Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by Simulist » Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:31 pm
Montag wrote:Obama gave a fiery speech today which, of course, doesn't necessarily mean anything...
Montag wrote:I started to watch it on Youtube, the quality's better on C-Span's site (but I don't know how to embed their stuff).
by Luther Blissett » Wed Sep 08, 2010 4:32 pm
Belligerent Savant wrote:Idiocracy, here we come... or are we already there?
by Bruce Dazzling » Thu Sep 09, 2010 10:55 am
Obama wins the right to invoke "State Secrets" to protect Bush crimes
By Glenn Greenwald
In a 6-5 ruling issued this afternoon, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Obama administration a major victory in its efforts to shield Bush crimes from judicial review, when the court upheld the Obama DOJ's argument that Bush's rendition program, used to send victims to be tortured, are "state secrets" and its legality thus cannot be adjudicated by courts. The Obama DOJ had appealed to the full 9th Circuit from last year's ruling by a 3-judge panel which rejected the "state secrets" argument and held that it cannot be used as a weapon to shield the Executive Branch from allegations in this case that it broke the law. I've written multiple times about this case, brought by torture/rendition victim Binyam Mohamed and several others against the Boeing subsidiary which, at the behest of the Bush administration, rendered them to be tortured.
Flu permitting, I'll have much more to say about this decision tomorrow, but for the moment, I wanted to highlight the first paragraph from The New York Times article on this ruling, written by Charlie Savage. Just marvel, in particular, at the last sentence (click on image to enlarge):
"The ruling handed a major victory to the Obama administration in its effort to advance a sweeping view of executive secrecy power." That says it all.
The distorted, radical use of the state secret privilege -- as a broad-based immunity weapon for compelling the dismissal of entire cases alleging Executive lawbreaking, rather than a narrow discovery tool for suppressing the use of specific classified documents -- is exactly what the Bush administration did to such extreme controversy. To see how true that is, just look at this article from Talking Points Memo, from April of last year, in which Zachary Roth consulted with numerous legal experts about my argument that Obama was abusing this weapon in exactly the same way Bush did. His findings were encapsulated in the TPM headline:
Roth wrote:
Salon's Glenn Greenwald wrote that the move "demonstrates that the Obama DOJ plans to invoke the exact radical doctrines of executive secrecy which Bush used." MSNBC's Keith Olbermann called it "deja vu all over again".
Not having Greenwald's training in constitutional law (and perhaps lacking Olbermann's all-conquering self-confidence), we wanted to get a sense from a few independent experts as to how to assess the administration's position on the case. Does it represent a continuation of the Bushies' obsession with putting secrecy and executive power above basic constitutional rights? Is it a sweeping power grab by the executive branch, that sets set a broad and dangerous precedent for future cases by asserting that the government has the right to get lawsuits dismissed merely by claiming that state secrets are at stake, without giving judges any discretion whatsoever?
In a word, yes.
Suffice to say -- with great understatement -- Obama's doing this doesn't trigger the same level of outrage and objection as when Bush did it, at least not in most circles. And I do so fondly recall the days back in the Spring of last year when civil libertarians who were vigorously objecting to Obama's Bush-replicating legal positions were told by vocal Obama supporters that Obama was only doing this in order to ensure that Bush's extremist legal theories were rejected by courts and thus we were all generously showered with the Magnanimous Gift of Good Precedent. Again with great understatement, Obama's appealing the 9th Circuit's rejection of the Bush/Obama "state secrets" argument to the full court -- and thus securing one of the most harmful judicial endorsements ever of this radical secrecy doctrine -- is not exactly consistent with that Obama-justifying rationale.
Mother Jones' Nick Baumann and Marcy Wheeler have more on today's victory for executive immunity. The ACLU's Ben Wizner, who argued the case on behalf of the plaintiffs, said:
This is a sad day not only for the torture victims whose attempt to seek justice has been extinguished, but for all Americans who care about the rule of law and our nation's reputation in the world. To date, not a single victim of the Bush administration's torture program has had his day in court. If today's decision is allowed to stand, the United States will have closed its courtroom doors to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers. The torture architects and their enablers may have escaped the judgment of this court, but they will not escape the judgment of history.
