Saturday, February 7, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Dangerous Waters you're swimming in...
A question for our Republican friends...
Even though the new President has bent over backwards to be bipartisan, even at the risk of pissing off his own base, he's done so...and you've slapped him in the face for it.
Even though the new President has bent over backwards to be bipartisan, even at the risk of pissing off his own base, he's done so...and you've slapped him in the face for it.
He caved to some of your demands on putting tax cuts into the Stimulus, even though it may be a bad idea.
He's open to trimming some of (but not all) of the size of the Stimulus (it still has to be in the $800 Billion dollar range, though).
And now he's even caved to your (well, Kit Bond's) self-important demand that the CIA Interrogators won't be prosecuted.
Here's my question. What if the Stimulus goes down?
Here's my question. What if the Stimulus goes down?
What if it takes Bipartisanship with it?
What's going to save your CIA Interrogators then?
If Stimulus goes down, what incentive is there for the Obama Administration not to declare all out war on the Bush Administration? What's to stop the Justice Department? More importantly (and constitutionally, since its their Stimulus Bill you're pissing on) what's to stop the House?
What's going to save your CIA Interrogators then?
If Stimulus goes down, what incentive is there for the Obama Administration not to declare all out war on the Bush Administration? What's to stop the Justice Department? More importantly (and constitutionally, since its their Stimulus Bill you're pissing on) what's to stop the House?
It's the old Washington saying, the enemy isn't the other party, it's the Senate.
If I were my Republican friends, I'd think long and hard about this.
If I were my Republican friends, I'd think long and hard about this.
Labels:
Analysis,
Congress,
Democrats,
Economy,
Election 2010,
House,
Obama,
Republicans,
Senate,
U.S.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
A matter of emphasis...
I love the Mainstream Media because you can always go there to get such straight answers.
Can you detect the sarcasm in my voice? It's a blog, it's hard to tell.
For example, in Reuters today, you see the following headline: Obama CIA pick may back "limited" abuse prosecution.
Ahhh, wonderful to hear.
But wait a minute Reuters is European. (Damn you, old Europe!!) Time Magazine, a fine American publication, on the other hand, has a different take entirely called: Panetta: Don't Punish Waterboarding.
See, America the trick is...you gotta keep reading, because Time Magazine eventually says the same thing, despite its headline; which as you know is written by someone else.
For the record, that's whole Time article.
But before we go cheering Reuters, they loop back as well:
But at the same time...
This is all good, but the truth of what's going to happen probably lies somewhere in between Reuters and Time. I bet Panetta wouldn't mind prosecuting some of his guys, if for no other reason than to get them to squeal on the big fish: Rummy, Cheney and the unemployable Gonzalez. But remember, he's not a prosecutor. He also doesn't want to start a rebellion on his first day at Langley.
The best strategy is to punt the thing to Congress, and let them do the dirty (and constitutionally mandated) work.
But if there's one thing to bear in mind, that did put me in a bit of a cold sweat, it's this paragraph from the Reuters article:
So...the President might go back to torture, but he'll warn us first?
I don't see how that stands with "this president would do nothing that would violate the laws that are in place." Methinks (mehopes) this is a way to placate the Republicans on the panel.
Can you detect the sarcasm in my voice? It's a blog, it's hard to tell.
For example, in Reuters today, you see the following headline: Obama CIA pick may back "limited" abuse prosecution.
President Barack Obama's choice to head the CIA said on Thursday he would support "limited" prosecution of any agents who deliberately violated the law in interrogating terrorism suspects.
Former White House chief of staff Leon Panetta, in Senate confirmation hearings on his nomination, broke with outgoing CIA Director Michael Hayden to support a congressional inquiry into the agency's detention and interrogation program launched after the September 11 attacks.
He said the Senate Intelligence Committee would be an appropriate place for an inquiry "to learn lessons from what happened" in the program, and said he would do everything he could to cooperate.
Ahhh, wonderful to hear.
But wait a minute Reuters is European. (Damn you, old Europe!!) Time Magazine, a fine American publication, on the other hand, has a different take entirely called: Panetta: Don't Punish Waterboarding.
