Civilian Control- For Now

This is precious: Newt Gingrich- need I say more? Not I, but The Hill, reporting

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) on Thursday went after special counsel Robert Mueller, accusing him of trying to undermine the Trump presidency.

"Muelleris now clearly the tip of the deep state spear aimed at destroying or at a minimum undermining and crippling the Trump presidency," Gingrich tweeted Thursday.

Newt Gingrich ✔@newtgingrich
Mueller is now clearly the tip of the deep state spear aimed at destroying or at a minimum undermining and crippling the Trump presidency.
7:28 AM - 15 Jun 2

Unless Gingrich is suggesting the special counsel has formed a secret cabal with officials of the Grump Administration, it's unclear what he's talking about. In March, In These Times noted that the President had

certainly assembled the most military-heavy foreign policy team in memory, if not in American history, including retired General James Mattis at the Pentagon; retired General John Kelly at Homeland Security; Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster as national security adviser (a replacement for Lieutenant General Michael Flynn who left that post after 24 days); and as chief of staff of the National Security Council, retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg.

In addition, CIA Director Mike Pompeo is a West Point graduate and former Cold War-era Army tank officer. Even White House adviser Steve Bannon has done military service of a sort.  The military background of Trump’s ideologue-in-chief was emphasized by White House spokesman Sean Spicer in his defense of seating him on the National Security Council (NSC).

In contrast, the civilians have Rex Tillerson, who manages as many staff members as does the manager at your local McDonald's or if better taste prevails in your area, Chick-fil-a.  That may not matter because he wears no stars, has no title preceding his name, and hence has little influence.  The New York Times has learned

President Trump has given Defense Secretary Jim Mattis the authority to determine troop levels in Afghanistan, three administration officials said Tuesday, opening the door for sending more American forces to a war that the Pentagon chief acknowledged the United States was “not winning.”

Mr. Mattis is believed to favor sending several thousand more American troops to strengthen the effort to advise Afghan forces as they push back against gains made by the Taliban, the Islamic State and other militant groups. But officials said he had not yet decided how many more forces to send to Afghanistan, or when to deploy them.

One United States official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing internal deliberations, said that Mr. Trump decided on Tuesday morning to grant Mr. Mattis the authority. It was the latest in a series of moves by the White House to give the Pentagon and its military commanders more latitude to deploy forces and carry out operations.

Like so much about this fellow Grump and his Administration, this is not normal.  We learn- unsurprisingly

Mr. Trump’s approach makes a sharp break from former President Barack Obama, who tightly controlled decisions on military troops, a practice that some critics complained smacked of micromanaging. The president has relaxed the rules for counterterrorism operations in Somalia and Yemen and was quick to approve the military’s plan to fire sea-launched cruise missiles at an airfield that President Bashar al-Assad’s forces used to mount a chemical weapons attack in Syria.

Proponents say that delegating the authority to the Pentagon will enable it to carry out campaigns against the United States’ adversaries without interruptions and will allow it to respond more quickly to changes on the battlefield. The risk, critics say, is the president may become too detached from developments on the battlefield and may use this approach to distance himself from a decision that could be politically unpopular.

The other risk, down-the-road, is to civilian control of the military, seemingly at odds with his campaign boast "I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me." But maybe not- in a kind of circular, rather than linear, formulation, the fellow who foolishly believed generals knew less than a real estate tycoon is the same person who now thinks he can be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces while giving increasing authority to the military. Mistaken, and mistaken.





Perhaps Donald Trump believes he is in charge of the 325 million-plus civilians of the nation but not of the military, which would be a reversal of the proper and traditional relationship.  In that case, he is a fitting bedfellow for Newt Gingrich, avid Trump defender and scourge of what he calls the "deep state," who evidently wouldn't recognize a deep state if it smacked him in the face.






Share |

Be Ready To Deal With It

Only a moment or two into President-elect Trump's news conference on Wednesday, we were told

.... the irresponsible decision of a few news organizations to run with a false and unsubstantiated report, when most news organizations resisted the temptation to propagate this fake news, can only be attributed to media bias and attempt to demean the president-elect and our incoming administration and the American people are sick and tired of it.





And that wasn't even the short-fingered vulgarian and vulgar talking yam Donald Trump. It was spoken by the alleged adult in the room, failed governor Mike Pence, our incoming Vice President. However, the report alleging attempts by the Russian government to recruit Donald Trump is not "fake news," which, as The Guardian explains, "is completely made up, manipulated to resemble credible journalism and attract maximum attention and, with it, advertising revenue."  It is not even clear that the intelligence is inaccurate- Pence himself refers to it, accurately, as "unsubstantiated," following the false accusation that it is "false."

Once he began to speak, President-elect Trump, more inclined to trust Vladimir Putin than US intelligence agencies, would claim "today, we’ll get back to real news, to real facts" in his ongoing effort to convince Americans that the mainstream media must always be doubted and he to be completely trusted.

Steve M., noting a New York Times' headline "Trump, in New Style of Fighter, Takes the Ring," recognized the inroads Trump is making with the media and will continue to make unless a backbone is grown. He commented

I understand the arguments against publishing the dossier. But if you're going to criticize BuzzFeed, remind your readers -- and yourselves -- that Trump is at war with you, and with all norms of responsible presidential conduct. Object to the publication of the dossier if you must, but couple that objection with a reassertion of the fact that the press has an obligation to hold Trump accountable, and to be very aggressive in that effort. Don't act like apple-polishing grade schoolers trying to rat out a misbehaving classmate to the teacher.

When Trump attacked Jim Acosta of CNN (which, of course, didn't publish the specific allegations in the dossier), it might have been a good idea for Acosta to walk out and for colleagues to join him in solidarity. Maybe the press should refuse to attend any future press conferences unless Trump vows to refrain from playground-bully abuse -- not that he'd keep that promise, but just getting him to make a small, phony concession would be a start. And if he refused and that meant no further press conferences, the hell with it. It seems obvious that Trump intends to use them as ego trips for Trump and opportunities for him to abuse his enemies in the media. Don't play along. Deny him that.

He wrote that Thursday morning.  Media Matters' Matt Gertz found that several hours later, on Thursday night, Newt Gingrich appeared with Sean Hannity and

urged (incoming Press Secretary Sean) Spicer to learn “a couple of big lessons” from the incident. First and foremost, he suggested that Acosta be banned from reporting on Trump events for 60 days “as a signal, frankly, to all the other reporters that there are going to be real limits” for proper behavior...

Gingrich went on to explain his theory of the press under the Trump administration. “You don't have to think of The New York Times or CNN or any of these people as news organizations,” he explained. “They're mostly propaganda organizations. And they're going to be after Trump every single day of his presidency.”

“And he needs to understand that that's the case, and so does Sean Spicer in speaking for him. And they simply need to go out there and understand they have it in their power to set the terms of this dialogue.” He added, “They can close down the elite press.”

