"Feckless" In Pennsylvania

In his blog "Attytood," Philadelphia-based journalist Will Bunch says Republicans "use this word to describe President Obama and his foreign policy: 'Feckless'."  He doesn't know what it means, Bunch acknowledges, but believes it describes "Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, a man who apparently had a feck-ectomy at some point in his life" (video below of a different kind of senator).

Responding to defeat in the Senate last week of President Obama's appointment of Debo Adegbile, former director of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, to head the civil rights division of the Justice Department, Bunch wrote (or more likely, typed)

One of the cases that the Fund took on while Adegbile was there was arguing that convicted Philadelphia cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal should not receive the death penalty, in part because of racial disparities in jury selection before his trial. Now, I've made it clear how I feel about Abu-Jamal -- the guy murdered a cop in cold blood and widowed Maureen Faulkner. I have no sympathy for him and I hope he spend the rest of his days behind bars, contemplating the evil thing he's done.

Bunch concedes he doesn't believe Abu-Jamal should have been executed, but only because he is opposed to the death penalty.  I would go further: Abu-Jamal should have been executed but, as Bunch explains

those of us who believe in an American way of justice believe that even a cop killer like Abu-Jamal deserves a defense (and an appeal) from qualified and presumably decent attorneys. Adegbile wasn't arguing for Abu-Jamal's innocence, just that he be spared the death penalty. Over the years, hundreds of men and women who've defended murderers have become judges, pillars of their community, even U.S. senators.

That's the American way. But someone forgot to tell Sen. Bob Casey.On Friday, the day of the week preferred by cowards for revealing their cowardly decisions, Casey announced that he could not support Adegbile. In addition to feck, Casey is also apparently lacking is something that the journalists Laker and Ruderman were ab\le to display, which is cojones. Faced with the choice of voting for a good man or responding to the bullying tactics of the Fraternal Order of Police, Casey wilted. I don't know why that's a surprise. Spinelessness has been a trademark of Casey's career; even when one agrees with him...

However, there was someone who has even less courage, even less (fewer?) cojones than the Senator. Philly.com reports

District Attorney Seth Williams, typically an ardent supporter of President Obama, joined with congressional Republicans yesterday in opposing the nomination of Debo Adegbile to a top Justice Department post.

Williams said in a news conference that Adegbile's role in defending convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal is the crux of why he, too, objects to the nomination. Adegbile was Obama's top pick to head the Justice Department's civil-rights division. He was head of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund at the time it was fighting against the death penalty for Abu-Jamal.

"Mr. Adegbile's decision to champion the cause of an extremist cop killer sends a message of contempt to police officers who risk their lives every day," Williams said.

"He is ill-suited for a pivotal role in the Justice Department. From the very beginning, the defense of this man, charged with the murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner, was about misleading the public. He is a cold-blooded murderer not deserving of hero worship."

Tough words from a tough prosecutor.

Not quite. After Adegbile's office fought to have the sentence of death of its client set aside, in April 2011 a new sentence hearing was ordered and six months later the United States Supreme Court declined to upend the decision.  Two months later, in December

Mr. Williams said Wednesday that the appeals court ruling — and others that have spared Mr. Abu-Jamal’s life over the years — had led him to drop his pursuit of the death penalty, in part because witnesses are no longer available. He said he made the decision after discussing it with Maureen Faulkner, the widow of Daniel Faulkner, the slain police officer.

In 2011, when the Philadelphia District Attorney could have used the power of his office to pursue the execution of the "cold-blooded murderer not deserving of hero worship," Seth Williams took a pass. It may have been the rational decision- continuing the case would have been very expensive- but the decision was made nonetheless to let stand a ruling which Mr. Williams condemns Mr. Adegbile for seeking.

Yet now, when the issue is not Mumia Abu Jamal but voting rights, Seth Williams goes grandstanding, denouncing the defendant when it will require no expenditure of funds, no work building a case, and no effort. Instead, he boldly stands in opposition to "a message of contempt to police officers who risk their lives every day."

The famous Republican journalist and satisrist H.L. Mencken once (unfairly) remarked "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."  It is far nearer the truth to say "Nobody ever lost a vote wrapping his arms around the men in blue."  No doubt Williams understands that and perhaps even, as Chris Hayes (program transcript, here; video, here) described (while commending Tom Harkin), that

if you`ve within watching FOX News with the sound turned off, you may have even thought Debo Adegbile was, in fact, Mumia Abu Jamal, that man you see there, because so often when they talked about Adegbile, they put Mumia Abu Jamal`s image on the screen.

And that was not on accident. They knew what they were doing. The  question is, why? Why? Why did the entire right wing noise machine going to war over this nominee? From FOX News, to Pajama`s Media, to Breitbart, to Senate Republicans -- why did they all go at this guy so hard?