CIA Director nominee Leon Panetta says the CIA interrogators who used waterboarding or other harsh techniques against prisoners on the authority of the White House should not be prosecuted.
Panetta told a Senate panel on Thursday that those individuals should not be prosecuted or investigated if they acted pursuant to the law as presented by the attorney general.
See, America the trick is...you gotta keep reading, because Time Magazine eventually says the same thing, despite its headline; which as you know is written by someone else.
However, Panetta says that if interrogators went beyond the methods that they were told were legal, they should be investigated and prosecuted.
The Bush White House approved CIA waterboarding of three prisoners in 2002 and 2003. The CIA banned the practice internally in 2006.
President Barack Obama has prohibited harsh interrogation techniques.
For the record, that's whole Time article.
But before we go cheering Reuters, they loop back as well:
Panetta said he considered "waterboarding" to be torture, but did not support prosecuting agents who relied on high-level legal guidance allowing such techniques.
But at the same time...
However, "if there were those who deliberately violated the law, and deliberately took actions which were above and beyond the standards presented to them, then obviously in those limited cases there should be prosecution," he said.
This is all good, but the truth of what's going to happen probably lies somewhere in between Reuters and Time. I bet Panetta wouldn't mind prosecuting some of his guys, if for no other reason than to get them to squeal on the big fish: Rummy, Cheney and the unemployable Gonzalez. But remember, he's not a prosecutor. He also doesn't want to start a rebellion on his first day at Langley.
The best strategy is to punt the thing to Congress, and let them do the dirty (and constitutionally mandated) work.
But if there's one thing to bear in mind, that did put me in a bit of a cold sweat, it's this paragraph from the Reuters article:
Panetta said he would if necessary ask Obama to allow harsher interrogations than those covered by the Army Field Manual, which the president last month set as the government standard. The manual bans techniques such as waterboarding.
"I would not hesitate," to seek broader interrogation authority, Panetta said, adding "I think that this president would do nothing that would violate the laws that are in place."
He promised to tell Congress if Obama were to authorize a departure from standards the president imposed last month.
So...the President might go back to torture, but he'll warn us first?
I don't see how that stands with "this president would do nothing that would violate the laws that are in place." Methinks (mehopes) this is a way to placate the Republicans on the panel.
Labels:
Analysis,
CIA,
Democrats,
Election 2010,
Intelligence,
National Security,
Obama,
Torture,
U.S.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
The President continues...
From the Washington Post. There's more, but this the good stuff...
In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.I had to leave that last part in. Too cool.
I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.Every day, our economy gets sicker -- and the time for a remedy that puts Americans back to work, jump-starts our economy and invests in lasting growth is now.
Now is the time to protect health insurance for the more than 8 million Americans at risk of losing their coverage and to computerize the health-care records of every American within five years, saving billions of dollars and countless lives in the process.
Now is the time to save billions by making 2 million homes and 75 percent of federal buildings more energy-efficient, and to double our capacity to generate alternative sources of energy within three years.
Now is the time to give our children every advantage they need to compete by upgrading 10,000 schools with state-of-the-art classrooms, libraries and labs; by training our teachers in math and science; and by bringing the dream of a college education within reach for millions of Americans.
And now is the time to create the jobs that remake America for the 21st century by rebuilding aging roads, bridges and levees; designing a smart electrical grid; and connecting every corner of the country to the information superhighway.
These are the actions Americans expect us to take without delay. They're patient enough to know that our economic recovery will be measured in years, not months. But they have no patience for the same old partisan gridlock that stands in the way of action while our economy continues to slide.
So we have a choice to make. We can once again let Washington's bad habits stand in the way of progress. Or we can pull together and say that in America, our destiny isn't written for us but by us. We can place good ideas ahead of old ideological battles, and a sense of purpose above the same narrow partisanship. We can act boldly to turn crisis into opportunity and, together, write the next great chapter in our history and meet the test of our time.
The writer is president of the United States.
