Can't Keep Her Down

With a commencement speech at her alma mater and a string of interviews, Hillary Clinton continues her tour, one in which she refuses to fall on her sword. This has annoyed many folks on the right and the left,  but not Charlie Pierce, who remarks

Right now, as far as I can see, HRC is the only one completely free to hammer away at the extraordinary events that conspired to put Donald Trump in the White House. As the investigations continue to accelerate, the country needs somebody outside of the Congress and outside of Department of Justice to keep the country at large focused on the real cost of having abided by the Clinton Rules while an election was hijacked from afar. Might as well be her.

It might as well be her because no one else is in the enviable position of being both credible and free to speak truth to power, which- after eight years of Barack Obama- is in the hands of the Republican Party everywhere.

In an interview given on May 31, Clinton made several important points, including "The Republicans have to be constantly pushed to put country above party."  Digby links to a piece by syndicated conservative radio host Dennis Prager, who wrote

I have concluded that there are a few reasons that explain conservatives who were Never-Trumpers during the election, and who remain anti-Trump today. 

The first and, by far, the greatest reason is this: They do not believe that America is engaged in a civil war, with the survival of America as we know it at stake. While they strongly differ with the Left, they do not regard the left–right battle as an existential battle for preserving our nation. On the other hand, I, and other conservative Trump supporters, do. 

This is not someone who is placing country over party but who sees America as a failed nation, one which cannot be preserved unless a civil war is fought and won. Trump, as we observed throughout the campaign and even since he was elected, sees the nation as one beset by "carnage" and is no longer great, but must be made "great again."

Nevertheless, Clinton's most intriguing remark was "I inherit nothing from the Democratic party. It was bankrupt. It was on the verge of insolvency. I had to inject money into the [DNC] for it to keep going."







That's a damning indictment but whether the defendant (the Democratic National Committee) is guilty is unknown.  It's a charge which unfortunately has gone both largely unrebutted and unconfirmed, even as Barack Obama undermined party unity by successfully blocking the candidacy of Keith Ellison as Democratic National Committee chairperson. However, as Ezra Klein explained in January

By the end of the campaign, the public had enough information to make basic judgments about who Clinton and Trump were. Trump’s flaws weren’t hidden by Clinton’s mistakes — if she was good at anything, it was goading Trump into error and overreaction. Voters knew what he was when they voted for him.... And it's worth remembering that before Clinton ran against Trump, 16 other Republcans ran against him- a group that observers thought to be the most talented field the GOP had seen in decades. And every one of them was routed.

Democrats during Obama's tenure were routed in US Senate, US House, governor, and state house races. However, the losses were within historical norms for when a party controls the presidency for eight years. Nonetheless as noted by Five Thirty Eight

 “We didn’t do any of the grassroots work over the eight years that Barack Obama was president,” Dean said of the party under a leader who had once been a community organizer. Organizing For America (later Organizing for Action), the project intended to rally the president’s supporters primarily around health care and the Affordable Care Act, was, in Dean’s estimation, “a huge mistake.”

In bringing Obama to power, Democrats understood the importance of not just his proud progressivism but his distinct identity and the certain mythology that would come to surround him. He was a candidate who not only had the right message for the party, but who seemed anointed by the political gods.

There are plenty of suspects and many perpetrators in Clinton's loss, including the interference by both the Kremlin and the FBI in the election. The nominee herself bears some of the responsibility- but far less than the GOP and her opponents in the Democratic Party imagine.  Hillary Clinton has told some hard truths. It's particularly important for others to tell these, as Howard Dean has with the shortcomings of the DNC.  But if it takes Hillary Clinton to do it largely by herself, by herself it will have to be.

Share |

A Passel Of Moderates

This is not a post extolling the virtues of Planned Parenthood. It is not about breast exams, HIV testing, cervical cancer screening, sex education, thyroid, diabetes, or high blood pressure screening, and other popular services it provides. It is not about the critical impact of Planned Parenthood in lowering unwanted pregnancies, even among teens, and incidence of HIV. It is not about how only 3% of its services are in providing abortions.

Rather, it pertains to a claim made by Digby in her piece appearing today, March 31, 2017. She writes

On “MTP Daily,” Michael Needham of Heritage Action called the health care bill a disaster, saying, “This is a great opportunity to take a pause and get the policy right and that is what the House Freedom Caucus is doing. Talk about grown-ups, they’re the one who are saying, ‘We want to get the policy right, we’re willing to negotiate,’ and it’s the moderates who say they literally won’t pick up the phone if they call.”

First of all, can we dispense with the idea that any Republican who isn’t a member of the Freedom Caucus is a “moderate”? I’m not sure any House Republicans can be called moderate, but if there are some they represent a very small faction. They’re conservatives. The Freedom Caucus is extremist or, if you want to be polite about it, ultraconservative. The rest are conservatives.

Digby's post did not specifically refer to how

The Senate voted Thursday to let states block federal family planning money from going to Planned Parenthood affiliates and other abortion providers. 

Senators approved the Republican legislation 51-50. Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote after two GOP senators, Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, voted with Democrats against the measure.

The bill erases a regulation imposed by former President Barack Obama that lets states deny family planning funds to an organization only if it is incapable of providing those services.

Senate approval means the measure will be headed to President Trump, who was expected to sign it. The House voted its consent last month.

In related news, a Quinnipiac University Poll released January 27, 2017 found

In a question with no mention of abortion, American voters oppose 62 - 31 percent cutting off federal funding to Planned Parenthood. 

After respondents are asked, "If you knew that federal government funding to Planned Parenthood was being used only for non-abortion health issues such as breast cancer screening, would you still favor cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood," the result is 12 percent in favor of cutting funding and 80 percent opposed to a funding cut. 

There are undoubtedly more Americans who realize Planned Parenthood refers for, and sometimes provides, abortions than realize that (extreme circumstances excepted), no federal funding is permitted for abortions (chart below from Planned Parenthood of Michigan via Vox).  Unless people are aware of the latter retriction, it is difficult to determine the breadth and  depth of support for the organiztion.

But, okay: we'll fight with one hand tied behind our back and ignore the 80% to 12%. Even with some people believing Planned Parenthood gets federal funds for providing abortions, twice as many respondents opposed cutting off funding than supported eliminating funding..

