Ignoring the Real Culprit(s)

According to CNN, Maggie Haberman's upcoming book will feature the New York Times reporter and CNN contributor writing

that in the immediate aftermath of the November 3 elections, Trump seemed to recognize he had lost to Biden. He asked advisers to tell him what had gone wrong. He comforted one adviser, saying, "We did our best." Trump told junior press aides, "I thought we had it," seemingly almost embarrassed by the outcome, according to Haberman.

But at some point, Trump's mood changed, Haberman writes, and he abruptly informed aides he had no intention of departing the White House in late January 2021 for Biden to move in.

Left Twitter was not amused:

John Pavlovitz- Maggie Haberman is another in a long line of people who were willing to let democracy die on the altar of a book deal.

Keith Olbermann- Trump: "I'm just not going to leave." Oh good, another fact, vital to the safety and continuation of the nation, that @maggieNYT withheld from the public for many months if not a year-and-a-half so she could put it in her fucking book

Michael J. Stern- Maggie Haberman's new book includes Trump being so unhinged, he refused to leave the White House after losing. Journalists who write books have a conflict of interest when they withhold valuable information so they can include it in their book, years in the future. It stinks.

Amie Wexler- Why didn’t Maggie Haberman report on this in real time? Don’t buy her book. Don’t reward this behavior.

And more, virtually all reflecting one or more these sentiments.

It's not clear how the not-quite lame duck period between November 3, 2020 and January 20, 2021 would have been altered had we been informed earlier- even assuming Haberman knew as it occurred- that President Trump was considering staying put. There was an attempted coup on January 6, 2021 even though Bill Maher and a few other individuals had been warning that Trump would not go quietly.

Still, let's stipulate that if a knowing journalist had righteously spilled the beans, the attempted insurrection would have been aborted before the mob arrived to try to take over the Capitol.  

Maggie Haberman earns a very fine salary, very likely somewhere this side of $200,000 annually, as a reporter for The New York Times.  Whatever her faults or prejudices, she has been able to maintain employment for approximately seven years at arguably the greatest newspaper in the world, and that's no mean feat.

By contrast, the most successful, by audience share, host on one of the three cable news networks is reputed to take down (by one estimate) in the vicinity of $30 million per year. That's real money. Rachel Maddow appears on air typically once a week and otherwise on election nights and at other, selected, times, in addition to working on special projects. It is not a daunting schedule.

If NBC Universal offered me this sweet deal, I'd take it, as would virtually every other human being, and evidently she's a cash cow for the network.  Nonetheless, it's a tremendous amount of money, which the network wouldn't be offering if it couldn't afford to do so- and didn't have more money where it came from.

Sure, The New York Times, frequently slammed for its imperfections by Soledad O'Brien and other liberal critics, could do more investigative reporting. But the Times, The Washington Post, and the (very) few other newspapers of national scope perform quite well their primary function, presenting the news fully and objectively.

Their reporters strive, usually successfully, to provide explanation and context lacking in cable news.  They work more hours at a more difficult job (typically) being paid less money than the talking heads at Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.

It is not Rachel Maddow's fault that she has become extremely wealthy without laboring in the vineyards with the likes of Maggie Haberman. The blame should not attach primarily to Maddow and her colleagues but to NBC Universal, CNN Global (and ultimately Warner Brothers Discovery), and Fox News Media. Each has available to it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year to offer its viewers actual in-depth information.

None will do it. None will do it because broadcast news has no incentive other than to present the most charismatic and most entertaining hosts for the pleasure of their viewers, most of whom are more interested in having their own views echoed by their personal favorites than in becoming more informed on any subject. It is past time for the left, on Twitter and elsewhere, to affix blame for corporate irresponsibility where it belongs, and it's not on the print media.

Maggie Haberman or major newspapers are often blasted for revealing information later than they should. Meanwhile, individuals such as Sean Hannity, Jake Tapper, and Rachel Maddow rarely reveal or uncover anything we didn't already know, are paid eight figure salaries, and are treated like rock stars. It's enough to make the angels weep.

Share |

Ridiculous Punditry

In Politico Magazine, Jack Shafer concludes

The human impulse to treat an inauguration as a sacred and holy event akin to a coronation can never be eliminated, only suppressed. Until the United States switches from a presidential system to a parliamentary form of government, where the top political leader can be cashiered and replaced inside a day without pomp or circumstance, we’re stuck with all the fussery that meets an incoming president.

Short of dosing commentators, anchors and reporters with Seconal to prevent their central nervous systems from over-reacting to Inauguration Day proceedings, maybe we could embed a house cynic on each network and newspaper to police or at least tamp down the irrational exuberance that rains down on most inaugurations. Think of the house cynic as the one trusted to stay off the sauce all night long so that when the party ends, a sober somebody is still standing to drive all the drunks home safely.

Shafer recognizes that coverage of the yesterday's inaugural was a little worse than most. He knocks The New York Times, which "swallowed whole the recent myth-making that has transformed (Joe) Biden from a shifty politician into a statesman; also, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.

And especially MSNBC, where

At day’s end, Rachel Maddow confessed to having worked her way through an entire box of Kleenex during the festivities and Joy Reid gushed like a partisan about the event. “They gave us fashion. They gave us celebrity. They gave us hope,” Reid said of the “incredible” inauguration.

Also joy, as the video below indicates, although J.A.R. can be excused for being personally prejudiced in favor of that adjective.  

 

More soberly:

I really appreciated Biden's instruction to the staff he swore in that they must treat everyone with respect, and that he will fire anyone on the spot if he hears that they were disrespectful to a co-worker. I know that can't be enforced, but it is great to set as a standard

— Dean Baker (@DeanBaker13) January 20, 2021

At least Baker acknowledges that Biden made a vow he can't deliver on. However, the promise that political appointees will treat one another with respect is a little empty coming from someone who elevated to vice-presidential nominee a politician who directed a race-based attack on his character in a (successful) calculated fund-raising ploy. And after Biden was accused of sexual impropriety by two women, Harris markedly failed to defend her fellow Democrat. 