Are you feeling enthused to go vote? If not, just close your eyes and think "SARAH PALIN," and all of this will blissfully disappear. Besides, the President got really animated in his speech on Monday, so that's important.
UPDATE: One other highly illustrative passage from Savage's NYT article today (h/t Brad Friedman):
The decision bolstered an array of ways in which the Obama administration has pressed forward with broad counter-terrorism policies after taking over from the Bush team, a degree of continuity that has departed from the expectations fostered by President Obama’s campaign rhetoric, which was often sharply critical of President Bush’s approach.
Among other policies, the Obama team has also placed a United States citizen on a targeted-killings list without a trial, blocked efforts by detainees in Afghanistan to bring habeas-corpus lawsuits challenging their indefinite imprisonment, and continued the C.I.A. rendition program . . . .
As a senator and candidate for the White House, President Obama had criticized the Bush administration’s frequent use of the state-secrets privilege. In February 2009, when his weeks-old administration reaffirmed the Bush administration's view on the case, civil libertarian groups that had supported his campaign expressed shock and dismay.
That, too, is superb under-statement: Obama's continuity of Bush's Terrorism policies "has departed from the expectations fostered by President Obama’s campaign rhetoric." Yes, one could say that.
Just to give a sense for how far we've traveled, how low we've fallen, here's what The New York Times' John Schwartz reported in February, 2009, when the Obama DOJ first told the 9th Circuit that they were going to assert the same "state secrets" arguments in this case which the Bush DOJ made: "In a closely watched case involving rendition and torture, a lawyer for the Obama administration seemed to surprise a panel of federal appeals judges on Monday by pressing ahead with an argument for preserving state secrets originally developed by the Bush administration." Schwartz described how the judges on the appellate panel were so startled that they actually asked multiple times if the Obama DOJ was really sticking with the Bush position, as though they couldn't believe what they were hearing. What a quaint time that was, when people were surprised by Obama's replicating Bush's secrecy and Terrorism positions -- the very ones he so vehemently condemned when running for President. After 18 months of seeing this over and over in multiple realms, nobody would react that way now.
UPDATE II: The New York Times has a quite good Editorial on this matter this morning -- headlined: "Torture Is a Crime, Not a Secret" -- and explains: "Barack Obama told voters in 2008 that he opposed the government cult of secrecy, but once he became president, his Justice Department also argued that the case should be dismissed on secrecy grounds." The history of America's torture regime will record not only the criminality and shamefulness of the torture itself, but also the subsequent -- and ongoing -- effort by the U.S. Government to prevent its victims from obtaining any justice while protecting the perpetrators from all accountability.
by Jeff » Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:36 am
Goolsbee Said to Be Picked to Head White House Economic Panel
By Hans Nichols - Sep 10, 2010 6:08 AM ET
President Barack Obama will appoint Austan Goolsbee to lead the Council of Economic Advisers, replacing Christina Romer, according to an administration official.
Obama will announce his choice of Goolsbee, a former University of Chicago business school professor and campaign adviser, at a press conference today at 11 a.m. in Washington, said the official, who requested anonymity. As a sitting member of the council, Goolsbee does not require another Senate vote, allowing the White House to avoid at least one confirmation battle in Congress tied to the administration’s economic policies.
...
Goolsbee hails from the conservative school of economic thought represented by Milton Friedman and the University of Chicago.... Conservative columnist George Will predicted Goolsbee would be a welcome presence in a Democratic White House. "Goolsbee no doubt has lots of dubious ideas -- he is, after all, a Democrat," he wrote. "But he seems to be the sort of person -- amiable, empirical and reasonable -- you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be."