Yet, Considering the House and the Senate, 280 members of Congress (plus VP Pence) voted against Planned  Parenthood.  In the House, six Republicans voted against the bill (and one as "present"). In all, eight Republicans voted in favor of the organization.

The congressional vote was a vote for extremism and was opposed by two GOP Senators and less than 3% of its House caucus. Digby was wrong, unreasonable and intolerant when she suggested no House Republican can be considered moderate. Almost 3% can.






Share |

He Still Hates America, And We Already Knew That

Who are the Russians fooling? The Moscow Times (which otherwise does not appear to be the Russian version of The Onion) reports

The Kremlin has demanded an apology from Fox News host Bill O’Reilly for calling President Vladimir Putin “a killer.”

Presidential Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov called the outburst “unacceptable and offensive.”

O’Reilly made the claim during an interview with U.S. President Donald Trump.

Of course he did, because it's obvious, and O'Reilly could respond only "but he's a killer, though. Putin's a killer" after Trump maintained "I say it’s better to get along with Russia than not. And if Russia helps us in the fight against ISIS, which is a major fight, and Islamic terrorism all over the world — that’s a good thing. Will I get along with him? I have no idea."

The chat proceeded with

Trump: There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think — our country’s so innocent. You think our country’s so innocent?

O’Reilly: I don’t know of any government leaders that are killers.

Trump: Well — take a look at what we’ve done too. We made a lot of mistakes. I’ve been against the war in Iraq from the beginning.

O’Reilly: But mistakes are different than —

Trump: A lot of mistakes, but a lot of people were killed. A lot of killers around, believe me.

Trump was not "against the war in Iraq from the beginning" but that is, as the grammatically misguided put it, " past history."

More significant is the moral equivalence Trump is trying to establish between the violent authoritarian regime of Vladimir Putin and the United States of America. "Take off that flag lapel pin, you're soiling it," David Frum aptly tweets.

When you spend 4-5 years in the Hanoi Hilton, wearing an American flag lapel pin is unnecessary, as John McCain conspicously- no, inconspicously- demonstrated in the 2008 presidential election campaign. Perhaps Trump should wear half a dozen.

But O'Reilly- he of "the spin stops here"- did not challenge Trump other than pointing out the obvious, which upset the sensitive soul of  Vladimir Putin.

But perhaps not of President Trump. "We've got a lot of killers," Trump alleged, and continued "what do you think- our country's so innocent. You think our country's so innocent?"

But Trump is saying only that the USA is not innocent- that it is guilty of something or other. He is not asserting that he disapproves.  Digby points us to an excerpt from an interview held with the candidate last March when Trump remarked

Look at what China’s doing in the South China Sea. I mean they are totally disregarding our country and yet we have made China a rich country because of our bad trade deals. Our trade deals are so bad. And we have made them – we have rebuilt China and yet they will go in the South China Sea and build a military fortress the likes of which perhaps the world has not seen. Amazing, actually. They do that, and they do that at will because they have no respect for our president and they have no respect for our country.

Recognizing this as old style, chauvinistic nationalism, Digby responds "So he's going to make them 'respect' us. And then, he'll take what he wants. To the victor belongs the spoils."  There is no reason to believe Donald Trump is offended by leaders who are killers, or by colonial powers, or by national leaders who exploit other nations for economic gain.

"If we kept the oil," President Trump recently contended, "you probably wouldn’t have ISIS because that’s where they made their money in the first place. So we should have kept the oil, but, OK, maybe we’ll have another chance.”  Now he says "a lot of people were killed. A lot of killers around, believe me." It is not at all clear Mr. Trump disapproves, and no clearer after the "interview" conducted by Bill O'Reilly.













Share |

Donald Disappoints

"A gaffe," Michael Kinsley once famously wrote, "is when a politician tells the truth."

By that criterion, Donald Trump has- finally- committed a gaffe. The shame of it all is that he has taken it back.

First, Trump offered a clarification of his remarks about punishing the women who have an abortion if and when the procedure is banned. Then he issued a statement reversing his initial comments.  The following day (Thursday) he complained to Fox News' Eric Bolling "You really had to hear it, the whole thing. This is a long, convoluted question — this was a long discussion, and they just cut it out. But it was extremely — it was extremely convoluted.” Responding to a follow-up question, he claimed "We talked about Catholicism and his religion and Chris went back and forth about that and this was a very long, convoluted discussion."








Matthews did not go "back and forth about that," only responding to Trump's (evidently unsuccessful) effort at controlling the interview.  MSNBC edited nothing and the questioning was not convoluted, at least to anyone who knows anything about the issue.

Americans United for Life has consistently contended "the woman is the second victim of the abortionist."  In response to the candidate's remarks, President Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List refers to the woman who has had an abortion as "gravely wounded."  Jeannie Mancini, President of the March for Life Education & Defense Fund, claims "Women who choose abortion often do so in desperation and then deeply regret such a decision. No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion ."

Trump could have, in contrast to anti-choice organizations and politicians, reiterated the truth he had let slip in his interview with Matthews. Amanda Marcotte explains

Trump is clearly not conversant in the disingenuous posturing about abortion expected of all anti-choice politicians. If he was, he’d know the official stance that Republicans are supposed to take is that women are victims of abortion and therefore cannot be held responsible for it. Yes, it’s true that women pick up the phone, make the appointment, talk through their decisions with medical professionals, sign paperwork and then either take a pill or let the doctor perform an abortion, but none of this should be taken, in conservative eyes, as evidence that women are the people responsible for the abortion happening. Women are regarded by conservatives as fundamentally incapable of making grown-up decisions. If they choose abortion (and by implication, if they choose sex), it’s because they poor dears were misled.

Like a heat-seeking missile, Marcotte then blows to smithereens the anti-choice line by adding "Yes, the same people that conservatives treat as literally too stupid to understand what making a medical decision entails are then expected to raise children."

The pro-life community is intent on not only discouraging abortion but encouraging childbirth by the same women whom it portrays as easily deluded and exploited. As Charlie Pierce notes of forced-birth politicians, "the real target has always been Griswold and not Roe." Digby recognizes the irrationality of the the crusaders against abortion, who strongly infer that "the woman who solicits it is not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defect. Keep in mind that one third of American women have an abortion at some point in their lives. That’s a whole lot of defective crazy ladies we’re allowing to roam free in society."

