"He is running a campaign based on fear and panic... The only reason he lied to the American people is that he wanted to protect the stock market..” pic.twitter.com/MwYbF40Wh3
One reason we know that is because President Trump did not
tell Bob Woodward that he wanted to avoid panic. Rather, on March 19 he had contended "I still like playing it down, because I don't want to create a
panic." Not "I don't want to
create panic" or "hysteria" but I don't want to create a panic.
Use of the phrase "a panic" traditionally has referred to the stock
market.
Moreover, the time to avoid creating a panic is well over.
Whatever panicking- and rising to the occasion would have been more likely-
would have resulted, there can be no panic six months later. Panics occur when
individuals first learn of a problem.
There are at least two other reasons we know that the
President was concerned about hysteria. Clearly, his campaign is based, as it
was four years ago, upon frightening people. That's why he has claimed "They want to indoctrinate our children, defund our police, abolish the
suburbs, incite riots and leave every city at the mercy of the radical
left." And then Democrats will put Cory Booker in charge because, well,
Booker is black.
That would be the rally Sunday inside Xtreme Manufacturing in Henderson, Nevada, a state in which the governor has restricted indoor gatherings to 50. on Sunday. Approximately 5600 people, most of them maskless, roaring approval of the President. This was held not despite the danger of spreading Covid-19 nor in reckless disregard of the peril. Nevada governor Sisolak observed the President "taking reckless and
selfish actions that are putting countless lives in danger here in
Nevada." That was the point.
President Trump may or may not have been thinking of the stock market when he claimed concern about "a panic." But a panic would have, if nothing else, resulted in fewer deaths than the ever-mounting toll Trump is responsible for. If you think what your core supporters believe is "bull_ _ _ _" and deceased veterans are mere "losers" or "suckers," their death is less a bug than a benefit.
Personally, I'd lean a little further south, even below Mongolia, to come up with our "greatest enemy" but your mileage may vary. However, I'll bite
and recall reading in May 2017
President Trump revealed highly classified information to
the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week,
according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures
jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.
The information the president relayed had been provided by a
U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so
sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted
even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to
share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so
endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the
Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps
to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security
Agency.
“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official
familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest
classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more
information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”
Were Donald Trump a private citizen, he'd be known by the
word spy. Instead, one of his toadies, this one from Tennessee, suggests that
President Bone Spurs is more patriotic than a Purple Heart recipient who served
in Iraq. It's tempting to say "can
Republicans go even lower?" However, the answer is the same as it would be to "will Republicans go even lower?" Yes.
What do journalist Jonathan Capehart and US Senator (soon to
be "former" US Senator) Claire McCaskill have in common?
Neither is Hispanic, Republican, or allied with the left
wing of the Democratic Party. They are, however, both comedians or less
generously, oblivious to the past.
Capehart is guilty of the less egregious hypocrisy, and his
prescription is right. He observes
Democrats have this annoying habit of always looking for
“The One.” The one who will sweep them off their feet in a fit of electoral
ecstasy. Only their “one” should make a go of it. All others are deemed
inadequate or somehow all wrong for the party or the times. Then there’s this
other annoying habit. If their “one” doesn’t win the nomination, then the
person who actually does win is dead to them.
Therefore, he argues
don’t get me started on the political teenage crush du jour.
One minute it’s all about Oprah Winfrey. Then there are dreams of Michelle
Obama. Don’t forget the boomlet over Michael Avenatti. Today, it’s all about
Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Tex.). That’s not to say that O’Rourke or even Avenatti
aren’t serious. But, c’mon, people.
He mentions the 44th president only once, that when he notes
The staid process (when viewed through the WWE lens that was
the GOP 2016 contest) produced a seasoned and prepared nominee in Barack Obama.
He had been elected to the U.S. Senate from Illinois only four years earlier,
but he won the presidency against his more senior Senate colleague, John McCain
(R-Ariz.).
Barack Obama was not a seasoned nominee. Moreover, Capehart failed to note that Obama, of whom he generally has been enamored, was (and still is) the
beneficiary of the equivalent of a "teenage crush." Nonetheless, Capehart was eclipsed by the oblivious remarks of Mrs. McCaskill, who has warned that
Democrats
should be cautious about the rise of politicians like the
29-year-old Ocasio-Cortez, who vanquished a Democratic leader, Joe Crowley, in
her primary, and have vowed sweeping changes in policy.
"I don't know her," McCaskill said when asked if
she'd consider Ocasio-Cortez a "crazy Democrat" like the ones she
decried on the campaign trail. "I'm a little confused why she's the thing.
But it's a good example of what I'm talking about, a bright shiny new object,
came out of nowhere and surprised people when she beat a very experienced
congressman."
McCaskill added, "And so she's now talked about a lot.
I'm not sure what she's done yet to generate that kind of enthusiasm, but I
wish her well. I hope she hangs the moon.
