;)
The Commentariat -- January 8, 2013
Obama 2.0
So here is the President, nominating Ahmadinnerjacket's right-hand-man & the Irish mafia guy to head up our national security team:
The New York Times report, by Mark Landler, is here.
Tom Hamburger & Peter Wallsten of the Washington Post: "The nomination of former senator Chuck Hagel to lead the Pentagon has set in motion a highly unusual campaign-style brawl over a Cabinet post long considered above politics. Supporters and opponents are raising money and building political organizations in anticipation of a grueling and contentious Senate confirmation process." CW: every day in every way, right-wing obstructionism is unprecedented. Continually topping one's own outlandish audacity can't be easy. Maybe this is the Trumpification of the GOP.
Dana Milbank: "For the president, who has too often shied from forceful leadership, the Hagel nomination was a welcome sign that he is willing to pick a fight in his second term. And Hagel is worth fighting for." CW: of course it wasn't the President who picked the fight.
Hagel Is Not a "Real" Republican. Fred Kaplan of Slate: "Hagel seems to be the right choice. And that's what disturbs the most outspoken Hagel-resisters. These resisters ... fear that Hagel will cut the military budget. They fear that he'll roll over if Iran builds a nuclear weapon. They fear that he's too reluctant to use military force generally. And they fear he doesn't much like Israel; the extremists on this point claim he's anti-Semitic.... What Republicans seem to fear most is that by appointing Hagel as secretary of defense, Obama can claim a false bipartisanship in his national-security team."
CW: what Kaplan is getting at is an aspect of the Republican purity test: if you get along with Obama, you aren't a real Republican. That is the real reason, for instance, that Boehner stamped his feet & walked out on Obama, never to return again. If he could agree with Obama on anything, then the crazoids in his caucus would assume he was a secret Democrat. (Yes, of course there's some racism in there, but remember how Republicans treated pasty-white Bill Clinton.)
David Sirota, writing in Salon, zeroes in on military spending: Hagel's "critics focus on his stances on Israel and Iran. They're really afraid he'd slash budgets and weapons systems." The loudmouths see Hagel "as a threat to the lucrative business of permanent war -- a business whose profit margins, employment footprint across America, campaign contributions and think-tank underwriting make it, by far, the most powerful pillar of that power structure."
Francis Wilkinson of Bloomberg News: "President Barack Obama's anticipated nomination of Chuck Hagel as defense secretary shows how the polarization of Obama's second term might differ from that of his first. His first term was polarizing despite Obama's efforts. His second could be polarizing because of them.... Unless opponents [of Hagel's nomination] can restrict the debate on Hagel to his views -- real or imagined -- on Israel, they risk litigating the disastrous [Bush] policies that Hagel rejected and his most vociferous critics embraced."
We Were for Him before We Were against Him. Sahil Kapur of Think Progress: "As Republicans plan their opposition strategy on Chuck Hagel's anticipated nomination as the next secretary of defense, Democrats are digging up and circulating examples of top GOP senators saying nice things about their former colleague in the past." Kapur includes some choice quotes. Were you lying then, Senator, or are you lying now? Thanks to Jeanne B. for the link. ...
... Here's another flashback from Hayes Brown of Think Progress: Bill Kristol, who is now leading the neocon attack on Hagel, touted Hagel for vice president in 2000, & accused Hagel's detractors of running a smear campaign.
Hagel talks to Don Walton of the Lincoln (Nebraska) Journal Star.
I hope a few of you will read David Brooks' response to Hagel's nomination. It is unintentionally hilarious. In his column today, Brooks explains that Obama picked Hagel because -- Medicare costs are out of control. Really.
Scott Shane & Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times list some issues being raised by left & right (and nonideological) about John Brennan's qualifications & his past activities & positions. CW: could Brennan skate through confirmation hearings because all the Hagel noise?
