The Commentariat -- Sept. 8, 2013
David Cloud of the Los Angeles Times: " The Pentagon is preparing for a longer bombardment of Syria than it originally had planned, with a heavy barrage of missile strikes followed soon after by more attacks on targets that the opening salvos missed or failed to destroy, officials said. The planning for intense attacks over a three-day period reflects the growing belief in the White House and the Pentagon that the United States needs more firepower to inflict even minimal damage on Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces, which have been widely dispersed over the last two weeks, the officials said." ...
... Jennifer Epstein of Politico: "President Obama will sit for interviews Monday with six TV networks as he makes his case to the nation for military intervention in Syria." ...
... President Obama won't be convincing Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.). ...
... Mike Allen & Jennifer Epstein of Politico: "Retired Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, former CIA director under President Barack Obama, called strongly Saturday for Congress to back the White House on Syria, declaring that military action against the regime is 'necessary' to deter 'Iran, North Korea and other would-be aggressors.'" ...
... ** Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post: "The European Union called Saturday for a 'clear and strong' international response to what it said was 'strong evidence' that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government was responsible for a massive chemical weapons attack two weeks ago near Damascus. But the E.U. statement stopped far short of endorsing a U.S. military strike -- something that U.S. officials acknowledged many of the organization's 28 members do not support. E.U. foreign ministers, after listening to Secretary of State John F. Kerry explain the U.S. position on punishing Syria with a limited strike, also indicated that no action should take place until U.N. chemical weapons inspectors release their report at least two weeks from now. A similar delay was advocated Friday by French President François Hollande, whose government had said until last week that it was 'ready' to participate in a U.S.-led military strike against Syria." ...
... Nicholas Kristof: "So while neither intervention nor paralysis is appealing, that's pretty much the menu. That's why I favor a limited cruise missile strike against Syrian military targets (as well as the arming of moderate rebels). As I see it, there are several benefits: Such a strike may well deter Syria's army from using chemical weapons again, probably can degrade the ability of the army to use chemical munitions and bomb civilian areas, can reinforce the global norm against chemical weapons, and -- a more remote prospect -- may slightly increase the pressure on the Assad regime to work out a peace deal." ...
... CW: The New York Times posts this "news analysis" by Sam Tanenhaus on its front page. Tanenhaus claims that "the presidency itself has ceded much of its power and authority to Congress." I'm not an historian, but I think that's bull. "Strong" presidents were strong because their own party controlled Congress or because they concentrated on foreign affairs where the Constitution grants the executive more power. FDR, perhaps the country's most effective president, had both. Tanehaus seems to be of the impression that Reagan was a super-president. Well, no. He made deep concessions to the Democratic Congress, & has often been noted, he could not even be nominated by the Republican base today, even if he did pander shamelessly to the racist element (as indeed he did). If you know better, I welcome your comments. ...
... Andrew Rudalevige, a political scientist who teachers a "presidency course," writes in the Monkey Cage, "The idea that presidents have 'ceded' power and authority to Congress? Surely most of it was Congress's to begin with. Especially since the examples given in the paper -- Newt Gingrich's House, George W. Bush's failure to win passage of his proposals for immigration or Social Security reform -- are examples of legislators making legislative choices. Congress is, um, the legislative branch. It certainly is under no obligation to enact presidential requests into law. Indeed, it has a variety of powers even in national security areas." And so on.
... AND Maureen Dowd is into her usual pop psychoanalysis of "Barry." Seems he has a split personality & that's what is making him cede the presidency to Congressional teabaggers. ...
... PLUS, Ross Douthat piles on: "It is to President Obama's great discredit that he has staked this credibility on a vote whose outcome he failed to game out in advance."
Joseph Menn of Reuters: "Internet security experts are calling for a campaign to rewrite Web security in the wake of disclosures that the U.S. National Security Agency has developed the capability to break encryption protecting millions of sites.... Leading technologists said they felt betrayed that the NSA, which has contributed to some important security standards, was trying to ensure they stayed weak enough that the agency could break them." ...
... Al Jazeera has a useful timeline of the publications of Ed Snowden's leaks.
New York Times Editors: "The Justice Department filed a brief last month in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington against two towns for failing to provide adequate legal assistance for poor defendants. The department's filing ... did not take a position on the merits of the plaintiffs' claim, but it starkly described what Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. has called the 'state of crisis.' in public defender systems nationwide.... Fifty years after the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution guarantees every criminal defendant a lawyer, the right to effective counsel remains an empty promise in too many parts of the country. The Justice Department's filing in the Washington lawsuit is an encouraging sign that the federal government is beginning to back up that promise with the weight of its authority."
Dana Milbank, no doubt after extensive research, finds an heroic Republican -- Rep. Adam Kinzinger from Illinois. Kinzinger, among other attributes, is not afraid to call out Ted Cruz for his cheap shots at the President.