Obama campaign mum on NAFTA contact with Canada
Feb 29 2008
Despite repeated requests, Barack Obama's campaign is still neither verifying nor denying a CTV report that a senior member of the team made contact with the Canadian government -- via the Chicago consulate general -- regarding comments Obama made about NAFTA.
Allegations of double talk on the North American Free Trade Agreement from both the Obama and Clinton campaigns dominated the U.S. political landscape on Thursday.
On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Obama's campaign called the Canadian government within the last month -- saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn't worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.
The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.
However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.
by 82_28 » Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:47 am
by Jeff » Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:29 pm
In explaining the rise in anti-Muslim sentiment, Mr. Obama said, "You know, I think that at a time when the country is anxious generally and going through a tough time, then, you know, fears can surface -- suspicions, divisions can surface in a society. And so I think that plays a role in it."
He went on to laud former President George W. Bush for his comments about Islam after the Sept. 11 attacks.
"One of the things that I most admired about President Bush was, after 9/11, him being crystal clear about the fact that we were not at war with Islam," he said. "We were at war with terrorists and murderers who had perverted Islam, had stolen its banner to carry out their outrageous acts."
"And I was so proud of the country rallying around that idea, that notion: that we are not going to be divided by religion," he continued. "We're not going to be divided by ethnicity. We are all Americans. We stand together against those who would try to do us harm. And that's what we've done over the last nine years. And we should take great pride in that."
by Montag » Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:37 pm
82_28 wrote:What kind of a name is Austan Goolsbee?
Comanche Indian.
Sorry. Any time I hear a fucked up name I always think of this scene and invariably I respond with "Comanche Indian". Same with the Provo Spain line in the same movie. If any of you know Fletch, you know what I mean.
by Jeff » Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:41 pm
Barack Obama: 'no' to solar panels on the White House roof
Campaigner Bill McKibben says solar panels would demonstrate presidential leadership on climate change
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Friday 10 September 2010
A quest to get Barack Obama to shout his commitment to solar power from the roof tops - by re-installing vintage solar panels at the White House - ended in disappointment for environmental campaigners today.
Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, had led a group of environmental activists to Washington in a bio-diesel van hoping to persuade Obama to re-install a set of solar panels originally put up by Jimmy Carter.
The actual Carter-era solar panels - which weigh in at 55 kilograms and are nearly 2 metres long - are out-dated now. But campaigners had hoped that the White House would embrace at least the symbolism of going solar - much like Michelle Obama kicked off her healthy food movement by planting a vegetable garden.
"Clearly, a solar panel on the White House roof won't solve climate change - and we'd rather have strong presidential leadership on energy transformation. But given the political scene, this may be as good as we'll get for the moment," McKibben said in a Washington Post comment this morning.
A California company Sungevity had offered to equip the White House with the latest technology.
But the White House declined - twitchy perhaps about inviting any comparison to one-term Democratic president Carter in the run-up to the very difficult mid-term elections in November. The White House did send three staffers to meet the campaigners.
...
by Gouda » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:36 pm
by Simulist » Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:56 pm
Who Is Responsible for the Progressive "Enthusiasm Gap?"
by David Sirota
If you believe there is an "enthusiasm gap" right now between a demoralized progressive base and a mobilized conservative base (and I certainly believe there is), then the logical question is why? This is a source of endless debate between two camps.
On one side are Democratic partisans who insist the gap exists because some progressive activists and media voices (ie. the so-called "Professional Left") have been too critical of the Obama administration and too insistent that President Obama fulfill - or at least actually try to fulfill - his basic campaign promises. The underlying assumption on this side is that Democratic voters are largely stupid fools who simply follow voting orders from a handful of activists and media voices - and because those activists and media voices aren't more enthusiastic, those lobotomized voters are reflexively reflecting that lack of enthusiasm.