"But I hope she also realizes that the parts of the
country that are rejecting the Democratic Party, like a whole lot of white
working class voters, need to hear about how their work is going to be
respected, and the dignity of their jobs, and how we can really stick to issues
that we can actually accomplish something on."
Credit the Senator with getting one thing right- invocation
of the idiom "hang the moon," defined as "used as an example of
a superlative act attributed to someone viewed with uncritical or excessive
awe, reverence or infatuation." However, as Ocasio-Cortez could point out
(but oddly, has not), the middle and lower middle class individuals and
families being carved out of American society need more than rhetoric about
"respect" and "dignity."
Ocasio-Cortez is a bright, shiny new object, though one who appears fortuitously determined to use her sudden celebrity on behalf of needed policy
changes, such as promoting the Green New Deal.
She may as well strike while the iron is
hot. So, too, was Hillary Clinton a hot political commodity when she resisted
the urging of supporters to run for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination
in order to gain more experience. Instead, she waited until 2008 when there
was, to John McCain's ultimate dismay, a different "hot" politician-
a bright, shiny new object.
Fortunately, we have the benefit of hindsight, and of the St. Louis American, which reported in January, 2008 of the same senator (who now
ridicules the "bright, shiny new object")
“I get the force and urgency of now,” McCaskill said Sunday
morning in a conference call with local, state and national media.
“I feel it in my bones"....
McCaskill credited “the fierce urgency” of her own
18-year-old daughter, thereby aligning her support with the powerful youth
movement that has helped to make Obama a strong contender.
"I get the force and urgency of now" because
"I feel it in my bones," exulted the United States Senator from the
state of Missouri. And if the
"urgency of now" (as opposed to, presumably, the "urgency of
then") and her "bones" (judgment optional) didn't convince her, the veteran legislator was persuaded by her teenage daughter. Bright, shiny
object indeed.
Let's be serious. The last Democrat to have been
elected President had been a member of the US Congress for only two years when
endorsed by McCaskill and was noteworthy as a Senator for.... nothing. He differed ideologically little from his
major opponent (Senator Clinton) but was motivated by "the fierce urgency
of now."
And he won. He won the nomination and the presidency, later
going on to be re-elected. (Thank you, Justice Roberts!) He was a bright and shiny,
albeit impressive, object who caught a wave and rode it all the way.
Now Claire McCaskill and Jonathan Capehart want Democrats
not to fall in love. That's a hard sell
to a Party which almost visibly swooned, got one of their own elected President, then
eight years later went with the tried and true veteran and lost. The warnings
of McCaskill and Capehart are very interesting. They're also eight years late.
Salon's Matthew Pulver wonders if the attack upon Bernie Sanders by Claire McCaskill, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President, was approved by the Clinton campaign. Appearing on Morning Joe, the second term Missouri senator stated “Well, you know, Rand Paul’s father got massive crowds, Ron Paul,” she said. “He got the same size crowds. Pat Buchanan got massive crowds. It’s not unusual for someone who has an extreme message to have a following.”
Acknowledging it's difficult to determine at this stage whether the criticism was isolated or the start of a pattern, Pulyer notes
It compounds the already problematic dynastic dimension of Clinton’s campaign. The Clintons, preparing for the coronation, also get to police what is acceptable in the party, with Hillary the enforcer of the law Bill laid down? Continuing to call Sanders an “extremist” might only convince many Democrats that the Clintons consider the party theirs.
It shouldn't be necessary to explain the vast differences in political ideology among Paul, Buchanan, and Sanders (especially between Paul/Buchanan and Sanders) but Pulyer does it, nonetheless. Political principle may be alien for a Democrat who prides herself on being only the 50th most liberal member of the 100- person chamber. Pulyer links to one (below) of her campaign videos, in which McConnell brags that she has cast "votes to cap federal spending (and) against more regulation" and includes the tagline "right in the middle is right for Missouri."
Pulyer pegs the Clintons as "the political family most responsible for making Sanders’ fairly standard postwar liberalism an extreme position." He notes McCaskill endorsed Mrs. Clinton in June, 2013, which was long before we knew who would challenge the latter for the presidential nomination; if anyone at all would challenge her; and even whether she herself would run. Yet, Claire McCaskill just knew she was "ready for Hillary."
In a way, McCaskill's absurdly early endorsement and her ridiculous jab at Senator Sanders should be of little surprise. She endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, similarly offering no reason that spoke of principle. She did, however, observe "a lot of people talk about his ability to give a great speech. And there's no question that he is truly gifted by God with an ability to speak to people in a way that touches him." She went on to praise his soul and intelligence, though she neglected to mention that, like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and Bernard Sanders, he drew large crowds- even larger. You might remember "yes, we can" (do what?).
However, the United States Senator did not apply her own judgement to the 2008 endorsement. Rather, "at the fierce urging of my 18-year-old daughter, I could not sit in the bleachers any longer." She wasted no time in this cycle, not taking her cue from her daughter but evidently enthralled by the "incredible Secretary of State." No mention of any particular accomplishment at State followed.
