At Netroots Nation, Felipe Matos of the Trail of Dreams caught White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer in two lies, yesterday: (1) Obama "hears from DREAM Act Students all the time," and (2) Obama "does not have the executive authority [to stop the deportations of DREAMers]."

The first lie is probably the greatest disrespect to the migrant youth movement. It is not widely known that Obama refuses to meet with undocumented people himself. Undocumented youth have certainly confronted him at public events, but Obama refuses to meet with undocumented people to talk with them about an immigration system that is doing violence to them.

Felipe Matos would know that Obama refuses to meet with undocumented people because he himself walked 1,500 miles from Miami, FL, to Washington, D.C. only to be denied a meeting with Obama. Obama has met with currently documented former DREAMers, but not with undocumented youth themselves. Felipe himself makes this clear in the video, only to be dismissed by Pfeiffer:

Felipe Matos: He has spoken to people who are not DREAM Act-eligible, people who are not undocumented, because he has made it very clear that he doesn't want to talk to undocumented people.

Dan Pfeiffer: I don't think that's accurate.

Felipe Matos: I mean I was in meetings with Valerie Jarrett when she told me that so I know it's accurate.

Netroots Nation (17 June 2011)

While the first lie is disrespectful to the migrant youth movement, it is probably the second lie that does the most violence to migrant communities. Obama does have the power to grant administrative relief to migrant communities. The Immigration Policy Center has made that very clear.

As a former teacher of constitutional law, and as the signatory of nearly 80 Executive Orders, President Obama understands that the role of the Executive branch of the U.S. government has never been limited to blindly enforcing laws passed by the Legislative branch. In fact, the effective implementation of any law (criminal law, tax law, environmental law, securities law, etc.), requires the Executive branch to interpret that law and develop strategies to implement it. Every new administration brings its own set of values and priorities to this task. That is why federal regulations, policies, and procedures change from administration to administration.

This fundamental fact has been repeatedly recognized by the Obama Administration outside of the immigration context. Speaking in 2008, President Obama’s transition chief, John Podesta, noted: “There’s a lot that the President can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that.” Speaking in 2010, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer observed: “The challenges we had to address in 2009 ensured that the center of action would be in Congress. In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the agenda.”

Dan Pfeiffer lied to Felipe Matos, pure and simple, just as Obama has been lying to Latino voters across the country.

I'm struggling a little bit with categorizing these as lies so blatantly right now, primarily because I feel an unproductive narrative of liberal anger at Obama is emerging from Netroots Nation. Were I to craft my own productive narrative of why Obama needs to provide administrative relief to migrant communities, it would go something like this:

We're not asking Obama to ignore the laws that are already on the books, as broken, unjust, and violent as we feel those laws are. What we are saying is that the Obama administration has limited resources to enforce the law, and that his administration should use those resources wisely. At a time when the federal government is struggling with a growing deficit, it makes no sense to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars detaining and deporting young people who know no other country as their home, or any undocumented people with strong and productive ties to their communities in the U.S. for that matter. Even with the Obama administration deporting over 400,000 people a year, now, the undocumented population continues to hover at around 11 million people. There's even research to suggest (pdf) that heavy enforcement actually increases the undocumented population in the U.S., not because more people are coming in, but because less people want or are able to leave.

If Obama continues to force pro-migrant voters to choose between helping to elect him, and stopping the deportations of our family members, friends, and peers, guess where we're going to put our energy? Dreamers have regularly shown the ability to mobilize tens of thousands of people to stop their deportations one-by-one. Wouldn't Obama prefer that they direct their energy at convincing or electing lawmakers who can change the laws, rather than have us continue to direct our energy at his administration?

As it gets closer and closer to election time, pressure is going to increase on the pro-migrant movement to shut our mouths lest we help elect a nativist Republican to the presidency. It's difficult to say where different pro-migrant groups will fall as that pressure increases but I can say that I certainly won't help elect someone that continues to decimate my community. With Obama deporting more people that George W. Bush ever did, and now implementing a program, [In]Secure Communities, which would turn every local police officer into a border patrol agent by 2013, there might even be situations where a Republican president would be better for the pro-migrant community.