Michael Cohen of the Guardian: Mitch "McConnell is a man who appears to be very concerned about how the government spends its money – so concerned, it seems, that he wants someone else to tackle it. According to the Republican narrative, though, President Obama is exclusively responsible for this untenable situation -- and not the Congress that passed all those spending bills, or the last president 'whose name shall not be spoken'." But McConnell wants Obama to do the cutting because polls show Americans don't want most programs cut. "Obama should say that he will entertain a discussion about reducing the federal deficit via more spending cuts -- just as soon as Republicans lay out in fine detail exactly the cuts they'd like to make, with specific programs and policies they would like to enact....Once, they've laid out their cuts, then serious negotiations can occur." ...
... Here's a ferinstance: Dave Weigel of Slate: for Republicans "to criticize Democrats over the restored payroll tax is to slam them for something Republicans wanted. It's beautiful, sometimes, the lack of responsibility that comes with diminished powers."
CW: there seems to be a growing consensus among the tea-leaf readers (see Greg Sargent here) that the Republican leadership is bluffing about taking the Treasury hostage over the debt-ceiling. That might be, but what will Boehner do to get a "yea" vote through the House? Will he muscle his caucus? That takes some tea party-leaf reading. Or will he cooperate with House Democrats? If he means to get a debt limit increase, he'll have to do one or the other.
Jon Cohen & Aaron Blake of the Washington Post: "In [a] new [Washington Post-ABC News] survey, conducted after the House followed up a Senate vote by passing the [tax-&-spending] measure, 53 percent of voters say they approve of the way Obama handled the matter, while 40 percent disapprove. The overall tally is clearly negative for Boehner's performance: 30 percent approval and 56 percent disapproval."
Bobby Cervantes of Politico: "Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) has introduced a bill to specifically ban President Barack Obama from minting [trillion-dollar platinum] coins." CW: good thinking, Greg. I'm pretty sure Barack Obama will sign your bill & give you a commemorative pen, too.
David Firestone of the New York Times: "... default is very different and much worse [than just shutting down a few national parks or not cutting the grass on the Washington Mall], and only one political party is interested in making it happen."
** E. J. Graff of the American Prospect: "Sexual assault is a form of brutalization based, quite simply, on the idea that women have no place in the world except the place that a man assigns them -- and that men should be free to patrol women's lives, threatening them if they dare step into view.... 'Rape culture,' as young feminists now call this..., lives anywhere that has a 'traditional' vision of women's sexuality.... In that vision, women's bodies are for use primarily for procreation or male pleasure.... In this 'traditional' vision of sexuality, it's not rape if you've already had sex, ever -- except if you're married and another man violates his property.... I can only hope that the response to the attack in India includes outrage at congressional Republicans' astounding refusal to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act...." ...
... Novelist Sohaila Abdulali in a New York Times op-ed: "We have spent generations constructing elaborate systems of patriarchy, caste and social and sexual inequality that allow abuse to flourish.... We need to shelve all the gibberish about honor and virtue and did-she-lead-him-on and could-he-help-himself. We need to put responsibility where it lies: on men who violate women, and on all of us who let them get away with it while we point accusing fingers at their victims." ...
... Roxana Hegeman of the AP: "A federal judge has ruled that a trial is needed to determine whether a Kansas law restricting private health insurance coverage for abortions poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking to end their pregnancies. U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson on Monday rejected a request by the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri for a favorable ruling in their legal challenge of the law."
Ben Protess & Michael de la Merced of the New York Times: "Fresh from paying back a $182 billion bailout, the American International Group Inc. has been running a nationwide advertising campaign with the tagline 'Thank you America.' Behind the scenes, the restored insurance company is weighing whether to tell the government agencies that rescued it during the financial crisis: thanks, but you cheated our shareholders. The board of A.I.G. will meet on Wednesday to consider joining a $25 billion shareholder lawsuit against the government...." CW question: -- for audacity, does this beat the guy who murders his parents, then pleads for mercy on the grounds he is an orphan?
Julia Preston of the New York Times: "The Obama administration spent nearly $18 billion on immigration enforcement last year, significantly more than its spending on all the other major federal law enforcement agencies combined."
Julie Pace of the AP: "Facing an end-of-the-month deadline, the Obama administration is calling gun owner groups, victims' organizations and representatives from the video-game industry to the White House this week for discussions on potential policy proposals for curbing gun violence." ...