When Biden put Harris on his ticket, it demonstrated the strategic brilliance of the California senator in trying to undercut Biden by veiled, and not so veiled, criticism. It demonstrated also that Biden's commitment to people treating others with respect is subject to circumstances, to which principle and integrity are subordinate.

It should not be necessary to explain the importance of print and broadcast journalists (the latter far more guilty) holding their enthusiasm for an incoming president until he at least does something, maybe on January 21 quadrennially.  The failure to do so does neither the public nor the president any good.

 

Share |

Issue Avoided

Questions posed at a debate should give candidates an opportunity to shed light upon what they would do in the office for which they are running. Rachel Maddow failed that test when in Atlanta, she asked (beginning at 1:51 of the video below) of four candidates- Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Pete Buttigieg- a question about impeachment. None of those questions was pertinent because none pertained to any actions they would do if elected President.





Serendipitously, we may have gotten a hint from what six of the candidates said in their closing statement.

Cory Booker pledged to bring "people together to create transformative change, not just beat Donald Trump." Amy Klobuchar wants to "get those independents and moderate Republicans who cannot stomach this guy anymore" to build a coalition and not "just beat Donald Trump." Tulsi Gabbard maintained her "operating principles" would be "inclusion, unity, respect, aloha."Echoing Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg argued "that era must be characterized not by exclusion but by belonging."

Kamala Harris, who appears really, really not to like Donald Trump, nevertheless struck a similar tone, stating "We also need someone who can unify the party and the country and who has the experience of having done that." Even (allegedly) Fightin' Bernie got into the act, arguing "I will lead an administration that will look like America, will end the divisiveness brought by Trump, and bring us together." It is to be wished that Sanders and Harris were being disingenuous.  The others actually appear sincere.

In an upset, Joe Biden didn't say anything as stupid or naive as these statements. However, he set the pace in this cycle (Barack Obama has retired the trophy) for blind faith, contending in May in New Hampshire

I just think there is a way, and the thing that will fundamentally change things is with Donald Trump out of the White House — not a joke — you will see an epiphany occur among many of my Republican friends,” he said. “And it’s already beginning. In the House now, you’ve seen people that in fact were not willing to vote for any Democratic initiative, even if they agreed with it, because they didn’t want to be the odd person out if it wasn’t going to pass. There’s no sense in getting politically beaten for something that’s not going to happen. But you are seeing the talk, even the dialogue is changing.

Many of us shook our head or even laughed upon reading this from a guy with decades in politics and eight years serving the Muslim from Kenya (a characterization condoned by those fellow who are going to have an epiphany).

However, Biden's failure to deliver something anywhere as ridiculous as his earlier remarks about GOP intentions, as well as the silly remarks of some of his rivals, suggests that Maddow's question about impeachment, at the beginning of the event, fell way off the mark. Instead of asking the candidates about their approach to impeachment in the Senate or on the campaign trail, the multi-million dollar host would have served the public well with a question such as "If elected President, would you seriously consider pardoning Donald Trump?"

A few of the candidates may have tried to get off the hook by maintaining that the Department of Justice in their administration would be impartial, would evaluate the situation based on the facts at the time, or would see that Justice is done. However, after less than three years of President Trump, few voters still believe the Justice Department ever is likely to be completely objective.

Nor does anyone want to hear it. Democratic voters would be unsatisfied, Republican voters would not be appeased, and independents would be unimpressed with the candidates' lack of resolve. The proper answer- given that a President should not give the Attorney General specific instructions- would be any variation of "I would insist that anyone who is Attorney General in my administration will believe that no one is above the law, and will act accordingly."

Preferably, he or she would make the statement with the emphasis on "no one." Given that six of the candidates responded to the question with some vision that their mission as President would be to encourage Americans to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya"- instead of enacting needed change- we should not be surprised if Donald Trump, upon being defeated next November, gets to skate.  

There is, nonetheless, a more positive scenario. I may be putting too much emphasis on boring and bland closing statement segment all too common in televised debates. Better if voters had had the opportunity to hear candidates comment on whether in their Administration Donald Trump would be held accountable to the rule of law than to be subjected to a stupid round of opening questions from someone who demonstrated that being a Rhodes scholar is sound and fury and image, signifying nothing.

Share |

Be Not Distracted

Slate's television critic, Willa Paskin, was not impressed with what clearly was hype (admittedly, itself a hyped term) coming from Rachel Maddow's Twitter feed and MSNBC before Maddow revealed two pages of one of Donald Trump's income tax return on Tuesday evening.  Paskin observed

As the show went on, it became clear that Maddow knew she didn't quite have the scoop that had been promised. “What would we have to see, what would we hope to get in mail,” she asked Johnston, “if we were going to get to the real meat of Donald Trump’s foreign ties?”—i.e., what would be more meaningful than the tax form that we have? Speaking to Chris Hayes and Johnston, she said, “The story here to me is, a) we have obtained this [tax form], b) that this stuff is obtainable.” “BREAKING: Trump’s tax returns theoretically obtainable. Tonight, 9 p.m. ET. MSNBC. (Seriously)” does make for a less rousing tweet.

Acknowledging that "whatever information they happen to contain," the tax returns "constitute a major scoop," Paskin nonetheless adds

Maddow’s social media team ensured the highest possible ratings for that scoop. But if ever a story should have been delivered in a stentorian, fuddy-duddy, nonpartisan manner, this was it. In positioning it as a grand revelation, a vital step in comprehending Trump’s corruption, MSNBC created an exceedingly cynical spectacle. By playing into the network’s loyal liberal audience’s fantasy that there exists a Trump silver bullet, it instead delivered Trump a positive news cycle—the guy pays taxes! Who knew!—amidst the debacle of the American Health Care Act, along with more evidence that the media is aligned against him. 

Also maintaining the tax returns constituted a feint, Joe Scarborough tweeted "the Trump camp released one positive tax retun to distract from Russia hearings and the Trumpcare meltdown. That's painfully obvious." He followed a few minutes later with "this one tax return is not bad for him because he cherry picked one return from over a decade ago and had it leaked to the press."