Whatever Gingrich believes constitutes the "elite press," we have a pretty good idea of Donald Trump's criteria. On November 22, ardent Trumpist Hannity, who never talks out of turn, remarked

So until members of the media come clean about colluding with the Clinton campaign and admit that they knowingly broke every ethical standard they are supposed to uphold, they should not have the privilege, they should not have the responsibility of covering the president on behalf of you, the American people.

As Jay Rosen puts it "In other words, the mainstream press should not be allowed to cover Trump." If you can't say anything good about Dear Leader, don't say anything at all.

Media organizations are businesses which traditionally compete against each other. But if there is no cooperation- or at least a common understanding- of the threat they are under, they will find that they are among the first casualties of an Administration which demands praise at every turn and equates dissent with disloyalty.








Share |

Him- Really?

Who am I? I

- married my high school geometry teacher- whom I had been dating since I was 16- in 1962 after my  freshman year of college;
- presented my wife with terms of divorce in 1980, one day after she had undergone surgery for    uterine cancer and while she still was in the hospital, thereafter often refusing to pay alimony and    child support;
- proposed marriage to a second woman well before I was divorced, and married her in 1981;
- was subject to an intervention by colleagues because of erratic behavior, which continued  afterward;
- periodically participated in extra-marital oral sex, at least one time in the back seat of a car in  public;
- carried on, for approximately six years and for a period in the marital bed, an extra-marital affair;
- confessed the affair to my (second) wife, shortly before I gave a speech touting family values;
- was reprimanded by my colleagues, only partially because I was ethically lacking, and lost my leadership position;
- married yet again, after gaining a divorce.

In the midst of this, in 1980 he had declared "Woody Allen having nonincest with a nondaughter to whom he was a nonfather because they were a nonfamily fits the Democratic platform perfectly."

This is delicious. On Tuesday night, that same Newton Leroy Gingrich told Fox News' Megyn Kelly "I mean, you want to go back through the tapes of your show recently, you are fascinated with sex, and you don’t care about public policy.”

Megyn Kelly, seriously? Though Fox's predominantly male audience breathlessly thought "if only," Gingrich complained "it’s worth 23 minutes of the three networks to cover" allegations of sexual assault committed by Trump while Wikileaks revelations receive less attention. As Steve M. explains, Donald Trump is responsible for that, in part because his campaign relies upon himself and "surrogates (who) apparently can't craft an effective message and who can't be bothered to stick to a message, especially when he's distracted by, say, an insult from anyone on the planet."

Gingrich would claim also “And, therefore, we’re going to send Bill Clinton back to the East Wing, because after all, you are worried about sexual predators."  A moment later, smile affixed, he would add "No, I just want to hear you use the words. I want to hear you use the words ‘Bill Clinton, sexual predator.’ I dare you. Say ‘Bill Clinton, sexual predator.’” Now, that's a grownup!







The temptation to accuse Newt Gingrich of engaging in some sort of psychological projection, of talking about himself, or being a brazen hypocrite is nearly overwhelming. However, inasmuch as a human predator is one who "ruthlessly exploits others," it should be enough to point out that the disgraced former House Speaker has no clue that he has no clue.  Regrettably, failing to understand the word "consent" is one of a number of modern GOP diseases.

In July, Donald Trump narrowed his short list of vice presidential candidates to three individuals: Mike Pence, occasional New Jersey governor Chris Christie, and Gingrich.  In selecting Mike Pence- a dangerous but humorless individual- Trump denied us hilarity unparalleled.






Share |

Constitutional Apathy

Propose extending background checks, banning assault weapons, preventing individuals on the "no fly" terrorism watch list from owning firearms, and the right cries about the Second Amendment. The Amendment at most safeguards the right of militia members to be armed, but few Republicans can buck the NRA.

They are not quite as fond of the First Amendment.  In February, Trump vowed as President to "open up the libel laws" so that "when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money."

In December, his campaign had released a statement including "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."  The remarks were dated December 7, 2015, probably signaling the candidate's admiration for sending Japanese-Americans to concentration camps some 75 years earlier.

Following the horrendous attack in Nice on Thursday night, vice-presidential aspirant Newt Gingrich threw a Hail Mary pass, contending "Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background and if they believe in sharia they should be deported."

After disregarding the First Amendment's first clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," Gingrich went after the second clause, which forbids "abridging the freedom of speech or of the press." He contended "anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS or al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail. Any organization which hosts such a website should be engaged in a felony. It should be closed down immediately.” (He now concedes it would be "impossible" to deport every American Muslim.... improvement, of  a sort).

And now for something different, a Republican (video below from 2014 election campaign) is disregarding a different portion of the Constitution. The Huffington Post reports

Republicans have never made it easy for President Barack Obama to confirm judges. But Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) came up with a new reason the Senate shouldn’t be filling empty court seats: It’s not our job.

Democrats including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) made repeated requests Wednesday to confirm a batch of Obama’s judicial nominees who are ready for votes. Each time they tried, Tillis objected and suggested the Senate shouldn’t be spending time on judges.

“What we get are things that have nothing to do with doing our jobs,” he said. “I’m doing my job today and objecting to these measures so we can actually get back to pressing matters.”

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 reads

The President...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law....

Senators Warren and Hirono pointed out their colleague's confusion but when asked, Tillis' spokesperson changed the subject.

That was probably wise, given that some Republicans have little interest in the United States Constitution other than the Second Amendment.  And given their thorough distortion of that Amendment, it's probably better that they ignore the document altogether.

Share |

Not About The Wall

Donald Trump had reportedly decided on his choice of a running mate, even informing Mike Pence that he was the one, before the apparent terrorist attack in Nice, France Thursday night.

Most speculation had come down to the Indiana governor and Newt Gingrich, with Chris Christie a longshot, in the last few days.

Always a sucker for bad taste, Sean Hannity led off his Thuirsday night interview (excerpt below) with Gingrich by saying "Mr. Speaker, I don't really want to tie this into politics but...." thereby signaling that he wanted to make a political issue, promptly, out of the murder of 75+ individuals. Gingrich replied to Hannity's by maintaining

Let me be as blunt and direct as I can be. Western cviilization is in a war. We should, frankly, test every person from here who is of a Muslim background and if the believe in Sharia law, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Wetern civilization.

Noting the latter statement, Salon's Sophia Tesfaye added of Gingrich's appearance

....the former speaker of the House doubled down on his reckless style of politics in either a last-ditch appeal to Trump or a craven elevation of his longstanding attacks on Islam.

Appearing on his show for the second time in as many days, Gingrich said Thursday that calling Islam a “religion of peace” is “bologna.”

“It’s not that Islamists are necessarily evil, but they’re not necessarily a religion of peace.”










“To suggest that Muslims are acceptable as long as they don’t believe in sharia," The Atlantic's David A. Graham writes, "is a little like saying Christians are OK as long as they don’t believe the Gospel." Lest anyone misunderstand him, Gingrich added "anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS or al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail. Any organization which hosts such a website should be engaged in a felony. It should be closed down immediately."