On the other side are those progressive activists and media voices who say progressive voters are demoralized because the Obama administration hasn't fulfilled - or even tried to fulfill - it's most basic campaign promises (for a good list of those broken promises and positions where the Obama administration is worse than the Bush administration, see Glenn Greenwald's recent post here). This side sees voters as fairly intelligent - or, at least intelligent enough to make voting decisions based on an analysis of concrete issues, rather than simply on orders from activists and media voices. As just one example, this side sees this story in the New York Times about union members being unenthused about the election as a reflection of those union members' displeasure with the Obama administration's weak economic policies and failure to champion the Employee Free Choice Act - not as a reflection of those union members being under the mesmerizing spell of the tiny handful of bloggers, columnists, activsts and MSNBC hosts who have dared to report the inconvenient truths.
I, of course, happen to believe that the latter side is correct, and I believe that because I think A) Democratic voters are pretty smart and B) the handful of progressive voices/activists that have substantively criticized the Obama administration have far less power to shape public opinion than the national Democratic Party machinery, the White House political apparatus, and the bully pulpit of the presidency. The idea that, say, Glenn Greenwald or Jane Hamsher or Bill McKibben or Rachel Maddow or me or anyone else slandered as the "Professional Left" is somehow responsible for public opinion trends among the national Democratic electorate - and the White House, the Democratic Party and others are not - is, to put it mildly, quite preposterous. Sure, it's nice to imagine a world where principled progressive voices have as much or more public opinion power than the President of the United States and one of the two major political parties (not to mention their big corporate backers), but, alas, that's not the world we live in.
That said, even if you believe otherwise - even if you, in fact, believe that a handful of progressive activists and media voices are responsible for the enthusiasm gap - we should all be able to agree that the White House is exacerbating that enthusiasm gap by telling Democratic voters that its demands for promises to be fulfilled are unacceptable.
That was the message from President Obama late last week at a $30,000-a-plate fundraiser at Greenwich, Connecticut home of (I kid you not) a fundraiser named Rich Richman:Democrats, just congenitally, tend to get - to see the glass as half empty. (Laughter.) If we get an historic health care bill passed - oh, well, the public option wasn't there. If you get the financial reform bill passed - then, well, I don't know about this particularly derivatives rule, I'm not sure that I'm satisfied with that. And gosh, we haven't yet brought about world peace and - (laughter.) I thought that was going to happen quicker. (Laughter.) You know who you are. (Laughter.)
As Firedoglake reminds us, the president campaigned on the public option and as president cited it as one of his three foundational principles for real health care reform. Let's also remember that the White House quietly negotiated away the public option and cut deals with the pharmaceutical industry to weaken the health care bill. Let's remember, too, that the White House openly fought progressive efforts to seriously reform the Federal Reserve bank - one of the key actors in the market meltdown. The president also abandoned the cause of the Employee Free Choice Act, and, of course, didn't just fail to achieve "world peace," he massively escalated the Afghanistan war.
It would be one thing if the president acknowledged all of those verifiable facts - and offered some sort of explanation, however tortured. At least then, there would be some narrative telling Democratic voters why all of this (supposedly) had to happen, and why we should continue to believe Democrats will, eventually, fight the good fight. In other words, there would at least be a story that might attempt to counter the enthusiasm gap and build a case for voters to go out and vote Democratic in November.
Instead, the president has decided to not even acknowledge the legitimacy of Democratic voters' expectations - many of which he himself asked us embrace in his "real change"-themed campaign for the presidency. That's right, just as White House press secretary Robert Gates attacked the "Professional Left" a few weeks ago, the president has decided to make fun of Democratic voters who dare expect him to fight for the policies he promised.
As I wrote in an earlier newspaper column entitled "Whither the Sacred Campaign Promise," this tactic of denying the very legitimacy of expectations has become the standard political tactic of this White House. Rather than acknowledge expectations' basic legitimacy, this administration seems to think it can just tell voters that it either never made promises it clearly made or that voters are immature children the minimal things they expect. The calculation, as mentioned above, is that voters are so stupid and lobotomized they will submit to pure historical revisionism and brainwashing - they will, in short, feel crazy for even thinking more could be done than the White House is doing.