While at first glance the Paskin and the Scarborough analyses closely track with one another, there is a significant- albeit not glaring- difference. Scarborough cites "one tax return (which) is not bad for him," which dates to more than a decade ago. However Paskin, perhaps fantasizing about sheep, argues Maddow was "playing into the network's loyal liberal audience's fantasy that there exists a Trump silver bullet."

There are two problems with this. There is no consensus among those reality-based liberals that there is a "silver bullet" because we recognize the possibility of several bullets. Additionally, without the tax returns, no one knows whether there is any bullet at all, and it is unclear whether Trump's returns are being audited.   We do know, however, that every President and every GOP nominee since Richard M. Nixon had released his income tax returns. (The sole exception, Gerald Ford released summary data about his returns from 1966 through 1974.)

But not this President.  Certainly, Donald Trump is hiding one thing and/or another, whether something as minor as giving little to charity or something criminal and endangering national security.






Charlie Pierce, recounting the events that preceded and followed edited transcripts released by President Nixon as a distraction, explains

If the Trump administration did arrange the leak of these documents, what they're doing can be seen as the equivalent of Nixon's release of the edited transcripts—the revelation of something bad to prevent to revelation of something worse.

It is up to the country to decide whether that ploy will work. If you're "distracted" by this, it's not because the White House wants you to be, it's because you decided to be.






Share |

Some Smart Voters

Reflecting on Election Day 2014, Philadelphia Daily News columnist and blogger Will Bunch makes about 87 good points, roughly 31 above his average, in Wednesday's "The Democrats' Goldwater Moment." But I have to call him on one thing- an election covered extensively both before (video below from late October) and after November 4 by Rachel Maddow.  Bunch writes

It was no surprise that Republicans solidly re-took control of the Senate, in a year where the map was stacked toward red states, with a bunch of seats that the Dems probably had no right holding in the first place  But what was shocking was losing governor's races in solid-blue, progressive-minded states like Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois. Indeed, can you name one race where a Democrat exceeded the pre-election expectations, or pulled a true upset?  

He should have said "one federal race." Although there exists one or two , there exists, well, one or two.  But one set of municipal races, though close, may be considered an exception. It occurred, moreover, in California, whose political winds at one time were considered harbingers.  Common Dreams reports

A slew of progressive candidates were elected in Richmond, California on Tuesday night in a resounding defeat of corporate power, after a multi-million-dollar opposition campaign funded by Chevron brought national attention to the race but failed to take control of City Hall.

Local politician Tom Butt, a Democrat, was elected mayor with 51 percent of the vote, beating the Chevron-backed candidate, Nat Bates, by 16 points. Richmond Progressive Alliance representatives Eduardo Martinez, Jovanka Beckles, and outgoing  Mayor Gayle McLaughlin also won three of the four open seats on the City Council.

Collectively, those candidates became known as Team Richmond. In a victory speech from his campaign base, Butt said, "I’ve never had such a bunch of people who are dedicated and worked so hard. It’s far away above anything that I’ve ever experienced."

The sweeping win in the David-and-Goliath story was seen by many as an excoriation of corporate influence in elections after the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.

Uche Uwahemu, who finished third in the mayoral race, said, "The election was a referendum on Chevron and the people obviously made it clear they did not appreciate the unnecessary spending by Chevron so they took it out on the rest of the candidates."

Chevron spent more than $3 million funding three political action committees that executed an opposition campaign including billboards, flyers, and a mobile screen, spending roughly $72 per voter in hopes of electing a slate of candidates that would be friendly to the oil giant.

Martinez, Beckles, and McLaughlin have all criticized the company and promised to tighten regulations on it. Chevron has an ugly history in the city, particularly in the wake of a large and destructive fire at their refinery in 2012, for which Richmond sued the company.

Butt spent roughly $58,000 on his campaign—a shoestring budget relative to Chevron's resources.

The voters of Richmond (photo below from Malena Mayorga/Flickr of the Asia Pacific Environmental Network marching against Chevron on 8/9/14) knew both what Team Richmond, as well as its opponents, stood for and who they stood with.  That conveniently fits in neatly with another of Bunch's comments, in which Will recognizes

It's not a matter of moving further to the left, not really. It's just a question of standing up for the forward-looking and mostly progressive platform bullet points that you already have. Because the problem, Democrats, is not with what you believe, but that people don't believe that YOU believe in what you say you believe. In fact, they flat out don't believe you, not right now. And that lost trust isn't something you can't win back overnight. Goldwater, Reagan, and the Republicans didn't get a majority to trust them right away, either.

Share |

Patrick Murphy Says Eric Shinseki 'Kicks Ass." Obama Should Kick His.

Leave it to Bernie Sanders to get it right.

Two Democrats, former national chairperson Howard Dean and former U.S Representative and Iraq War veteran Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, don't see it the same way.  Appearing on MSNBC's "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell" (video at link) to discuss the heat on General Eric Shinseki for the crisis at the Veterans Administration, the former Vermont governor and presidential aspirant told ongoing guest host Ari Melber "I don't think he has done anything wrong but he needs to clean house" (no sexism from Dean, calling on a man to clean his house).

A visibly angry Patrick Murphy- who appears to have been angry each time he has appeared on MSNBC to discuss the scandal- remarked "He's pissed. He has now fired seven people." Shinseki, Murphy commented, "needs to get in front, as the governor said, out in front of the American people, and let them know... that he's ticked off and unbelievably pissed about this IG report- that he ordered- that shows this is a system issue."

Melber followed by noting Senator Sanders (I-VT.), chairperson of the Committee on Veterans Affairs,  has stated "...At a time when the VA has seen a huge increase in its patient load in recent years, I urge the Secretary to review whether the Department's goal for seeing patients within 14 days is realistic under its current budget." Melber suggested the standard may have prompted employees to falsify records and asked his guest to respond.  Murphy credited Shinseki with the 14 day standard, maintained that 26 hospitals have "cooked the books," and applauded Shinseki for "taking quick action (though) he needs to do more."