In other words, does Obama want to continue wasting limited resources and grassroots energy by continuing to deport folks who don't need to be deported, or does he want to save money and direct that energy towards lawmakers who should be taking responsibility for fixing this unjust immigration system? I hope the answer is clear and that Obama grants migrant communities administrative relief.

Kyle de Beausset is a pro-migrant blogger at Citizen Orange.

enlarge

This is a bit of a shock, but I guess it's predictable. People who have political and policy jobs tend to see things through the wrong end of the telescope, because they're so proud of the work they did, they can't see the big picture. What continued to astound me was that the White House staffers seemed completely out of touch with the depths of the economic devastation out here, so if any of these staffers are responsible for that blind spot, a change will serve the president well:

Some high-level Democrats are calling for President Barack Obama to remake his inner circle or even fire top advisers in response to what many party strategists expect to be a decisive defeat on Tuesday.

Tensions have come to the surface after meetings over the past few weeks in which Obama senior adviser David Axelrod discussed communications strategy with senior Democratic strategists and party officials. Some Democrats were so unhappy with the White House meetings, they started their own.

The strategy sessions aired a range of disagreements over how to help Democrats forestall an electoral drubbing at the polls—a defeat party strategists believe could have been minimized with a different White House playbook.

Among the complaints: Mr. Obama conveyed an incoherent message that didn't express what Democrats would do over the next two years if they retain power; he focused more on his own image than helping Democratic candidates; and the White House picked the wrong battle when it attacked Republicans for using "outside" money to pay for campaigns, an issue disconnected from voters' real-world anxieties.

The latest strategy session took place Monday afternoon.

"The money thing could work, but there's never been a larger frame around it to connect it to people's lives," said Dee Dee Myers, a consultant who worked for the Clinton White House when Republicans swept the 1994 elections. She said she participated in an Oct. 8 meeting with Mr. Axelrod and about 15 Democratic strategists at the White House.

Continue reading »

(Relevant portion at the 4:20 mark)

I'm so frustrated by this that I could scream. I expect the media to be clueless and binary in their thinking when they cover the tragic spate of gay teenage suicides, and they've proven me right yet again.

Via Pam's House Blend, I learn that the Washington Post's remarkably poor decision to post Tony Perkins's falsehood laden, anti-gay screed on their On Faith blog (on National Coming Out Day nonetheless) was because they felt they needed to "cover both sides" of "bullying and gay suicide." No, really, they're serious. Apparently they hosted a Live Q & A chat with Dan Savage to discuss "bullying and gay suicide" and his "It Gets Better Project," which is a You Tube channel Savage created in order to reach out to gay youths to prevent suicide. So, to balance Savage, the Post turned to Perkins to respond. Apparently to the Post, gay suicide is a two-sided issue.

GLAAD and the Washington Post had an exchange over Twitter, in which the Post responded to criticism over publishing Perkins' column, by saying, "[W]e're working to cover both sides. Earlier, we hosted Dan Savage of It Gets Better in a live chat." GLAAD rightly replied, "There are not 'both sides' to this issue. Teen suicide isn't a debate-it's a tragedy."

Exactly. It's a tragedy, and there are not two sides to this issue. But again, the media doesn't know any better than to pander to the lowest common denominator. But what I don't expect, what I never want to see is one of the President's closest advisers to voice such incredible retro-gay-bashing insensitivity:

Today the Washington Post's gay kapo Jonathan Capehart shares a video interview he conducted on Monday with senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett. She clearly states a belief that Minnesota gay teen Justin Aarberg, who committed suicide in July after being bullied, made a "lifestyle choice."

What an outrage to claim that the 15-year-old Aarberg made a choice to be gay, and that sexual orientation is a lifestyle. Did she get her talking points from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council? It's doubly offensive that Capehart makes no effort to point out how dangerous Jarrett's thinking is.

