;)
The Commentariat -- Nov. 20, 2014
Internal links removed.
Michael Barbaro of the New York Times: "President Obama's impending executive action on immigration is unleashing the fury of Republican governors who now control a clear majority of the nation's statehouses.... The new legal protections that the president is poised to bestow on five million illegal immigrants Thursday will immediately thrust the issue back into the states, forcing dozens of governors who vigorously oppose the move to contemplate a raft of vexing new legal questions of their own, like whether to issue driver's licenses or grant in-state college tuition to such people." See also yesterday's News Ledes. ...
... New York Times Editors: "Only Congress can create an immigration system that rescues workers and families from unjust laws and creates legal pathways to citizenship. The best Mr. Obama can offer is a reprieve to people trapped by Congress's failures -- temporary permission to live and work without fear.... It has been the immigration system's retreat from sanity, of course, that made Mr. Obama's new plan necessary. Years were wasted, and countless families broken, while Mr. Obama clung to a futile strategy of luring Republicans toward a legislative deal. He has been his own worst enemy -- over the years he stressed his executive impotence, telling advocates that he could not change the system on his own." ...
King Barack to sign royal edict allowing some foreign subjects to live in his kingdom under his protection. Ted Cruz, former subject of Queen Elizabeth, current Prince of a former principality of Spain, France & Mexico, is planning a revolt against the monarchy.... Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in Politico Magazine: "... unilaterally decreed ... undermine ... rule of law ... founders repeatedly warned ... dangers ... unlimited power ... executive amnesty ... lawless ... unconstitutional ... defiant and angry ... executive diktat ... monarch ... framers ... dangers ... monarchy ... abuses of power ... monarch ... decrees, dictates ... rules ... fiat power ... monarch ... stop it ... voice of the people ... subverting rule of law ... usurps ... defies ... lawless ... lawless ... President Obama will ... threaten a shutdown ... unilaterally defy the law ... presidential temper tantrum ... lawless President ... amnesty." ...
... CW: I couldn't decide which part of Sen. Cruz's Politico piece was the very most important, so I copied the whole thing & just ellipsodized some small, superfluous words to save space.
Paul Waldman: "... we may be seeing the front end of an evolution in [Republicans'] thinking, not just from 'Shutting down the government would be bad for us' to 'We could shut down the government and be just fine,' but from there all the way to 'Shutting down the government would be genius.' Just you wait." ...
... Jonathan Chait: "The Republican Party has had some bad ideas, but it has never come up with a political tactic as obviously stupid as shutting down the federal government to protest President Obama's immigration policies. It is almost a masterpiece of self-sabotage, harnessing the party's most self-destructive short-term political maneuver to its most dangerous long-term demographic liability." ...
... Francis Wilkinson of Bloomberg View: "President Barack Obama initially tried to avoid the immigration action that he now seems determined to take. He let the Senate pass its own bill, and quietly waited for months on end for Speaker of the House John Boehner to muster something. When Boehner failed, he rewarded Obama's patience by explaining that Republicans can't pass immigration legislation because the president is untrustworthy, and that the president can't act unilaterally because such action would . . . prevent the House from passing legislation." ...
... Simon Rosenberg in a US News op-ed: "The president’s impending executive actions on immigration will be a winner for him politically if the country comes to believe these steps were taken to advance the national interest and not his party's political fortunes. And I think he has a strong case to make. If news accounts are accurate, the coming actions will grow the U.S. economy, strengthen public safety and improve the border and immigration enforcement system." Via Greg Sargent ...
... Here's Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wa.), pretty much following Rosenberg's advice on how to make the case for the President's impending action on immigration reform:
... Ed O'Keefe of the Washington Post: "President Obama's announcement Thursday night of his plans to overhaul the nation's immigration system is scheduled to happen at an opportune time -- at least if the White House is hoping to reach a captive audience of Hispanic television viewers. Obama's 8 p.m. Eastern time announcement will come at the start of the second hour of the 15th annual Latin Grammys, which begins at 7 p.m. Thursday on Spanish-language TV network Univision. At least 9.8 million viewers tuned in to all or part of last year's telecast, meaning Univision defeated CBS, Fox and NBC that night." ...