Whether Mrs. Clinton is "incredible" remains to be seen, though "incredible"- not credible- applies well to Claire McCaskill. The Senator should be asked at least two questions: whether Mrs. Clinton is now "truly gifted by God" as Barack Obama was in 2008; and whether the large crowds Senator Obama drew in 2008 should have forewarned us of the perils of an Obama presidency. The responses would be entertaining.
You can see this one coming from a mile away. The Justice Department has promptly jumped launched an investigation into the police riot in Ferguson, Missouri (first photo below from Reuters/Mario Anzuoni, the following two from AP/Jeff Roberson). Police Chief Thomas Jackson held a press conference on Wednesday, curiously at the same time as a peace march nearby. He said the Justice Department and local NAACP are coordinating a meeting between Ferguson police authorities and the Brown family. “Race relations is a top priority right now,” Jackson said. He later said he was open to guidance on how to improve tensions within the Ferguson community: “Tell me what to do and I’ll do it”... Brown’s shooting at the hands of a yet-to-be named officer, identified as a white man by a witness to the shooting who spoke with msnbc, unearthed decades-old tensions between the Ferguson community and the police department, which is 93% white. Black residents say officers routinely harass them and that and old-boys network has kept the department from hiring more officers of color. Jackson said that he has worked to improve the diversity of the department and that he has raised the base level of pay for officers, worked to improve equipment and create a welcoming culture to entice black applicants. He said when he first took the job here after 31 years with the county police, about 10% of department staff were minorities or women. That number has slipped in recent years. “Whatever we’re doing is not enough. We’re trying but obviously it’s not good enough,” Jackson said on Tuesday night, following a town hall style meeting at a local church, where he joined Gov. Jay Nixon, Ferguson mayor James Knowles and various community leaders in pleading for peace.
That's a good start which, likely will lead to improved race relations, hence community relations, in Ferguson, although it appears most of the mischief has emanated from St. Louis County police rather than from local law enforcement.But it isn't enough, and isn't the primary problem, as ex-San Jose police chief Joseph McNamara understood as early as November, 2006, when he wrote (in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal no longer available without a subscription but excerpted here by Digby) Simply put, the police culture in our country has changed. An emphasis on "officer safety" and paramilitary training pervades today's policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn't shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed. Police in large cities formerly carried revolvers holding six .38-caliber rounds. Nowadays, police carry semi-automatic pistols with 16 high-caliber rounds, shotguns and military assault rifles, weapons once relegated to SWAT teams facing extraordinary circumstances. Concern about such firepower in densely populated areas hitting innocent citizens has given way to an attitude that the police are fighting a war against drugs and crime and must be heavily armed. Yes, police work is dangerous, and the police see a lot of violence. On the other hand, 51 officers were slain in the line of duty last year, out of some 700,000 to 800,000 American cops. That is far fewer than the police fatalities occurring when I patrolled New York's highest crime precincts, when the total number of cops in the country was half that of today. Each of these police deaths and numerous other police injuries is a tragedy and we owe support to those who protect us. On the other hand, this isn't Iraq. The need to give our officers what they require to protect themselves and us has to be balanced against the fact that the fundamental duty of the police is to protect human life and that law officers are only justified in taking a life as a last resort. Updated in response to the death by firearm of 18-year-old Michael Brown and ensuing protests in Ferguson, Paul Szoldra explains While serving as a U.S. Marine on patrol in Afghanistan, we wore desert camouflage to blend in with our surroundings, carried rifles to shoot back when under enemy attack, and drove around in armored vehicles to ward off roadside bombs. We looked intimidating, but all of our vehicles and equipment had a clear purpose for combat against enemy forces. So why is this same gear being used on our city streets?...