... Yeah, good luck with that ...
... Obama has been anti-gun rights along, he was just waiting for his second term to push this stuff. Unfortunately, Sandy Hook timed pretty perfectly with the start of this second term. This nutball really handed this one to the Obama administration and gave the Obama administration a chance to take the gloves off. -- Dave Workman, prominent gun rights advocate, expressing concern for gun violence victims ...
... Workman holds prominent positions in sponsors of the first Gun Appreciation Day. Rosie Gray of BuzzFeed: "A political ad agency is putting together the first ever Gun Appreciation Day" on January 19, two days before the inauguration and a little over a month after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School." CW: because of legal impediments in some sissy states, the organizations have scrapped their earlier plans for a national "Bring Your Gun to Work Day."
Photo via BuzzFeed.... Bob Christie & Brian Skoloff of the AP: "Former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband launched a political action committee aimed at curbing gun violence on Tuesday, the second anniversary of the Tucson shooting that killed six people and left her critically injured. Giffords and Mark Kelly wrote in an op-ed published in USA Today that their Americans for Responsible Solutions initiative would help raise money to support greater gun control efforts." The USA Today op-ed is here. The Americans for Responsible Solutions Website is here.
Adam Estes of the Atlantic: "Alex Jones, the conservative radio talk show host who created the 'Deport Piers Morgan' petition..., straight up lost it on Monday night. Appearing on Piers Morgan's CNN show to talk about the petition and, consequentially, gun control, Jones quickly went from enthusiastic to out-of-control in the first two minutes of the interview, and he wouldn't even stop talking or pointing his finger as Morgan was closing out the segment almost 15 minutes later." ...
... You can watch the "debate" here. I didn't. ...
... The White House responds to all petitions that cross the threshold and we will respond to this one. In the meantime, it is worth remembering that the freedom of expression is a bedrock principle in our society. -- Jay Carney, White House press secretary
Eric Schmitt & David Sanger of the New York Times: In late November, "the combination of a public warning by Mr. Obama and more sharply worded private messages sent to the Syrian leader and his military commanders through Russia and others, including Iraq, Turkey and possibly Jordan, stopped the [Syrian government's] chemical mixing and the bomb preparation. A week later Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said the worst fears were over -- for the time being. But concern remains that Mr. Assad could now use the weapons produced that week at any moment."
Inauguration
Michelle Boorstein of the Washington Post: "President Obama has picked Myrlie Evers-Williams, widow of slain civil rights icon Medgar Evers, to deliver the invocation at his public swearing-in later this month. It is believed to be the first time a woman, and a layperson rather than a clergy member, has been chosen to deliver what may be America's most prominent public prayer."
News Ledes
New York Times: "2012, the year of a surreal March heat wave, a severe drought in the corn belt and a massive storm that caused broad devastation in the mid-Atlantic states, turns out to have been the hottest year ever recorded in the contiguous United States."
New York Times: "Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, pushing New York to become the first state to enact major new gun laws in the wake of the massacre in Newtown, Conn., plans on Wednesday to propose one of the country's most restrictive bans on assault weapons."
Politico: "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will likely testify Jan. 22 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the deadly U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi, the panel's top Republican said Tuesday."
Reuters: "Bank of America Corp is looking to sell collection rights on at least another $100 billion of mortgages after announcing similar deals for more than $300 billion on Monday. Any sale would be the latest example of a big bank deciding that collecting mortgage payments on some loans is too costly, and the cost of capitalizing the business was too high given new capital rules. Banks have been unloading these assets for years."
AP: "The description of [James] Holmes after the [Aurora theater] attack, given by police detective Craig Appel [during a preliminary hearing], seemed to undercut prosecutors' attempts to show Holmes as methodical, spending two months to assemble his arsenal."
New York Times: "New signs of deprivation plaguing Syria's war-ravaged civilians emerged on Tuesday, with the United Nations saying it is unable to feed a million hungry residents in combat zones and aid agencies reporting an outbreak of violence in a large refugee camp in Jordan, where a winter storm felled tents and left many frustrated inhabitants shivering in a cold rain."