Seriously? Haven't we gotten past the point where we think gays choose to be gay? The Aarbergs weren't good people because they loved their son despite his gayness. It's these nuances that give tacit approval for the bullying that ended up causing Justin Aarberg to feel such despair he saw no other avenue but to take his own life.

I expect better from this administration and I hope Jarrett apologizes for these remarks publicly.

More on combating gay teen suicide here.

UPDATE - Politico is reporting that Jarrett apologized for "misspeaking" to Capehart this morning:

Jarrett, in an e-mail to Capehart, said that she “misspoke” when she described Aaberg’s sexual identity as a lifestyle choice.

“I meant no disrespect to the LGBT community, and I apologize to any who have taken offense at my poor choice of words,” Jarrett said. “Sexual orientation and gender identity are not a choice, and anyone who knows me and my work over the years knows that I am a firm believer and supporter in the rights of LGBT Americans.”

I've been trying to put my finger on it, but when I read this story, it finally crystallized: How come we never hear about the White House making these little backdoor deals on our behalf? (Did I miss one?) How come we only get what's left over after the corporate interests have stuffed themselves? Like Lazarus, should we just be grateful for any crumbs that fall from the rich man's table?

The White House is intervening at the last minute to come to the defense of multinational corporations in the unfolding conference committee negotiations over Wall Street reform.

A measure that had been generally agreed to by both the House and Senate, which would have affirmed the SEC's authority to allow investors to have proxy access to the corporate decision-making process, was stripped by the Senate in conference committee votes on Wednesday and Thursday. Five sources with knowledge of the situation said the White House pushed for the measure to be stripped at the behest of the Business Roundtable. The sources -- congressional aides as well as outside advocates -- requested anonymity for fear of White House reprisal.

The White House move pits the administration against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who told Barney Frank (D-Mass.) to stand strong against the effort.

"I met with the Speaker today and she said, 'Don't back down. I'll back you up,'" Frank, the lead House conferee, told HuffPost. "Maxine Waters is very upset, as are CalPERS and others."

Advocates said that the corporations fought the issue primarily over executive compensation concerns. Given proxy access, investors could rein in executive salaries. The Business Roundtable is a lobby of corporate CEOs.

Valerie Jarrett, a senior White House adviser and Obama confidante, is the administration liaison to the Business Roundtable.

What this means is, after promising proxy access to institutional investors, the White House has reversed its position. Instead, the new language requires that only those who own five percent of a corporation get a say in board nominations or corporate governance.

Even the largest pension funds don't come anywhere close to owning five percent of a major corporation. The biggest pension funds are more likely to hit the half-percent threshold in rare cases.

"I guess this is the way it works, but the sucker was like a bolt from the heavens. It came out of nowhere," said one advocate working on the issue.

Frank said that he wasn't certain the White House was involved. "There may be some sense that the White House -- I'll explain it this way: this affects, of course, not just the financial institutions, but all corporations and, yeah, I think there are some people in the White House who think, 'Well, we're fighting the financial institutions, but why fight with some of the others you know, the other corporations?' But all I can do is stand firm in our position, which we're doing. I think there may be some White House influence, but I don't really know. I would ask the Senate. It is interesting that they are reversing their own position," he said.

Backers of the underlying House and Senate language said that, as of last week, there was no indication that the provision would be stripped.

Because the conference committee deliberations are televised, a broad range of interested observers were able to watch corporate America gut the reform proposal live. On Thursday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) fought back, attempting to amend the language to strike the five percent requirement. It failed; the only Democrats to back Schumer in the vote were Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

The SEC is planning to issue rules related to proxy access. Those rules would be made meaningless by the language currently being pushed.

Steve Clemons reacts to a close look inside the Obama White House, written by Financial Times Washington bureau chief Edward Luce. Go read the whole thing, Steven's comments are enlightening:

At a crucial stage in the Democratic primaries in late 2007, Barack Obama rejuvenated his campaign with a barnstorming speech, in which he ended on a promise of what his victory would produce: "A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again."