Putting aside what started the protests for a moment, it's worth discussing the police response to the outrage. In photos taken Monday, we are shown a heavily armed SWAT team. They have short-barreled 5.56-mm rifles based on the military M4 carbine, with scopes that can accurately hit a target out to 500 meters. On their side they carry pistols. On their front, over their body armor, they carry at least four to six extra magazines, loaded with 30 rounds each. Their uniform would be mistaken for a soldier's if it weren't for their "Police" patches. They wear green tops, and pants fashioned after the U.S. Marine Corps MARPAT camouflage pattern. And they stand in front of a massive uparmored truck called a Bearcat, similar in look to a mine-resistant ambush protected vehicle, or as the troops who rode in them call it, the MRAP. When did this become OK? When did "protect and serve" turn into "us versus them"? "Why do these cops need MARPAT camo pants again," I asked on Twitter this morning. One of the most interesting responses came from a follower who says he served in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division: "We rolled lighter than that in an actual war zone." Let's be clear: This is not a war zone — even if the FAA banned flights under 3,000 feet. This is a city outside of St. Louis where people on both sides are angry. Protesters have looted and torched a gas station, and shots were fired at police, according to The Washington Post. The scene is tense, but the presence of what looks like a military force doesn't seem to be helping. "Bring it. You fucking animals, bring it," one police officer was caught on video telling protesters. In Ferguson and beyond, it seems that some police officers have shed the blue uniform and have put on the uniform and gear of the military, bringing the attitude along with it. In Afghanistan, we patrolled in big, armored trucks. We wore uniforms that conveyed the message, "We are a military force, and we are in control right now." Many Afghans saw us as occupiers. And now we see some of our police officers in this same way. "The militarization of law enforcement is counter-productive to domestic policing and needs to stop," tweeted Andrew Exum, a former Army infantry officer. If there's one thing I learned in Afghanistan, it's this: You can't win a person's heart and mind when you are pointing a rifle at his or her chest. There will be righteous outrage in the political class over an overwhelmingly white police force applying excessive force against a black community and (as it appears now) an unnecessary killing of a young black man by one of those white officers. But notwithstanding criticism from Senators McCaskill (D-MO) and Paul (R-KY) and Attorney General Holder, it will be more difficult to alter significantly the Pentagon program in which local law enforcement agencies have used the drug war as an excuse to be armed and outfitted to the teeth. The policy must be changed; for If they buy it, they eventually will use it, especially as the sunk cost fallacy sets in. And that will happen across the country, and not only in black communities.
The circus must be in town. Politico's Mike Allen and Amie Barnes in "Hillary's Hit List" write that Clinton aides Kris Balderston and Adrienne Elrod in June, 2008
recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet the names and deeds of members of Congress (in which) they carefully noted who had endorsed Hillary, who had backed Obama, and who had stayed on the sidelines... There was a special circle of Clinton hell reserved for people who had endorsed Obama or stayed on the fence after Bill and Hillary had raised money for them, appointed them to a political post or written a recommendation to ice their kid’s application to an elite school. On one early draft of the hit list, each Democratic member of Congress was assigned a numerical grade from 1 to 7, with the most helpful to Hillary earning 1s and the most treacherous drawing 7s. The set of 7s included Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), as well as Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Baron Hill (D-Ind.) and Rob Andrews (D-N.J.).
On foxnews.com, Ellen Ratner (video below) was excited and compared Clinton's list of politicians with, as George Will put it Sunday, the Christiecrats "use (of) the machinery -- the federal machinery of government - to screw our enemies." She stated the Clintons
actually had this list going, going to be using this list if she runs for President, as to who they're going to accommodate and who they're not. Well, the press is kind of leaving that alone. But they haven't left Governor Christie alone. As you know, they call- what- Washington Bridgegate or Bridgegate. But they haven't left him alone. But this one- hmmm, we're not hearing too much from the press.
Do the Clintons have long memories? Of course. But I searched this excerpt in vain for one example of them retaliating against someone who screwed them. “‘It wasn’t so much punishing as rewarding, and I really think that’s an important point,’ said one source familiar with Bill’s thinking. ‘It wasn’t so much, “We’re going to get you.” It was, “We’re going to help our friends.” I honestly think that’s an important subtlety in Bill Clinton, in his head. She’s not as calculated, but he is.’” Sounds like a pretty good explanation of modern contemporary politics. The reason the Christie scandal has resonated is not that his aides—without his knowledge, he says—tried to hit back at Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich for his non-endorsement of the governor. It’s that so many New Jersey and New York commuters were sideswiped in the process.
Though neither Mrs. Clinton's critics nor her defenders are likely to say so, the evaluations made by the Clinton team generally were sound.
"Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)," Allen and Parnes write, "got the seat closest to the fire," in part because she remarked Clinton 42 "has been a great leader but I don’t want my daughter near him." (Apparently, a good sense of humor is no defense.) The Clintons had vigorously campaigned for McCaskill when she ran for the Senate in 2006 but she became the first female Senator to endorse Obama. Also earning a "7" was Representative Tom Moran of Virginia, whose support Balderston had assiduously sought until it was actually promised in January, 2008. A few weeks later, Moran endorsed Senator Obama.
The motivation for endorsement of the first viable black presidential candidate by the Missourian and the Virginian was disturbingly similar. When McCaskill endorsed Obama in 2008, she contended This is a man who has incredible intellectual heft … who is not afraid to figure out a new and different way to tackle problems … Only once in a generation does a leader come along that has that particular gift. … Barack Obama is, I believe, right for the country this time.
She evidently didn't make clear why he was "right for the country this time" and already has endorsed Clinton 2016. Moran says he has made up with Balderston and is more explicit, recently stating
I plan on making it up to him in the 2016 campaign since I’ve always been in love with Hillary. I simply thought that given the opportunity, it was too important that this country elect an inspiring black president. (And yes, he did say "in love with Hillary," not "I love Hillary.")