No.  The standard set by the Secretary has not prevented the problem but caused it. (Rachel Maddow blames Congress- which deserves considerable blame- below.)  Thursday evening, MSNBC's Chris Hayes cited the "mismatch" between the needs of veterans, which have increased dramatically, and the resources available to the V.A.  Shinseki could have responded with the courage (and foresight) he displayed when- inviting misguided condemnation from Republicans-  he told Congress a month before the USA invaded Iraq in 2003 "several hundred thousand troops" would be needed to secure the country.   Instead, he passed the buck downward- actually, punched downward- setting a standard he knew, or should have known, was unrealistic.  He pleased his superior(s) while placing his subordinates in an untenable position.

The GOP, as usual, is on the wrong track. Politico reports "to Republicans, Shinseki is fleeting- a figurehead who could be gone any moment. To push for his resignation lets Obama off the hook, they say."  Subjecting this issue as they have so many others the past five+ years to the "is it good or bad for Obama?" test clearly is not serving the country.  But as Senator Sanders seems to understand, the root of the immediate problem- falsifying records- lies in the requirement that new patients be seen within 14 days.  It was General Eric Shinseki who established that requirement,  and it's General Shinseki who, despite a noble record, should be relieved of duty.




y.





Share |

Condoleezza Rice Is A 23-Year-Old White Male

Writing in Politico magazine (which I praised, apparently prematurely, yesterday), the National Review's Rich Lowry, perhaps still seeing starbursts, is exorcised because Condoleezza "Rice’s speaking gigs on college campuses and her ascension to the board of the Internet company Dropbox have sparked protests calling for her to be disinvited, cashiered and generally isolated and shamed."  Lowry argues that some students and faculty at the University of Minnesota, where she was invited to give a lecture, and at Rutgers University in New Jersey, where she has been invited to give the commencement speech, have been mean to her.

You will remember "Condi," as the mainstream media has affectionately called her for years, as a supporter of the (nationally and internationally) illegal torture regimen carried out by the federal government during the GW Bush administration.   She also was a co-conspirator in ginning up support for the Iraq war, one of convenience conducted, as Rachel Maddow explained in March (partial video of program below), to provide access to Iraqi oil fields to national oil companies.

Thanks to author Ron Suskind, we know that at the first national security meeting held by Bush 43, Secretary of Treasury (not former NY Yankee outfielder) Paul O'Neill and Secretary of State Colin Powell were startled when the President asked Ms. Rice "Well, what do you think the big issue in the region is, Condi?", to which she responded "I think Iraq is the big issue, the destabilizing force and that's going to be our focus."

Soon thereafter, President Bush assigned Vice President Cheney to lead a secret task force, which met privately with energy industry lobbyists and executives of oil companies.   He ordered the National Security Council- headed by "Condi"- to coordinate national security and energy policy with Cheney's task group. Eventually, the task force began to divvy up oil fields among, as Suskind put it, "foreign suitors along with American suitors meaning major oil firms and oil contractors like Halliburton."  As Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6) once said, "mistakes were made."  But Rice was not blissfully unaware.

Though her agency was intimately involved with establishment of the economic rationale for going to war against a sovereign nation, National Security Adviser Rice that summer would warn "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."   Four years later, Rice still was making things up, then claiming "There were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime," though she later denied ever saying it.

The same foreign policy genius who now criticizes President Obama over Putin policy would at one time summarize her post-Iraq invasion advice as "Punish France, ignore Germany, forgive Russia.”  A good way to energize NATO.

Lowry complains because "The Minnesota professors say that it is 'in the spirit of free expression' that they ask for the reversal of Rice’s invitation. Because nothing says free expression like shutting down someone’s lecture."  To his enduring credit, Lowry has invented a constitutional guarantee: the right to give a speech at a public university.  Perhaps next spring, you too can invoke that right by demanding that your state's public university allow you to speak, for a fee.

Nearing the conclusion of his piece, Lowry contends

If the typical rules applied, the fierce opposition to Rice would be attributed to racism, sexism and any other handy -ism. The stunt by the University of Minnesota Students for a Democratic Society of referring her to the campus police as “dangerous” and including a physical description of her as a “59-year-old African American woman” would prompt a rant by Touré on MSNBC about the dehumanization of a woman of color and a high-flying essay by Jamelle Bouie on The Daily Beast about the hidden racist tropes embedded in japery at the expense of former secretaries of state.

Oh, yes, because the physical description of an individual must exclude age, race, and gender. Perhaps Condi could have been described as a 23-year-old white male, notwithstanding reaction by conservatives who would ridicule liberals as loathe to admit the object of their criticism is young, female, or black. Some conservatives, who accuse liberals of throwing around the charge of "racism," are themselves fond of the tactic.  In the case of Rich Lowry, he has to find something.









Share |

She Just Won't Go Away

In a column in the neo-conservative opinion page of The Washington Post, former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice grudgingly concedes

Diplomatic isolation, asset freezes and travel bans against oligarchs are appropriate. The announcement of air defense exercises with the Baltic states and the movement of a U.S. destroyer to the Black Sea bolster our allies, as does economic help for Ukraine’s embattled leaders, who must put aside their internal divisions and govern their country.

From there, she goes on to be unceasingly critical, claiming even

But even those modest steps did not hold. Despite Russia’s continued occupation ofAbkhazia and South Ossetia, the diplomatic isolation waned and then the Obama administration’s “reset” led to an abrupt revision of plans to deploy missile defense components in the Czech Republic and Poland. Talk of Ukraine and Georgia’s future in NATO ceased. Moscow cheered.

I will be making an appointment with an audiologist; you should, too, if you did not hear "Moscow cheer."  In 2008, Rice's boss, President George W. Bush, did in fact advocate admitting Ukraine and Georgia into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as have many experts. It has been opposed by Germany and France, though they're evidently "old Europe."