... Hadas Gold of Politico: "The White House is exasperated with the major broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS and NBC -- for skipping out on President Barack Obama's Thursday primetime address on his executive actions on immigration. 'In 2006, Bush gave a 17 minute speech that was televised by all three networks that was about deploying 6000 national guard troops to the border. Obama is making a 10 minute speech that will have a vastly greater impact on the issue. And none of the networks are doing it. We can't believe they were aggrieved that we announced this on Facebook,' a senior administration official told Politico." ...
Charlie Savage of the New York Times: "A little-known provision of the Patriot Act, overlooked by lawmakers and administration officials alike, appears to give President Obama a possible way to keep the National Security Agency's bulk phone records program going indefinitely -- even if Congress allows the law on which it is based to expire next year." ...
... ** Ken Dilanian of the AP: "Dissenters within the National Security Agency, led by a senior agency executive, warned in 2009 that the program to secretly collect American phone records wasn't providing enough intelligence to justify the backlash it would cause if revealed, current and former intelligence officials say. The NSA took the concerns seriously, and many senior officials shared them. But after an internal debate that has not been previously reported, NSA leaders, White House officials and key lawmakers opted to continue the collection and storage of American calling records, a domestic surveillance program without parallel in the agency's recent history."
Gail Collins on sex, penguins & Mitch McConnell.
Benedict Carey of the New York Times: "The case of a Navy medical officer who refused to force-feed prisoners on a hunger strike at Guantánamo Bay prompted the country's largest nursing organization on Wednesday to petition the Defense Department for leniency, citing professional ethical guidelines that support the officer's decision. The officer is a nurse and 18-year Navy veteran whose commander has called for an internal inquiry into the refusal, his lawyer said."
Greg Miller of the Washington Post: "CIA Director John Brennan is considering sweeping organizational changes that could include breaking up the separate spying and analysis divisions that have been in place for decades to create hybrid units focused on individual regions and threats to U.S. security, current and former U.S. intelligence officials said. The proposal would essentially replicate the structure of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center and other similar entities in the agency -- an idea that reflects the CTC's expanded role and influence since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks."
Annals of "Justice," Ctd. Boer Deng & Dahlia Lithwick of Slate: "At every turn, it seems that some system failed [Scott] Panetti, whether it was the mental health system, the courts, the prison system, or the political branches. It is almost incomprehensible that Texas is about to go through with the execution, but the failures, feints, technicalities, and errors chronicled below have created a situation in which a man with three decades of profound mental illness will be sent to the death chamber" on December 3.
Capitalism Is Awesome, Ctd.
Nathaniel Popper & Peter Eavis of the New York Times: "A two-year Senate-led investigation is throwing back the curtain on the outsize and sometimes hidden sway that Wall Street banks have gained over the markets for essential commodities like oil, aluminum and coal. The Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase assumed a role of such significance in the commodities markets that it became possible for the banks to influence the prices that consumers pay while also securing inside information about the markets that could be used by the banks' own traders."
I don't think anyone should question our motives or what we are attempting to accomplish. -- William Dudley, President of the New York Federal Reserve ...
... Jessica Silver-Greenberg, et al., of the New York Times: The revolving door between big banks, particularly Goldman-Sachs, & the New York Fed "has long fostered a culture of coziness that, even without direct evidence of impropriety, generated a public perception that regulators and bankers form unholy alliances. But the new accounts of a regulator and a banker actually sharing confidential documents -- violating a cardinal rule of the regulatory world -- suggest that those impressions may no longer be purely hypothetical. The leak strikes at the heart of questions about the ability of the New York Fed -- the public's eyes and ears on Wall Street -- to maintain its independence from the banks it regulates. It also comes as a popular image of Goldman as a bank that puts profit above all has begun to fade."
** Nick Hanauer in Politico Magazine: "... what's changed since the 1960s and '70s? Overtime pay, in part.... It turns out that fair overtime standards are to the middle class what the minimum wage is to low-income workers: not everything, but an indispensable labor protection that is absolutely essential to creating a broad and thriving middle class.... And so business owners like me have been able to make the other 89 percent of you work unlimited overtime hours for no additional pay at all. In my defense, I'm only playing by the rules -- rules written by and for wealthy capitalists like me. But the main point is this: These are rules that President Barack Obama has the power to change with the stroke of a pen, and with no prior congressional approval." ...
... The Hanauer piece via Charles Pierce, who -- like me -- thinks Hanauer has a great idea (even if it does come via Politico): "The screams of the market fundamentalists, and of the oligarchs who pay their honoraria, would be audible on Neptune, but this would be a genuine populist act for the president to take. Again, we say -- go big or go home."
