Filed under: 2010 Election, Breaking, Progressives, Scandal, Senate | Tags: 2010, Alexi Giannoulias, Barack Obama, Cheryle Jackson, Christopher Kennedy, Congress, Democrats, Illinois, Resignation, Rod Blagojevich, Roland Burris
Usually I wouldn’t celebrate a Democratic Senator declining to seek re-election, but when it’s the ethically-questionable crony of Rod Blagojevich then it’s welcome news:
Sen. Roland Burris, whose deep ties to former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich seemed to doom his Senate tenure from the start, will not run for a full Senate term in 2010. The move increases Democrats’ chances of holding on to the former Senate seat of President Barack Obama.
Burris has begun informing fellow Democrats about his decision and is expected to make an announcement on Friday, a Democratic official and a friend of Burris’ told The Associated Press. They spoke on condition of anonymity because Burris has yet to discuss his decision publicly.
[...]
Senate Democrats had long made clear they had little tolerance for a full bid from Burris. Other Illinois Democrats have also lined up for a chance to run for the full term.
First-term Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias and Christopher Kennedy, a Chicago businessman and son of the late Robert F. Kennedy, and Chicago Urban League president Cheryle Jackson are all considering wading in.
Thankfully, Roland Burris has a bit more common sense than his corrupt benefactor and realizes that he has no hope of holding on to that Senate seat. In all honesty, he never should have held it in the first place, but this is an acceptable compromise–Burris can finish out Barack Obama’s term and then step aside and let the people of Illinois choose their next Senator.
Filed under: Conservatives, Health Care, Progressives, Senate | Tags: Bipartisanship, Chuck Grassley, Congress, Democrats, Harry Reid, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Max Baucus, Republicans
Sen. Harry Reid is finally acting like Majority Leader–he’s instructing Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus to stop futilely chasing Republican votes for health care reform:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday ordered Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to drop a proposal to tax health benefits and stop chasing Republican votes on a massive health care reform bill.
Reid, whose leadership is considered crucial if President Barack Obama is to deliver on his promise of enacting health care reform this year, offered the directive to Baucus through an intermediary after consulting with Senate Democratic leaders during Tuesday morning’s regularly scheduled leadership meeting. Baucus was meeting with Finance ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) Tuesday afternoon to relay the information.
According to Democratic sources, Reid told Baucus that taxing health benefits and failing to include a strong government-run insurance option of some sort in his bill would cost 10 to 15 Democratic votes; Reid told Baucus it wasn’t worth securing the support of Grassley and at best a few additional Republicans.
[Emphasis mine]
First off, it’s nice to see Reid showing some spine, particularly against conservative Democrats–since the GOP is so weak, they’re really the only ones who can stand in the way of progressive reform.
But this is all part of a greater issue, a recurring problem when it comes to conservative Democrats in Congress–the cult of bipartisanship.
Don’t get me wrong, bipartisanship is a good thing–it’s great to be able to call a particular bill or initiative as ‘bipartisan.’ But bipartisanship should be a means to an end, not an end in and of itself–it should be a way to help you pass a bill, not a condition for passing that bill.
But sometimes, conservative Democrats appear to care more about how many Republicans vote for a bill than for what the bill itself is supposed to accomplish, which is a problem when you can’t drum up Republican votes for a necessary piece of legislation.
Look, the Republican caucus in Congress is very small–the smallest it’s been in decades, smaller than at any other point in my entire lifetime. And because of that–and because most Republican moderates were defeated and replaced with Democrats–the Republicans who are left in Congress are far more conservative and in ideological lockstep than usual.
In other words, getting GOP support for major progressive initiatives like health care reform is going to be difficult, far more difficult than it was just a few years ago.
And, in the end, the American people don’t care about bipartisanship. They want Congress to be effective; they want Congress to solve the significant problems our nation is facing. When it’s all said and done, few people will remember whether or not a major initiative was passed with bipartisan support–but they will remember what that initiative did to help themselves and their families.
Democrats, don’t get caught up in the inside baseball. Bipartisanship is good, but it isn’t necessary; with the current crop of Republicans in Congress, it certainly isn’t expected. Just buckle down and pass legislation; if the GOP isn’t on board, that’s their loss, not yours.
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Senate | Tags: ABA, American Bar Association, Congress, Democrats, John Roberts, Judge Sotomayor, Judiciary, Pat Leahy, Republicans, Samuel Alito, SCOTUS, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court
Today, the American Bar Association voted–unanimously–to grant Judge Sonia Sotomayor a “well-qualified” rating, the highest rating they give to judicial nominees:
The ABA committee that reviewed her qualifications came out with that unanimous rating of the federal appeals court judge and released it in a letter to White House lawyer Greg Craig.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to begin hearings Monday on President Barack Obama’s choice to replace retired Justice David Souter.
