Quote of the Day American Blog Party    

"Nations, like men, often march to the beat of different drummers, and the precise solutions of the United States can neither be dictated nor transplanted to others."
Robert F. Kennedy

Making Up Stories    Rox Populi

Now that the gang at Powerline and Michelle Malkin have been proven again to be the the lying tools that they are (uh, and blaming Tom Harkin or looking for another scapegoat sorta goes against the whole Republican "personal responsibility" thing, doesn't it?), they'll need to find, as Atrios and Hilzoy suggest, a new scandalous untruth to spread to their drooling minions.

In the interest of bi-partisanship, I think we should help them brainstorm some ideas.

What shall it be, then? Illegal immigrants sneak into San Diego homes to drink the blood of unsuspecting white babies? Jimmy Carter performed a human sacrifice in the Lincoln Bedroom back in '78 and that's why he's not going to the Pope's funeral? Hillary Clinton conspired to have a guy murdered and then covered it up? John Kerry shot his entire squad in Vietnam and replaced them with hippie look-a-likes he found partying with Hanoi Jane in Ho Chi Min City?

"Nations, like men, often march to the beat of different drummers, and the precise solutions of the United States can neither be dictated nor transplanted to others."
Robert F. Kennedy

Making Up Stories Rox Populi

Now that the gang at Powerline and Michelle Malkin have been proven again to be the the lying tools that they are (uh, and blaming Tom Harkin or looking for another scapegoat sorta goes against the whole Republican "personal responsibility" thing, doesn't it?), they'll need to find, as Atrios and Hilzoy suggest, a new scandalous untruth to spread to their drooling minions.

In the interest of bi-partisanship, I think we should help them brainstorm some ideas.

What shall it be, then? Illegal immigrants sneak into San Diego homes to drink the blood of unsuspecting white babies? Jimmy Carter performed a human sacrifice in the Lincoln Bedroom back in '78 and that's why he's not going to the Pope's funeral? Hillary Clinton conspired to have a guy murdered and then covered it up? John Kerry shot his entire squad in Vietnam and replaced them with hippie look-a-likes he found partying with Hanoi Jane in Ho Chi Min City?
Obviously, I'm not in my best "creative zone" this morning. So, help me out by leaving your suggestions in comments below.
",0]);D(["ce"]);D(["ms","2f64"]);//-->

Obviously, I'm not in my best "creative zone" this morning. So, help me out by leaving your suggestions in comments below.

JFK on the campaign trail, pushing back on bipartisanship. Open thread below...

The Senate's passage Tuesday of the economic recovery package followed a now-familiar 30 year pattern. The Democratic President Barack Obama, like Bill Clinton before him in 1993, faced a monolithic wall of GOP opposition to his economic program. But Republicans Ronald Reagan in 1981 and George W. Bush 20 years later enjoyed substantial Democratic support for their dangerously irresponsible and regressive tax cuts that as predicted drained the federal treasury. Now as then, for Republicans the road to economic stimulus is a one-way street.

After being blanked in the House, President Obama picked up a whopping three Republican votes in the Senate one day after his first presidential press conference. (At this point, prospects for any gains on the final bill emerging from the House and Senate conference seem dubious.) But while his quixotic quest to reach across the aisle may have come up empty for now, Obama can take some comfort from Bill Clinton's experience in 1993. After all, Clinton's package of stimulus programs and upper-income bracket tax increases not only preceded a record economic expansion, it happened to get no Republican votes in either house of Congress.

As the New York Times noted at the time:

"Historians believe that no other important legislation, at least since World War II, has been enacted without at least one vote in either house from each major party."

Inheriting massive budget deficits and unemployment topping 7% from Bush the Elder, Clinton's $496 billion program was nonetheless opposed by every single member of the GOP, as well as defectors from his own party. As the Times recounted, it took a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Al Gore to earn victory:

An identical version of the $496 billion deficit-cutting measure was approved Thursday night by the House, 218 to 216. The Senate was divided 50 to 50 before Mr. Gore voted. Since tie votes in the House mean defeat, the bill would have failed if even one representative or one senator who voted with the President had switched sides.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (321)

PLAY (174)

At tonight's press conference, President Obama was asked a few times about "bipartisanship," probably most clearly by Chip Reid:

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. You have often said that bipartisanship is extraordinarily important, overall and in this stimulus package, but now, when we ask your advisers about the lack of bipartisanship so far -- zero votes in the House, three in the Senate -- they say, "Well, it's not the number of votes that matters; it's the number of jobs that will be created."