After Donald Trump is denied the GOP nomination or loses in the general election, he can go down in American political history as the crudest, most brazenly misogynistic and nativist candidate in major-party annals. Or he could go down as someone who boldly reiterated a major gaffe: if abortion is banned because civic leaders (allegedly) believe it is killing, and a woman seeks, procures, and bribes a person to perform the procedure, she be subject to prosecution.

He has made his choice. He, and we, will be far worse off for it..







Share |

Eyes Firmly Closed

The Response Action Network each week asks "our newsletter readers what they think about the issues facing our nation." From its website:

Digby comments "in case you haven't noticed, the Republicans are really eager to get their war on. It's really what they love."

The Response Action Network doesn't make it clear whether these questions, among the fourteen (14) posed, were asked only of Republicans.  However, there are at least three reasons to question Digby's conclusion, two aside from the realization that only two of the questions posed are related to war.

One of those is Lindsey Graham.  The South Carolina senator has called for "pulling the caliphate up from the roots" with the deployment of 20,000 USA soldiers to Iraq and Syria.  The only candidate sufficiently specific, bold, and reckless to advocate ground forces, Mr. Graham is at less than 1% in GOP presidential preference polls.

That certainly doesn't prove that the popular base of the Republican Party disagrees with Graham about the Mideast. In fact, remarkably, most Americans- and an overwhelming majority of Republicans- want to send ground soldiers to fight ISIL in Syria and Iraq. But it is very likely that most Republicans are not especially motivated by the issue of Mideast policy or foreign policy generally.

That is probably a factor. Additionally, though, some of those Republicans may not be aware that Graham thinks as they do about a military solution in the region.   Many are startingly ignorant of political issues.   Recall that a few weeks after the 2012 elections Public Policy Polling found

that 49 percent of Republican voters believe that ACORN stole the election for President Obama. That's down from the 52 percent who thought that ACORN stole the 2008 election, although as PPP points out, the decline is "smaller than might have been expected,given that ACORN doesn't exist anymore." Indeed, the community organizing NGO shut down in 2010 under relentless pressure from Republicans....

There are other, less remarkable, examples of Republican voters not having a clue. They include most of them being unaware that health care costs have risen more slowly than previously since enactment of the Affordable Care Act. A more notorious example is of Republicans believing the President of the United States was not born in the USA.- yet, as Hendrik Hertzberg once wrote

The dismaying truth is that birtherism is part of a larger pattern of rejection of reality that has taken hold of intimidating segments of one of the two political parties that alternate in power in our governing institutions. It is akin to the view that global warming is a hoax, or that the budget can be balanced through spending cuts alone,or that contraception causes abortion,or that evolutionis just another theory, on a par with the theory that the earth is six thousand years old.

Supply-side economics. Planned Parenthood. Climate change, childhood immunization. It's not only war and peace, and probably not primarily that, but across-the-board a stunning and often willful, ignorance of facts.








Share |

Deciding Who Is Deserving Of Mercy

Regular Crooks And Liars contributor LeftOfCenter uses the occasion of an interview by Alan B. Colmes of the Catholic League's Bill Donohue to criticize Donohue, which always is a good thing. He observes

In summary, the Church is really no more accepting of the reality of being homosexual, but the judgement seems less harsh, and the faith is not overtly condemning them to eternal damnation, anymore. The current Pope is slowly changing hearts and minds with slightly less harsh proclamations, but when it comes down to brass tacks, the Catholic Church really hasn't changed all that much. But a more liberal leader of the church can make the faith seem far more welcoming and tolerant than it appeared, under Pope Benedict.

Fair enough. But LOC asserts also "The Pope doesn't believe man is fit to judge other men, especially since Jesus did specify in the Bible that there are men who are born eunuchs, inferring homosexuality, and was tolerant of these children of God."

I don't know much about eunuchs but I do know this: the Pope (with Raul Castro, below) does believe man is fit to judge other men, a position contrary (ironically) to both women's rights and biblical Christianity.  No theology lesson here, so leave aside that inconvenient notion of Jesus Christ being the propitiation for sins. His Holiness believes a mortal man, a priest, may forgive sins, reflected even in the positive step he took earlier this month

by announcing that priests around the world will be authorized to forgive the "sin of abortion" when the church begins a "Year of Mercy" this December.

"The forgiveness of God cannot be denied to one who has repented," the Pope said, adding that he has met "many women" scarred by the "agonizing and painful" decision to have an abortion.

Francis' announcement will give all priests full authority to absolve Catholics contrite about their role in a procedure that the church considers a grave "moral evil." In the United States, many priests already have that power, but Vatican officials portrayed Tuesday's announcement as "a widening of the church's mercy."

Forget that crazy idea about God alone granting mercy.  Rather, as The New York Times' Jill Filipovic argues,

Instead of treating women as adults who make their own decisions, the pope condescends to “all the women who have resorted to abortion,” saying he is “well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision.” The threat of excommunication, at the very least, makes the church’s views on women’s rights clear. Offering forgiveness is a softer version of the same judgment: that the millions of women around the world who have abortions every year are sinners. Inviting women to feel shame and guilt for their abortions isn’t a mercy; it’s cruelty.

Though noting "the idea that a woman who chooses to have an abortion needs absolution in the first place" is "pretty damned patronizing and paternalistic all on its own," Charlie Pierce commends the Pope for having

taken this decision away from the bishops- including those American wingnuts who want politicians who support a woman's right to choose refused communion and/or excommunicated- and placed  it in the privacy of the confessional, where it is between a woman and her parish priest.

Pierce writes from the branch of Christianity in which replacing the bishops with the parish priest, offering the woman the opportunity to confess and thereby receive mercy, is a big deal.. It is, if it proves to be a slippery slope to allowing the woman, any woman (or man), to approach God directly. That might include abortion, for which I believe an apology rarely is necessary, or for anything else. Otherwise, as Digby notes,

now local priests can forgive the dizzy broads who made this horrible error without really knowing any better without be designated by a bishop to have the power to do it. That's literally the only thing that has changed. Women who make the evil choice to have an abortion need to prove to a celibate male priest that she didn't know what she was doing and then perhaps she won't be excommunicated. So that's nice. 