Dana Milbank: "What is [Sen. Cory] Booker afraid of?... He could use his star power to do most anything, yet he is acting like a conventional pol." ...
... CW: Cory Booker is a conventional pol.
E. J. Dionne wants Jeb Bush to save the Republican party from itself. ...
... Sorry, E.J., but Bush, too, is a conventional pol. "Practical" politicians who want to be president (e.g., Jeb, Hillary, Cory) are not crusaders for truth, justice & a new American way.
Presidential Election
Ed Kilgore lets some conservatives assess Gov. Scott Walker's (RTP-Wis.) 2016 presidential prospects.
Share Article
Reader Comments (20)
@Akhilleus: Please contact me at this e-mail address. Thanks.
Marie
And what a mischievous tyrant he is! How long has Obama been secretly channelling government forces leading up to this, his despotic culmination? Somehow, he has managed to manipulate the entire Hispanic media to organize the Latin Grammys on the exact night of his "executive diktak" (thanks Cruz), and even ordered them to coincide their 'halftime break' with his revelatory amnesty appeal from his throne at White House Castle. Coincidence? I think NOT!
But to be serious, this episode in GOP nuttery is going to provoke such an anti-Latino wave of messaging that, if Democrats had any electoral strategy besides sitting on their hands, these comments should be amassed in a compilation hit piece and left on repeat every time the GOP later turns faux-populists before the next elections.
MSNBC will be carrying the President's speech. Rachel and her crew are slated for 6.45 ready to take the immigration discussion in hand.
I'd like to say to the guys of yesterday's posts–––good job! Such interesting discussions.
The Eighth Wonder of the World is our media's Zen-like ability to raise "he said-she said" to an art form. There are no convincing facts, there is never a more and a less reasonable argument, there is only the eternal controversy and consistent outrage that is never racist and never hypocritical, through our lord Cliven Bundy, Amen.
Here's my challenge to anyone who's interested: Compile a list of pejorative names "responsible" Republicans have called the President during the last six years, and publish an article using those same words to describe any current Republican officeholder. The Glenn Kesslers of the world would be out of the woodwork before you got your tenth "like" on Facebook.
Also, re Kate's question of a couple of days ago: Clinton has paid her dues; she may be as good as anyone we can elect; she is a woman, and we need more women in leadership positions--electing her may convince more talented women to enter politics; she is unlikely to nominate any of Alito's relatives to the Court. Sadly, she's unlikely to put a governor on the war machine and the terrorism entrepreneurs who are bleeding the Treasury dry.
Lukewarm? I guess.
"The country's going to go nuts, because they're going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it's going to be a very serious situation," [Senator Tom] Coburn said on Capital Download. "You're going to see — hopefully not — but you could see instances of anarchy. ... You could see violence."
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/senator-warns-violence-and-anarchy-if
And not a peep of disapproval from the media in reply.
Re: Yesterday's boy; Marie's busy; her laptop has become a lapdog. So I am going back to yesterdays thread. White men and what to do with them?
Warning; no fact, all opinion.(It's OK. She's busy).
One; saying or writing "white men" is as generally profiling as "white women" or "black teenagers". Lump us together and I'll show you an exception.
Let's say or write white men's common ground when you are looking for my vote.
White men like me don't watch Jon, Ellen, or Oprah so we are not on the cutting edge of culture.
White men like me become conservative as we age because we've been kick in the balls so many times by bosses, ex-wives, bad choices, friends, neighbors, and strangers that the more we cover up the better chance we can make it through the day.
White men like me hate corruption on every level. I hate the fucker that has a handicap sticker on his BMW and plays eighteen everyday. I hate the fucker who drops her kid off for a free breakfast in her massive SUV. I hate the fucker who skates free on a building code violation because he's got a connect down at the city planning. I hate the fucker(s) who spend millions on buying elections. I hate the fucker(s) who deny science for profit. etc etc etc.
So, alot hate there. Hate to the point of saying, "Why vote? Asshole politicians of every stripe are in the game for nothing but their own gain. Nothing more, nothing less." (I have voted in 98% of every election since '72)
White men like me don't like women who mimic the worse of my male traits to gain power.
White men like me want these things; Green jobs. A level playing field. Leaders to believe in.
White men like me are not holding our breaths.