It takes a special kind of arrogance for a Bush 43 foreign policy adviser to charge, in 2014, "Most important, the United States must restore its standing in the international community, which has been eroded by too many extended hands of friendship to our adversaries, sometimes at the expense of our friends." It has not been quite seven years since Brent W. Scowcroft, national security adviser for President George H.W. Bush, told the National Journal

This Bush administration assumed that power is always resented anyway, so they would just use it unilaterally and people would forgive the United States as long as we succeeded. That just runs contrary to human nature...

That the international community no longer trusts our motives is a new phenomenon, and I see it as one of many warning signs of a possible lasting realignment of global power...

This is the Bush administration Rice so loyally served and still refuses to question.  And it was while serving as Secretary of State for Bush 43 that the woman affectionately known as "Condi" took to the CNN airwaves (video of statement here; CNN article by Wolf Blitzer here) to manipulate public opinion with "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."





)



Rice's primary argument for the invasion of Iraq, before and after one of the greatest foreign policy blunders in American history, has been the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein.     But maybe from the standpoint of the Administration it was not a blunder.  We pick up Rachel Maddow's groundbreaking report from late 2002/early 2003:

Back in the U.S., the Bush administration is also denying a "Wall Street Journal" report that administration officials held meetings about the war with oil industry executives. But British documents now reveal that in the fall of 2002, ahead of the invasion, BP`s Middle East director held a week of meetings with officials from both the U.S. State Department and the Pentagon, including with Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld`s second in command.

At the Pentagon with just two months until the invasion, attention turns to who will run Iraq in the immediate days and weeks after the fall of Saddam. Retired Army Lieutenant General Jay Garner, a man with deep experience in the region, gets the call from Donald Rumsfeld.

LT. GEN. JAY GARNER, U.S. ARMY (RET): He said, we need right now is somebody to come in, put a staff together, operationalize the plans we put together. You know, you think if you`re going to put that together you`d have office space and desk and computers and telephones and all that. I didn`t even have a chair.

MADDOW: That lack of planning when it comes to basic post-Saddam governance stands in stark contrast to the level of planning that`s already well under way for Iraq`s oil sector.

(then-Defense Department adviser Gary) VOGLER: There was a very strong sense of urgency. It was 12, 15- hour days from what I remember. They knew where every pipeline, where every refinery, gas plant, oil field, gas oil separation plant was.People said we didn`t plan very well for Iraq. I would take exception to that when it came to the oil sector.

(U.S. Representative Henry) WAXMAN: We are spending more time thinking about how to deal with the oil fields in Iraq than we were about our own troops when we went to war in Iraq.

BUSH: All Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people.

MADDOW: As the invasion of Iraq gets under way, months` worth of detailed planning aimed at securing Iraq`s oil resources gets put into action.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade who are guarding key facilities in the oil fields right now. Because we know we want to get the oil flowing as soon as possible.
GARNER: I remember several times the statement that we want to make sure that we don`t give an optic that makes the American people we`re going in there for oil -- we`re not doing that. I mean, that was -- I knew that from day one.

MADDOW: Despite that stated goal, as the U.S. military arrives in Baghdad, with heavy looting under way, Marines protect Iraq`s oil ministry, to the exclusion of other critical Iraqi government buildings and institutions.

(chief of staff to Colin Powell, Colonel Lawrence) WILKERSON: We let the museums go. We let the art and culture go. We let the telephones go elsewhere. We let the administrative office go, ministry of the interior, ministry of justice. We let all those things go and we protected the oil ministry.

MADDOW: The perception that the U.S. has launched a war for oil is further stoked when the U.S. Army`s 101st Airborne Division crosses the border into Iraq and establishes two refueling stations in the Iraqi desert. The Army names the two desert outposts after Exxon and Shell, unbeknownst to the companies, themselves.

Maddow, with the help of her staff, demonstrated that the USA government invaded Iraq to increase the world supply of oil. "Condi" Rice is still walking around a free person, still maintaining the war was fought because of some threat from Saddam Hussein. She gets to propagandize freely, apparently because there is a constitutional right to editorialize in The Washington Post. And she is welcomed to deliver a paid commencement speech at a major university, whose president (Chris Christie's guy) is once again demonstrating his complete lack of integrity.

It's a great country, but one in which there are over 4,000 dead soldiers in part because of "Condi" Rice.


Share |

It's Only Just Begun


Michelle Bernard, as usual, was off-target, remarking Thursday on All In with Chris Hayes

We are supposed to be the greatest democracy in the world, and our democracy is in tatters. We are the laughingstock of the world when a small minority of right-wing zealots can virtually destroy the economic well-being of the country in just a little more than two or three weeks. And they never had a chance of winning.

"Small minority of right-wing zealots" is accurate.  But we've always been a republic, not a democracy and "the laughingstock of the world" is unnecessary hyperbole.  But, more significantly: "they never had a chance of winning?"

The previous evening, Rachel Maddow had gloated

So, to summarize through this process, the Republicans, oh, yes, I think we fit them all on here. The Republicans said that they would shutdown the government, or once they shut it down, they would refuse to open the government unless they got each of these things. Of all the things that they wanted, they got nothing. On the other hand, the Democrats had suggested before this whole process that they would please like to talk about the budget. And now, Republicans will go along with that after refusing for six months.

Maddow, unable to point to anything the Democratic Party got, even displayed this nifty, technically accurate, and yet misleading, graphic:

Even Ezra Klein believes the GOP was roundly defeated.  He notes resolution of the shutdown/debt level dispute clearly funds the federal government; knocked the rocky launch of the Affordable Care Act off the front page; and slashed the popularity of the Republican Party while dividing its members.  It did, he nevertheless acknowledges, maintain the spending levels of sequestration.

That is a major victory for the GOP- Grover Norquist contends "Sequester is the big win. It defines the decade."  And there was was one more advantage to the standoff, if only down the road. Standard & Poors estimates, according to TIME Magazine, "the shutdown, which ended with a deal late Wednesday night after 16 days, took $24 billion out of the U.S. economy, and reduced projected fourth-quarter GDP growth from 3 percent to 2.4 percent."