Gingrich's proposals are unworkable and unconstitutional. However, it's unlikely that would have been a problem for the presumptive nominee, who wants to build a wall likely costing tens of billions of dollars and to re-open libel laws.  Neither pragmatism nor the US Constitution would be seen by a President Trump as an impediment to his agenda.

But there is an assumption seemingly held by Tesfaye and most other people that  radical prescriptions offered by Gingrich are thoroughly compatible with Trump's intentions.   In that reading, the former House Speaker was bypassed for the Veep position despite, not because, of his approach to immigration.

Although the common view, that might be the reverse of reality.  The  respected and moderately conservative author and commentator Reihan Salam notes

I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but one of the biggest reasons Trump won the GOP presidential nomination is that he pledged to strengthen America’s borders, oppose amnesty, and reduce immigration levels.

Salam acknowledges that as Trump's coat-holder, Mike Pence will back Trump's immigration policies to the hilt. However, he reminds us

Back in 2006, when then–President George W. Bush was leading the charge for comprehensive immigration reform, Pence devised an ingenious yet almost certainly unworkable amnesty proposal. Essentially, Pence proposed that unauthorized immigrants return to their native countries and then re-enter the United States as “guest workers.” As guest workers, these women and men would enjoy legal status yet would also be denied various rights and privileges granted to lawful permanent residents. The genius of this proposal, if you can call it that, is that it infuriated every possible constituency: opponents of an amnesty for unauthorized immigrants, conservatives who favor reducing immigration levels, and advocates who want to ensure that poor immigrants are not taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers.

Trump's hatred for women (without large breasts) and Hispanics may be largely a feint, something which in its vehemence set him apart from his 17 GOP opponents and built him the popular base which has put him on the verge of being crowned presidential nominee.  Even if he is sincere, opposition to the wall combined with pressure from his Party's donor base would give him pause. The outcry from the left over his extravagant, unrealistic immigration policy may be, in a manner unsuspected, just the point: it would not be his priority as President. In its place would be something worse

Upon speculation in August, 2014 that Pence might run for the presidential nomination, two Politico writers explained

A former talk show host who led a crusade to defund Planned Parenthood in the House, Pence has worked to spotlight the fiscal issues that animate the Kochs’ political giving. People close to the brothers say he first earned their network’s admiration during the George W. Bush years, when he opposed what he deemed Big Government policies backed by his own party, including No Child Left Behind and a Medicare expansion, and repeatedly warned that the GOP was veering off course.

“There’s ideological alignment between those two universes,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Texas GOP consultant who was hired years ago to work as press secretary for former Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) by Marc Short, who was then her chief of staff. Short went on to become Pence’s chief of staff in late 2008 and now runs the Kochs’ political umbrella group Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce. “They wouldn’t have plucked Marc out of that world if they didn’t have confidence in not only Marc, but also Pence, who occupies a unique place in conservative politics right now,” said Mackowiak.

And at the time

“The whole Koch operation has become the shadow headquarters of Pence for President,” asserted a strategist with close ties to GOP congressional leadership and to Koch organizations.

The Kochs’ allies reject this characterization, suggesting instead that they’re merely fans of Pence, as they are of other fiscally conservative politicians, because of his support for the type of small-government and free-enterprise policies they see as key to prosperity.

Freedom Partners spokesman James Davis said, “Many governors, including Gov. Pence, have shown strong support for free-market policies that improve peoples’ lives, and we could use more of that type of principled leadership to drive common sense solutions in Washington.”

But there are few other Republican politicians with as many highly placed allies working in key positions in the Kochs’ political network.

Certainly there are- and many of them would find places in a Trump Administration or be formal (or informal) advisors.  Realizing it helps keep wages low, immigration is not a phobia of the Koch brothers, who do not take a hard-line view of illegal immigration, Further, Trump's brazen assurance that Mexico "will pay for the wall"-  far from evidence of his determination to build a barrier- may be a hint that he isn't committed to it.

Surely, Mexico will balk at paying one cent toward its construction or maintenance. Coupled with the near-certainty the wall would be far more expensive than he is letting on, that might be all a President Trump would need to abandon a drive toward ending immigration and replacing itt with a far more traditional, corporate-friendly Administration. The rejection of Newt Gingrich and nomination of Mike Pence might be only the beginning.









Share |

Giuliani Blames Black Parents And Whites. Fortunately, He Forgot About Hispanics, Asians.

If you're a liberal/progressive supportive of the aspirations of black Americans who recognize that police officers occasionally abuse their power, you probably are repulsed at the statements of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani on Sunday's Face the Nation. However, if you're a conservative who believes the proposals of Black Lives Matter sound more like demands, and smack of blaming whites for all problems of the dispossessed, you should be repulsed at Rudy Giuliani's attitude.

Giuliani lectured

So -- so if you want to deal -- if you want to deal with this on the black side, you've got to teach your children to be respectful to the police and you've got to teach your children that the real danger to them is not the police, the real danger to them 99 out of 100 times, 9,900 out of 1,000 times are other black kids who are going to kill them. That's the way they're going to die.

The former mayor has put in his application to be the face of white privilege as he wags his finger at black parents and tells them how to raise their children.  Teaching children to be respectful of the police is wise- but not only for young blacks but young people of all races.

Giuliani continued

Now, on the -- on the white -- on the white side, we have to understand that whether we get it or not, there is this extraordinary fear of the police, and police have to be -- have to institute a policy of zero tolerance, like we did for crime in New York. Zero tolerance. No disrespect.

Dickerson then identified a possible contradiction, telling Giuliani

you started out by saying that white Americans have to understand that this is happening in the black community, and then at the end you said, members of the black community have to teach their children to behave in front of the police. That -- those messages seem to conflict with one another.

When Giuliani denied a conflict between these two assertions, he was not confronted with a more obvious contradiction.  "There is this extraordinary fear of the police" in the black community, he noted, and then argued "police have to institute a policy of zero tolerance."

There are few more effective ways to increase fear of the police than to institute a policy of zero tolerance, which could not possibly escape Giuliani's comprehension.  He should, and does, know better. In Giuliani's own New York City, two years ago 43-year-old Eric Garner was stopped on the street by police officers who believed he was selling loose, untaxed cigarettes.   A few moments and a scuffle later, Garner was shot dead by a police officer in a sterling example of the zero tolerance Rudy adores.

The ex-mayor, however, never has been a knee-jerk conservative, even though he pretended to be so during his abortive run for president in 2008.   "Now, on the- on the white- on the side," he maintained, "we have to understand that whether we get it or not, there is this extraordinary fear of the police." Notice that the police, the men and women armed to protect the populace, do not have to understand this. White people you (or your neighbors) and I have to understand it, to put aside our ignorance or bigotry. (He also blames "all of the media," presumably because blaming one or more specific individuals would require backbone.)

This mirrors the response to Dallas of Newt Gingrich (with whom Giuliani expressed agreement), who startled liberals, conservatives, and moderates alike by declaring "If you are a normal white American, the truth is you don’t understand being black in America, and you instinctively under-estimate the level of discrimination and the level of additional risk."