Well, as we try to answer that question, let`s consider what Debo Adegbile would have done if he had confirmed. He would have headed up the DOJ`s civil rights division meaning he would have overseen the implementation of a law called the Voting Rights Act. That`s the same piece of legislation he, himself, twice defended in oral arguments before the Supreme Court -- the same piece of legislation the conservative legal movement has been waging a successful war against for years.

When the Supreme Court gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act last summer, they revoked the Justice Department`s power to automatically review for preclearance any voting changes in states with histories of discrimination.

But the Justice Department has another tool under the Voting Rights Act. They don`t automatically get preclearance power anymore, but under Section 2 of the law, DOJ can request preclearance in specific states for jurisdictions by suing them, and the decision of which states or jurisdictions to sue, that would come from, you guessed it, the DOJ`s civil rights division -- the one that Adegbile was nominated to head up.

And, clearly, that fact was on the minds of some Republicans, at least three GOP senators submitted written questions to Adegbile asking specifically how he would use his Section 2 power or how he decide which voter ID laws to fight.

Since the Supreme Court gutted Section 5 of the VRA, according to Brennan Center, five states that used to be covered under preclearance are moving forward with laws that have been on hold, or have passed new laws that restrict voting, and those laws restricting voting, that`s what Republicans appear to be trying to protect.

Mumia Abu Jamal was just a way to sell it.







Share |

American Exceptionalism Doubted




Speaking before donors in Ebert County, Colorado recently, Representative Mike Coffman let slip "I don't know whether Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. I don't know that.     But I do know this, that in his heart, he's not an American. He's just not an American."

When it was informed that the Representative's comments were recorded, the campaign issued a written statement:

I misspoke and I apologize. I have confidence in President Obama's citizenship and legitimacy as President of the United States.    I don't believe the President shares my belief in American Exceptionalism. His policies reflect a philosophy that America is but one nation among many equals.    As a Marine, I believe America is unique and based on a core set of principles that make it superior to other nations.

The repetitive congressman was approached by a reporter for the local NBC station, which released this transcript:



KYLE CLARK: Congressman Coffman, how are you?

REP. COFFMAN: How are you doing? Good to see you.

KYLE CLARK: Good to see you. You're a tough man to find lately.

REP. COFFMAN: I am.

KYLE CLARK: Can we chat quickly before you go inside?

REP. COFFMAN: Sure.

KYLE CLARK: Alright, fantastic. Why don't we head right over here so we're out of the way. Thank you for your time. I apologize for showing up unannounced. I've been trying to call your staff. They won't return myphone calls. Let me ask you, after your comments about the President, do you feel voters are owed a better explanation than just, I misspoke?

REP. COFFMAN: I think that... Umm... I stand by my statement that I misspoke and I apologize.

KYLE CLARK: OK. And who were you apologizing to?

REP. COFFMAN: You know, I stand by my statement that I misspoke and I apologize.

KYLE CLARK: I apologize, we talk to you all the time, you're a very forthcoming guy. Who's telling you not to talk and to handle it like this?

REP. COFFMAN: I stand by my statement, that I wrote, that you have, and I misspoke and I apologize.

KYLE CLARK: Was it that you thought it would go over well in Elbert County where folks are very conservative and you'd never say something like that in the suburbs?

REP. COFFMAN: I stand by my statement that I misspoke and I apologize.

KYLE CLARK: Is there anything I can ask you that you'll answer differently?

REP. COFFMAN: You know, I stand by my statement that I misspoke and I apologize.

KYLE CLARK: Thank you, congressman.

REP. COFFMAN: Thank you.


If there ever were a doubt that when a public figure says "I apologize" he/she isn't apologizing, there should be none now.      The only doubt is what "misspoke" means, and there seems to be no high-profile instance in which a reporter has asked a respondent to explain "misspoke."   Certainly, the persistent Clark, had he asked the question, would have received only the creative "I stand by my statement that I misspoke and I apologize."   Having received no retraction from Representative Coffman, we can merely assume that he still believes President Obama does not possess "a belief in American exceptionalism."

Evidently, Coffman believes American exceptionalism is rejection of the "philosophy that America is but one nation among equals."    "America" (would that include Mexico, part of the Americas?) is distinct and distinctly superior to all other nations.

It's a pity The Wall Street Journal doesn't agree with the guy from Colorado.     The Journal, which believes the USA must become "appealing and dynamic again," is offended that Senators Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey have proposed that individuals such as Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, who wants to skip on taxes by renouncing his citizenship, be taxed at 30% tax on their capital gains.   The editors argue  

America was built on millions of similar individual decisions to come to our shores. It is precisely that ability to decide for oneself that has made America such a magnet for two centuries.