That is a benefit, not a bug, to the individuals desiring to, as Bernard put it, "destroy the economic well-being of the country."  Nor were those individuals limited to the 30-35 Representatives the media would portray as uniquely "tea party republicans."  Until Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, pressured by the business community, agreed to a deal with Majority Leader Harry Reid, most congressional Repubs had been recklessly toying with the nation's economy, afraid to buck the extreme wing of the extreme party.

The shutdown struck a severe blow at public confidence in government, possibly even at the state and local levels.  And despite their proclivity- when there is a GOP president- to increase spending and the size of government, Republicans are not known as the party of government, but the party suspicious and disdainful of it.  Undermining faith in the public sector undermines faith in the Democratic Party and its solutions.  In the shorter term, the President's party is usually blamed for any downturn in the economy.

So hold the champagne, please.  Harry Reid did a masterful job holding together his caucus and negotiating with Mitch McConnell, thereby pulling Barack Obama's fat out of the fire. But as of now, the bestheadline emerging from resolution of the crisis was this from The Boston Globe:

Share |

At Most, An Obama Network



Progressive blogger and (Hilary) Clinton enthusiast Taylor Marsh explains today why Barack Obama never has been a shoe-in for re-election.    One problem, she notes, is

That Obama hasn’t made solid relationships inside the Democratic Party and in the progressive community, beyond his die hard fans and supporters, makes it rougher for him. I don’t know anyone who thinks Obama runs the Democratic Party, with more evidence today that he doesn’t. He’s the un-Lyndon Johnson, a man who gets by on his own steam, not through relationships inside Democratic or progressive circles. The attitude of Robert Gibbs is brought to mind and just what a bad beginning the Administration made toward their base. Obama is another in a long line of presidents who don’t feel compelled to build the political party that made his rise possible. The feeling is Pres. Obama’s a one man ego band.

Tuesday, however, Marsh had slapped The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf, who had mistaken MSNBC's Chris Matthews for an objective journalist and therefore was aghast at Matthews' criticism of Mitt Romney over his Bain Capital involvement.   Marsh similarly criticized Politico's Dylan Byers because he had naively slammed Matthews for exhibiting "partisan loyalties" when he "accused the Obama surrogate of 'sabatoge' and 'betrayal' of the campaign."

Matthews, Marsh argues, lost his journalistic credentials when he became an enthusiastic cheerleader for Obama's 2008 campaign, most infamously for his "thrill going up my leg" comment.        Marsh observes "Chris Matthews has been a die hard Barack Obama supporter for over four years now, which is his choice."   Then, however, she draws a false parallel, claiming

Fox News Channel is a ratings juggernaut doing partisan coverage. Are Friedersdorf and Byers really the only ones who don’t know MSNBC is now the bookend to Fox News Channel? 

Friedersdorf and Byers may be confused about MSNBC but, to a lesser degree, so is Marsh. MSNBC is not the Democratic alternative, nor is it the liberal or progressive alternative- that would be Al Gore's Current TV, especially with the Young Turks' Cenk Uygur. With little more than two exceptions (staunch liberal/progressive Chris Hayes on weekend mornings, populist Dylan Ratigan on weekday afternoons),  MSNBC is the pro-Obama network.     That is hardly synonymous with "liberal," "progressive," or (as Marsh obviously understands better than most) even "Democratic."  

Matthews' pro-Obama slant during the 2008 campaign was far more noble, with far more benevolent effect, than his approach to the 2000 presidential campaign, when he functioned as an unofficial surrogate for the Republican.   Bob Somerby describes Matthews' role in the Bush-Gore campaign:

Of course, it was Matthews’ remarks about Campaign 2000 which provided the comic relief. “I think he ran a terrible campaign in 2000,” Matthews said, skillfully keeping his straight face. Just last Friday, we gave you a small idea of what this big nut-case meant (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/17/11). What made Gore’s campaign so “terrible?” For one thing, he wore a three-button suit—and those buttons had Freudian meaning. Beyond that, he had hired a woman to teach him how to be a man. He was “today’s man-woman,” “a man-like object;” he “didn’t have his gender straight.” He would lick the bathroom floor to be president. Over and over and over and over, he was “Bill Clinton’s bathtub ring.”

Matthews behaved like a genuine demon for the campaign’s twenty months, offering ugly, bizarre complaints about Gore’s “terrible campaign.” He told Gennifer Flowers how hot she was when he dragged her out on the air; she then spent a full half hour denouncing the Clintons’ murders. Presumably, Matthews did this to serve the pleasure of Welch; his salary was $1 million in 1999, but it soon went up to $5 million. (This type of largesse cannot be explained by Hardball’s ratings, though the show was influential at that time within the mainstream press.)

Somerby typically is too harsh toward Matthews, who conducts some searing interviews which would (or should) put nearly everyone else on TV news to shame.    Still, Somerby's suggestion (there and elsewhere) that the host was doing the bidding of his corporate sponsor has its parallel in today's MSNBC.  

After the network's Rachel Maddow defended Obama's recent remarks about Bain Capital, she interviewed Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who had criticized the campaign (though, significantly, not Obama himself).      Maddow served as public relations flak for Booker, one of Wall Street's favorite Democrats, arguing that he had been misunderstood.    Fawning over Booker (whom Somerby says is a buddy of hers from Stanford), she chose not to emphasize the impact of the Bain Way upon the employees of the companies it took over.     Somerby commented

If Maddow would stop her absurd attempts to defend her appalling friend, maybe she could report on what Romney actually did at Bain! Maybe she could report the looting of those pension funds, in ways her viewers could grasp and pass on.

Or is she keeping her trap shut too? Despite what your lizard brain is saying, corporate-picked multimillionaires may not always be on your side.