Washington Post: "President Hugo Chavez, who has not been seen publicly in a month since undergoing a complex cancer surgery in Cuba, will not be back in Venezuela on Thursday to be sworn in for a fourth term, his government announced Tuesday."
AP: "Two years after a hostage video and photographs of retired FBI agent Robert Levinson raised the possibility that the missing American was being held by terrorists, U.S. officials now see the government of Iran behind the images, intelligence officials told The Associated Press. Levinson, a private investigator, disappeared in 2007 on the Iranian island of Kish. The Iranian government has repeatedly denied knowing anything about his disappearance...."
Share Article
Reader Comments (15)
Et tu, Rachel. Sadly, I watched Rachel Maddow, my favorite progressive pundit, talk about Chuck Hagel's nomination tonight with Andrea Mitchell and Noah Shactman from Wired. Nobody mentioned the 800 pound gorilla in the room--Israel. Why?
I wrote the following to Rachel on her blog:
***********
First, you interviewed Andrea Mitchell--who said there were a few rather small things (HUH?) that Republicans were objecting to--and a few Democrats as well. SMALL THINGS? How about AIPAC and other right-wing Israeli lobbying groups? Surely you knew she would not mention them.
Then you got to Bill Kristol and talked about his right wing nonsense--how he had bought a website to trash Hagel, www.chuckhagel.com. I cannot believe you did not know this is not true. Not you. Here is the information about who bought the website.
...."In an illustration of what a tough fight lies ahead for the former senator, the Emergency Committee for Israel bought www.chuckhagel.com and has set a website opposing Hagel’s nomination, reports the Hill."
So...it is not just LBGT groups and a few Neo Cons who are opposed to Hagel. In fact, most big money and influence is coming from the right wing Israeli Lobbies. Kristol is a big time Neo Con, but does not own the Emergency Committee for Israel--which is, in fact, closely aligned with AIPAC. (To be sure, the Neo Cons are as well.)
To have Andrea Mitchell, an Israel apologist, and Noah Shactman, neither of whom mentioned AIPAC, as being the prime mover against Hagel, is either naive or irresponsible on your part. And I notice you did not ask. How about the Senators and Congressmen who oppose his nomination as SecDef? Hmmm.....could it be they are also AIPAC people? Have a look see, and I think you will find the answer. Especially check out Chuck Schumer.
Since I think you are smart, savvy, and honest, I am guessing that your bosses at NBC have forbidden you to mention the 800 pound gorilla. And if they have not, then you need to do some more homework and report the truth!
@ Kate. You're right. Seemed to me Rachel tonight mounted about as much firepower when blandly assessing the Hagel nomination as did the Notre Dame offense against Alabama in the few minutes of the game I saw as I flipped between the channels. Believing them overrated, I wasn't surprised by Notre Dame's pitiful performance, but I did expect more from Ms. Maddow whom I usually admire.
I thought she was just having an off night, but you have made me wonder if she was muzzled.
I turned both off and found a good book.
Poor simple minded Brooks, or did he write his latest column after drinkin 3 glasses of pricey aged French wine and bangin his head on his marble table while reachin for a 4th? If I understand him, we have to choose to spend our money on ONLY one of the following 3 categories: Medicare, military, everything else.
I think we know what he would choose. I wish he would have suggested what the elderly are supposed to do for health care. My guess is that he would be in favor of letting them drop dead. Geez, if they didn't save enough during their working years for ever increasing health care costs, they deserve to die!
And since when does Brooks care about poor children?!
Re: Fear the financier; Historical timeline check-up. Growing up in the Fifties and the Sixties did not the hard Christian right blame most of the ills of the world on the world-wide Jewish money conspiracy?
That's the way I remember the John Birchers and their crowd. When did Israel become the new best friend of the conservative right? When we needed a friend to sell weapons systems to in exchange for a foothold in the oil fields of the Middle East? Or was it for the figs?
OK; in case y'all were getting too envious of our Golden Bear State (we do have a 2/3 majority of Democrats in our Legislature), here's a story from the next town over from mine in Marin County. A motorist incorporated a company and published the requisite fictitious name statement in order to use the HOV lane. In front of the judge, he claimed there were two persons in the car----himself and his corporation. The judge (before fining him) asked if the corporate papers were properly seatbelted in.