Several days ago some readers here expressed frustration because, except for Bernie Sanders, there were no other hot contenders vying for that kingship otherwise known as the President of the U.S. I give you two: Martin O"Malley, the governor of Maryland has expressed his desire to run; the other is former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, a Vietnam vet who, from what I've read, might appeal to those angry white guys. So––perhaps Hillary will have her hands full after all (Both candidates seem worthy) and this election will prove more interesting and choicer than we thought.
Below is the link to a fascinating piece by Anne-Marie Slaughter (whenever I've heard her speak on foreign policy I've been impressed) on Kissinger's new book, "World Order" which purports how to fix America's foreign policy. She does an exceptional job of dissecting his book and her last name describes a bit of what she found: "Kissinger does not believe that foreign policy is about people except in the abstract." This is a long review, but I highly recommend it and would appreciate some feedback.
I think this is the piece @P.D. Pepe is referring to in her comment above.
Marie
Akhilleus and All,
I wasn't offering a challenge yesterday when I wrote about the difficulty of encapsulating winning liberal ideas in bumper sticker language, but Akhilleus gave me an idea when he responded, "I don't think it can be codified in a manner more elemental than you have suggested, (I think Akhilleus referred to 'You're broke because they're not') and I don't have the time here to proffer a more appropriate quietus to this quandary, but your prescriptive holds within its potential curative properties the key to what ails us."
So...I invite anyone who does have the time today to provide some effective, progressive sloganeering--I don't today; I'm on the run--to take up the cudgel.
We could all use the help.
Collectively yours,
K.W.
Yes, Marie, that is the article––forgot to insert link–-thanks.
@JJG: White women like me appreciate white guys like you cuz we, too, have been kicked badly over the years. Your "hates" express the frustration one feels when hope for sanity in our systems fall by the old wayside, but we persevere––we do what we can despite the fact that it is NOT a level playing field. If we give up then we lose––ourselves most of all, I think.
If you still have Tucker give him a extra hug and another slice of pizza and remind him that you took him in when he was down and out. And breathe easier.
Ken,
Sorry...I think I may have been too verbally cute for my own good. What I actually meant was that you had done an excellent job of stating the problem, the importance of maintaining and strengthening the connection between economic and social justice issues.
But I'm always up for word play so I'll take a whack at getting even cuter. Philologically, that is.
And I get the difficulty of conveying complexity with snappy one liners, but it's not impossible.
We shall see.
@Ak and Ken; "I liked Ike; still do."
I beg your indulgence.....
Recently, I read an informative article on TPP that wasn't hysterical and covered the reasons for 'secrecy' and other stuff about the agreement. I think it may have been from a RC link and it was probably written within the last week.
Anybody remember it and provide a link to it?
@Marie,
Now that I have seen your true brilliance in editing with your editing of Cruz's Politico piece, I think there may be a job opening for you at FoxNews.
Steve Benen has a good take on it:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/irony-weeps-cruz-urges-obama-compromise
Re Jim Webb, my husband is one of those disaffected white guys: non-college educated, blue-collar, and likes guns. He is not anti-government nor is he anti-tax, but believes in "right size, effective" government, "appropriate levels of taxation," a strong defense, and a fair deal for the little guy. He feels completely lost politically - can't support who the Repubs have become since in order to support them you also have to be homophobic, islamophobic, hispano-phobic (essentially just other-phobic), deride education and science, believe that God personally faxed the Constitution to the Founders, and generally just be dumb. On the other hand, he feels like the Democrats look down on guys like him and have no interest in helping the working class. He says that many of his friends - all blue-collar, former military or police white guys - feel the same way.
My husband is a big Jim Webb supporter, seeing in him a kindred spirit. When we got the email from Webb this morning, he even gave some money to support the exploratory effort, and has forwarded the email on to many of his friends. I have never seen him feel this way about any politician.
While Webb might not be the ideal guy I would like in the White House, let's face it, the progressive president of our dreams will NEVER be elected in this country - at least not in the foreseeable future. The idea that my tribally Republican husband might vote for Webb as a Democrat makes me think that Webb just might have a chance - and ANY Democrat is better than ANY Republican.
PD,
I've heard some rumblings about O'Malley, whom I don't know all that well, but it's great to hear that Jim Webb is considering a bit of the old hat throwing. I've always thought him a most unusual Democrat, but very pleased to have him on the team.