Is that a sign that you are moving away -- your White House is moving away from this emphasis on bipartisanship?

And what went wrong? Did you underestimate how hard it would be to change the way Washington works?

Obama: Well, I don't think -- I don't think I underestimated it. I don't think the -- the American people underestimated it. They understand that there have been a lot of bad habits built up here in Washington, and it's going to take time to break down some of those bad habits.

You know, when I made a series of overtures to the Republicans, going over to meet with both Republican caucuses, you know, putting three Republicans in my cabinet -- something that is unprecedented -- making sure that they were invited here to the White House to talk about the economic recovery plan, all those were not designed simply to get some short-term votes. They were designed to try to build up some trust over time.

And I think that, as I continue to make these overtures, over time, hopefully that will be reciprocated.

But understand the bottom line that I've got right now, which is what's happening to the people of Elkhart and what's happening across the country. I can't afford to see Congress play the usual political games. What we have to do right now is deliver for the American people.

So my bottom line when it comes to the recovery package is: Send me a bill that creates or saves 4 million jobs. Because everybody has to be possessed with a sense of urgency about putting people back to work, making sure that folks are staying in their homes, that they can send their kids to college.

That doesn't negate the continuing efforts that I'm going to make to listen and engage with my Republican colleagues. And hopefully the tone that I've taken, which has been consistently civil and respectful, will pay some dividends over the long term. There are going to be areas where we disagree, and there are going to be areas where we agree.

As I said, the one concern I've got on the stimulus package, in terms of the debate and listening to some of what's been said in Congress, is that there seems to be a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing.

Now, if that's their opening position or their closing position in negotiations, then we're probably not going to make much progress, because I don't think that's economically sound and I don't think what -- that's what the American people expect, is for us to stand by and do nothing.

...

So, you know, we -- we can differ on some of the particulars, but, again, the question I think the American people are asking is, do you just want government to do nothing, or do you want it to do something? If you want it to do something, then we can have a conversation. But doing nothing, that's not an option from my perspective.

Obama's strategy is a long-term one. If Republicans continue to obstruct, they're going to increase their own popularity, because he will have no trouble painting them as the source of their problems. After all, thanks to George W. Bush, they're already predisposed to think so anyway.

Later, Mara Liasson asks a similar question:

DOWNLOAD (296)

PLAY (294)

Continue reading »

April 2008: BBC's Newsnight interviews US Judge Advocate Diane Beaver about the Bush administration's legallese cover-story for war crimes.

I truly loathe the notion of torturers and those who ordered torture getting away with it.

Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, called for the commission as way to heal what he called sharp political divides and to prevent future abuses.

He compared it to other truth commissions, such as one in South Africa that investigated the apartheid era.

"We need to come to a shared understanding of the failures of the recent past," Leahy said in a speech to the Georgetown University law school.

"Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened," he said. "And we do that to make sure it never happens again," Leahy said.

I'm unclear on how just saying "now we know" will stop any of it happening again. Trials and prison sentences would surely accomplish far more as a deterrent to possible future copycats - that's partly why we don't just slap the wrists of abusers or rapists and say "we know what you did!"

Leahy said he had not yet begun to promote the idea with the administration of President Barack Obama or with the Democratically controlled Congress. But he suggested it could be formed by both Congress and the White House, and said the panel must have credibility across the political spectrum.

Issues to investigate would include the Justice Department's firings of several U.S. attorneys, which Leahy said may have been motivated by a White House aim to influence elections, policies on the treatment of terrorism suspects and other areas "where (congressional) committees were lied to."

This included the war in Iraq, he said. "There were lies told to the American people all the way through."

Screw bipartisanship and "credibility across the political spectrum". When one party's senior leadership for eight years has deliberately broken international and US laws while their supporters make excuses for them, they should be treated as having given up any right to respect or to having a voice in how their crimes are handled. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party's leadership seems divided into two camps. One cannot shake off its fear of the GOP's noise machine and its fear of losing elections to do what is right. The other apparently has no intention of looking too hard into crimes they might want to commit themselves.