Senatorial Race
Contributor P. D. Pepe links to this New Republic essay by Noam Scheiber: "Outside the context of a local politician struggling to fund his agenda, [Newark Mayor & U.S. Senate candidate Cory] Booker's worldview -- the mild suspicion of government initiative, the trivialization of paying taxes as a way to bring about change, the sanctification of corporate do-gooding -- is a few ticks to the right of a Clinton-era New Democrat. Really more like enlightened Paul Ryan-ism. There are definitely worse philosophies. But it's not exactly progressive." CW: contributor Diane's comment on Booker, in yesterday's thread, which inspired Pepe's link, is IMHO, exactly right. And it agrees perfectly with Scheiber's extended observations.
Local News
Chris Smith interviews NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg for New York magazine. The bit other news outlets are picking up: Bloomberg says leading mayoral candidate Bill De Blasio is running a "class-warfare and racist" campaign. ...
... Andrew Kaczynski of BuzzFeed: "New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg set off a firestorm Saturday when he called mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio's campaign 'racist' in a New York Magazine interview. Bloomberg made the case that de Blasio's campaign was 'racist' for using his family to gain support in the black community equating it to him pointing out that he was Jewish to attract the Jewish vote. In previous mayoral campaigns that's exactly what Bloomberg did." Kaczyski lists some examples of Bloomberg's going Hebrew even though he is, according to Kaczynski, "not observant." Via Steve M., who has more.
News Ledes
USA Today: "The man who has become the face of the NAACP ... is resigning effective Dec. 31. In an interview with USA Today, Benjamin Todd Jealous said the constant travel as president and CEO of the nation's largest civil rights organization has kept him away too much from his wife, civil rights lawyer Lia Epperson, and children.... He said he plans to make a formal announcement to his staff Monday morning."
AFP: "Low-cost carrier Norwegian Air Shuttle on Sunday announced a new technical problem with one of its Boeing 787 'Dreamliners', as the plane was grounded due to a flaw in its electrical system."
Los Angeles Times: "After years of largely bad news, crowds in Tokyo roared in excitement as they watched the announcement, streamed live here, that their city has been selected as the host of the 2020 Summer Olympics."
Reader Comments (14)
I am not a historian by a long shot. However, this is total hogwash, from Tanenhaus "In personal terms, there is Mr. Obama’s inability to charm adversaries as Ronald Reagan did." Such a statement ignores the obvious fact of Obama's race, the population's changing demographics, emerging global powers and constant universally accessible information. Although there is less than 30 years between Obama and Reagan, it reads more like a century in terms of major change.
I sincerely doubt that Reagan had many original thoughts. I believe he was fed not only speeches but policy. He was a product of his 3rd tier monkey movies and the totally ridiculous Ozzie and Harriet post war ideal, specifically a white ideal. Reagan was adept at keeping people of color and the poor out of the conversation. He made sure their voices had a negative value (welfare queens and their Cadillacs).
In brief, he had minimal critical thinking skills to begin with then he just got plain addled. From the beginning he was a manufactured store dummy for popular consumption. Once in awhile he roused and decided to reenact some bad scene from a war movie -i.e Iran Contra, taking a stand for God and country or something. Reagan's legacy is nothing if not the antecedent to the current Republican racist, anti-intelligence and misogynist platforms.
Obviously, my hair is on fire when I read gopher slobber like the above Tanenhaus quote. It is amazing how a half wit with too much Brylcreem and a resume of really embarrassing movies is still fooling so many people.
@Diane-
I find it amazing that Ron Reagan, Jr. is a progressive Democrat, unafraid to put himself "out there" in support of progressive players and programs! How did this happen?
I can only guess that Ron, Jr. (as well as his sister, Patti) sensed the hypocrisy of his parents' lives and values, and the same with their "friends" and political allies--hello, Ed Meese! He is obviously a bright and sensitive man who decided to take the "road less traveled" in his family of origin. On this, I can relate to him.
Interestingly, Ronald Reagan, Sr. had an adopted son, Michael, who has turned out to be a Tea Party type--bigoted, small minded and sometimes just plain mean. How could it be that his biological son and daughter rejected his political values, while his (apparently, so I have read) neglected adopted son has adopted them big time? I have some theories, but they are psychological and would probably turn off the readers of Reality Chex.
Kate––please, go ahead. Given the flavor of our R.C. gang I think your theories would be right up our alleys.
I do remember Ron Jr. revealing that he could have a perfectly chummy conversation with "dad" but feel that when the conversation ended somehow the closeness was ephemeral––he had the distinct feeling of it being "not real."
My own take on the children and it may concur with yours, is that Patti and Ron were privy to the actual family dynamics and once they reached the age of reason reacted strongly to all that "stuff" while Michael, always feeling like the left shoe has taken the Right's position––if you can't have father's love and attention you can at least embrace his mindset.