Rachel Maddow does, at times, question corporate power, as does Ed Schultz.     (O'Donnell does so infrequently and Sharpton is little more than Obama's mouthpiece.) Other hosts, especially Matthews, on the network are hardly reticent about criticizing Democrats, a wise tactic for a pro-Obama operation intent on avoiding being typecast as "pro-Democrat." MSNBC surely is not impartial, and does not claim to be, but neither is it the partisan counterweight to the cable network representing the public relations wing of the Republican Party.

Share |

Keeping It Unreal On Death



We`ll steal away said the Ranger
Grab an Injun by the hand
Tonto said, turn me loose, stranger
What you mean, we, white man

The Lone Ranger
Lyrics by: Oscar Brown Jr.
1974


Lazy or deceptive.    Or perhaps a combination of the two.    Either way, it was an irresponsible report presented Tuesday on MSNBC.    Yes, that's you, Rachel Maddow (transcript, here).

Maddow interviewed Bryan Stevenson, an attorney who has successfully challenged prison conditions in the U.S.A. (especially active in criminal justice) and recently received a record-setting 20-minute standing ovation at the TED Conference.

Number one, China. Number two, Iran. Number three, Saudi Arabia. Number four, Iraq. And number five, the United States of America -- USA, USA.

They`re not very many lists on which we come fifth after Iran and Iraq but that`s because the lists of which countries are killing the largest number of their prisoners, that list only comes out once a year. Today is the day the China is first. Then it`s the Saudis and Iran and Iraq and us. It`s difficult company, right?

In all of Europe and all of the countries that used to be the Soviet Union, the only country that executed anyone last year was Belarus. We`re the only country in the whole G-8, all the biggest industrialized economies in the world who executed anyone last year.

Japan is in G-8. I has the death penalty on its books, but Japan didn`t use it last year, didn`t kill any of its prisoners.

We did. We did that 43 times last year. But here`s the thing, the number is actually going down for us. We may be the only modern industrialized nation in the world that still regularly goes into our prison cells, takes people who are already incarcerated out of those cells, and then kills them as quietly as possible.

We may be the last industrialized country in the world that is doing that but we are doing that less. We killed 46 times in 2010 and 43 time last year. That`s the direction that things are going for us in this field, generally speaking.

This chart, from the Death Penalty information centre, indicates there were 33, rather than 43, last year but let's not quibble.    There have been, over the past two years, at least 79 executions in the United States.     But, notably, Maddow did not say that more prisoners are executed in the United States than anywhere but China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.      She referred to "the lists of which countries are killing the largest number of their prisoners;" that "Japan didn't use it last year, didn't kill any of its prisoers.   We did.   We did that 43 times last year."     Further, "we may be the only modern industrialized nation in the world that still regularly goes into our prison cells, takes people who are already incarcerted out of those cells, and then kills them as quietly as possible."

What, pray tell, does Rachel Maddow mean by "we"?      Here is a list of the prisoners executed by the United States last year:



Here is a list of the prisoners executed by the United States since March 19, 2003:



There has been none.    In the last eleven years, no prisoner has been executed by Rachel's "we," i.e., the "United States." (Thirty individuals currently are on death row, according to Amnesty International.)      There have been, rather, 79+ executions the last two years in the United States.

It is not an important distinction.   It is a critical distinction, one with implications for American politics, criminal justice, and federalism.     The federal government kills precious few prisoners, the last occurrence having been on March 18, 2003.     Those executions which so appall Maddow- without regard to individual circumstances of the offense and the offenders- were imposed upon defendants found guilty, and sentenced, by judges/jurors of violation of the statutes of those particular states.   The indisputable leader (or culprit), as usual, was the State of Texas, responsible for putting to death 27 inmates in 2010-2011.

Excommunicated from the United States by the host are 35 states and the District of Columbia, which either no longer have a death penalty statue or, for whatever reason, did not execute anyone in 2010 or 2011.        Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have executed no one since 1976.  

Maddow cited Illinois, Oregon, Maryland, and Connecticut as states which have ended, or are making progress toward ending, executions.      Still, she failed to distinguish between federal and state death penalty  statutes and practices and generally left the impression that execution is still commonplace in the U.S.A.     She is entitled to make a principled, or pragmatic, argument against the death penalty but, unless her name is Limbaugh (which it is far from), not to mislead her audience.     In this republic (not democracy), the "we" who are approving execution ultimately are not people, but governments; not the government of the United States of America, but state governments; not most state governments, but a few, and one in particular.      Perhaps Ms. Maddow would like to direct her attention toward them, or it.    





Share |

Pregnancy, Yes; Kitchen Duty, Optional


Yesterday, complaining about Democrats supporting a woman's right to contraception, Rush Limbaugh told a caller "You got close when you equated contraception with abortion.  It's women's rights.  It is a way to set up the notion that Republicans are Neanderthals and don't like women and oppose women's rights."

Not all Republicans are Neanderthals.       And not all Republicans oppose women's rights.    But it is a malady inflicting an increasing number of GOP politicians.

"Personhood" legislation, which would define a fetus as a person and thereby prohibit hormonal birth control, is moving through the Virginia legislature.    In October, as Mother Jones' Nick Baumann reminds us, congressional Republicans unsuccessfully had promoted legislation which would have resulted in defining legal personhood as when a sperm meets an egg, which might have prohibited hormonal birth control or barrier devices that prevent zygotes from implanting in the uterine wall.     Recently, GOP heartthrob Marco Rubio introduced the  Establishment of Religion Act Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which would allow any employer to refuse to provide birth control if he or she cited a religious reason.     Similar legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives and in the Missouri legislature.

Last night, Rachel Maddow (transcript here) commented      

In Virginia, the Republicans backing the personhood measure in that state had a chance to take the birth control argument off the table entirely.    A Democratic Delegate Vivian Watts tried to attach an amendment to the Virginia bill that would declare nothing in that bill could be construed to outlaw any form of legal contraception. Republicans in the Virginia House of Delegates voted no on that by a huge margin. The vote was 64 to 34 against taking birth control out of the equation.  

So, in Virginia, Republicans had a wide open opportunity to say this personhood thing, this bill is only about banning abortion, we do not want to ban birth control.

They had the opportunity to say that, and they rejected it, hugely.