Box checked for black President; block to be checked for female President in 2016. If Clinton is in fact elected, a block can be checked in 2016 for someone born with another immutable characteristic- hispanic, LGBT, or whatever is then deemed to be the most important characteristic of arguably the most powerful individual in the world. And at some point, perhaps we can turn our attention to minor issues such as this:
Prosecutor. Member, state House of Representatives. State auditor. United States Senator.
And in January of 2008, with such a breadth of political and fiscal experience, Claire McCaskill of Missouri endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President, though she
called Clinton "a smart woman...a strong leader" and acknowledged that she had faced strong pressure from her women's group allies to support the former first lady, or at least stay neutral. But she added, it's"important we look forward" and said of her decision, "I feel very strongly about it." The senator said it was her 18-year-old daughter, an Obama supporter, who ultimately urged her off the fence.
A lot of people talk about his ability to give a great speech. And there’s no question that he is truly gifted by God with an ability to speak to people in a way that touches them. To me, that is the whip cream in the cherry. To me, this is a man who has incredible intellectual heft, he’s a very smart guy with a wide soul who is not afraid to figure out a new and different way to tackle problems.
That "new and different way to tackle problems" apparently referred to the continuation of the bank bailout, No Child Left Behind, drone attacks and spying on the American people. Even President Obama's signature piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, fails on this count, having built on a plan earlier proposed by the Heritage Foundation and bearing a resemblance to the health care program implemented in Massachusetts by Governor Mitt Romney.
Four years ago, McCaskill believed Barack Obama was God's chosen candidate. But apparently taking cues from her daughter was too deliberative a process. On Saturday, the Washington Post reported
Sen. Claire McCaskill endorsed an outside political group encouraging Hillary Rodham Clinton to run for president in 2016, saying it was important for Democrats to build a groundswell of support for the former secretary of state. The Missouri Democrat’s support of the Ready for Hillary PAC on Tuesday marked the first time a member of Congress has endorsed the group. The organization does not have official ties to the former first lady, but it’s trying to lay the foundation for another Clinton campaign.
It is now 38-39 months before the Democratic National Convention and over 32 months before the Missouri primary is tentatively scheduled to take place. And Claire McCaskill has decided that the likes of Andrew Cuomo, Martin O'Malley, and Mark Warner are not worthy to succeed such a glorious president as Barack Obama. Nor does Joe Biden, the individual selected by the man who sent a tingle up McCaskill's leg in 2008, quite measure up.
It's too late for Claire McCaskill to rectify the mistake she made in 2008, endorsing a seemingly liberal Senator who became a center-right president and betrayed the principles of his supporters while craving the approval of Republicans. And that is unlikely her motivation for endorsing a candidate who is not yet even a candidate, for there is a similarity to her decision in 2008.
As in her endorsement of Senator Obama, she has made a sexy choice without apparent regard for what the individual stands for. One- but apparently not Senator McCaskill- may wonder what Hillary Clinton believes about comprehensive immigration reform, availability of the morning after pill, the FISA court, stimulus spending for an under-achieving economy, the drug war, destruction of Medicare, Medicaid, and public education by "reformers" tax incentives for corporations bringing jobs back from abroad, dissolving huge financial institutions, agriculture policy (especially in light of a potential reduction in food stamps), or even U.S. intervention in Syria. We don't know, because the former Secretary of State is not yet a candidate. Nor is it likely that the Missouri senator know, either.
Five years ago, Claire McCaskill opted for the guy who could "make history" (and to whom God singularly gave the gift of eloquence). Now, she apparently lusts for election of the first female President. Hopefully, if Mrs. Clinton runs, is nominated, and is elected, that presidency will turn out far better than this one has.
Don't be disappointed in Democrat Claire McCaskill. As in that loathsome saying, she is what she is. And that's really bad.
It shouldn't have been surprising that the freshman Senator, on a tour Monday of three companies in Missouri, stated that a jobs bill is unlikely because
I think it's very doubtful we will do anything that spends money, but there's other things we can do. We can look at patent reform, we can look at trade agreements as long as they're fair and don't hurt American middle-class workers even more than they've already been hurt. We can look at regulations -- what regulations are absolutely necessary and what regulations are getting in the way of businesses.
So that's the problem with the economy! Corporations are making near-record profits but are suffering because of regulations and lack of trade agreements. McCaskill, unsurprisingly, did not identify any specific regulations, nor did she explain how the nation's economy ever survived before job-killing trade agreements became de rigeur 20-25 years ago (probably with a thriving middle class, now shrinking).
Cool to the idea of an aggressive effort to reduce the 9.1% unemployment rate, McCaskill must be in favor of increasing the federal guarantee of unemployment compensation from 99 weeks (26 weeks of state benefits- 20 in Missouri- followed by 73 weeks of federal benefits) to the proposed 113 weeks. Nonetheless, McCaskill, facing a re-election challenge in 2012, asserted"I'm not for extending the unemployment benefits any further."