I firmly believe America can handle the truth - my experience as an ex-pat living here is that Americans are mainly good and just and I believe that if all the secrets are revealed in courts of law then Americans will be outraged and demand justice - but its political leadership either cannot or will not.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

So has Mr. Obama learned from this experience? Early indications aren’t good.

For rather than acknowledge the failure of his political strategy and the damage to his economic strategy, the president tried to put a postpartisan happy face on the whole thing. “Democrats and Republicans came together in the Senate and responded appropriately to the urgency this moment demands,” he declared on Saturday, and “the scale and scope of this plan is right.”

No, they didn’t, and no, it isn’t.

- Paul Krugman, "The Destructive Center," today.

All in all, the centrists’ insistence on comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted will, if reflected in the final bill, lead to substantially lower employment and substantially more suffering.

But how did this happen? I blame President Obama’s belief that he can transcend the partisan divide — a belief that warped his economic strategy.

After all, many people expected Mr. Obama to come out with a really strong stimulus plan, reflecting both the economy’s dire straits and his own electoral mandate.

Instead, however, he offered a plan that was clearly both too small and too heavily reliant on tax cuts. Why? Because he wanted the plan to have broad bipartisan support, and believed that it would. Not long ago administration strategists were talking about getting 80 or more votes in the Senate.

Mr. Obama’s postpartisan yearnings may also explain why he didn’t do something crucially important: speak forcefully about how government spending can help support the economy. Instead, he let conservatives define the debate, waiting until late last week before finally saying what needed to be said — that increasing spending is the whole point of the plan.

And Mr. Obama got nothing in return for his bipartisan outreach. Not one Republican voted for the House version of the stimulus plan, which was, by the way, better focused than the original administration proposal.

In the Senate, Republicans inveighed against “pork” — although the wasteful spending they claimed to have identified (much of it was fully justified) was a trivial share of the bill’s total. And they decried the bill’s cost — even as 36 out of 41 Republican senators voted to replace the Obama plan with $3 trillion, that’s right, $3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.

So Mr. Obama was reduced to bargaining for the votes of those centrists. And the centrists, predictably, extracted a pound of flesh — not, as far as anyone can tell, based on any coherent economic argument, but simply to demonstrate their centrist mojo. They probably would have demanded that $100 billion or so be cut from anything Mr. Obama proposed; by coming in with such a low initial bid, the president guaranteed that the final deal would be much too small.

Krugman amplifies the point that's so frustrating to me: Obama made some really, really bad choices, and the Republicans picked up the ball and ran with it. This isn't just a matter of railing against the Republican Senators - these were serious strategic errors on the part of Obama and his administration, at a time when we can't afford much delay.

And rather than push back hard on the wrong strategy, far too many Democrats seem to think this is a time we should shut up and sit down, lest we hurt the new president's feelings.

DOWNLOAD (307)

PLAY (430)

David Broder, appearing on Andrea Mitchell's MSNBC program this morning, wants the public to know that "bipartisanship" is all the rage inside the Beltway these days -- as indeed it has been for as long as we can remember. What does "bipartisanship" mean? It means believing right-wing nonsense and treating it as credible:

Mitchell: I've read a lot, and talked to a lot of people, and heard a lot of debate about the stimulus package, and reasonable people on both sides -- conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, economists -- aren't really sure what's gonna work and how it's gonna work. What are the risks here in taking it all on? I mean, Alice Rivlin, who created the Congressional Budget Office, has written, importantly, that she would separate out what is job-creating, what is stimulus, and look at the bigger-ticket items down the road. Um, how do they know? How does the president know what he's getting into here?

Broder: Ah, nobody knows, because this is uncharted territory. There are plenty of smart people who purport to understand the dynamics of the economy, but as we know, the first effort at stimulus did not achieve the expected results. So this is a gamble. It's a big gamble for the country, it's much better off if it includes the best thinking that's available in both parties, not just one party.