Share |

The "Fascist" Label

Digby tried to make a point as she wrote

Great. Now David Frum is on the anti-immigrant bandwagonmaking Trump's illogical, idiotic argument about immigrant criminals. Because, you know, if it weren't for all those immigrants ... we'd still be awash in homegrown violence the likes of which one only exists in countries like Somalia. This is facile, xenophobic,nonsense. And it's the most degrading, dehumanizing, dare I say fascist, argument against foreigners there is. It has a very long and notorious pedigree.

Frum failed miserably in expressing fascist sentiments, though he did quote Donald Trump's famous remarks from the billionaire's presidential announcement speech, then noting his

many critics have rightly denounced the reckless accusations by an apparently self-serving figure. Yet in their determination to quell Trump’s overheated rhetoric, Trump’s critics risk straying into an opposite and also dangerous error: denial of important facts that matter to many voters, but that awkwardly challenge the elite consensus on immigration policy.

Desperately channeling Benito Mussolini, Frum noted

In 2011, the Government Accountability Office delivered a major report on criminal activity by unauthorized immigrants. The GAO was able to locate the arrest and sentencing records of roughly half the immigrants in local jails and state and federal prisons, and then sampled them to estimate what they contained. Here’s what it found:  

An estimated 25,000 of these undocumented immigrants serving sentences for homicide

A cumulative total of 2.89 million offenses committed by these undocumented immigrants between 2003 and 2009 (although half a million of these were for immigration-related offenses)

Among those offenses: An estimated 42,000 robberies, 70,000 sex crimes, 81,000 auto thefts, 95,000 weapons offenses, and 213,000 assaults

Supporters of comprehensive reform typically argue that immigrants commit fewer crimes per capita than do the native-born population. As with the allegation there are in the USA only 12 million illegal immigrants- a number curiously unchanged from 15 years ago- it is a claim widely accepted but with little supporting evidence. Challenging the assumption, Frum explains

When most studies report that immigrants commit fewer crimes than natives, many rely—as I did above—on incarceration rates. Prison populations are the most authoritative source of data on immigrant crime. It’s much easier to assess the immigration status of a person in custody, after all.

But because U.S. prison sentences are so long, prisons house many people whose criminal activities occurred years, or even decades, in the past. Many of the people in prison today were sent there at a time when the foreign-born population was smaller and crime rates were higher. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that 20 percent of the U.S. prison population is foreign born. That does not imply that foreign-born persons are committing only 20 percent of crime right now. Yet that is how the statistic is often used.

That doesn't suggest Trump's charge is valid, and Frum does not, recognizing "Donald Trump is a troubling figure. The voters (temporarily) surging to him are deluding themselves."  Surely, however, one of the reasons a belligerent and boisterous blowhard has been riding high is

Elections should be competitions between elite groupings as to whose solutions will prevail. Immigration is an issue on which American elites refuse to do their jobs. Voters are intensely divided over immigration; political and business elites are almost unanimously united. 

With the controversy surrounding Trump, there might have been discussion about immigrants- either of the illegal kind or of the legal kind, whose needs have been largely neglected because they can be addressed only by increased resources.  There has been in much of the mainstream media an effort to deride the candidate in part because his views on immigration are popular with GOP voters but outside acceptable elite thought.

Eventually, Donald Trump's campaign for the Repub presidential nomination will be blasted to bits. Nonetheless, inconvenient ideas about illegal immigration will see the light of the day, either from the likes of hypocritical real estate moguls (video, below) or from thoughtful journalists. If the latter are accused of being fascist or even xenophobic, the discussion will not go down well with the American people.











Share |

Save Your Pity

TLC now has pulled remaining episodes of "19 Kids and Counting" but stories and commentary about the molestation by then-juvenile Josh Duggar of several girls are likely to keep coming.

There is so much to write about that Josh has even been defended by a man of the left who otherwise refers to the Duggars as a "cultlike family that rejects Enlightenment values and closes off much of the outside world."

Salon's Mark Joseph Stern slams "much of the left (for having) greeted the news of his molestation charges with a kind of derisive, jeering disgust." He recognizes the Duggars

adhere to a fringe Christian movement called the “Christian patriarchy,” which commands total female submission to men and limited education for women. The Duggars do everything they can to control their children’s minds, then brainwash them with misogynistic dogma.

Josh Duggar grew up in this sexist milieu. He was told that women exist to serve men—to show them “submission,” “obedience,” and “reverence.” He was barred from seeking out any differing views about men and women. His mind was warped from childhood.

Regrettably, Stern then jumps to a conclusion, rhetorically asking "Is it any surprise that, by the time he reached adolescence, he believed girls’ bodies were his to touch however he pleased? "

Allow me to answer: yes, it is.  Molestation is an offense of a criminal nature, committed by Josh not at age 9, 10, or 11, but at age 15. He should at that point have known better, though Stern argues "even as we reprove him, we should remember the odious lies that were forced down his throat as a child."    Even most boys who have odious lies forced down their throat have boundaries they understand and respect.

However, there is another legitimate answer to Stern's question. It doesn't  really matter, at this point, given the statute of limitations, that Josh Duggar believed himself privileged to touch girls' bodies as he pleased.  Evidently, Josh believed at the time he was privileged. Now that he is older, he still believes he is privileged, perhaps enough not to have paid state income tax from 2009 throught 2012. Stern himself notes Josh

has fought against marriage equality and LGBT nondiscrimination ordinances, suggesting that such laws could jeopardize children. His mother implied that trans people are child predators. His employer wrote that gay marriage and gay adoption should be outlawed because gay men are extremely likely to molest young boys. And at the same time he and his family were promoting these noxious views and using reality TV to build their fame, they were covering up Josh’s record of molesting multiple young girls as a teenager.

At age 27, Josh Duggar probably is a far different individual than he was 12 years ago.  Still, most people with a secret as serious as his would not have chosen to become head of the Family Research Council's lobby arm (from which he has resigned), exposed himself- for a price- to tens of millions of television viewers, and been seen photographed with Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, and John Ellis Bush (photos below, from whatever initial source, via Digby's Hullabaloo).   No one twisted his arm or put a gun to his head.