But little ever should have been expected from the former State Auditor. Well before the state's 2012 presidential primary- won narrowly on Super Tuesday by Barack Obama- McCaskill endorsed the Illinois Senator for the Democratic nomination. That was unexceptional and reasonable, though with the course of the Obama presidency and the country, it now ought to make her a little embarrassed.
No, the endorsement was understandable- but the thought process was, well, idiotic. In an article lauding the influence of youth in politics, Time soon after the endorsement explained
The Senator's daughter Maddie Esposito had seen the way her mother teared up whenever she heard Obama speak. And now it was happening again as mother and daughter sat side by side on the family-room sofa in a suburb of St. Louis, watching the results of the Iowa caucuses on TV. "You know you believe in him," Maddie admonished her damp-eyed mother. "It's time to step up." The next morning, Maddie, a college freshman home for the holidays, added a threat: "You have to do it, or I'm never talking to you again."
McCaskill endorsed Obama-a big boost in an important Super Tuesday primary state.
It's hard to determine which is a worse reason for a U.S. Senator to endorse an indiviudal for President of the United States of America- because her daughter told her to do so or because she cried upon hearing his speeches. The nation already was in recession and involved in two wars- and Claire McCaskill, probably the leading figure in her state party whose primary would prove pivotal in the nominating process- allowed her 18-year-old to tell her what to do (what, there was no coin to flip?).
This is where the sarcastic would suggest that there was no better reason to endorse Barack Obama. But there really was, especially for someone who had worked with him in the Senate, as had the Missourian. Claire McCaskill, fortunately, does contribute something besides (usually) a Democratic vote in the Senate. When we search for explanations- and there are a few, including the rightward lurch of the GOP- for the dysfunction of the U.S. Congress, one may be found in the likes of Missouri's junior U.S. Senator.
Susan Crabtree, posting on Talking Poinhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifts Memo, and Joan McCarter, posting on DailyKos, are delighted that five Democratic Senators have sent to Vice-President Joe Biden, heading the bipartisan group in deficit reduction talks, a letter reading in part
As you know, the House-passed budget would end Medicare as we know it by destroying the guaranteed-benefit system and instead requiring seniors to enter the private insurance market. Despite the public’s overwhelming rejection of this proposal, and even after the Senate vote against it last week, many top congressional leaders are now saying they want the plan included as part of a package to reduce the deficit. Just last week, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan declared that the plan to dismantle Medicare is “part of the debt ceiling talks.” Then on Sunday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell echoed that it is “on the table.”
This proposal would never pass Congress on its own, and it does not belong in a larger deal either. It would be devastating for America’s seniors, who would see their out-of-pocket costs for health care double and the benefits they currently enjoy jeopardized. Under this risky proposal, insurance company bureaucrats would decide what care seniors get.
We are aware the administration has rejected this proposal since its passage by the House, and we applaud your efforts to educate the American people about its serious implications. We encourage you to remain unwavering in opposition to this scheme. For the good of the nation’s seniors, it must remain off the table.
Let's hold the hallelujahs, the amens, and uncorking that vintage bottle of champagne. What was the first clue? Perhaps the inclusion of Montana's Jon Tester- or more revealingly, that of Missouri's centrist Claire McCaskill, an Obama devotee.
Poll after poll reveals overwhelming opposition to the effort of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to his plan to eliminate Medicare- and to any effort to cut benefits. And the response of Senators Tester, McCaskill, Cardin (Maryland), Brown (Ohio), and Nelson (Florida): opposition to "dismantle" Medicare, to "this scheme" embodied in the GOP budget plan.
Even the language is tepid. The "House-passed budget would end Medicare as we know it?" No, it would end Medicare. E-N-D. Or, as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on June 1 put it on the floor,
The Republicans saying: ‘We’re going to double down. Not only did we vote to abolish Medicare, increasing costs for seniors, lowering benefits and while giving tax breaks to oil companies and corporations for shipping jobs overseas....it says to seniors: ‘No more Medicare for you. You’re going to pay more, get less and weaken the middle class at the same time—weakening the middle class because of abolishing Medicare and weakening the middle class.... They do not believe in Medicare and they are voting today to honor their beliefs to abolish Medicare.
Pelosi, and Representative Jared Polis (D-CO), were specifically debating H. Con. Res. 34 as an amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which "deemed" the Republican budget passed. But the five Democratic Senators who penned the letter to Biden were responding to the ongoing talks on the deficit. They have jumped up and collectively exclaimed "No!" to including an agreement to terminate Medicare. It's hard to imagine Sherrod Brown or a Democratic senator from Florida (Nelson) giving a nod and a wink to the Vice-President- don't end it, cut it- but for Tester, McCaskill and perhaps Cardin, it's highly believable. And when Democratic- Democratic!- Senators flex their muscles and assert merely that Medicare not be rubbed out, it doesn't end well.