Colbert nails 'em...(VIDEO)
Staunch Conservative Stephen Colbert (not to be confused with Comedy Central Comedian Stephen Colbert) has a warning for the Republicans.
The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Labels:
Colbert Report,
Humor,
Republicans,
U.S.,
Video
Let's get it on…
This morning, Barack Obama struck back…
Oh yeah...
Proof, once again, that the man's read The Defining Moment. Action, and action now.
But my favorite moment, one reflective of the campaign, is his turning toward the Conversative talking point, and finally…finally…counterpunching.
Translation. I won. Get over it. Lead. Follow...or prepare to get rolled over.
President Obama mounted a staunch defense today of the economic stimulus plan now before Congress, chiding critics who want it to focus primarily on tax cuts and asserting that Americans rejected their theories in the November elections.
In an appearance at the White House with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, Obama urged Congress to act quickly on the stimulus package, which has come under attack from Senate Republicans and some Democrats alarmed by its roughly $900 billion price tag.
"We know that even if we do everything we should, this crisis was years in the making, and it will take more than weeks or months to turn things around," Obama said. "But make no mistake: A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future. Millions more jobs will be lost. More businesses will be shuttered. More dreams will be deferred."
Oh yeah...
Proof, once again, that the man's read The Defining Moment. Action, and action now.
But my favorite moment, one reflective of the campaign, is his turning toward the Conversative talking point, and finally…finally…counterpunching.
Apparently referring to Republican foes of the stimulus plan, Obama said recent criticisms of it "echo the very same failed economic theories that led us into this crisis in the first place: the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems, that we can ignore fundamental challenges like energy independence and the high cost of health care, that we can somehow deal with this in a piecemeal fashion and still expect our economy and our country to thrive."
Obama added: "I reject those theories. And so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."
Translation. I won. Get over it. Lead. Follow...or prepare to get rolled over.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Rod Blagojevich and his one moment of sanity. (VIDEO)
I think the man's scum, but Blago made his best case for going on TV as much as he did during the run up to his Impeachment Trial. He said he had young daughters, and didn't want them to believe he was guilty (about 3:15 in). Okay, even though I think he is guilty, I can live with that. I understand that.
At the same time, he lied about being allowed to call witnesses. As I recall, he wanted to pull down every member of the Obama Administration to embarass them during his trial. The Illinois Senate said no, only witnesses germane to the case would be allowed, and Blagojevich threw a hissy fit, going on all those aforementioned Talk Shows, claiming he wasn't allowed any witnesses at all.
From the Chicago Sun Times:
At the same time, he lied about being allowed to call witnesses. As I recall, he wanted to pull down every member of the Obama Administration to embarass them during his trial. The Illinois Senate said no, only witnesses germane to the case would be allowed, and Blagojevich threw a hissy fit, going on all those aforementioned Talk Shows, claiming he wasn't allowed any witnesses at all.
From the Chicago Sun Times:
The rules do prohibit both House impeachment prosecutors and the governor’s lawyers from subpoenaing people who “could compromise the U.S. Attorney’s criminal investigation of Rod R. Blagojevich.” But none of the rules prohibit Blagojevich from presenting his side of the story, said Sen. Matt Murphy (R-Palatine), one of the people who drafted them.
The President is Wrong...
"This will be the first time on this blog that I am going to wholeheartedly disagree with Barack Obama. He wants to appoint Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican as Commerce Secretary, theoretically giving the Democrats a 60 seat majority after the Democratic New Hampshire Governor, John Lynch, appoints his replacement. But...
Hey, I got an idea. Maybe Judd Gregg shoudn't be Commerce Secretary.
This is not a guy or a position that I'm losing a lot of sleep over. Personally, I would have stuck with Richardson, despite his troubles, especially after seeing this.
Added to that, let's face facts, Judd Gregg was about to get his ass kicked in the upcoming Senate Elections in 2010. Why help him or his party out? If he wants the job, then these are the conditions. You take it, I appoint who I want (a Democrat). If that's too much for you, fine. Stay in the Senate, and get removed via the ballot box. Works for me either way.