Nor did those young girls force him to molest them.   His defenders ought to point out that legally was a juvenile and now regrets his actions.  But he does not warrant pity, nor should others be held primarily accountable for his own behavior.

Share |

Historical Path

In the wake of Hillary Clinton's announcement on Sunday that she's in it to win it and the disturbing, though much expected, victory of the moneyed Rahm Emanuel over Chuy Garcia in Chicago, Digby captures the challenge to Mrs. Clinton most significant to the nation's future.  She recognizes Emanuel and fellow neo-liberals have been

“re-defining” progressivism by making it into business friendly DLC centrism. We’ve been down that road before. These think tank technocrats have been selling  these vaunted “public-private” partnerships since the early 90s when Bill Clinton first ran for office and we’re still dealing with crumbling infrastructure, poor education, soaring wealth inequality and stalled social mobility. At some point these people need to confront the fact that these ideas aren’t getting the job done.

While less obvious, still intriguing was her quick take on the Democratic Party's 2008 primary/caucus campaign. Digby writes

With the Big Announcement yesterday, Hillary Clinton officially entered the race that everyone assumes she’s already won. Can you feel the excitement? No? Well, this shouldn’t come as a shock, because despite all the handwringing about a primary being necessary, it’s long been obvious that the Democratic party subconsciously saw 2008 as The Big Primary when decided it would use its current national electoral advantage to bring the U.S. into the modern world and break the white male presidential paradigm with two historic candidacies. It’s important to seize these openings to advance civil rights and establish a new “normal” for leadership when you have the chance and it’s to the party’s credit that it has taken this path.

She gives herself too little credit. It has not "long been obvious that the Democratic party subconsciously saw 2008 as The Big Primary when decided it would use its current national electoral advantage to bring the U.S. into the modern world and break the white male presidential paradigm with two historic candidacies."

Asked (video below) yesterday about Clinton's candidacy, GOP strategist Ana Navarro (echoing what others have imagined) maintained "Going back to the woman thing, I'm frankly fascinated by how it's playing out this time because it's so different from 2008, where she did not embrace the historical moment of being a woman."  In the same vein, Bash responded "maybe she learned from Barack Obama."








That contrasts with Digby's recognition that the Party saw itself in 2008 as presenting two historic candidacies.  Hillary Clinton, while noting the obvious- that she was the more experienced hand to respond to national emergencies- presented herself also as someone who would break "the glass ceiling." Without demeaning Obama's claim that his election would be historic, Clinton herself strongly and consistently implied that her own election would prove to be a momentous event in American history.

As Navarro and Bash demonstrated, it is a dynamic little understood. Both Democratic candidates saw the upcoming election as a watershed event, as did most of the Party's primary voters and caucus participants.  For reasons far beyond race, Barack Obama won out- but more of the electorate also saw election of the first black President more consequential than election of the first female candidate. Given the scope and arc of American history, that was an accurate perception, notwithstanding the disappointment of the centrist Obama presidency,

That was then; this is now, when Digby and most primary voters believe "the time is ripe for a woman president." Here is hoping the blogger is prescient when she adds" and it’s ripe for an unabashed progressive populist agenda.  If Hillary Clinton seizes this moment and runs with it, she could make history in more ways than one."





Share |

From The Playbook

Few others have said it better than Tom Frank, who in his seminal work What's the Matter with Kansas? noted

American conservatism depends for its continued dominance and even for its very existence on people never making certain mental connections about the world, connections that until recently were treated as obvious or self-evident everywhere on the planet. For example, the connection between mass culture, most of which conservatives hate, and laissez-faire capitalism, which they adore without reservation. Or between the small towns they profess to love and the market forces that are slowly grinding those small towns back into the red-state dust- which forces they praise in the most exalted terms...

Behold the political alignment that Kansas is pioneering for us all. The corporate world- for reasons having a  great deal to do with its corporateness- blankets the nation with a cultural style designed offend and to pretend-subvert: sassy teens in Skechers flout the Man; bigoted churchgoing moms don't tolerate their daughters' cool liberated friends; hipsters dressed in T-shirsts reading "FCUK" snicker at the suits who just don't get it. It's meant to be offensive, and Kansas is duly offended. the state watches impotently as its culture, beamed in from the coasts, becomes coarser and more offensive by the year. Kansas aches for revenge. Kansas gloats when celebrities say stupid things; it cheers when movie stars go to jail. And when two female rock stars exchange a lascivious kiss on national TV, Kansas goes haywire. Kansas screams for the  heads of the liberal elite. Kansas comes running to the polling place. And Kansas cuts those rock stars' taxes.

Kansas has been pioneering for us all in domestic issues, the interplay between economics and culture. But a similar thing is now taking place in the foreign arena, with conservative Repubs blowing smoke up out... well, you know.

Appearing Sunday (video below) on CNN's State of the Union,  Senator John McCain advised President Obama

The President should get over it. Get over your temper tantrum, Mr. President It's time that we work together with our Israeli friends and try to stem this tide of ISIS and Iranian movement throughout the region which is threatening the very fabric of the region. The least of your problems is what Bibi Netanyahu said during an election campaign. If every politician were held to everything they say during a campaign, obviously that would be a topic of long discussion. This is one of the most Orwellian situations I have ever observed.





Put aside that, as Digby observes, McCain probably doesn't understand what "Orwellian" means. Lay aside that Bibi Netanyahu has demonstrated that he is not our friend, both in openly defying the President of the United States and the view of at least the last three Presidents that a two-state solution is the only viable option in the Middle East.

Ignore even the obvious hilarity of John McCain lecturing Barack Obama on the matter of temper tantrums. After Netanyahu's speech to Congress, an obviously emotionally distraught Obama remonstrated "I did get a chance to look at the transcript and as far as I can tell there was nothing new." And following the Prime Minister's surprisingly large electoral plurality, Obama told the Huffington Post

We continue to believe that a two-state solution is the only way for the long-term security of Israel, Given his statements prior to the election, it is going to be hard to find a path where people are seriously believing that negotiations are possible....