It's a long way from Senator Claire McCaskill (D.-Mo.) and Caroline Kennedy to the disreputable Michael Steele, newly-elected chairman of the Limbaugh National Committee. Still....
Many of us on the left treated the latest pronouncement from Mr. Steele with loud guffaws when he told the Washington Times' Ralph Z. Hallow
We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles. But we want to apply them to urban-surburban hip-hop settings....
It will be avant garde, technically. It will come to table with things that will surprise everyone - off the hook.... I don't do 'cutting-edge'.... That's what Democrats are doing. We're going beyond cutting-edge.
Now, you might find that silly, superficial, and condescending. And you'd be right. But this frivolous appeal to youth has its antecedents in the presidential campaign we've just been through.
Here is Time Magazine's explanation from January, 2008 of how a member of that great deliberative body, the United States Senate, thoughtfully determined which individual could best serve as leader of the Free World:
But there's something about an 18-year-old that can't abide careful hedging and cautious steps. The Senator's daughter Maddie Esposito had seen the way her mother teared up whenever she heard Obama speak. And now it was happening again as mother and daughter sat side by side on the family-room sofa in a suburb of St. Louis, watching the results of the Iowa caucuses on TV. "You know you believe in him," Maddie admonished her damp-eyed mother. "It's time to step up." The next morning, Maddie, a college freshman home for the holidays, added a threat: "You have to do it, or I'm never talking to you again."
McCaskill endorsed Obama — a big boost in an important Super Tuesday primary state.
And also in January, an extremely high-profile endorsement from the scion of the ultimate Democratic family:
And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals....
He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process....
I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.
Iraq; Iran; nuclear proliferation; health care; taxes; trade; immigration; Social Security; education; housing. No, decide because a teen-age daughter told you what to think or because the spirit of the deceased has transferred to one candidate the ability to inspire young people.
(And watch John McCain here pander to ill-informed young voters on Social Security.)
True, Michael Steele is (insert adjective here; numerous apply). What he says is nonsense, but give him this: he didn't start the fire.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Corporate Compensation
Security firms paid their top executives a total of $18.4 billion in bonuses last year, and finally we have a President who denounces such waste, fraud, and abuse (as Republicans would call it were it not corporate executives). With Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at his side, President Obama on Thursday said in part:
One point I want to make is that all of us are going to have responsibilities to get this economy moving again. And when I saw an article today indicating that Wall Street bankers had given themselves $20 billion worth of bonuses -- the same amount of bonuses as they gave themselves in 2004 -- at a time when most of these institutions were teetering on collapse and they are asking for taxpayers to help sustain them, and when taxpayers find themselves in the difficult position that if they don't provide help that the entire system could come down on top of our heads --that is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful.
And part of what we're going to need is for folks on Wall Street who are asking for help to show some restraint and show some discipline and show some sense of responsibility. The American people understand that we've got a big hole that we've got to dig ourselves out of -- but they don't like the idea that people are digging a bigger hole even as they're being asked to fill it up.
This is great, but unfortunately talk is no substitute for action. The Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration has finished drafting the central elements of its bailout/rescue plan, whose strategy probably will be announced in approximately one week. And
In finalizing the plan, officials have made a policy decision that could dismay lawmakers. The administration is likely to refrain from imposing tougher restrictions on executive compensation at most firms receiving government aid but instead retain looser requirements initially included in the Treasury's $700 billion rescue program, a source familiar with the deliberations said. Officials are concerned that harsh limits could discourage some firms from asking for aid.
Particularly excessive, but still indicative of corporate greed, is the example of Robert Nardelli, the chairman and chief executive of Home Depot and now chairman of Chrysler Corporation, about whom the Washington Post reported in January, 2007.
Home Depot's board of directors and Nardelli said they "mutually agreed" to the resignation, which took effect Tuesday. Under the terms of a separation agreement negotiated when he joined the company in 2000, Nardelli, 58, is to receive about $210 million in cash and stock options, including a $20 million severance payment and retirement benefits of $32 million....
Last year, he received more than $30 million in compensation and stock options. During his six years at the company, he earned about $125.57 million in annual salary, bonuses, stocks and other payments, according to Equilar, a compensation research firm in San Mateo, Calif.
It's hard to sympathize with the likes of Nardelli, who was under fire at Home Depot, then moved on to Chrysler, where he has requested a government bailout. Yet, if the Post's report is correct, the Administration worries that strict limits on compensation of corporate executives would unfairly discourage those captains of finance from demanding free money from American taxpayers. On this point at least, in what is truly an upset, President Obama appears to be wrong and the junior senator from Missouri correct. A partial transcript from the blog of a statewide radio news network in her state quotes Claire McCaskill (hardly a reliable liberal) as asserting (video below) on the floor of the Senate:
So here's what this bill's going to do. This is called the Chief Executive Officer Pay Act of 2009, and it's very simple. Going forward if you want taxpayers to help you survive, if you want the people at your financial institution to have a job tomorrow, then you're going to have to limit everyone's pay at your company to the same salary that the President of the United States makes. Now once they're off the public dole, once the taxpayers aren't footing the bill, then it's not as much our business what they get paid. But right now they're on the hook to us. And they owe us something other than a fancy waste basket and $50 million jet. They owe us some common sense. And if any of them think it's a hardship to take the salary of the President of the United States, I dare them to say so out loud right now. Because that's not going to instill confidence.