Odds are that Hillary will indeed be the nominee, but nothing is a certainty. Plenty thought that in 2007. And were I O'Malley, I wouldn't feel daunted by the general lack of name recognition.
As recently as just a couple of years ago, Ted Cruz was known primarily in conservative legal circles as the go to guy when you wanted to make sure no city--like, say, DC--could curb handguns, even if their murder rate was through the roof (what's a little murder compared to FREEEEEEDOM!!?).
By the way, DC's murder rate, which had finally gone down after decades, when Ted drafted the amicus brief that disallowed DC leaders from considering public safety, has now begun a rise again. This year's homicides are double that of last year's. Thanks, Ted! You could also count on Cruz to make sure that prisoners on death row, no matter how poorly represented, would not escape Justice, Texas style.
In just two years, he's skyrocketed into public prominence for shutting down the government, threatening to shut down the government, threatening anyone who talked about compromise, shutting down the government, and...did I say shutting down the government?
So I'm not worried about name recognition.
And Hillary could use a challenge. If nothing else, it will sharpen her for the main event. And if, by chance, O'Malley or Webb are the candidate, they'll likely be going up against a guy who runs away from things, then says he didn't, a guy whose claim to fame is shutting down the government, and a couple of other guys who have investigators so far up their asses it's not entirely clear if that bump on their throats is an Adam's apple or a pair of handcuffs.
The Slaughter piece looks good. I'll check it out.
Thanks.
Rockygirl,
Your estimation of getting the candidate of our dreams in the White House is pretty accurate. First, I don't see that person out there (not counting Warren, since she has said "Not running"), and second, if they were, the right would already have been working day and night at character assassination.
But I think a Webb candidacy would push the recharge button for a lot of Democrats. He's not a spellbinder, but he has a definite authenticity to him, a sense of personal rectitude, without the didacticism. And his military experience would be a plus. This doesn't mean the Republicans won't attack him--look at what Bush and Saxby Chambliss (a deserter and a chicken hawk) did to Max Cleland, a guy who lost two arms and a leg at Khe Sanh.. They painted him as an unpatriotic drunk. And they won.
But I don't think that type of mendacity will fly with Webb. Besides this would be a national election, not a state election where conservatives rule.
Yes, everyone would support Hillary over any Republican, but they might not be overly excited about it. I love the idea of a woman in the White House, but I'm also pretty jazzed about a Webb campaign. And honestly, I really do need to be excited about 2016.
I've also heard Bernie Sanders is thinking of running. Bernie wouldn't get very far, but he could toss out some juicy talking points that might cause the others to consider his concerns.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Oops...my anatomy skills need some work.
Max Cleland lost most of two legs and most of his right arm. I had him down with losing a leg and two arms.
Do you think Bush ever thought about that when he was painting pictures of his own toes, I mean, since he spent the Vietnam years partying? He never had to worry about losing a body part or getting shot. The only thing he had to worry about was a string of bloody noses from all the cocaine he was snorting.
Why isn't he on Mount Rushmore? I wanna know.
Oh, and one more thing while I'm thinking of Ted Cruz, which I have to stop very quickly or it's off to the vomitorium...
Ted worked for some years as a wingnut hitman for Texas AG Greg Abbot, who will shortly be the next goovernator of Texas.
This morning, NPR, which is quickly becoming a kind of Fox Lite, had a long, glowing piece on the annual conference of the Republican Governor's Association during which outgoing Texas crime boss, Rick Perry, had this to say about his next in line:
"Greg Abbott, who is the new incoming governor of Texas - who, by the way is going to be just a fabulous governor - his job description over the last six years when he was asked what do you do? He said, I go to the office, I sue Obama and I go home.
(LAUGHTER)"
Ho-ho....so funny, Rick, you asshole.
But really, he's not kidding. This has been the Republican game plan for the last 6 years. Sue Obama, kill him, stiff him, jolt him, juke him, do whatever it takes to make sure the United States government is stopped in its tracks just to make sure Obama is hurt.
So when I hear that narcissistic little creep, Cruz, whining about how the president isn't playing nice, isn't compromising....
Well, you don't want to know what I think of doing.
Anyway, off to vomit now...
Daily Kos has an interesting take on Webb’s eMail announcing his exploratory committee. He should give Beltway geniuses like Milbank and Fournier a tingle.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/20/1346126/-Jim-Webb-is-running-ish-for-president-because-bipartisanship-and-Democratic-handouts-are-bad