JJG,
You might also ask when it was that fundamentalists suddenly decided to become cozy with Wall St. types, with Bill Buckley/Goldwater Republicans, with supply siders and Milton Friedman monetarists, and vice versa. When did the anti-choice crowd think it would be great to hook up with dark money crooks like Richard Mellon Scaife and the Kochs? The Teabaggers are just updated Birchers with a lot more money and extra bile, but as with the JB Society back in the day, they, unlike the Buckley conservatives, have little interest in an ideology that would promote the interests of the nation, except insofar as it promoted their own warped agenda.
And so it goes. But where and what is the connection?
Democrats have their share of loosely connected groups but for the most part they share a common goal of good government.
Republicans? Their coalitions have always been ones of convenience, banding together nearly always against something (government, taxes, abortion, minorities, women's rights, secularism, the teaching of evolution, environmental concerns, on and on and on...) rather than for something (the betterment of all Americans, universal health care, voting rights, civil rights, reduction of death by gunshot, world peace).
These types of coalitions run best when hot, with passions bordering on and bleeding into outright hatred. The big money types realize that a lot can be done during chaotic moments when people are too scared or blinded by hatred to think carefully about motives and outcomes.
There doesn't have to be a carefully planned conspiracy. Simply taking advantage of various opportunities, trafficking in lies, misinformation, and false promises, a lazy media, and a disinterested public seem to offer many conservative players the chance to sneak their agendas in under the radar. Or just brazening it out and hoping no one will call you on it, the way AIG is now bringing suit against the government which recently forked over $182 billion to save its ass. AIG is now crying foul, saying that their shareholders need MORE money from the US treasury in order to, you know, get back to being as rich as they were before AIG fucked them over.
But I'm getting sidetracked here (conservatives offer such a target rich environment).
My point is that it's hard to hold the center together for long when your coalition really doesn't stand for much more than "NO, no, never, and no fucking way". Every decade or so you actually do need a real idea or two just to at least make it look like you're trying.
A shameful media allows them to look like they've got it all together and still wield enormous power (look at the oohing and ahhing over McConnell's intimation that Republicans are back in charge and want a lot of cuts in spending. A shitload of cuts in spending. Few are pointing out that his party is a shambles and they just had their asses handed to them.
Unfortunately, even dying monsters can do a lot damage. Especially when everyone (even the president) still treats them with respect they don't deserve. And never have.
This morning I was thinking about that old saw about the winners writing the history books. Republicans still believe that they will be the ones to write the history. At some point in the future, someone will review the shameful history of the Republican Party after the second world war and make clear the damage they've done to the United States and its citizens.
Rat fucking bastards. Every one of them.
JJG-
"When did Israel become the new best friend of the conservative right?"
Where Jesus walked, and will walk again, is Holy Land. Absent Israel, that ground would be Muslim owned. The conservative right is tightly linked with Christian fundamentalism, which identifies strongly with the maintenance of "the Holy Land" as accessible and friendly. Muslims are defined as "not friendly." Israel has committed to the maintenance of and scholar/tourist/believer access to "Holy Land" sites.
Without even going into the requirements of the Second Coming (return and conversion of the Jews, in some prophecies), American evamgelicals/conservatives want the Holy Land kept by reliable caretakers.
Why this affiliation now, and not earlier? Possibly, Israel's track record of custodianship in the past 60 years; change in the perception of Islam (60 years ago, seen by Americans as losing ground as a coherent force, in past fifteen years seen as "militant Islam" threat by many); cruise ships, charter jets (lots of Holy Land tourists); and the vast increase of media and digital forums with which interested parties can pursue agendas to "support the Holy Land."
There is of course much more, but US evangelicals' interest in the maintenance of "The Holy Land" is a strong and compelling interest.
@Akhelius: your list of the good things Nixon did is true, but in my opinion, he undid himself with the Southern Strategy (which eventually destroyed the Republican Party) and Watergate.