We take him at his word when he said that it wouldn’t happen during his prime ministership. So that’s why we’ve got to evaluate what other options are available to make sure that we don’t see a chaotic situation in the region.

The man is simply out of control!

John McCain criticizing Barack Obama for a temper tantrum is analogous to him knocking Representative Barbara Lee of California for being a warmonger; or Scott Walker rapping Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown for being anti-union; or John Ellis Bush condemning Elizabeth Warren for ignoring the interests of the middle class and rejecting populism. It is flat-out bizarre- more likely, mendacious.

The real issue is that, like conservatives who rail against abortion, same-sex marriage, and paint liberals as fans of Sodom and Gomorrah, McCain doesn't really mean it.  Borger (beginning at aproximately 1:43) asks

But you called the President's response to Bibi Netanyahu a temper tantrum. Why is it a temper tantrum if Netanyahu ostensibly rejects during his campaign the very basis for decades of American policy heading towards some kind of peace process. Should the President sort of pay no attention to that?

McCain, who had excoriated Obama for a temper tantrum, replied "I think the President maybe shouldn't like it," after which he went on about ISIS and Iran.

This wasn't Scott Walker, single-minded in his hatred of unions, John Ellis Bush fascinated by all things Bush, or Ted Cruz, who knows little about anything. This was war hero, reliable hawk, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee member John McCain slamming Obama and then, in one definitive remark, agreeing with the President. Whether their criticism is intended to reassure the voting base or the voting base of their party, conservatives are at it again, with McCain, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and other Republicans chastising President Obama, with only the rare Gohmert suggesting a concrete change to policy.  It's all theater, sound and fury signifying only that they will say anything, whip up any fury or frenzy, to defeat Democrats.




Share |

The Man Who Won't Go Away

The Playboy interview of Dick Cheney begins

Dick Cheney likes lattes. Seated in his favorite brown-leather chair in the sunlit study of his home in McLean, Virginia, the former vice president of the United States can toss back two of the warm java blasts in an hour. They come from a stainless-steel machine in the kitchen and a slender, mustachioed housekeeper named Gus, who serves them in custom-ordered white Starbucks cups outfitted with cardboard Starbucks sleeves.

Digby comments "Why would anyone want to pretend they're drinking Starbucks when they're drinking a latte made in their own kitchen?"  Personally, I wonder why Dick needs a pool boy to serve the lattes. In either case, Digby is right to conclude "should be fun."

And the fun begins almost immediately, when the former vice-president contends

I think with respect to the situation in Iraq, his precipitous withdrawal and refusal to leave any stay-behind forces, to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqis, was a huge mistake; we are paying a price for it now.... 

I don’t think he ever bought into the notion that we’re at war, in terms of a war on terrorism; I think he always wanted to treat it as a law-enforcement problem. 

Those drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia must be the President's version of the Miranda warning.  Admittedly, President Obama did not sign a Status of Forces Agreement with Baghdad. But George W. Bush did- and it required all USA soldiers to be out of Iraq by December 31, 2011. In the press conference announcing the pact, President Bush maintained it

provides American troops and Defense Department officials with authorizations and protections to continue supporting Iraq's democracy once the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year. This agreement respects the sovereignty and the authority of Iraq's democracy. The agreement lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq -- a withdrawal that is possible because of the success of the surge.

Bush imagined that in the withdrawal it would lead to, "we are leaving the next President with a stable foundation for the future, and an approach that can enjoy broad bipartisan support at home."

Declaring victory in a war- or success of a surge- does not make it so.  The Obama Administration balked at signing its own agreement because American soldiers were specifically denied legal immunity by the Iraqi government.

Cheney follows the Iraq myth with another myth, referring to Obama's "apology tour, when he went to Cairo in the summer of 2009."  When Mitt Romney attacked Obama during campaign '08, it wasn't true, as CNN's Fact Check, factcheck.org, and Politifact all concluded. It is no more true now, and restating a myth doesn't make it any more accurate.

During this imagined apology tour, President Obama- according to Cheney- "said the U.S. overreacted to the events of 9/11."  Bush's V.P., Charles Krauthammer, and others believe the USA did not overreact to the events of 9/11. But that does not make it so, and we don't have to consider the debacle of the Iraq War and the upsurge in terrorist activity it spurred to know we overreacted.

Cheney himself should know best. After the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, he camped out for weeks a few miles north of Camp David at what has become known in American lore as the "undisclosed location." It is nothing of the sort, but rather in a complex of buildings ("Site R") inside Raven Rock Mountain Complex at Raven Rock Military Reservation in Liberty Township, Adams County (near Blue Ridge Summit in Franklin County, Pa.) in south-central Pennsylvania, a few miles north of Camp David, Maryland (location below).  Yet, the Vice-President's location was strictly confidential at the time because... well, because we surely did not overreact to the events of 9/11.

The Playboy interview is worthwhile if only to get a glimpse of the humor exhibited by the former Vice-President when he claims

I came to town in 1968, and I have never seen people I have known in some cases for a quarter of a century—foreign leaders, especially in the Middle East—who are so terribly frustrated, angry, frightened. “Whatever happened to the United States?” There’s a conviction they can’t count on us, that our word doesn’t mean anything.

So says the man who asserted Sadaam Hussein has "reconstituted nuclear weapons;" that, though we knew otherwise, 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi spy in Prague; and that American forces "will be greeted as liberators" by Iraqis.

On a positive note, Dick Cheney has remained consistent, weaving the same old fabrications into a narrative that long ago was proven false.






Share |

Not Such An Impressive Elder Statesman

Huffington Post reported  on Sunday

Code Pink brought signs and handcuffs into the hearing to protest the presence of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, demanding that he be arrested for his role in alleged war crimes during the Nixon and Ford administrations. The protesters objected to the U.S.'s use of the poisonous chemical Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, the bombing of Cambodia and other issues.

Fox News later would note "US Capitol Police spokeswoman  Kim Schneider said later the force did not 'meet the standards expected of the USCP'" during the disruption (video below).