Just over a year into his tenure, America's 44th president governs a bitterly divided nation, a world increasingly hard to manage and an America that seems more disillusioned than ever with Washington's ways. What went wrong?

Pundits, Democratic lawmakers and opinion pollsters offer a smorgasbord of reasons - from Mr Obama's decision to devote his first year in office to healthcare reform, to the president's inability to convince voters he can "feel their [economic] pain", to the apparent ungovernability of today's Washington. All may indeed have contributed to the quandary in which Mr Obama finds himself. But those around him have a more specific diagnosis - and one that is striking in its uniformity. The Obama White House is geared for campaigning rather than governing, they say.

[...] An outside adviser adds: “I don’t understand how the president could launch healthcare reform and an Arab-Israeli peace process – two goals that have eluded US presidents for generations – without having done better scenario planning. Either would be historic. But to launch them at the same time?”

Again, close allies of the president attribute the problem to the campaign-like nucleus around Mr Obama in which all things are possible. “There is this sense after you have won such an amazing victory, when you have proved conventional wisdom wrong again and again, that you can simply do the same thing in government,” says one. “Of course, they are different skills. To be successful, presidents need to separate the stream of advice they get on policy from the stream of advice they get on politics. That still isn’t happening.”

(This reinforces what I recently wrote about Obama's lack of executive skills. Seems like I'm not the only person who noticed.)

Clemons calls the piece a "vital" and "brave" article, noting that most of the insider media isn't mentioning it at all:

But one thing essential to understand is that the kind of policy that smart strategists -- including by people like National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other advisers like Denis McDonough, Tom Donilon, James Steinberg, William Burns, (previously Gregory Craig) -- would be putting forward is getting twisted either in the rough-and-tumble of a a team of rivals operation that is not working, or is being distorted by the Chicago political gang's tactical advice that is seducing Obama towards a course that has not only violated deals he made with those who voted him into office but which is failing to hit any of the major strategic targets by which the administration will be historically measured.

President Obama needs to take stock quickly. Read the Luce piece. Be honest about what is happening. Read Plouffe's smart book again. Send Rahm Emanuel back to the House in a senior role. Make Valerie Jarrett an important Ambassador. Keep Axelrod -- but balance him with someone like Plouffe, and get back to putting good policy before short term politics.

Set up a Team B with diverse political and national security observers like Tom Daschle, John Podesta, Brent Scowcroft, Arianna Huffington, Fareed Zakaria, Katrina vanden Heuvel, John Harris, James Fallows, Chuck Hagel, Strobe Talbott, James Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and others to give you a no-nonsense picture of what is going on.

And take action to fix the dysfunction of your office.

Otherwise, the Obama brand will be totally bust in the very near term.

DOWNLOADS: (611)

PLAYS: (2040)

Embed

Last night on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show, Glenn Beck made his weekly appearance and was shocked to learn from O'Reilly that White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett was upset with him, and wanted to know why Beck was after her.

Beck either feigned amnesia, or he's a complete psycho who manages to obliterate any memory of his vicious verbal assaults on various individuals:

O'Reilly: She goes -- and she was very nice by the way -- 'What is his problem with me?' So here you are -- what is your problem with Valerie Jarrett?

Beck: I don't think I've -- I've mentioned Valerie Jarrett maybe a couple of times in the last year.

O'Reilly: She was very, very upset.

...

Beck: I don't know what I've said about Valerie Jarrett other than she is the Karen Hughes, if you will -- she's a huge player. She considers herself, uh, family. And I believe he considers her family.

O'Reilly: Is that bad?

Beck: No, no. I'm just saying she is very, very tight there. And she is one of the big players.

See, now this is why Whoopi Goldberg called Beck a "lying sack of dog mess." Because Jarrett has been a regular pinata on Beck's show. How many times has he played that tape of Jarrett praising Van Jones? We lost count, actually.