The way to continue to be a magnet for the best and brightest is not to impose Soviet-style exit taxes to punish people who want to leave the country. That is what oppressive and demagogic regimes do, and it's humiliating to see U.S. Senators posture in such fashion. The way to punish Mr. Saverin is to make the U.S. so appealing and dynamic again that he'll be sorry he ever left.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal, though terming Senators Schumer and Casey "envy specialists" and suggesting they are fellow travelers,  term Saverin's escape from the U.S. "a remarkable act of ingratitude toward the country that welcomed him as a child from Brazil."    Naughty, naughty, Ed- we'll scold you, then protect your billions from taxation.     That'll teach him.

The Wall Street Journal accuses Schumer and Casey of being "envy specialists" wanting "Soviet-style exit taxes."      Less revealing than implying these senators are fellow travelers is the realization that this corporatist Repub organ wants our nation to become "so appealing and dynamic again."      Silly we Democrats- we thought the U.S.A. is "appealing and dynamic." Glad to be set straight by The Wall Street Journal.



Share |

The Republican Media- No. 18

It had to happen; it was just a matter of time.

As Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania was about to give his speech on Tuesday, 8/26/08, in Denver, MSNBC's Chris Matthews voiced the lingering myth about Casey's father, the late Robert Casey Sr., former governor of Pennsylvania. Matthews claimed that the elder Casey had been denied a speaking role at the 1992 Democratic Convention "largely because he took a pro-life, or anti-abortion, position."

If it were only Matthews, it would not be so bad- or surprising, given his penchant for saying whatever, insightful or ridiculous, springs to his mind at any moment. But here is a passage from a recent on-line article, "Both Sides Reach For Center In Abortion Debate," in The Daily Transcript, "San Diego's Business Daily:"

Democratic officials also gave a convention speaking slot to Sen. Bob Casey Jr., D-Pa., who opposes abortion rights. His father, the late Pennsylvania Gov. Robert P. Casey, was denied a coveted slot at the 1992 convention because of his opposition to abortion rights.

So many figures in the media, in their zest for caricaturing the Democratic Party as beholden to pro-choice activists, misrepresent reality. In an article (currently unavailable) entitled "Casey Closed" which he wrote for the 9-16-96/9-23-96 issue of The New Republic, Michael Crowley wrote:

According to those who actually doled out the 1992 convention speaking slots, Casey was denied a turn for one simple reason: His refusal to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket. "It's just not factual!" stammers James Carville, apoplectic over Casey's claims. "You'd have to be idiotic to give a speaking role to a person who hadn't even endorsed you."

And Crowley quotes the late Ron Brown as stating, and later writing in Campaign for President: The Managers Look at '92:

We decided the convention would be totally geared towards the general election campaign, towards promoting one nominee and that everybody who had the microphone would have endorsed our nominee. That was a rule, everybody understood it, from Jesse Jackson to Jerry Brown. The press reported incorrectly that Casey was denied access to the microphone because he was not pro-choice. He was denied accesss to the microphone because he had not endorsed Bill Clinton. I believe that Governor Casey knew that. I had made it clear to everybody. And yet it still got played as if it had to do with some ideological split. It had nothing to do with that.

The Democratic Party gave a prime-time speaking slot on the second night of its convention to a self-described supporter of the pro-life position. Now ask yourself this: How many times has the Repub Party granted a similar opportunity to someone opposed to tax cuts for the wealthy? Perhaps John McCain eight years ago- but now that it is politically opportune, he has reversed his position- and in 2000, he spoke as a candidate for the party's nomination, unlike Casey at this year's Democratic convention.

The mainstream media might concede that its party of choice, the Repub Party, adheres to a litmus test on income taxes. But it won't happen.

Evil Partisanship

Perhaps the underlying principle of the Obama campaign is its belief that politics can be transcended, that our problems as a nation can be solved only if overheated partisanship people associate with Washington is overcome. When he formed his Presidential Exploratory Committee on January 16, 2007, the Illinois senator exclaimed:

But challenging as they are, it's not the magnitude of our problems that concerns me the most. It's the smallness of our politics. America's faced big problems before. But today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way.

Sometimes, though, this idealized version of possibilities buts up against reality. Campaigning in Pennsylvania for Obama, Pennsylvania senator Bob Casey, a determined foe of abortion rights, conceded of the front-runner "He has the unique skills to try to lower the temperature and foster a sense of common ground, and try to figure out ways that people can agree (but) on this issue, it's particularly hard."