As dday astutely retorts:

Um, sir, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE FIRST STIMULUS WAS? It was a 100% tax rebate along the lines of the sum total of the thinking of one party. In fact, the "best thinking" of those people now is to weight the stimulus down with - wait for it - tax cuts, which would cost three times as much as the current plan because they want the tax cuts to be permanent, which is an even worse stimulus (There's also the point that the Republicans would push more people onto the Alternative Minimum Tax and actually RAISE taxes for the middle class while dropping them for the rich, but that's normal and besides the point I'm trying to make).

So, according to Broder, because a 100% tax rebate didn't work, we have to come up with a "bipartisan" approach that includes the ideas of those who prefer what amounts to a... 100% tax rebate.

This is idiocy, and suggests one of two things: either most of the Beltway is trying to protect the assets of the rich, or they actually don't know the meaning of the word "stimulus." And we are seeing this kind of confusion all over the media. If it's the latter, that's at least partially the fault of the Administration, who isn't doing the best job of explaining why exactly we need fiscal spending to make up the shortfall caused by plummeting consumer spending and private investment.

I can't wait for Broder to start pontificating, as he always does, about how he listens regularly to "ordinary taxpayers." Uh-huh. Sure.

Broder's just repeating the right-wing talking-point du jour, a skill he's perfected over the years. It's vintage Villagespeak: "bipartisanship" means "pretending we're neutral while advancing right-wing tropes."

After all, why shouldn't we incorporate the wisdom inherent in the right-wing geniuses who made this mess? When it comes to the Republican Party, the "best thinking available" -- that is, the thinking enforced by party poobahs and pundits -- can be found from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist.

Maybe David Broder can remind us again exactly why we should listen to them.

In an effort to reach out across the aisle and work with Michelle Malkin, I am offering to join in on the "Send a message to Sarah Palin" that she's part of as a way to bridge the gap between our differences.

I'd like all C&L readers to send a message to Sarah Palin, thanking her for helping Barack Obama win the Presidency in such a dominant fashion. We couldn't have asked for more. She did a great job in making sure that Obama did receive a mandate by the American people to try and help heal this great nation from all the damage done to it by Conservatism and Conservatives like Michelle.

I'd personally like to thank the wonderfully insightful interview Sarah Palin did with Katie Couric that really made it clear how qualified she was to be Vice President. So go here and join me in sending a lovely message to Sarah Palin.

I think we must all begin to do what we can to help heal this country and stop all this partisan bickering.

Oh boy. I guess they've forgotten how all of these Republicans were crowing about a "mandate" after Bush's 2004 "win", despite the smallest margins for an incumbent president in nearly 100 years. Because rather than see Obama's victory as a call for a change to business as usual (including flipping some red states--hello North Carolina, Indiana and Florida!--and key Senate seats), the Republicans see the election results not as the time to reach across the aisle in the spirit of unity and bipartisanship, but to "gird their loins" and fight:

Senator McCain is an American hero, a remarkable man. I can think of few I respect more. But he's likely to be the first to be leading the charge toward bipartisanship. This would be a mistake of galactic proportions. This must be resisted.[..]

Republicans and conservatives will be taking a needed hard look at ourselves. Losers usually do. We must reassess, recalibrate and argue.

But in the meantime, we still have principles to defend and we must defend them vigorously. Particularly in the first 100 days when many of the most objectionable bills will likely be brought up. For those inclined to make nice, which of the following Democratic agenda items are you prepared to sign on to so that you'll get invited to the right parties?

• Employee Free Choice Act
• Fairness Doctrine
• Freedom of Choice Act
• Nationalization of health care
• Estate tax increases
• "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" (driver's licenses for illegals)
• Capital gains tax increases
• Defense cuts
• Liberal judicial appointments
• Racial and ethnic preferences
• Income tax increases
• Bans on oil drilling
• Global poverty tax/Kyoto

[..]In many cases, the congressional math may preclude Republicans from little more than voicing principled opposition. But that's not nothing. It's imperative. Republican politicians for too long have been spectacularly inept in communicating their ideas, principles and positions. They've been unconscionably silent in defending their own.

They've been unconscionably silent? Good lord, what color do you suppose the sky is in his world? And even in the face of this, there are conservatives still whining that we don't respect Bush enough. Not even January 20th and the honeymoon is over for the Republican punditry. This is going to be a long four years.