More importantly, it was just Sept. 30 when Beck devoted an entire twenty-minute segment to attacking Jarrett, placing her at the epicenter of the vast conspiracy or black radical Marxists who had infested the White House.

We've excerpted the more interesting parts of this attack:

DOWNLOADS: (1526)

PLAYS: (4435)

Embed

The day before this, he'd smeared her for her role in the Chicago Olympics bid, claiming she was a slumlord: "And Valerie Jarrett, some people say she was a slumlord, and she may personally benefit." He later added:

Beck: Is Valerie Jarrett, is it possible that she is going to benefit if the Olympics come to Chicago?

Caddell: Well, that's the word. She certainly had a lot of dealings going on in real estate.

He returned to the subject on his Sept. 3 show, when Beck invited Michelle Malkin on to slag Jarrett: "This woman is the consigliere not just to Barack Obama but to Michelle Obama as well, who shares these black nationalist and radical tendencies throughout their whole career."

I expect a Lexis/Nexis search would show that, besides the more outrageous smears, Jarrett has been mentioned on Beck's show at least twenty other times.

Beck is just flatly lying. But then, that's hardly news anymore, I guess.

DOWNLOADS: (1692)

PLAYS: (1955)

Embed

Holy FSM. Is George Stephanopoulos auditioning for a spot on the Fox News Channel line up? It's the only thing I can account for this ridiculous and intelligence-insulting framing:

STEPHANOPOULOS: One year later, the president's economic plan has passed, but with no Republican votes in the House, only three in the Senate. It sure looks like right now no Republican support, the health care bills, as they are going forward in the Congress.

And our polling shows that this partisan divide persists on issue after issue after issue. Why has that core promise of the president's campaign, healing the divide, gone unfulfilled?

JARRETT: Well, you should ask that question to the Republican Party. I mean, frankly, just listening to the president's words again, it brought back terrific memories, and I think his message was a profound one. And he has stayed true to that message. He has reached out. He has listened. He has reached across the aisle.

Just recently meeting with both the Democrats -- the Republicans and the Democrats in both the House and in the Senate. His effort has been sustained throughout the year. And the fact...

STEPHANOPOULOS: So the president bears no responsibility for the failure to get Republican votes?

JARRETT: Well, I think -- I think what we look to the president to do is to lead by example. He has reached out. He has listened. He has included very helpful advice from the Republicans when it has been forthcoming. But the fact...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But not their ideas in the legislation..

JARRETT: Well, actually, that's not true. There have been examples of where he has included their ideas. And ultimately whether they vote for a piece of legislation or not, doesn't mean that it hasn't been an open and fruitful process.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So the president doesn't feel he needs to change the way he does business at all, to reach out more to Republicans, to get more Republicans buy-in?

JARRETT: Oh, George, listen. He is constantly reaching out to Republicans. Both he and his team. And he will continue to do that. But ultimately it's up to the Republicans to decide if they want to be a constructive force and come to the table and work with us in a positive way.

We want to hear good ideas. The president is known for listening most closely to those with whom he disagrees. So the door is always open.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Does that mean, for example, that Speaker Pelosi should give the Republicans a vote on an alternative in health care?

JARRETT: I'm not going to in any way comment on what the speaker should do. She is an extraordinary leader and she is going to continue to do that. And she is going to reach out in a way that she deems appropriate. But your question is what is the president's leadership about it, and hearkening back to the message from last year, and I think he has been consistent not just here, domestically, but also around the world in the way he has reached out.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, to follow through, shouldn't he ask the speaker then to give Republicans a vote?

JARRETT: To give them a vote and give them a voice. It gives them an opportunity to contribute constructively. That doesn't mean that you actually have to change what you think is in the best interests of the American people simply to get a Republican vote. What you do is you reach out, you listen, you collaborate, but ultimately, the president is accountable to the Republican people -- to the American people, sorry.