What is going to instill confidence for the men and women in these companies to realize that everyone in this country needs to tighten their belts. It's time for everyone to realize that we must have our financial institutions survive, but not with a culture that thinks it's ok to kick the taxpayer in the shins while they drink champagne and fly in fancy jets. It doesn't work. Not in the United States of America.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Obama's Choice
Senator Claire McCaskill (D.-Mo.) was a very early supporter of, and constant surrogate for, Barack Obama, and fittingly, backed the bid of the Independent Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, to remain chairman of the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. In an article in Salon, Mike Madden quotes the Missouri Senator as saying:
He has sent a very clear signal since his election -- one of humility and one of reconciliation and healing, and it's very clear to all of us that he doesn't want to play the old political games. Old politics would have been revenge and retribution. New politics would be, let's get to work.
In an ironic way, McCaskill is half right. Unlike the comments of some such as Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas ("what happened, happened in the Senate- not in the White House, in the Senate"), McCaskill seems to understand that the primary reason Lieberman (who lost his position as chairman of a subcommittee) was given an ineffectual slap on the wrist was Barack Obama. It was the President-elect's spokesperson, Stephanie Cutter, who, in an e-mail of November 11, wrote Greg Sargent of Talking Points Memo
We aren't going to referee decisions about who should or should not be a committee chair. President-elect Obama looks forward to working with anyone to move the country forward. We'd be happy to have Sen. Lieberman caucus with the Democrats. We don't hold any grudges.
If the leader of your party, recently elected in a near-landslide and currently enjoying great popularity, says (through a representative) a)"we'd be happy to have Sen. Lieberman caucus with the Democrats" (though evicting Lieberman from the caucus never was on the table); and b)"we don't hold any grudges" toward a politician who has said that you are "a talker" who hasn't always "put country first," the message is clear: I want that guy to remain in a position of influence. And another message: cross me, and I will reward you.
At some point during what he hopes will be an eight-year run, President Obama will be faltering in the polls with little support among the American people. And he will need the vote of a wavering member of Congress, who will then remember the message Barack Obama sent in his advocacy of another member of Congress who actively, and virulently, attacked him throughout the campaign. And that member will know that bucking President Obama carries no retribution and no consequence, except possibly reward.
Monday, July 14, 2008
More Than A Goal
As impressive, but hardly commendable, was Senator McCaskill's obfuscation on yesterday's Meet The Press relative to Barack Obama's position on the Iraq War. She stated (on page 2 of transcript):
He, he has a goal of 16 months, but obviously, the most important thing in getting out... I mean, obviously, a goal is a goal, and he's been very clear that that's a goal. He's been very clear that he wants to be careful and reasonable about the way--in fact, his phrase is, "I want to be the opposite of what we were when we went in."
Except that it has been more than a "goal." Here is Senator Obama at the January, 2008 Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, Nevada (approximately halfway through):
I have opposed this war consistently. I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009.
Obama would immediately begin to pull out troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year.
This, of course, is not as much a shift on the war as that of his opponent, who several times over the past few years has declared his fealty to the Bush war policy before recently finding it inconvenient. Still, it's a little discouraging that the presumptive Democratic nominee's zig-zag on major issues is benign only as compared to that of the unprepared, woefully ineffective candidate of the GOP.
An Obamite On Public Education
Repub orthodoxy aims to weaken the public school system through "choice," vouchers, or charter schools (which some Democrats have fallen for). Senator Obama has spoken favorably in the past of (euphemism alert) "merit pay" for public school teachers, a means of rewarding instructors in favor with management and of setting some teachers against others. Nonetheless, surrogate Claire McCaskill spoke clearly and sensibly about education on yesterday's Meet The Press (page 3 of transcript):
What we have done with No Child Left Behind is squeeze the creativity out of the classroom because teachers have begun to just teaching to the test.... We are who we are as a nation because we figured out how to educate our kids with public money, public education. The rest of the world has admired us from the days that we became a country, and we cannot turn our back on public education. And sometimes the word choice is code for making sure that we can skim the cream off the top into private schools and leave public schools flailing and, and in desperate need of help. And so we've got to make sure that our commitment is to our public education system.
I'm not advocating McCaskill's selection as running mate, inasmuch as a voting record only vaguely progressive would make her a dreadful choice. However, it's encouraging to hear someone- especially an individual as close to the candidate- speak out forcefully on the importance of public education.