No one can be sure who "a normal white American is."  Moreover, one may wonder how the former House Speaker knows all (normal) whites "don't understand being black in America."  .
Some whites do understand and some don't, and the stereotyping doesn't wash. Neither does Gingrich's failure to suggest that there might, possibly, conceivably be a problem with police culture in one or two American cities or towns. Nor should Giuliani's similar attempt at whitewashing the culpability of police officers by saying "on the white side, we have to understand, that whether we get it or not..."

What we must "get" is that Rudy Giuliani, like Newt Gingrich, believes it is not the responsibility of police officers, whose actions can help or harm in the most extreme fashion, to understand the black community. It is the responsiblity of you, your relatives, your neighbors, and your co-workers rather than of the individuals whose understanding (or lack thereof) has direct consequences for people (especially black males, and especially young black males) on the street.

The former mayor wants you to know black parents and white people generally are to blame. He doesn't want you to understand that it is more important that public figures, especially government officials, and law enforcement (generally well-meaning and dedicated) have a greater impact and must bear even more responsibility for their statements and actions.

Share |

And The Answer Is "Yes"

Leave it to The Nation, in this case Zoe Carpenter, to ask the question begging to be answered "More broadly, does it matter that the right is using criminal-justice reform to legitimize its broader anti-government ideology?"

Appearing at the Bipartisan Summit on Criminal Justice Reform last Thursday were such luminaries as Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), liberal/progressive activist and former Obama Administration employee Van Jones, Newt Gingrich, the general counsel of Koch Industries, and the CEO of FreedomWorks.  Carpenter

asked Gingrich whether he thought that any savings from shrinking prisons should be reinvested in education and other policies to reduce poverty. “A certain amount of this money has to be re-allocated particularly in the mental-health area, but also, frankly, in the retraining of people who were first time offenders,” he said. “If there’s surplus after that, I think it’ll go to reduce the deficit or to reduce debt.”

Gingrich did not say money could be re-allocated to the mental health area, but in the mental health area (perhaps for privatization).  Re-training first-time offenders would be particularly effective were there jobs to re-train them for.  And so Carpenter got her answer about the right's interest in legitimizing its anti-government ideology.  University of Pennsylvania political scientist Marie Gottschalk observes

Today’s left/right kumbaya moment on criminal justice reform rests partly on what I call the pathologies of deficit politics. Hitching the movement against mass incarceration to the purported fiscal burden of the carceral state helps reinforce the premise that eliminating government deficits and government debt should be the top national priority.

She notes the many states which "have eliminated or reduced programs for prisoners, cut back on correctional health care, and even slashed food services" and explains

If you care about reentry and about keeping people out of prison in the first place, there’s no public policy that you should support more strongly now than Medicaid expansion. Medicaid expansion gives states huge infusions of federal money to expand mental health services, substance abuse treatment, and medical care for many of the people who are most likely to end up in prison. It also allows states and localities to shift a significant portion of their correctional health care costs to the federal tab.

But while slashing social services plays a critical role in fostering delinquency and crime, high rates of incarceration- which enrage Gottschalk and virtually all criminal-justice reformers- are maintained via privatization.   As of 2013, nearly two-thirds of private prison contracts contained a "lockup" provision (illustration below from In The Public Interest), in which quotas assure that the state will maintain a particular level of capacity or its taxpayers ante up the difference.    The number of private correctional facilities is not declining and privatization is growing.

Private prisons subsist, as the ACLU had found, by "cutting corners at the expense of public safety and prison security." Conditions of squalor and assault are more common than in public facilities and there is little or no incentive for rehabilitation of inmates.  

You won't hear any of that from Newt Gingrich, of course. And you won't hear it from another reformer, "Grover Norquist," whose career has been dedicated to shrinking government to a size enabling it to be "drowned in a bathtub"  and who has charged "Democrats only support (criminal justice reform) because all their relatives are in prison."  You won't hear it either from one of the liberal/progressive reformers, Cory Booker, who once called attacks on private equity "nauseating," even while serving as a surrogate for the re-election of Barack Obama, one of private equity's (tepid) critics.

Because improvements at the margin are possible, the sound and fury of reformers may not signify nothing.  But as long as Repubs continue to press for cutting budgets at the expense of the poor and for privatization of virtually everything, the sound and fury will signify very little.

Share |

On Further Review, Pierce's Criticism Stands



The Washington Post uses the headline "Can Romney Turn This Thing Around?"Meanwhile, Investors Business Daily goes with the more accurate "Why Americans Might Tolerate This Failed President" to describe the misguided essay against Barack Obama by George Will.The columnist, long syndicated by The Washington Post's Writer's Group, contends

A significant date in the nation’s civil rights progress involved an African American baseball player named Robinson, but not Jackie. The date was Oct. 3, 1974, when Frank Robinson, one the greatest players in history, was hired by the Cleveland Indians as the major leagues’ first black manager. But an even more important milestone of progress occurred June 19, 1977, when the Indians fired him. That was colorblind equality.

Managers get fired all the time. The fact that the Indians felt free to fire Robinson — who went on to have a distinguished career managing four other teams — showed that another racial barrier had fallen: Henceforth, African Americans, too, could enjoy the God-given right to be scapegoats for impatient team owners or incompetent team executives.

Perhaps a pleasant paradox defines this political season: That Obama is African American may be important, but in a way quite unlike that darkly suggested by, for example, MSNBC’s excitable boys and girls who, with their (at most) one-track minds and exquisitely sensitive olfactory receptors, sniff racism in any criticism of their pin-up. Instead, the nation, which is generally reluctant to declare a president a failure — thereby admitting that it made a mistake in choosing him — seems especially reluctant to give up on the first African American president. If so, the 2012 election speaks well of the nation’s heart, if not its head.

In "George Will Is Not Making Any Human Sense, Continued" Charles Pierce writes

First, in my capacity as the Don King of Punditland, I will make the match right now: George Effing Will vs. the Kindly Doc Rachel Maddow. Fifteen rounds. The parking lot at Caesar's. Who ya got?

Second, if Will believes that the reason the president seems to be prospering right now is because the good heart of America is giving the black fella a break, he's climbed so far up his own ass that he could sneeze and break his collarbone.

Will, who  claims "Obama's administration is in shambles," is annoyingly prone to conflating baseball with life, or anything in it.   But I'll play that game, and you can play that at home.   When Jackie Robinson was signed as a player by Branch Rickey  

Fellow players were slow to accept Robinson as a member of their team. Some were openly hostile; others refused to speak to him or even sit near him. It didn't help that Robinson began his season in a slump, unable to make a hit in the first five games.

His teammates finally rallied to Robinson's defense after witnessing several incidents in which opponents verbally and physically assaulted Robinson. One player from the St. Louis Cardinals intentionally spiked Robinson's thigh so badly, he left a large gash, prompting outrage from Robinson's teammates. In another instance, players on the Philadelphia Phillies, knowing that Robinson had received death threats, held their bats up as if they were guns and pointed them at him.