There is a film, "Gideon's Trumpet" starring Henry Fonda, based on Anthony Lewis' book of the same title and tells the story of Clarence Earl Gideon, a penniless drifter, convicted without a lawyer for breaking into a vending machine.He wrote a letter by hand to the Supreme Court (at the time the wonderful Warren Court) explaining that he thought he was entitled to a lawyer. The Court treated it as a formal petition for review, granted it and appointed a lawyer, none other than Abe Fortas, to represent Gideon and Gideon v. Wainwright, (1963). The Court ruled in Gideon's favor and the case became a landmark: It guaranteed the right to a lawyer paid for by the state to all indigent defendants in serious criminal trials.
I shudder to think what it would have been like if the Reagan cabal had controlled Congress. As it was, St Ronald of Reagan was just an empty Oxxford suit trotted out to snooker us with a prepared script once in awhile. He had the majority fooled, too. We didn't see the corruption that Akhelius has covered in detail, and corruption it was. Ronnie sold his soul to GE and the corporations. He lost me with El Salvador and the ridiculous story about commies coming up to get us. Murder, rape, and pillage was the order of the day for the Contras and that scum Ollie North. I knew a former Army sergeant who was in Central America at the time. In his opinion, there was no way a lieutenant colonel like North could have controlled supplying the Contras on his own. Higher ups had to know and approve.
I enjoy listening to Ron Jr. At least he and his sister saw the light.
This will put a Sunday smile on your faces:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/28/1234521/-Four-Black-Men-Used-To-Being-Stereotyped-Surprised-Some-VIDEO?detail=email
@Kate, I agree with PD Pepe: please, please give us your theories.
St. Ronald lived in the dark illusion of a bad Hollywood movie scripted to fool the audience (by using superb marketing techniques) into thinking it (the dark illusion) was light filled. Ron, Jr. has walked out of the dark and bravely shown us that the light does, indeed, eventually win.
And, lest we forget, can we say: "The Air Traffic Controllers?"
Diane: perfect analysis of Reagan. And the Greedy Old Party still wants to use him as a poster boy.
Re: Trouble with a capital "T". Ronald Reagan sold "all-electric homes" in So-Cal when I was a kid. Aside from the simple facts that he could not sing, could not dance, he always reminded me of Professor Harold Hill, salesman of musical instruments. Unfortunately for us town folk Marium the librarian turned out to be Nancy. So instead of Ronnie living his life out tooting his kazoo in Indiana he ended up in the White House blowing the MIC.
We had a discussion of allies not being permanent. Here's Juan Cole on Syria.
Html failed. http://www.juancole.com/2013/09/syria-least-helpful.html
Reading and thinking about Syria makes my head hurt. Low flying black info-choppers dumping conflicting shit into the public pool by the hour. Cholera if you dip a toe in; vaccinations and autism if you don’t. To bomb or not to bomb… aye, that’s the question; that’s always the fucking question, and it has no geographic boundaries. So let’s go back to talking about St Ronald, Arms Dealer to Iran and Liberator of Grenada. He’d make a great B bio-pic movie, right? I could watch it and not have a headache. Maybe.
PD, I read the Lewis book some time ago and my memory is not so reliable, but I recall that that letter to the court took a lot of doing. There were all kinds of obscure criteria that had to be met and he had to make a very careful and thoughtful appeal. The book gave me a greater understanding of why the court is reluctant to allow defendants to represent themselves. The law is no Jimmy Stewart movie (even when they give the part to Henry Fonda).
Rather late in the day to be posting on RR and his family; however, I have been ensconced in the Serena Williams/Viki Azerenka match today. Hooray Serena! She is awesome. Interesting that she is 31 years old and on her way to winning world breaking Slam records. Roger Federer is 32 years old and losing all major tournaments. The MSM comments constantly on Fed being 32 years old and "past his prime." I have heard nothing about Serena being 31 years old and kicking butt. Wonder why?
Back to Reagan. I think @ PD Pepe and Diane have it exactly right! I really have nothing of significance to add--except to say that I have always thought of Ronnie and Nancy R. as being what in psychology is called "as if" personalities. They, in a sense, made themselves up--and had no sound grounding in reality or an identity based on what they had actually accomplished. Ronnie was in war movies, so he considered him self a "veteran." Nancy was an actress who often played a "perfect wife," so she became a perfect wife. Neither had much reality testing--which is entirely understandable, given their backgrounds, on which I will not comment.
They obviously gave their biological children a great deal of psychological space in which to see their own reality--a good thing--but probably not in their awareness. Ron, Jr. and Patti clearly saw their parents' hypocrisy and, in different ways, rejected it. Michael, as the "outsider" and the child of RR's 1st marriage to Jane Wyman never really had a chance. Nancy tried hard to have Jane deleted from RR's life--because she obviously could not tolerate the idea that he had a romantic history prior to her. Hmm....more than a bit narcissistic, but not all that uncommon in second marriages.
Beyond that, I hesitate to speculate--although I often have. Bottom line: you all are a savvy, sophisticated group, of which I am happy to be a part.