That came on the heels of the rudeness of Code Pink and the reaction of committee chairperson John McCain (R-AZ).  The protesters came, made their point, and were ushered out of the hearing room within minutes. Unacceptable, to management of the US Capitol Police; democracy, to some of us. Would it that law enforcement in Ferguson, MO, Cleveland, OH, Staten Island, NY, or Bridgeton, NJ had adopted such a measured response.

After- and only after- the protesters were contained and under control- the guy who endured torture at the Hanoi Hilton (decades ago) was bold enough to assert (video below)

You know what I'd like to, uh, say to may colleagues, uh and to our distinguished witness this morning - I have been a member of this committee for many years and I've never seen anything as disgraceful and outrageous and disrespectful as the last demonstration that just took place about- you know, you're going to have to shut up or I'm going to have you arrested... Get out of here, you low-life scum.

Sunday on CNN, McCain defended his response (video below) on CNN:

I'm used to people popping up at these these hearings and yelling, and they're escorted out -- that's at least some version of free speech, These people rushed up, they were right next to him, waving handcuffs. He's a 91-year old man with a broken shoulder who was willing to come down and testify before Congress to give us the benefit of his many years of wisdom.








Far less impressed by Kissinger's comments was Digby, who commented 

And no they didn't threaten him. They held up signs behind him and chanted. I'm sure it was unpleasant to be publicly called a war criminal.  Not as unpleasant as being bombed, tortured and "disappeared" but unpleasant nonetheless: If that's the only punishment he receives for his deeds over the past 50 years, he's one very lucky man indeed.

On his Saturday program on CNN, Michael Smerconish had remarked that as he was watching the event, he was thinking the same thing as McCain- but that the Senator should not have uttered it. Though fair, that  does not get to the heart of the matter. Code Pink observes that Kissinger- who believed "the illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer"-  is a war criminal whose influence led to the death of countless human beings. Still lost is that the venture in Vietnam- for which the  former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State is most remembered- was a failure.  The war was lost.

Senator McCain is impressed his committee called to testify a man who could "give us the benefit of his many years of wisdom." Kissinger, however, was a  failure as a foreign policy adviser.   Moreover, a legislator exorcised that a 91-year-old man was harassed might consider that the latter might have lost a little off his fastball on his way to 91- even assuming there was considerable wisdom initially. If the age was no impediment to Kissinger wisdom, perhaps McCain needn't have been aghast that handcuffs were waved in the witness' face.

Henry Kissinger himself is certainly no low-life scum. He is quite wealthy, distinguished, and pleased to be treated as royalty by fawning politicians.





Share |

An Old Playbook

Incensed that President Obama wants to fund community college for good students by increasing income tax on the top 1% of earners, Fox News pundit Todd Starnes remarked

we all know that President Obama wants universal community college: free tuition for every person in America. But I’m having a hard time finding where the Constitution mandates that every American is entitled to an associate’s degree. We are now six years into the Obama presidency and they have a reputation for being less than truthful. Take for example this notion of free community college. 

It turns out that free education is going to cost American taxpayers $60 billion over the next decade, and that doesn’t even include all of the free condoms and cell phones and medicinal marijuana bongs. You know, back when I was growing up, college kids were expect to work their way through school, it was considered shameful to ask for a handout. But this is Obama’s America and the entitlement crowd thinks that they are entitled to our money.

Digby comments "They're giving away free condoms and medicinal marijuana bongs in college? I think that's great. Good public health is good for all of us. And if everyone had cell phones we'd all be safer. These strike me as excellent, low cost benefits. "

Free condoms actually would be a splendid idea. But the policy would strike at the heart of the conservative vision of women as baby factories, a role even the Pope now finds antiquated, leaving Rick Santorum confused. Medical marijuana would be of great comfort to many Americans in pain, so Republicans won't allow that, and we already know the right resents poor people with cell phones.

Digby notes also that Starnes was subsidized handsomely by the taxpayers of Georgia as a student at Georgia State University.  It is a Galt fantasy of having done it all alone, which is reminiscent of one of the greatest conservative songs of all time, of a bygone era which virtually never was.









It has its modern expression in the GOP beyond Starnes. In her (official GOP) rebuttal to the President's State of the Union address, freshman Senator Joni Stepford of Iowa (truly a grinmeister) maintained of her family:

They had very little to call their own except the sweat on their brow and the dirt on their hands. But they worked, they sacrificed, and they dreamed big dreams for their children and grandchildren.

And because they did, an ordinary Iowan like me has had some truly extraordinary opportunities because they showed me that you don’t need to come from wealth or privilege to make a difference. You just need the freedom to dream big, and a whole lot of hard work.

This is a variation of humblebrag, in which a man or woman of accomplishment implies "my parents afforded me few privileges, so everything I got I accomplished on my own." But it probably goes beyond phony to dishonest for, as the Des Moines Register's Jack Pompe explains

Any self-respecting poor Iowa farm kid knows that one doesn't wear bread sacks over their shoes to protect their good shoes. You wear the bread sacks between your socks and shoes to keep your feet dry. If worn over your shoes, a bread bag would be ripped and torn before a kid got out the door. Also a truly poor farm kid probably does not have a pair of good shoes worth protecting.

John Cole, at 44 the some age as Senator Stepford, argues bread bags "didn’t mean you were poor. It meant you didn’t like wet feet."

Ernst's response bumps up against reality also because, the District Sentinel News Co-Op recently reported

The truth about her family’s farm roots and living within one’s means, however, is more complex. Relatives of Ernst (née: Culver), based in Red Oak, Iowa (population: 5,568) have received over $460,000 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2009. Ernst’s father, Richard Culver, was given $14,705 in conservation payments and $23,690 in commodity subsidies by the federal government–with all but twelve dollars allocated for corn support. Richard’s brother, Dallas Culver, benefited from $367,141 in federal agricultural aid, with over $250,000 geared toward corn subsidies. And the brothers’ late grandfather Harold Culver received $57,479 from Washington—again, mostly corn subsidies—between 1995 and 2001. He passed away in January 2003.

The Sentinel cross-referenced the Environmental Working Group farm subsidy database with open source information to verify the Culvers’ interest in the Department of Agriculture’s crop support program.

Sen. Ernst’s family’s financial interest notably came up once during her campaign. In October, Salon reported that Richard’s construction company was awarded $215,665 in contracts from the Montgomery County government in 2009 and 2010, while Ernst was the body’s auditor. The bids won by Culver included Federal Emergency Management Agency projects worth $204,794.