Maybe- just maybe, of course- Obama as president has faced similar obstacles.   Apparently, Will did not notice a politically slick politician from Georgia recently say, however misleadingly

You have to wonder what he’s doing.  I’m assuming that there’s some rhythm to Barack Obama that the rest of us don’t understand. Whether he needs large amounts of rest, whether he needs to go play basketball for a while or watch ESPN, I mean, I don’t quite know what his rhythm is, but this is a guy that is a brilliant performer as an orator, who may very well get reelected at the present date, and who, frankly, he happens to be a partial, part-time president.

Yes, we (but not some columnists) get it, Newt.   The black fellow plays basketball (don't they all?) and has "some rhythm," though it is hard to determine "what his rhythm is."   Gingrich forgot to say he "dances around issues," though he remembered in January to call Obama "the most effective food stamp president in history."    He has labeled as "a partial, part-time president" (shiftless and lazy?) a chief executive who vacations far less than his immediate predecessor and whom The New York Times in May reported

insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.

“He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go,” said Thomas E. Donilon, his national security adviser. “His view is that he’s responsible for the position of the United States in the world.” He added, “He’s determined to keep the tether pretty short.”

George Will gets to have it both ways.    Without any evidence, he infers that Obama's hopes hinge on white guilt because voters are "especially reluctant to give up on the first African American president" and won't want to admit "it made a mistake in choosing him."   He calls on voters to reject his candidacy, like the Indians who "felt free to fire (Frank) Robinson," which "showed that another racial barrier had fallen."

Yet, October 3, 1974 also had been "a significant date in the nation's civil rights progress" because a black man was hired as a manager.   In the same manner, according to Will, America demonstrated it was not racist (though unwise, disregarding "its head") when it "hired" Barack Obama; it will prove "an even more important milestone of progress" when it fires him.   Convenient.

Will believes (or pretends to believe) that the U.S.A. struck a note for racial progress when a black was chosen as President.   Voters in Democratic caucuses and primaries arguably (full disclosure: I voted for Clinton) did so when it made a one-term Democratic Senator the nominee of the party over a heavily-favored spouse of an ex-President popular with the party's voters and establishment.  In the general election, however, the nominee faced a bad presidential, and even worse vice-presidential, candidate in an atmosphere in which Charles Manson, if released from prison, could have run a strong race against a Republican.   The GOP label was toxic at the time because any connection with the incumbent, George W. Bush, was deadly.  (Four years later, it took Mr. Bush's brother even to mention his name at the party's convention, and that was done somewhat defensively.)

Being a baseball aficionado, Will might do well to acknowledge while the opposing club is not strong and his own clean-up hitter is mediocre, his team is lousy, and most people realize it.



Share |

Romney's GOP To Average Americans:  Pay Up!


You've read, and/or heard, it one hundred times so far, so 101 times should be no problem:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

There are so many things wrong with Romney's statement at the May fund-raiser at the home of a sex-crazed hedge fund manager.    Romney believes the 47% (actually, 46.4%, but why quibble over a million or so people?) who pay no federal income tax pay no income tax whatsoever, disregarding the 43 states which impose a personal income tax.   Romney believes this 47% will necessarily vote for Barack Obama, because, in the manner of Marxist economic determinism, he believes individuals will always vote their economic interests, which bears no relation to reality in the U.S.A. (and if it did, there would be no Republican Party).

Romney thinks these parasites of his imagination believe they are "entitled" to have government "care for them," which, given that he presents no evidence, and there is little evidence, for that opinion, marks him as an elitist par excellence.   And the former governor believes health care, food, and housing are entitlements.   Perhaps individuals are entitled to health care, food, and housing, but, alas, this nation has never accepted that idea.

Many Americans, especially Republicans, have latched onto the idea that nearly half the population is composed of able-bodied adults sitting on their rear ends rather than working at a job.    Presumably, Romney is irritated those 80-year old guys and gals are collecting Social Security when they should be out there working.      According to the pie chart (below) from the Tax Policy Center via Brad Plumer, 10.3% of the adult population (as households) are elderly.  Most of those- 66%- pay no federal income taxes on their Social Security income.   If a person files as an individual, he/she would pay income tax on Social Security benefits if total income exceeds $25,000; if a couple is filing jointly, there would be no tax liability on the benefits if the combined income is not over $32,000.   (Most individuals and couples are below the threshold and therefore pay no tax on these earned benefits.)

Of the remaining 36.1% of loafers, 28.3% are working but make so little they're not subject to federal income tax, but pay payroll tax; 6.9% are not old but claim income under $20,000; and 1% are classified by the Tax Policy Center as "other."     Ironically, a lot of the working poor escape paying federal income taxes because of GOP-sponsored tax cuts, in which in exchange for reductions  in upper-income rates, Republican Presidents have agreed to give a break to individuals and families on the lower end of the scale.    Thus, George W. Bush would boast on February 19, 2004:  "So the tax relief was passed, not only to help individuals, but to help our small business sector. We also increased the child credit to $1,000. We reduced the marriage penalty. I like to remind people that the tax code ought to encourage marriage, not discourage marriage." Seems like we want people to stay married, and the tax code ought to encourage that."   Old Republican tax policy:  lower the rates for the deserving and the undeserving alike.  New Republican tax policy:  lower the rates for the wealthy, increase them for students, the working poor, and elderly people.

The chart below, from Jon Perr (where he got it, I don't know) shows how the wealthy would make out like bandits under Romney's tax plan.   It does not, however, account for the deductions (such as for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, employer-provided health insurance) which benefit mostly the middle class, which he would need to reduce or eliminate to meet his stated goal of deficit reduction.   Nor does it include any policy changes made to accommodate his outrage that   many of the working poor and the lower-middle class are excused from paying income taxes to Washington.

Could it be that Mitt Romney himself, consistent with the old playground taunt, "it takes one to know one," pays no federal income taxes?   Harry Reid believes so, and has said so.   But Mitt probably has paid federal income taxes.    In January, Alexander Burns of Politico reported

Hours before he plans to release his 2010 tax returns, Mitt Romney noted at the GOP debate in Tampa that under his opponent’s tax plan, he wouldn’t have paid any taxes at all.

The moment came after Newt Gingrich joked about Romney’s 15 percent tax rate, saying: “I’m prepared to describe my flat tax as the Mitt Romney flat tax.”

Romney jumped in to ask: Do you tax capital gains at 15 percent or zero percent?
Gingrich’s answer: Zero.

“Under that plan, I’d have paid no taxes in the last two years,” Romney said, alluding to the fact that all his income is from investments.

So Mitt probably paid federal income taxes- at least in recent years.  However, he has not paid them on work he has done, but merely on capital gains.   And in the one year (2009) for which he has released full returns, he paid at the whopping rate of 13.9%, far less than did most of the people who work and pay income taxes.   Oddly, that is a part of the federal income tax system he did not complain about.




Share |

Still The Same


In his article about the assault a young Mitt Romney led against John Lauber at Cranbrook School, The Washington Post's Jason Horowitz writes of the guilt-ridden prefect, who should have stopped the attack, and of the aftermath of the incident:

Friedemann, guilt ridden, made a point of not talking about it with his friend and waited to see what form of discipline would befall Romney at the famously strict institution. Nothing happened.

