years have simply sapped both. As our tax policies siphoned hundreds of billions to the top one percent, those dollars are not available to the consumers who drive the economy. The "job creators" are really job killers, and the oligarchy doesn't care. Today the Republicans practice economic evil, and their convenient hand-wringing over a debt they created both by spending money they didn't have and by crashing the tax base with their gargantuan recession is only the latest curtain they hide their cynical manipulations behind.
Second, the reason we don't have a jobs bill and higher taxes on the wealthy is easy to explain. Both initiatives are popular, so why not a little history lesson when the professor has the stage? We don't have them because Republicans did not vote for them. The House which was elected on the promise of jobs did NOTHING to move the country out of its economic doldrums. When the 2010 House ran for office, the freshmen teabaggers lied. They said they would pursue jobs and they didn't. That's another truth the President could have told.
Third, Romney is a perfect representative of the evil oligarchy, so lacking in patriotism that he does all he can to pay as little in taxes as he (legally?) can, or saying it another way, providing as little support as possible to the common weal. Obama should have made that case more clearly. He should have shouted it. The Romneys of the world are NOT nice people. As their actions make clear, they care only for themselves. In Obama's word, they are very poor "citizens," indeed. I see no reason for the President not to point that out. He needs to make it personal because it is. Romney and his kin are what is wrong with the country. Obama said a lot about choice, but he could have made that choice more stark; the material to limn it is readily available.
I short, I wanted more combative and cleansing truth than the man I will assuredly vote for delivered, and I was disappointed. Soaring perorations alone--though I love 'em-- do not do the trick.
BTW, heard on Norman Goldman today a clip of a 2006 Romney Q & A with reporters about his failure to create jobs over the first three years of his MA governorship. In short, it was not his fault. These things are complicated and patience is required. What a lying sack. I hear it's on U-Tube; it's worth a search.
Demand for goods and services will decline rapidly if Ryan&Romney are elected along with a servile Senate. There is no reason to believe employers will hire employees they do not need just because they are keeping more money.
Demand has already been weakened by local governments laying off teachers, police and and other workers.A tea party dictated austerity plan will finish off the economy.
The indifference of the wealthy to the state of the economy and the welfare of working Americans and the tattered safety net will cause wide spread pain.
The families of those dying from the lack of medical care will not let their loved ones die without protest. Those without jobs and money and food stamps will not starve quietly.
The failure of " trickle down, voodoo economics " will require a police state with dogs, tazers, and truncheons to control millions of damaged Americans.
There is no part of the Ryan/Romney plans that will cause economic growth for America.
Congress has an abysmal approval rating. You would think that would suggest incumbents wold lose seats. Republicans hold more seats than Dems in the House. Why do polls suggest they might be set to pick up seats?
I just don't get it.
@Victoria D-
I am with you--completely. I could not help but notice how many Black, Hispanic, Asian and working class White Americans were in the audience at the Democratic Convention. And how few major "face jobs" among the women--compared with women at the Very Rich White Republican convention. That, I think, tells part of the tale! Along with car elevators.
I wonder about these "polls." They are said to be "statistically significant;" however, I know that I do not answer my phone when pollsters call (usually during dinner). Has there been a reliable study of the validity of these polls? Published? I doubt it.
My continuing upsetting thought is that the American electorate is so ignorant and dumbed down they do not pay attention to facts, and are swayed by manipulative, emotional ads. If there are enough faux ads--and there will be with Citizens' United--it is possible Obama will lose. Hard to imagine. But that is possibly the sad state of our country. It will be a kinder day if Obama wins and a meaningful number of Democrats will be added to the House and Senate. I am not hopeful, although I would like to be! And I would love to make another BIG bet with my rich redneck brother-in-law--who insisted in 2008 that a "nigger" would never be elected Prezident! But my funds are down as much as my hopes, and I could not stand to pay him $500. I donated his $500 loss to me in 2008 to our local animal shelter--to support the "no kill" program.
For PD Pepe.....REMEMBER THE SUPREMES, she said with extreme emotion--running through super markets and crossing against stop lights on the cool, foggy Oregon Coast!
"... critical facts that Obama should have included in his speech -- facts low-information (i.e., most) voters simply don't know."
I have puzzled over why the organizers and the people responsible for the graphics & video displays at the convention don't do more with 'promoting' the key message points. Visual sound bytes in easy to read letters that POP on the giant screen behind the speaker. The control room could easily hit the button for the message that emphasizes what the speaker is saying. (The woman flashing her Medicare ID card complete with her name & SSN got lots of tv coverage
at the DNC! Though certainly not smart on her part!)
Have other digital 'signs' throughout the convention space with alternating message feeds. These would get picked up by the tv cameras...and maybe, MAYBE subliminally begin to be picked up by an audience that isn't always 'hearing.'
And then there is the Burma Shave approach
...why not use that to get the word out.
Maybe road signs such as:
Saving Medicare
takes more than luck
But voucher programs
really suck!
Vote for Obama!
Millions suffered at great cost
The 2008 recession harmed us most
Now slow & steady come newly hired
It's R&R that should be fired!
Vote for Obama!
Re: Pom Pom season: I don't know what stirs yours, but I don't need a "once more, into the breach" speech to make my mind up. Sure "Four score; Ask not, and I have a dream"; are powerful, we all here love words and how words when connected to each other become emotionally powerful; but action is the proof in the bottle. I thought Obama's speech was great for leaving out the soaring rhetoric.( I read it, did not listen to it). Ken, don't you think the President is saving ammo for the debates? Why waste your best shots on a group that's on your side already? I'll bet the President will have all the facts and figures to throw at Mitt when the audience will be made up of undecided voters. They say (fuck if I know) Obama is a pretty good poker player; knows when to hold'em, knows when to fold'em; let's just take a wait see. And after kicking ass and taking names he can give an re-election speech that brings tears to the eyes of grumpy old men like myself and has the crowd fainting in the aisles; not a dry seat in the house.