President Obama, channeling, somewhat ineffectively, a great liberal vision, had stated "I still believe that we are one people. I still believe that together, we can do great things, even when the odds are long" and  "Let's begin this new chapter – together – and let's start the work right now."

Joni Ernst, too, suggested "we work together"- for more free trade deals throwing Americans out of work; lowering taxes for corporations, whose declining tax burden has been replaced by one growing for the middle class; and by approving Keystone XL, because ramping up climate change and supplying the energy needs of mainland China must be our greatest priorities.

Starnes, Ernst, Roy Rogers, whomever, it's still the Republican dream, sold as reality: you can do it on your own. More realistic and patriotic is this:











Share |

An Industry With A Sense Of Entitlement

This post isn't about Selma (photo below from Atsushi Nishjima/Paramount Pictures via Slate), a movie undoubtedly quite entertaining with impressive acting and directing. I probably won't see it, nor practically any movie. We all use our entertainment dollars as we wish.

Selma- as well as the controversy surrounding it- is not the issue anyway, or at least shouldn't be. Being straight with his readers, Slate's Jamelle Bouie concedes

At worst, DuVernay depicts Johnson and King as wary allies. In the film, Johnson agrees with King on the need for a Voting Rights Act, but he wants him to wait—Johnson has a Great Society to build—and warns that he doesn’t have the votes to push another civil rights bill on the heels of the 1964 Act, which outlawed discrimination in public accommodations. It’s not that King and Johnson are enemies—they both want to dismantle Jim Crow—as much as they have different responsibilities and priorities. In order to act, Johnson needs a push. And King gives it to him.

Now, there’s a case that even this is unfair to Johnson. While it’s true he didn’t want to introduce a voting rights bill so soon after the Civil Rights Act of 1964—he needed votes for his economic program, and he didn’t want to alienate Southern Democrats—it’s also true that, in late 1964, 

Johnson told Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach to write the “the goddamndest, toughest voting rights act you can devise.” This draft was written with help from Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, and was the basis for the bill the leaders introduced in March 1965. The Johnson of Selma, in other words, is much more reluctant than the Johnson of reality.

Still,  Bouie argues

Selma, simply put, is about the men and women who fought to put voting rights on the national agenda, and it engages history from their perspective. By hardening Johnson—and making him a larger roadblock than he was—DuVernay emphasizes the grass roots of the movement and the particular struggles of King and his allies. In the long argument of who matters most—activists or politicians—DuVernay falls on the side of the former, showing how citizens can expand the realm of the possible and give politicians the push—and the room—they need to act.

By those terms, Selma mostly succeeds.

And so it  does- but at what cost? Astonishingly, Bouie excuses a slightly older Hollywood production when he writes

Just as egregious is the narrative of Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty, which shows a relentless Central Intelligence Agency—personified in Jessica Chastain as Maya—whose methods, including torture, lead to Osama Bin Laden and the military raid that killed him. The factual problem, as detailed in December’s Senate Intelligence Committee report, is that torture didn’t lead to unique intelligence. As such, it’s not clear that it helped find Bin Laden. But Bigelow made a choice to say otherwise, and in the context of the film, it’s defensible. Zero Dark Thirty—to my eyes at least—is less about the particulars of finding Bin Laden and more about the costs of obsession. What happens when you’re willing to give up everything for a single goal? What will you sacrifice? In this reading, torture is the moment when we—through Maya—commit to darkness in pursuit of our ends.

These movies don't pretend to be documentaries. But works such as these and American Sniper are not marketed as fiction or mere entertainment. They are meant to enlighten or, as in the case of Zero Dark Thirty, propagandize.

Bouie adds

This is all to say that it’s wrong to treat nonfiction films—even biopics—as documentaries. Instead, it’s better to look at deviations from established history or known facts as creative choices—license in pursuit of art. As viewers, we should be less concerned with fact-checking and more interested in understanding the choices. Why did the director opt for this view and not a different one? If she omits and distorts, why? What is she trying to communicate?

People don't think of nonfiction films as documentaries, which is much of the reason they pay to watch nonfiction films while documentaries are ignored by Bouie and almost all of media.  But viewers believe them- in part, ironically, because they believe what Bouie terms "nonfiction" films are not meant to be political, to present a particular side of an issue. Consequently, the folks who create the film bear a responsibility for accuracy no less than do documentarians.

Bouie does, however, lay bare the larger issue when he argues "it is better to look at deviations from established history or known facts as creative choices- license in pursuit of art."

No, it is not- not when a work is presented as history.

It gives the film industry too much license- and too much credit.  (Understanding history, especially the history of a movement and of an American president, is more important than understanding art.) Similarly, though in a different context, too much credit is given Hollywood by one of America's greatest political bloggers. Linking to Think Progress, Heather Digby Parton points out

After leaked emails in the Sony hack showed unequal pay between male and female actors, Charlize Theron insisted she get the same payas her male co-star Chris Hemsworth for “The Huntsman.”

She succeeded, netting a $10 million increase that puts her on par with Hemsworth.

Conceding she is "not in favor of hacking," Digby adds

... this revelation is important. It's been an open secret in Hollywood for years but this may have made it impossible to pretend that it wasn't so.

And on what planet can it possibly be true that Chris Hemsworth is worth 10 million dollars more than Charlize Theron? It's ridiculous. 

(I actually can't believe anyone is worth that kind of money but that's a different subject ... )

Uh, no. It's not a different subject. No one is worth that kind of money; not even professional athletes nor the owners of their teams, though they can afford that and a whole lot more. We have no difficulty complaining about exorbitantly paid athletes, even though they can do what the rest of us can only dream about. But we invariably turn a blind eye- except when gender discrimination is involved- toward the huge sums paid out to actors, who do what many others in the population could do.

Good thing Charlize Theron got a $10 million raise. (Transparency, however, is vital.) A woman can barely get by, hardly even put food on the table or pay the rent, when she's worth $110 million. But then that's Hollywood, where we weep over someone not getting the millions she's owed and fiction is licensed as a holy "pursuit of art."




Share |