Virginia Republicans have watched this personhood measure go down over and over again across the country in large part because it`s seen as a way to ban birth control. But they`re not contesting that idea. Ban birth control, sure, sounds like a plan.  That is what passed the Virginia House of Delegates today, the anti- abortion, anti-birth control personhood bill, and now it`s headed over to  the Virginia senate. In recent years, the senate in Virginia has been kind of the brakes for this sort of legislation in the commonwealth of Virginia.  The Senate was under Democratic control had been a cooling off chamber for Virginia conservatives` really intrusive big government proposals on social issues like this.

But now, Republicans are in control of the state senate and Virginia politics watchers say this personhood bill has a pretty good chance in the senate. If it passes the house and passes the senate, Virginia`s uber conservative governor, Bob McDonnell, will say nothing more than that he plans to take a look at it if it reaches his desk.

But wait, there`s more! Not only are Republicans of Virginia moving to pass a bill that could ban birth control, that they explicitly acknowledge could ban birth control -- Virginia Republicans have are already passed in both chambers a bill that would have the state government force Virginia women into having medically unnecessary, unwanted vaginal ultrasounds. That is a physical penetration of the body, ultrasound, by state order, without your consent. That would be forced on you as a condition of your being allowed to have an abortion in the state of Virginia.

The Virginia legislature no doubt has a fan in the Repub flavor of the month, Rick Santorum, who in early January informed ABC's Jake Tapper that he disapproves of the Supreme Court decision(s) prohibiting states from outlawing contraception because

The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.That is the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court, they are creating rights, and they should be left up to the people to decide.

In October, Santorum had told a conservative blogger that contraception is

not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.

And while the states are precluded from banning artificial birth control, a President Santorum would not be so reticent.    "One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before," Santorum told the interviewer, "is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, 'Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.'

Ranting and raving, Limbaugh today maintained

I guarantee you right now, the whole point of this contraception stuff started last week is to make sure that if Santorum get this Republican nomination that's what he's going to be known for and of course the theme of that is Santorum hates women, Republicans hate women, Republicans have no respect for women.  Republicans want women in the kitchen constantly pregnant, blah, blah, whatever it is. 

"Blah, Blah, whatever it is" is one of the most intelligent arguments Rush Limbaugh has made in a long time.     Meanwhile, Rick Santorum and most Republicans probably don't hate women; they may even love women.      As for the rest of Limbaugh's comment, it's a fairly accurate synopsis of the contemporary  Republican cultural agenda.



Share |

Predictable Change Of Heart

Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are among the co-sponsors, all Democrats, of S1917, which includes a surcharge on millionaires with extension of the payroll tax cut and its extension to employers. Two days ago, The New York Times reported

Republicans — who have adamantly defended a renewal of the so-called Bush tax cuts, which also expire at the end of 2012 — have been lukewarm on extending the payroll tax holiday, arguing that it would not stimulate the economy. They are particularly displeased with the Senate proposal to pay for it: the bill calls for a 3.25 percent tax on gross income over $1 million for single filers and married couples filing jointly.

Liberals have been battering Republicans (see video of Rachel Maddow and Demos Distinguished Fellow Bob Herbert, below) because they have opposed continuation of the payroll tax cut, whether because of an animus to the middle class or a simple-minded opposition to anything supported by President Obama.

They should have taken the GOP's superficial opposition and considered themselves, and the American people, lucky.

Currently, at Obama's insistence, there is no loss to the Social Security trust fund because it receives a transfer equal to the hit it otherwise would have taken. I had planned for a few days to argue in this space that once there is a Repub-dominated government (de jure, rather than simply de facto, as at present), the cut would be temporarily extended or made permanent- but without reimbursement of the trust fund. Its reserves would decline as the Social Security trustees find that, without an increase in funding or a decrease in benefits, the Social Security trust fund no longer will be able to pay full benefits until 2037. Conservatives, having bled the trust fund, would declare that Social Security is in greater danger than ever and will not pay benefits unless it is seriously reformed- by privatization or some other scheme intended to eviscerate the system. Firedoglake's David Dayen explains

....if you don’t return the payroll tax to its full rate in 2012, it becomes harder to do so down the road (it’s always a “tax increase,” in the Obama parlance, when it goes away). Then the general fund is picking up some of the Social Security costs, and Social Security is contributing to the deficit in a roundabout way, making it easier to argue that it needs to be “fixed” (i.e., have the benefits cut) in some way.

"Why would they be against, Maddow asks Herbert, " something that would help the middle class?" Gee, might it have been a negotiating tactic? Alternatively, they have suddenly, inexplicably, changed their mind. As the smartest man in Washington (not to be confused with the man who believes he is the smartest person in the western world, Newt Gingrich)

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday opened the door to extending the payroll tax holiday, just two days after his top deputy suggested Republicans would not support a renewal of the temporary cut.

"In all likelihood, we will agree to continue the current payroll tax relief for another year," McConnell said Tuesday.

And of course this agreement to consider what Republicans wanted all along comes with a price, all the higher after Democrats complained for weeks about GOP opposition. Dayen reports McConnell "vowed that Senate Republicans will come up with their own offset, and based on the offsets they have proposed in the past, expect it to be completely unacceptable, something on the order of drastically reducing near-term spending across the board. "

Note to Maddow et al.: the Pentagon budget will not be among that which Senate Republicans will demand be slashed. Digby argues

it appears the plan is to demand something odious in return to pay for it and then blame the Democrats for raising taxes when they refuse. (Sound familiar? It should, it worked beautifully last December. Look for them to hold up the Unemployment extension too, just for kicks. It's Christmas. They deserve a little fun.)

The idea that the GOP would demand something intolerable and then blame Democrats for raising taxes when they predictably refuse never had occurred to me. But then, it seems that the idea that top Republicans would end their opposition to this tax cut, portray themselves as tax-cutters, and take a major step toward their goal of ending Social Security as we know it never occurred to Maddow, Ed Schultz, and a whole passel of Democrats in Congress.

Share|