@Carlyle. I'm more cynical, perhaps, but I'd predict--a prediction I hope with all my being will never come to pass--that if we get R & R and a compliant Congress, overnight the whole austerity trope will be as dead as the dodo. Since Reagan, the Republicans always spend like drunken sailors on the things they like, like complicated weapons systems we don't need. Regardless of what they spend all the money they just happen to find lying around, though, they WILL spend it and unemployment will fall for a time and they will take credit for their superior management of the economy. Democrats in the Senate will not have the spine--read: will not be heartless enough--to filibuster budget measures that will actually put people back to work. For Democrats sadly their weakness is their strength.
W's illegal regime relied on oodles of the free money his party now eschews, aggressively and unashamedly. Job growth was not stellar, but they did keep the economy pumped up for a while until the inevitable crash; they just miscalculated by a few months. If they had not, we would have just lived through--he says optimistically--four years of McCain and Palin.
From Marie's column:
" So we may sniffle in that tissue, but still we dance with the one that brung us and thank the (reconstructed) god of the Democratic platform that Obama steps on our toes with less force and frequency than the guy who is tapping his shoulder. And yes, Obama is leading in his own awkward way, and we are dancing backwards in high heels."
From something I wrote Four years ago:
FANTASY DANCE
Obama: May I have this dance?
Phyllis: It would be my pleasure, Mr. President
O: I like your dress
P: Thank you. I liked your address
O: Inspirational, was it?
P: Oh, very––way over the top
O: The tippy top?
P: Yes, sir, the very tippy
O: Say, you dance well
P: I’m just following your lead, Mr. President
O: Would that others will do the same
P: Well, I’m sure there will be some….
O: There always are…
P: that step on your blue suede shoes
O:Blue shoes, old shoes, new shoes, his shoes, Sue’s shoes
P: Seuss, is it?
O: Absolutely!
P: It’s so good to have a President that reads.
O: I believe that the only important structural obstacles to world
prosperity are the obsolete doctrines that clutter the minds of men.
P: And that would be Paul Krugman?
O: You got it. You see, where reading can lead you?
P: And you lead so very well, Mr. President––so far––and I have high hopes–––
O: Wasn’t that the song that Sinatra sang as a campaign jiggle for Kennedy?
P: It was and it could be yours.
O: but it isn’t
P: Right
O: But it fits
P: That it does
O: Ah, our dance is over––I have to move on––any last word?
P: Just ––THANK YOU–– and I’d love to kiss you, but I just washed my hair.
Watching Mrs Romney reminded me of an old movie, The Stepford
Wives. Gave me the creeps. Her "message" is scary-Mitt is the total answer, don't you worry your pretty little head.
And Mittins? Terrifying!
Remember how quick the veneer of civilization was gone during Katrina under the repubs?
The whole country will unravel under Mittins.
Thank you all for giving me hope with all your posts.
I am out of my depth here, so mostly I lurk.
To repeat another poster, "Remember the Supremes!"
mae finch
For Kate: Good lord! not only do you have a twin brother whose affiliations drive you to run through the streets screaming about the Supremes, but now you tell us you have a redneck brother-in-law! That makes me feel lucky––do you feel lucky, punk?––yeah, because I only have one member of our family, the brother in Wisconsin, who makes me want to spit nails. My sympathies to you for having two.
I am a supporter (and defender) of President Obama and have looked at his presidency as the beginning of a long journey toward restoration of a spiritually bankrupt political and economic system (they are intertwined these days). And, when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, based only on what he promised he would do and not on anything he had actually done, I remained optimistic that he would 'grow into' the spirit of its symbolic gesture. And, while he may yet fulfill the essence of the Peace Prize, there has been ~ and continues to be ~ an area where I am in full disagreement with his actions: he has reneged on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and continued the unconscionable treatment of its prisoners AND refused to make Bush, et. al., accountable for their war crimes.
"The decision (by Judge Lambert) keeps in place a court order that has ensured that all prisoners have access to lawyers and that their lawyers can use classified information, including documents they have produced while representing clients, and can discuss classified information with lawyers for other detainees. Those older rules have worked acceptably for eight years; there is no reason to alter them." NYT article, as posted by Marie.
Judge Lambert's decision may be a temporary set back for the Administration's full court press on protecting classified information and trying to squelch those who leak such information. However, this decision nullifies one of the many 'reasons' given to keep Guantanamo Bay open. My Eternal Optimist Self hopes it shines a light on our President's 'better angels' so that he will acknowledge his obligation to the Peace Prize awarded to him 'too soon'. And, when ~ and IF ~ he does, that will make him the remarkable President I think he can be.
"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." Fyodor Dostoyevsky
JJG, I hope you are right that Obama is saving his powder for a bigger battle, however I fear he has fallen victim to the Swedish Captive syndrome where in he is adopting the goals of his Republican Congress and Supreme Court that are holding his administration captive. His treatment of Wall Street and SEC oversight are not reassuring.
Re: No prize contest: my answer is Santa Claus, reasons; North Pole, little people(elves), transportation corridors,(reindeer, sleds). Who else but a totally made-up persona? I'd say Mr. Kerry is looking at a lump of coal come Christmas.