[...]
“The American Bar Association’s unanimous, well-qualified rating of Judge Sotomayor is further evidence of the outstanding experience she will bring to the Supreme Court,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“The ABA’s rating _ an evaluation of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament _ should eliminate the doubts of naysayers who have questioned Judge Sotomayor’s disposition on the bench.”
So all the Republican attempts to paint Judge Sotomayor as unfit to sit on the Supreme Court were nothing but hollow talking points with no grounds in reality (and in case anyone tries to argue that the ABA has some kind of liberal bias, they also found both John Roberts and Samuel Alito to be “well-qualified”).
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Health Care, Progressives, Senate | Tags: Democrats, Congress, Joe Biden, Al Franken, Minnesota, Vice President, Judiciary, Amy Klobuchar, Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Health Education Labor & Pensions Committee, Walter Mondale
Senator Al Franken (D-MN) was sworn in today as the 60th member of the Senate Democratic caucus.
Watch:
Sen. Franken was accompanied onto the Senate floor by Minnesota’s other Democratic Senator, Amy Klobuchar, as well as former Vice President Walter Mondale, also a Minnesotan.
He will now assume seats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee.
Filed under: 2010 Election, 2012 Election, Conservatives, Governors, Media, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine | Tags: 2010, 2012, Alaska, Barack Obama, Chelsea Clinton, Democrats, Fail, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Mitt Romney, Republicans, Resignation, Sarah Palin
I’ve spent some time in the past few days thinking about Gov. Sarah Palin’s sudden resignation, and I still think that her decision stemmed from either an impending scandal or an impending Presidential campaign.
But there have been a few other explanations I’ve heard and dismissed. For instance, some people are claiming that Palin is facing huge legal bills fighting off all the ethics complaints against her, which explains her resignation. But I find that hard to believe—her term as Governor is done in just a year and a half, meaning that she could hit up the paid lecture circuit and make those costs back several-fold come January, 2011.
Others are saying that being Governor would prevent Palin from going out there and campaigning for Republicans in 2010, putting her at a disadvantage against folks like Mitt Romney who no longer hold an office and thus have the time to campaign.
But, remember, Palin campaigned for Vice President while remaining Governor of Alaska; I find it hard to believe that she couldn’t just hand things over to her staff or her Lt. Governor every once in a while in order to speak at a rally or a speech.
Plus, being an effective Governor would probably help your presidential ambitions far more than quitting in order to fly around stumping for Congressional candidates–that’s something you do when you leave office, not something you leave office in order to do. Double plus, if 2010 isn’t a good year for the GOP—which it doesn’t look like it will be—then Palin would be better off staying in the Governor’s mansion.
Some people are saying that it’s normal for politicians to quit their current job to run for higher office. While that may be the case, they don’t usually quit 40 months before the election.
And a number of people are claiming that Sarah Palin is resigning in order to protect her family, but I don’t entirely buy that, either. When you run for office you become a public figure; you and your family are going to be in the spotlight.
Personally, I think families should be off-limits. To me, we should be focusing on the person running for office, not their husbands or wives or children; I don’t see the political point to be made in going after someone’s family. Still, we have to deal with the political reality we have, not the political reality we want—and in the political world we live in, the families of politicians are given a fair amount of scrutiny.
Palin should have known that, by being a public figure, she was putting her own family in the spotlight for good or ill. Plus, I feel that a lot of right-wing victimhood on this front seems awfully overblown–a lot of Palin’s supporters seem to believe that Sarah Palin is the most unfairly-attacked people in modern American history.
In that regard, I agree with ABC’s Cynthia Tucker, who said on Meet the Press this past weekend:
If [Palin] thinks she’s had it tough, I have two words for you: Hillary Clinton!
Conservatives are attacking Palin’s critics for allegedly targeting her family, but if you were to page through nearly any conservative blog out there and you’ll find plenty of unhinged attacks on Michelle Obama. And some of these same conservatives who are defending Palin and her family are the very same conservatives who spent the 1990’s unfairly attacking both Chelsea and Hillary Clinton.
Sarah Palin may have been subjected to some unfair criticism (and I should note that she was also subjected to a lot of perfectly fair, valid criticism as well), but she is not the first person to have dealt with that, and resigning her Governorship is an extremely poor way to deal with it. Hillary Clinton was a fighter; Sarah Palin is a quitter.
I also don’t believe the right-wing talking point that Sarah Palin’s early resignation is some kind of brilliant Nixonian political maneuver.
I mean, just think about the timing—if this was part of a brilliant political strategy, why announce it the Friday before Independence Day? Why try to bury it in the news cycle—why not make it front and center, try to draw as much publicity as possible that you can then take advantage of?