Bipartisansip, post-partisanship, non-partisanship is fine- until it affects issues you care about. And writing on slate.com on 1/8/08, Jack Shafer noted another peril of bipartisanship:

Moving to the contemporary period, we discover that monument to bipartisan accord: the Patriot Act, which passed the Senate 98-1 and the House 357-66. So unified in pursuing the common interest were legislators that they barely debated the bill, and few read it. The No Child Left Behind Act passed with near unanimity, even though nobody much cares for it today.

He concluded "if you embrace compromise for the sake of compromise and ban division for the sake of political unity, you're left with parties and candidates that don't stand for anything."

Maybe Bob Casey has stumbled onto something he didn't expect.

The Republican Media- No. 14

I would call this a "myth" but in the interests of being fair and objective (not "fair and balanced"), I'll resist the temptation.

It began when I was checking out Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey's endorsement of Barack Obama on Scranton's Times-Tribune.com (4/5/08) when I read:

It was 1992 when Bill Clinton was named the Democratic nominee for president and the Democratic National Convention shunned Sen. Bob Casey’s father, the late Gov. Robert P. Casey, who wanted to speak against the party’s pro-choice stance on abortion.

And this from chicagotribune.com (4/6/08):

His family has had disagreements with the Clintons in the past. In what many of the supporters of Casey's now-deceased father considered a rebuff, then-Gov. Bob Casey Sr. was denied a prime-time speaking role at the 1992 Democratic Convention at which Bill Clinton was nominated. Casey's opposition to abortion, which his son shares, was considered divisive among party activists.

And from the Wall Street Journal's wsj.com (3/28/08):

His father, former Gov. Bob Casey, is well-known for having been banned from speaking at the 1992 Democratic convention because of his opposition to abortion rights.

From The Caucus (3/28/08), a New York Times blog:

The elder Mr. Casey was strongly against abortion rights and did not approve of Mr. Clinton, who in turn shut Mr. Casey out of the Democratic convention.

Pretty simple explanation, but probably false. In an article (currently unavailable) entitled "Casey Closed" which he wrote for the 9-16-96/9-23-96 issue of The New Republic, Michael Crowley wrote:

According to those who actually doled out the 1992 convention speaking slots, Casey was denied a turn for one simple reason: His refusal to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket. "It's just not factual!" stammers James Carville, apoplectic over Casey's claims. "You'd have to be idiotic to give a speaking role to a person who hadn't even endorsed you."

And Crowley quotes the late Ron Brown as stating, and later writing in Campaign for President: The Managers Look at '92:

We decided the convention would be totally geared towards the general election campaign, towards promoting one nominee and that everybody who had the microphone would have endorsed our nominee. That was a rule, everybody understood it, from Jesse Jackson to Jerry Brown. The press reported incorrectly that Casey was denied access to the microphone because he was not pro-choice. He was denied accesss to the microphone because he had not endorsed Bill Clinton. I believe that Governor Casey knew that. I had made it clear to everybody. And yet it still got played as if it had to do with some ideological split. It had nothing to do with that.

Crowley notes Casey "was about to retire from politics, and convention speeches are usually allotted to those running for re-election (and) Casey repeatedly bashed Clinton during the primaries, calling Clinton's success 'very tragic,' urging less than three months before the convention 'convention rules provide for the selection of an alternative candidate. Let's pick a winner.'"

Admittedly, Casey was rebuffed in his effort to speak against the platform when it was presented for a vote. According to a conservative website (with a preoccupation with abortion), Casey wrote in his autobiography that he had written Democratic National Committee Chairman Brown "the platform [committee] draft ... has the effect of placing the national party even more squarely within the abortion-on-demand camp. I believe this is a serious mistake for the party and would like the opportunity to present this point of view." He received no response, and contended that he received no response when he later wrote convention chairman Ann Richards. He merely received a copy of a letter sent by the convention's general counsel to its parliamentarian, claiming that, according to platform committee rules, his request was "out of order."

This was a snub. However, except for you, me, and Tim Russert when he's not talking about the Buffalo Bills or Big Russ, virtually no one cares about a party's platform, and not even Tim Russert cares about the procedures of a party's platform committee. And all this has nothing to do with the actual convention, let alone the denial of a speaking slot at the convention to a politician who was hostile to the party's nominee. I doubt that the Repub Party, understandably obsessed with winning elections, would grant a speaking slot at its national convention to someone intent on using it to bash a plank in its platform- even if, unlike in this case, that someone was willing to endorse its nominee.

Yet, somehow, the media uncritically reports that Bob Casey Sr. was denied the right to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention because he was avidly (some would say fanatically) pro-life. It is simplistic, inconsistent with most evidence, and characteristic of the Fourth Estate's habit of blaming the Democratic Party, facts be damned.