Head. Bangs. Desk. Normally, I criticize these bobbleheads for not asking follow up questions, but Jeebus, FIVE questions in a row framing the lack of bipartisanship on Obama from Stephanopoulos???? WTF is that?

George, is there something they give you in the Kool-aid you've so obviously been chugging that wipes out your memory? Most Democrats are frustrated by Obama's constant calls for bi-partisanship.

Because as Obama keeps extending his hand to the Republicans, let's look at what the Republicans give back:

Obama gave the WATB Republicans the tax breaks they insisted upon in the stimulus package (even though economists said they would hurt-not help-the stimulus). How many Republicans voted for the stimulus bill? Bupkis.

Obama has also had to deal with Republicans giving us Tea Parties, Obama = Nazi, Marxist, Communist, Stalinist, Socialist, Racist and/or a Totalitarian.

He has been accused of declaring War on the Rich, the Health Care industry, Banking industry, Mortgage industry, and the Auto Manufacturing industry.

He has been accused of being a liar, of having a Kenyan Birth Certificate, of wanting death panels and internment camps.

The Republicans have also put holds on the Surgeon General nominee in the face of the H1N1 pandemic, as well as blocking 19 of 22 appointees to the courts, as well as complaining about Obama not being a sufficient enough cheerleader for American exceptionalism abroad, not moving fast enough on Afghanistan, too fast on health care reform, and most pathetically, the number of pages in the health care reform bill.

So tell me again, George, who exactly is being divisive? Who exactly is smacking down the hand of bipartisanship? Who exactly is responsible for the culture of divisiveness in DC?

I've been sickened by ABC's bizarre attempts at equivalencies before, but this is ridiculous. Stephanopoulos owes Valerie Jarrett and the American people an apology for this series of questions.

DOWNLOADS: (1526)

PLAYS: (4435)

Embed

On his Fox News show last night, Glenn Beck launched his latest campaign to unseat a member of the Obama White House: Valerie Jarrett, one of the president's closest advisers and a close friend of Michelle Obama as well.

Beck in fact devoted over 20 minutes of his opening segment to attacking Jarrett. He not only puts Jarrett at the center of the controversies Beck has managed to stir up and force resignations, but he says Jarrett is the reason the Obamas are flying to Denmark to lobby for Chicago as the host city for the 2016 Olympics.

It's straight out of black-helicoptersville, of course. But this has never stopped Beck in the past. Indeed, it's been the key to his success so far.

Somehow, I don't think Jarrett is going to be as easy to throw under the bus as Van Jones was. Now we may get to see, finally, how this White House responds to these kinds of attacks -- other than rank capitulation.

In the meantime, has anyone noticed yet that all of Beck's targets to date have been black?

I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

Just like it was coincidence that Beck couldn't explain to Katie Couric the meaning of "white culture":

UPDATE: White House blogger Jesse Lee has posted a factual response pointing out how reality-deprived Beck's attacks are.

DOWNLOADS: (211)

PLAYS: (3197)

Embed

Jodi Kantor is the author of The Obamas, a recently-released account of President and Mrs. Obama's adjustment to the White House. Many of you know I am not a fan of the book, not because it's particularly negative, but because there is a lot of projection about what motivates different people, particularly the Obamas, to do certain things. If I had to rate it on a scale from horrible to fantastic, it would get a "mostly meh" from me.

I wonder if Jodi Kantor really expected what Hannity did during this interview with her tonight. He didn't really want to talk about what was in the book at all. What he wanted to do, more than anything else, was to talk about what wasn't in the book, why it wasn't in the book, and whether she agreed with him that it should have been in the book. Specifically, he was rather put out that she hadn't written anything about the Grand Conspiracy between Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and Media Matters for America. You may be wondering to what Grand Conspiracy I am referring. If I knew the answer, I would surely tell you.

After dispensing with his expected concern trolling over Kantor being "attacked by another network," he moved in for the pounce, at about 1:35 or so:

Continue reading »