Romney learned well.  In January, Reuters reported

... in October 1993, Bain Capital, co-founded by Mitt Romney, became majority shareholder in a steel mill that had been operating since 1888.

It was a gamble. The old mill, renamed GS Technologies, needed expensive updating, and demand for its products was susceptible to cycles in the mining industry and commodities markets.

Less than a decade later, the mill was padlocked and some 750 people lost their jobs. Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they'd been promised, and their pension benefits were cut by as much as $400 a month.

What's more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company's underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees.

The steel company declared bankruptcy in 2001.   Mitt Romney headed Bain from its founding in 1984 until the end of 1999, aside from 2000 to 2002, when he took a hiatus to run the Winter Olympics.     And he made out just fine and has "received dividends from Bain after his departure. He accumulated a personal fortune of between $190 million and $250 million, according to campaign disclosure forms."

Daily Kos' Jed Lewison is skeptical that the former governor will address criticism of his activities at Bain, whether the dismantling of GS Technologies or other companies.    He remarks

The issue isn't that GST collapsed or that its workers lost their jobs.   It's that Romney and Bain Capital made enormous profits on the deal despite the failure of the company.   They loaded it up with debt, bankrupting the company and destroying its pension fund, walking away with millions- leaving employees out of work and taxpayers on the hook for the pension fund guarantees.

Newt Gingrich, displaying the consistency and commitment to principle which has characterized his personal and political careers, has begun campaigning for Romney.    Back in January, however, he asked "I do draw a distinction between looting a company, leaving behind broken families and broken neighborhoods and leaving behind a factory that should be there...I think it’s a legitimate question about exactly what happened. Where did the money go? Who got the money? What happened to the people involved?”

A lot of the money went to Mitt Romney, off to a Swiss bank account and to the Cayman Islands.   A lot of the people lost their jobs, but Mitt Romney became governor of Massachusetts and, he plans, President of the United States.    And he is still the Willard Romney of the tony private school in Michigan, still doing as he pleases with little accountability.



Share |

The China Guy



Terming President Obama "a near-supplicant to Beijing," Mitt Romney in March had taken to the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and vowed

Unless China changes its ways, on day one of my presidency I will designate it a currency manipulator and take appropriate counteraction. A trade war with China is the last thing I want, but I cannot tolerate our current trade surrender.


We must also maintain military forces commensurate to the long-term challenge posed by China's build-up. For more than a decade now we have witnessed double-digit increases in China's officially reported military spending. And even that does not capture the full extent of its spending on defense. Nor do the gross numbers tell us anything about the most troubling aspects of China's strategy, which is designed to exert pressure on China's neighbors and blunt the ability of the United States to project power into the Pacific and keep the peace from which China itself has benefited.

Romney's focus now has shifted westward.      A week ago, he stated on CNN "In terms of a geopolitical foe, a nation that's on the Security Council, and as of course a massive nuclear power, Russia is the geopolitical foe."       After being roundly criticized, Romney later in the week contended

In contrast to President Obama, Governor Romney is clear-eyed about the geopolitical challenges Russia pose. Russia's nuclear arsenal, its energy resources, its geographic position astride Europe and Asia, the veto it wields on the UN Security Council, and the creeping authoritarianism of its government make Russia a unique geopolitical problem that frustrates progress on numerous issues of vital concern to the United States.

Romney has failed to make the argument that Russia presents "a unique geopolitical problem."      And it will not do so, as long as the People's Republic of China exists.     Although the GOP candidate did not address the threat posed by the PRC, his recent, overheated statements about Russia represent a critical pivot, a change of focus.      

Meanwhile, the Miami Herald has reported

Billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his family, who have kept Newt Gingrich's flagging presidential campaign alive with donations, seem poised to send millions of dollars to Republican-allied groups and possibly a "super" political action committee backing front-runner Mitt Romney, according to fundraisers with ties to the casino owner.


Adelson, his wife Miriam and other family members have donated $16.5 million to a Gingrich-backing super PAC, which is allowed by law to take unlimited campaign donations.


A private dinner March 22 at Adelson's Las Vegas home drew the chairman of the Republican National Committee plus some of the GOP's best-known fundraisers and donors. The diners were in Las Vegas early for a weekend summit of the Republican Jewish Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group that Adelson has backed heavily.


During the soiree, the Adelson family members privately sent strong signals to Romney allies that they'd donate millions of dollars, perhaps on par with their support for Gingrich, to a super PAC that has heavily supported the former Massachusetts governor's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination - assuming that Gingrich eventually drops out. Gingrich is badly trailing and as of the end of February, his campaign was in debt.


Adelson, a staunch Israel supporter whose fortune is pegged by Forbes at almost $25 billion, is a prime example of the new breed of donor who, thanks to court rulings in 2010, can give unlimited amounts to outside groups that spend independently to support candidates.

Israel is not the only country Sheldon Adelson is enthusiastic about.     In May, 2004 Adelson opened the Sands Macao and in less than three years, Macao, a special administrative region of the PRC, became the most popular gambling destination in the world.     Soon, Adelson became the third wealthiest American.    In 2008 he boasted

“We’re the largest investor of any kind in the history of China.” In early August, during the Olympic Games, Las Vegas Sands will launch the Adelson Center for U.S.-China Enterprise, in Beijing, which seems positioned to wield substantial influence. If you were an American businessman coming to China, the Sands’s Bill Weidner testified at the Suen trial, “you might need a logistics partner to deliver your goods. You might need a manufacturer to manufacture your goods. You might need a law firm. You might need an accounting firm. Whatever it would take to get you involved in business in China, we would—the center would help arrange for you.”

It's no surprise, then, that in March 2007 Adelson had

said that many members of Congress criticize China for its human-rights record, but he added that he liked the way the Chinese run their country. “People seem to be living a good life in China,” he said. “Look at the incredible progress China has made. How can someone say they’re doing the wrong thing?” He added that those who don’t approve of the way China is governed need not go to the country. “I don’t think the U.S. should be the policeman of the whole world,” he said.

Adelson's holdings haven't escaped the attention of the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which

are probing the Las Vegas Sands for alleged bribery of foreign officials. The investigation was launched after a civil lawsuit by a former company executive alleged the casino had “involvement with Chinese organized crime groups, known as Triads, connected to the junket business.” The Sands is headed by Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino owner who has given millions toward Newt Gingrich’s bid for the GOP presidential nomination. Adelson denies any wrongdoing.

Earlier, the casino mogul had offered kind words for the former Massachusetts governor while actively bankrolling a hopeful Gingrich.       Throughout, Romney was all hot and bothered about a looming threat posed by mainland China.     It may be a coincidence, but at least a happy one, that Mitt's tune is changing just as big money may be coming his way from one of the behemoth's proponents.





Share |

Race.   Not Race.   Race.



Don't blame me.     And don't blame Newt Gingrich.    Blame David Plouffe.