Blue Hampshire has more about this. (They're a progressive site dealing exclusively with New Hampshire Politics. And no, it's not one I regularly visit.)
But if the Republicans filibuster just one bill out of the Senate after today, I think John Lynch should pay a political price for his decision. While I'm sure there's been pressure from Harry Reid and Barack Obama, the final decision rests with John Lynch, and he should have said hell no...
"Senator [Judd] Gregg [R-NH] has said he would not resign his seat in the U.S. Senate if it changed the balance in the Senate," Governor John Lynch said in a statement given to the Union Leader. "Based on my discussions, it is clear the White House and Senate leadership understand this as well."
Hey, I got an idea. Maybe Judd Gregg shoudn't be Commerce Secretary.
This is not a guy or a position that I'm losing a lot of sleep over. Personally, I would have stuck with Richardson, despite his troubles, especially after seeing this.
Added to that, let's face facts, Judd Gregg was about to get his ass kicked in the upcoming Senate Elections in 2010. Why help him or his party out? If he wants the job, then these are the conditions. You take it, I appoint who I want (a Democrat). If that's too much for you, fine. Stay in the Senate, and get removed via the ballot box. Works for me either way.
Blue Hampshire has more about this. (They're a progressive site dealing exclusively with New Hampshire Politics. And no, it's not one I regularly visit.)
But if the Republicans filibuster just one bill out of the Senate after today, I think John Lynch should pay a political price for his decision. While I'm sure there's been pressure from Harry Reid and Barack Obama, the final decision rests with John Lynch, and he should have said hell no...
Labels:
Analysis,
Commerce,
Congress,
Democrats,
Election 2010,
Obama,
Republicans,
Senate,
U.S.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Don't forget your Frank Rich for the day...
Frank Rich of the New York Times:
[Y]ou might think that a loyal opposition would want to pitch in and play a serious role at a time of national peril. Not by singing “Kumbaya” but by collaborating on possible solutions and advancing a policy debate that many Americans’ lives depend on. As Raymond Moley, of F.D.R.’s brain trust, said of the cross-party effort at the harrowing start of that presidency in March 1933, Hoover and Roosevelt acolytes “had forgotten to be Republicans or Democrats” as they urgently tried to rescue their country.
The current G.O.P. acts as if it — and we — have all the time in the world. It kept hoping in vain that the fast-waning Blago sideshow would somehow impale Obama or Rahm Emanuel. It has come perilously close to wishing aloud that a terrorist attack will materialize to discredit Obama’s reversals of Bush policy on torture, military tribunals and Gitmo. The party’s sole consistent ambition is to play petty politics to gum up the works.
If anything, the Republican Congressional leadership seems to be emulating John McCain’s September stunt of “suspending” his campaign to “fix” the Wall Street meltdown. For all his bluster, McCain in the end had no fixes to offer and sat like a pet rock at the White House meeting on the crisis before capitulating to the bailout. His imitators likewise posture in public about their determination to take action, then do nothing while more and more Americans cry for help.
The problem is not that House Republicans gave the stimulus bill zero votes last week. That’s transitory political symbolism, and it had no effect on the outcome. Some of the naysayers will vote for the revised final bill anyway (and claim, Kerry-style, that they were against it before they were for it). The more disturbing problem is that the party has zero leaders and zero ideas. It is as AWOL in this disaster as the Bush administration was during Katrina.
...
The Republicans do have one idea, of course, but it’s hardly fresh: more and bigger tax cuts, particularly for business and the well-off. That’s the sum of their “alternative” stimulus plan. Obama has tried to accommodate this panacea, perhaps to a fault. Mainstream economists in both parties believe that tax cuts in the stimulus package will deliver far less bang for the buck than, say, infrastructure spending. The tax-cut stimulus embraced a year ago by the G.O.P. induced next-to-no consumer spending as Americans merely banked the savings or paid down debt.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
The Pre-Superbowl Interview (VIDEO)
And between you and me, Obama pretty much nailed the game.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)