I caught a clip of Scambliss (Hardball?) trashing Hagel. He seems to have a problem with men who served instead of dodging as he did. Trick knee my ass! That and being a dishonorable bastard.
Myrlie-Evers Williams. Elegant Mr. President. I hope there is a special section in the front row for Congressional racists. Oh wait, not enough seating.
More outrageous than Brooks' claim regarding Medicare and defense spending is his contention in the 3rd paragraph that it's the DEMOCRATS fault that the recent legislative efforts only resulted in a measly 6B in additional revenue. If the Repubs had their way, it would've been zero.
Just saw the Alex Jones interview with Piers Morgan. For a real treat, watch it with the sound off. I wonder, does this guy have a license to carry? How long do you think he could keep it holstered if you cut him off on the free way? Nuff said.
Re: Bitter pill to swallow; choke on the damn thing; We all know Mr. Brooks is a smart guy; he'll tell you so with the drop of a hat.
So we're fucked because I'm going to be buying diapers for grandmama instead of a new drone. Son o' bitch; I wanted a grandmama drone to watch the ol' biddy while I was out shopping for her diapers. But NO; Mr. Brooks tells me we're going to be worse off than Freedonia when it comes to saber rattling and one- off wars.
Mr. Brooks is right; fuck the butter,(sorry Last Tango in Paris fans) it's guns or diapers.
But;Mr. Brooks, sir, most normal people are scared shitless of guns, hence the huge need for diapers in the coming years.
What to do, what is due, what is doodoo?
Hey, I got a plan; let's get ourselves a real foot soldier, make him a chief and he can decide how much the Defense Dept spends on the generals golf courses and how much is spent on the poor fuckers without arms, legs and or memories.
Then, Mr. Brooks, sir, maybe we can push back the profit mode of the health industry.
I get my grandmama drone (don't fret, grandmama; it's like a honeybee goin' around your head) and You, sir, can sign up to drive jet fuel trucks between Kabul and Tehran.
Asswipe.
The US Senate history site has an interesting summary about rejections of cabinet nominees. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Nominations.htm
There have been 9 rejections with John Tyler owning 4 of them. In more modern times, Eisenhower and Bush II( Lester Tower for Defense) have 1 each. The pattern of nominations withdrawn or not seems to be more of a modern tactic used by Presidents to circumvent rejection. Of the total of 12 that have occurred, there were 3 Clinton nominations, 2 by Bush II and one by Obama withdrawn. It will be interesting to see what happens with the Hagel nomination. We will see just how powerful the purported non-existent Jewish lobby will be in his confirmation. IMHO, Schummer has always walked the line between untrustworthy and more untrustworthy. He strikes me as soft and gooey, like a gob of old gum on a hot summer day.
No contest between General P and Hagel in his old combat fatigues. Hagel is the man. Just sayin'.
I was watching my Jayhawks via internet the other day, and the AIG commercial came on "Thanking America" for their gracious assistance.
I haven't watched American teevee for three years so a lot of the ridiculous advertisements made me laugh often at their shallow effectiveness. But watching the AIG ad made me feel like I was in an altered universe. Did they really just say, "thanks guys, we paid all our money back, and EVEN got you a $___ billion profit" *cue pretty girl smile.
....that measly f*k'n 'profit' came at the expense of ruining our entire economy with its effects rippling worldwide. I would've thought this was something they'd rather sweep under the rug and have us forget about. Now its reported AIG shareholders, led by an 87 year old just-fucking-die-already greedy schmuck, want to further mangle the hand that feeds them.
According to Taibbi's research this soulless money grab is fed by the fact that Uncle Sam has regenerative hands and will regrow them as often as needed to keep feeding the savages.
Voilà the paragon of our plastic, consumer society, where Money is God and its possessors are the Pagans of virtue.
P.S. I watched the clip with Alex "anal star" Jones unleashing his invective sermons on the poor Brit. Comedy gold.15 minutes of Real American teevee. Now we now want we're up against....
Amass the stones and hammers, the crazies are coming!!!!!!!
*Now we know what we're up against.
haha, sorry. Formulating my call to arms got me all excited and proper grammar ceased to exist