Gingrich was criticized when he blasted President Obama for allegedly bringing race into the discussion of the shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida.      Queried about the matter, the President had stated "When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids....    If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon."

On ABC's This Week (transcript here), George Stephanopoulos played for presidential adviser David Plouffe the video clip in which Newt Gingrich commented

What the president said, in a sense, is disgraceful. It's not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified, no matter what the ethnic background. Is the president suggesting that, if it had been a white who'd been shot, that would be OK, because it wouldn't look like him? That's just nonsense. 

Plouffe told Stephanopoulos

Well, first of all, the president spoke out, I thought, very powerfully. And, in fact, there's been broad agreement, almost universal agreement, including the people running for president, that there ought to be a thorough investigation of this.  

Those comments are reprehensible. And, you know, Speaker Gingrich is clearly in the last throes of his political career. And, you know, you can make a decision whether to go out with some shred of dignity or say these irresponsible, reckless things, and he's clearly chosen the latter path, and that's unfortunate for the country.

Gingrich was waxing indignant that the President had injected a racial angle into a shooting which appears to have had a racial component, notwithstanding whether it will prove to have been a bias crime.    On another network (CNN), South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, disagreeing with "the criticism by our guys," noted "We all know there’s a racial component to this, and when the president highlights it, I don’t think it adds a whole lot."

On the same morning that Senator Graham would defend the President and Plouffe would attack Gingrich as "reprehensible," Plouffe appeared on another of the Sunday morning talk shows (transcript here).      There, asked by host David Gregory why Obama "doesn't lead more forcefully" a conversation about race, he replied

First of all, he's president of every American.  But I think whether you look at the comments he made when the MLK Memorial was established, if you look at some of the comments he's made throughout his presidency, he spoke very powerfully about the journey that the country's been on.  He's now a very important part of that journey, obviously.  His election made history in that respect.

So I think his leadership here has been profound.  I think he's definitely had a huge impact on African-American girls and boys thinking that they can do anything with their life.  But obviously, we've got to continue to make progress here.  

Plouffe said Obama's "election made history" and the President has "definitely had a huge impact on African-American girls and boys thinking that they can do anything with their life." On another network, Newt Gingrich was "reprehensible" for talking race.    One moment an Obama adviser trumpets comments made by Obama "when the MLK Memorial was established" and argues the President "spoke very powerfully about the journey that the country's been on.       He's now a very important part of that journey, obviously.    His election made history in that respect."      Gingrich's race-tinged remarks, however, were "reprehensible."

It is a cynical, slimy campaign which has been waged by the Obamites.     When there is a comment by a GOP politician implying that Barack Obama was not born in the U.S.A., is a Muslim, or in some way does not fit the image of the conventional, traditional American President, there is ridicule or (largely justified) outrage from the Center for American Progress, MSNBC, and other Obama supporters.      The next day, we are reminded of the rebirth of the nation, and the remaking of the world, inspired by the election of a black President.    

They cannot have it both ways, and the first impulse is more accurate.     The country has been transformed in the past three years neither by expanded opportunities for young black men, revitalization of urban black neighborhoods, or the flowering of racial harmony.Progress on these fronts has been, well, nonexistent.        If the nation has been on some sort of New Age "journey," the destination might not be what we hope for.

Share |

Romney And King:    Perfect Together


In the video below from Wednesday night's GOP debate, John King asked "What is the biggest misconception about you in the public debate right now?" and after two of the other candidates responded, the following exchange ensued:

John King, CNN:    Governor Romney?

Mitt Romney:     We've got to restore America's promise in this country, where people know that with hard work and education that they're going to be secure and prosperous and that their kids will have a brighter future than they've had.    For that to happen we're going to have to have dramatic fundamental change in Washington, D.C.    We're going to have to create more jobs, have less debt, and shrink the size of government.    I'm the only person in this race...

King:   Is there a misconception about you?    The question is the misconception.

Romney:   You know, you get to ask the questions you want, I get to give the answers I want.

King:    Fair enough.








David Atkins believes it tells you all we need to know about Mitt Romney and about traditional media.    He blogs

Except to repeat whatever talking points his consultants give him, I don't think Mitt has ever in his life been forced to toe anyone's line but his own.    And it shows.

Also, John King's attitude is pretty reflective of the current state of our traditional media.    The wingers can say whatever they want, regardless of whether it has any bearing on the truth or the questions asked, and that's just fine by them.

A third possibility:    it says a whole lot about John King.    It wasn't as if he shouldn't have been prepared.   At the January debate in Charleston, South Carolina, King asked Gingrich about the big (huge) news of the day, that the second Mrs. Gingrich was accepting of the affair Newt was having with Callista.    It had been flogged all day, not by MSNBC, The New York Times, or even CNN, but by conservative blogger Matt Drudge.    Still, Gingrich sensed political gold in responding "I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office.    And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.     I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.”

King was fairly passive in his own response.     At least in that instance, though, the audience was (not surprisingly) all in Gingrich's corner while he attacked what most Republicans imagine is a liberal media protecting Democrats.      Last night, King could have suggested that he had hoped Romney would answer the same question which Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich already had answered.    Or he might have told Romney that he thought he'd appreciate the opportunity to rebut a false accusation made about him.     Or slightly more combatively, King might have noted that the voters- Republican voters- get to know more about the candidates when they answer the questions which are posed to them, as Paul and Gingrich had just done.      At worse, King could have said nothing, rather than responding in the worst possible manner-    "fair enough," as if he agreed with the candidate.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Romney, recognizing how rudeness to the moderator in the debates has benefited Gingrich, was going to use any excuse to attack King.       The question, after all, was a slow curve- what candidate wouldn't want to be asked an open-ended question begging him to emphasize his own virtues?       Romney could have acknowledged that many people believe that his success in business (actually, extreme wealth through predatory capitalism, but it's a question easily spun) precluded him from caring about Americans who have lost their home or their job and face escalating gas prices because of Barack Obama's failed economic policies.        He would have simultaneously addressed a major concern about his candidacy, revealed a gentler ("compassionate conservatism," anybody?) side to his personality, and slammed President Obama, the latter to thunderous applause.

Nevertheless, Mitt Romney found it more gratifying to attack a weak journalist, and John King played the tool.

Share |

It's All That Guy Obama's Fault



Irresponsible remarks by the three leading GOP presidential candidates at last night's debate in Arizona did not stop at the water's edge.

Rick Santorum curiously contended President Obama "did reach out immediately to Syria and established an embassy there."         Only Barack Obama did not establish or re-establish the embassy in Damascus.      Our ambassador to Syria was recalled in 2005 following the assassination, to which the Syrian government may have been connected, of the former Lebanese prime minister in Beirut.      But our embassy was not closed (and hence Obama did not re-open it) but rather, as Wikipedia notes, "A series of chargés d’affaires represented the U.S. until the appointment of Robert Stephen Ford in January 2011."