Perhaps this "these are not the droids you are looking for" strategy will work. Maybe it's true that effectively telling Democratic voters that they are idiots and are misremembering recent history will motivate those voters to vote in November. And maybe progressive activists and media voices are the idiots for saying that a better strategy to motivate Democratic voters (and, by the way, better public policy) is to simply fight harder for and deliver on the progressive policies promised in the 2008 election.
But I don't think so. I think voters are smarter than this and, therefore, that strategy is a way to exacerbate the enthusiasm gap. And I think those who say - and act - otherwise are the ones who will be responsible for whatever Democratic losses occur in November.
David Sirota is a bestselling author whose newest book is "The Uprising." He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network-both nonpartisan organizations. Sirota was once US Senator Bernie Sanders' spokesperson. His blog is at http://www.credoaction.com/sirota.
by justdrew » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:14 pm
Simulist wrote:Who Is Responsible for the Progressive "Enthusiasm Gap?"
by David Sirota
If you believe there is an "enthusiasm gap" right now between a demoralized progressive base and a mobilized conservative base (and I certainly believe there is), then the logical question is why? This is a source of endless debate between two camps.
On one side are Democratic partisans who insist the gap exists because some progressive activists and media voices (ie. the so-called "Professional Left") have been too critical of the Obama administration and too insistent that President Obama fulfill - or at least actually try to fulfill - his basic campaign promises. The underlying assumption on this side is that Democratic voters are largely stupid fools who simply follow voting orders from a handful of activists and media voices - and because those activists and media voices aren't more enthusiastic, those lobotomized voters are reflexively reflecting that lack of enthusiasm.
On the other side are those progressive activists and media voices who say progressive voters are demoralized because the Obama administration hasn't fulfilled - or even tried to fulfill - it's most basic campaign promises (for a good list of those broken promises and positions where the Obama administration is worse than the Bush administration, see Glenn Greenwald's recent post here). This side sees voters as fairly intelligent - or, at least intelligent enough to make voting decisions based on an analysis of concrete issues, rather than simply on orders from activists and media voices. As just one example, this side sees this story in the New York Times about union members being unenthused about the election as a reflection of those union members' displeasure with the Obama administration's weak economic policies and failure to champion the Employee Free Choice Act - not as a reflection of those union members being under the mesmerizing spell of the tiny handful of bloggers, columnists, activsts and MSNBC hosts who have dared to report the inconvenient truths.
I, of course, happen to believe that the latter side is correct, and I believe that because I think A) Democratic voters are pretty smart and B) the handful of progressive voices/activists that have substantively criticized the Obama administration have far less power to shape public opinion than the national Democratic Party machinery, the White House political apparatus, and the bully pulpit of the presidency. The idea that, say, Glenn Greenwald or Jane Hamsher or Bill McKibben or Rachel Maddow or me or anyone else slandered as the "Professional Left" is somehow responsible for public opinion trends among the national Democratic electorate - and the White House, the Democratic Party and others are not - is, to put it mildly, quite preposterous. Sure, it's nice to imagine a world where principled progressive voices have as much or more public opinion power than the President of the United States and one of the two major political parties (not to mention their big corporate backers), but, alas, that's not the world we live in.
That said, even if you believe otherwise - even if you, in fact, believe that a handful of progressive activists and media voices are responsible for the enthusiasm gap - we should all be able to agree that the White House is exacerbating that enthusiasm gap by telling Democratic voters that its demands for promises to be fulfilled are unacceptable.
That was the message from President Obama late last week at a $30,000-a-plate fundraiser at Greenwich, Connecticut home of (I kid you not) a fundraiser named Rich Richman:Democrats, just congenitally, tend to get - to see the glass as half empty. (Laughter.) If we get an historic health care bill passed - oh, well, the public option wasn't there. If you get the financial reform bill passed - then, well, I don't know about this particularly derivatives rule, I'm not sure that I'm satisfied with that. And gosh, we haven't yet brought about world peace and - (laughter.) I thought that was going to happen quicker. (Laughter.) You know who you are. (Laughter.)