An aerial strike against Iran might, at some point, be unavoidable.     But Romney, who vigorously asserted Obama "does not want Israel to take action- that he opposes military action," ignores the obstacles Tel Aviv would face.     The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller recently wrote

Should Israel decide to launch a strike on Iran, its pilots would have to fly more than 1,000 miles across unfriendly airspace, refuel in the air en route, fight off Iran’s air defenses, attack multiple underground sites simultaneously — and use at least 100 planes.
     
That is the assessment of American defense officials and military analysts close to the Pentagon, who say that an Israeli attack meant to set back Iran’s nuclear program would be a huge and highly complex operation. They describe it as far different from Israel’s “surgical” strikes on a nuclear reactor in Syria in 2007 and Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981.

“All the pundits who talk about ‘Oh, yeah, bomb Iran,’ it ain’t going to be that easy,” said Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, who retired last year as the Air Force’s top intelligence official and who planned the American air campaigns in 2001 in Afghanistan and in the 1991 Gulf War.

The GOP front-runner maintained also the President "opposes military action. This is a president who should have instead communicated to Iran that we are prepared, that we are considering military options. They're not just on the table."

President Obama, timid peacenik that he is, has said that launching a war- or, as Romney put it, "military action"- is not ideal.     In the same statement, however, the President added "But we are keeping all our options on the table,”  which sounds a lot different than "they're not just on the table."     Obama's assessment, unlike Romney's charge, is consistent with the Israeli spokesman in Washington whom Bumiller explained

said the country continued to push for tougher sanctions on Iran and reiterated that Israel, like the United States,  "is keeping all options on the table."

Leaving the issue of Iran, host John King asked Newt Gingrich "on the question of a more prominent role for women, good idea or bad idea?"

It would seem a simple question- good idea or bad idea, yes or no.      But not for Gingrich, who responded

Well, look, I think it's a misleading question in the modern era. You live in a world of total warfare. Anybody serving our country in uniform virtually anywhere in the world could be in danger at virtually any minute. A truck driver can get blown up by a bomb as readily as the infantrymen.

So I would say that you ought to ask the combat leaders what they think is an appropriate step, as opposed to the social engineers of the Obama administration.  

Hand it to Newt:     he knows the lingo.     Referring to foreign policy and military advisors as "social engineers"  is pretty heady stuff for a guy who advocates replacing school janitors with schoolchildren.        King neglected to ask Gingrich his interpretation of Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which specifies "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."       Although in the spirit of "monkey see, monkey do," Santorum also invoked "social engineering" he cautioned "I would defer to at least hearing the recommendations of those involved. But I think we have civilian control of the military, and these are things that should be decided not just by the generals."

In regard to the Armed Forces, the President of the United States, not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or other military figure, is commander-in-chief.      When action can be taken against Muammar Ghaddafi, Osama bin Laden, or Somali pirates, the decision is that of the President.     It is his/responsibility, and he who will be held accountable, to the nation, the world,  and history





Share |

The Romney Vision


Reflecting on the upcoming Labor Day holiday, Robert Reich Reflecting on the upcoming Labor Day holiday, Robert Reich noticed "Big American corporations are making more money, and creating more jobs, outside the United States than in it" while CEO pay has "soared" and " the ratio of corporate profits to wages is now higher than at any time since just before the Great Depression." Soon afterward, Politifact grudgingly conceded "Reich's claim is essentially correct."

Little has changed in the succeeding five months, though private sector employment has risen, which no Republican dares admit.        President Obama has extended the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy and the struggling alike while the overall, combined tax rate of Americans is lower than at anytime in the past half century.

And so the leading GOP presidential contender continues to campaign sans substance, as Joe Scarborough noted this morning on the cleverly named Morning Joe ("powered by Starbucks!").            Earlier this month, Mitt Romney charged 

President Obama wants to make us a European style welfare state, where instead of being a merit society we're an entitlement society, where government's role is to take from some and give to others.     What I know is if they do that, they'll substitute envy for ambition,and they'll poison the very spirit of America and keep us from being one nation under God.

Romney was on message, having late last year boasted

Let me make this very clear.    As President of the United States, I will devote myself to an American Century.      And I will never, ever apologize for America....

I believe we are an exceptional country with a unique destiny and role in the world.      Not exceptional, as the President has derisively said, in the way that the British think Great Britain is exceptional or the Greeks think Greece is exceptional.    In Barack Obama's profoundly mistaken view, there is nothing unique about the United States.

There is little if no substance there, mostly generalities and platitudes, bereft of facts or figures and not even advancing a cogent argument.          Not surprisingly, columnist Eugene Robinson finds that Romney's "core message" seems to be "yes, I made a ton of money.      You got a problem with that."     (The second part would sound more natural, though, coming from Romney's prime surrogate, Chris Christie.)         

Robinson concedes that Romney may successfully adapt his message and defeat Obama.       But perhaps unaware that he has shifted his argument, he concludes of the candidate "what he doesn't seem to have is a compelling narrative about the kind of America he envisions and the road he will take to us there."   

There is no roadmap- winning candidates generally avoid specifics- but there is a compelling narrative about the kind of America the former governor envisions. Borrowing from the Pledge of Allegiance,  it's "one nation under God." Romney, unlike that acolyte of Jeremiah Wright, believes in God- however strange his religion may seem to many voters.         And practically every American professes to believe in God, however he or she may define, or defy, the deity. 

America is the best (exceptional) anywhere and deserving of an "American century"- us and us alone!        Romney hints at a nation based entirely on merit which, many non-minority citizens believe, once existed.  In a nod (which no one will recognize as such) to political correctness, Romney takes a swipe at Europe, which most Americans, including Donald Rumsfeld, don't especially like- and which is economically distressed currently.           

Blacks and Hispanics, roughly as patriotic as the rest of the country, may nonetheless may be less enthusiastic about claims of exceptionalism and uniqueness.      This is of little significance, however, given that the base of the G.O.P.  is white and the party's opportunity to tap into minority support is somewhat limited with Barack Obama on the ballot.       

This is not strictly, or even primarily, a racial appeal, though the reference to "take from some and give to others" is an echo- however subtle- of Newt Gingrich's "food-stamp president" knock on the first black Chief Executive.        Meanwhile, the Village might find in Romney's skepticism of an "entitlement society" a helpful skepticism about Medicare and Social Security.      To most Americans, who intuitively recognize those programs as earned benefits, "entitlement" has a different implication.        And that is especially so when when contrasted with "merit," which itself is considered in many minds incompatible with affirmative action, a bugaboo among many white Americans.

In a throwback to a theme adopted, and dropped, by the 2012 McCain campaign (video below), the objective is to paint the candidate himself as a traditional American patriot, godly, and even macho- never, ever apologizing for America.  (In Republican fantasy, Barack Obama always apologizes, never mind Osama bin Laden, Muammar Ghaddafi, and Somali pirates.)        In this formulation, Mitt Romney will be a conventional American president, like we used to have before this strange guy somehow got elected.         Romney doesn't have to say that he is white, was born and raised in the American heartland, and doesn't practice radical religion.         (A more overt message would be objectionable to the media and the vast majority of citizens.)       The voter understands- and little else matters.

Share |