As Firedoglake reminds us, the president campaigned on the public option and as president cited it as one of his three foundational principles for real health care reform. Let's also remember that the White House quietly negotiated away the public option and cut deals with the pharmaceutical industry to weaken the health care bill. Let's remember, too, that the White House openly fought progressive efforts to seriously reform the Federal Reserve bank - one of the key actors in the market meltdown. The president also abandoned the cause of the Employee Free Choice Act, and, of course, didn't just fail to achieve "world peace," he massively escalated the Afghanistan war.
It would be one thing if the president acknowledged all of those verifiable facts - and offered some sort of explanation, however tortured. At least then, there would be some narrative telling Democratic voters why all of this (supposedly) had to happen, and why we should continue to believe Democrats will, eventually, fight the good fight. In other words, there would at least be a story that might attempt to counter the enthusiasm gap and build a case for voters to go out and vote Democratic in November.
Instead, the president has decided to not even acknowledge the legitimacy of Democratic voters' expectations - many of which he himself asked us embrace in his "real change"-themed campaign for the presidency. That's right, just as White House press secretary Robert Gates attacked the "Professional Left" a few weeks ago, the president has decided to make fun of Democratic voters who dare expect him to fight for the policies he promised.
As I wrote in an earlier newspaper column entitled "Whither the Sacred Campaign Promise," this tactic of denying the very legitimacy of expectations has become the standard political tactic of this White House. Rather than acknowledge expectations' basic legitimacy, this administration seems to think it can just tell voters that it either never made promises it clearly made or that voters are immature children the minimal things they expect. The calculation, as mentioned above, is that voters are so stupid and lobotomized they will submit to pure historical revisionism and brainwashing - they will, in short, feel crazy for even thinking more could be done than the White House is doing.
Perhaps this "these are not the droids you are looking for" strategy will work. Maybe it's true that effectively telling Democratic voters that they are idiots and are misremembering recent history will motivate those voters to vote in November. And maybe progressive activists and media voices are the idiots for saying that a better strategy to motivate Democratic voters (and, by the way, better public policy) is to simply fight harder for and deliver on the progressive policies promised in the 2008 election.
But I don't think so. I think voters are smarter than this and, therefore, that strategy is a way to exacerbate the enthusiasm gap. And I think those who say - and act - otherwise are the ones who will be responsible for whatever Democratic losses occur in November.
David Sirota is a bestselling author whose newest book is "The Uprising." He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network-both nonpartisan organizations. Sirota was once US Senator Bernie Sanders' spokesperson. His blog is at http://www.credoaction.com/sirota.
Posted as a reference point in anticipation of the inevitable discussion on November 3rd.
by 82_28 » Mon Sep 20, 2010 7:19 pm
by justdrew » Mon Sep 20, 2010 7:22 pm
82_28 wrote:Can't go wrong with a moist influence.
by Nordic » Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:12 pm
President Barack Obama had some friendly advice on Monday for liberal Democrats who say he has not achieved everything on their wish lists -- quit complaining.
Making a whirlwind fund-raising tour of Philadelphia to rally support for his embattled Democrats before U.S. congressional elections in November, Obama offered a hint of his exasperation with parts of the liberal base that helped sweep him to power in the 2008 election.
"When I hear Democrats griping and groaning and saying ... 'the health care plan didn't have a public option', and ... 'the financial reform -- there was a provision here that I think we should have gotten better', or, 'you know what, yes, you ended the war in Iraq, the combat mission there, but you haven't completely finished the Afghan war yet', this or that or the other, I say 'folks, wake up', " Obama told wealthy donors at a Democratic National Committee dinner.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 180 guests