And if this was Palin’s brilliant political move, why did she sound like she was close to tears during her speech on Friday? Go listen–Palin sounds like she’s going to break down, not like she’s launching a cunning political strategy that will catapult her into the White House:
In the end, it just looks like Sarah Palin couldn’t take the heat so she quit. She promised the people of Alaska to serve as their Governor for 4 years but she broke that promise. If Palin does run for President, it should be remembered that, when things got tough, Sarah Palin turned tail and fled–not a quality any of us want in a President.
Honestly, though, I don’t think we have to worry about Sarah Palin running for President–I don’t think she’s going to recover from this. Whatever political career she may have had is probably over now; America loves fighters and hates quitters.
To make an analogy fitting of Gov. Palin, she grabbed the basketball and took off in the middle of the third quarter, leaving both teams to stand in the middle of the court, watching in utter befuddlement as she disappears off into the locker room.
UPDATE: Not only is Gov. Palin a quitter, she’s a hypocrite:
During a Women and Leadership event back in March 2008, Governor Palin was asked about Senator Clinton’s response to media scrutiny – and criticism – she received on the campaign trail during the Democratic primaries. Palin made it clear to moderator Karen Breslau of Newsweek that she considered Clinton’s conduct unbecoming. Hillary, she insisted, needed to just “plow through”:
“Fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it…When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or, you know, maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn’t do us any good. Women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country. I don’t think it’s, it bodes well for her — a statement like that…It bothers me a little bit hearing her bring that attention to herself on that level.”
[Emphasis mine]
So when Hillary Clinton gets media scrutiny, Sarah Palin thinks she should just shut up and push through it. But when Sarah Palin gets media scrutiny, she thinks it’s okay to play victim and quit.
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Health Care, IOKIYAR, Progressives, Senate | Tags: Chuck Grassley, Congress, Greed, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Hypocrisy, Iowa, Republicans
Republican Senator Chuck Grassley (IA) had a bit of difficulty when asked about health care reform at a recent townhall meeting.
See for yourself:
After sharing his family’s personal struggle with the burden of high health care costs, an audience member asked, “My question is… why is your insurance so much cheaper than my insurance and so better than my insurance?”
The question made Grassley cranky.
He responded, first, by suggesting the questioner “go work for John Deere,” since they “don’t pay anything” for their insurance plan.
When the questioner refused to let the senator wriggle out of answering the question, Grassley revealed how little he knew about his own insurance plan.
Another audience member had to help the senator out by describing the details of the plan. After she finished, the original questioner again asked, “Okay, so how come I can’t have the same thing you have?”
Grassley’s response: “You can. Just go work for the Federal government.”
[Emphasis added]
Well, that’s one way to cover the 45 million uninsured Americans–create 45 million new federal jobs with health benefits and then hire all of them to work for the government.
Of course, it would be quite expensive to pay 45 additional salaries plus health benefits. If only someone had a plan that would provide those 45 million uninsured Americans with health coverage without having to hire them to work for the federal government…
In all seriousness, though, keep in mind that Sen. Grassley and every other Republican in Congress all get publicly-funded health care. So they have no problem accepting public health care for themselves and their families, yet they’ll fight tooth and nail to prevent those same benefits from being extended to all Americans.
The GOP has theirs, so why should they worry about the millions of Americans with no health insurance or not enough health insurance? While the Democrats try to reform health care, the GOP is content to sit back and yell ‘let them eat cake!’
No wonder these guys are the minority…
Filed under: Conservatives, Economics, Government, Health Care, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Senate | Tags: Budget, CBO, Chris Dodd, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Edward Kennedy, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Senate Health Education Labor & Pensions Committee
Previously, the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis supposedly examining the Democratic health care reform proposal. Their conclusions found the proposal would cost nearly $1 trillion and still leave millions of Americans uncovered.
But, as it turns out, the CBO’s analysis was flawed–it was based not on what the Democrats were proposing but on old, outdated information. Conservatives, of course, jumped all over the CBO’s flawed analysis as proof that health care reform with a public option was untenable.
Well, the CBO just released an updated analysis–based on the plan Democrats are actually proposing–and guess what they found:
The plan carries a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion, and would lead toward an estimated 97 percent of all Americans having coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Chris Dodd said in a letter to other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The AP obtained a copy.
[...]
The letter indicated the cost and coverage improvements resulted from two changes. The first calls for a government-run health insurance option to compete with private coverage plans, an option that has drawn intense opposition from Republicans.
[...]
Additionally, the revised proposal calls for a $750 annual fee on employers for each full-time worker not offered coverage through their job. The fee would be set at $375 for part-time workers. Companies with fewer than 25 employees would be exempt. The fee was forecast to generate $52 billion over 10 years, money the government would use to help provide subsidies to those who cannot afford insurance.
The same provision is also estimated to greatly reduce the number of workers whose employers would drop coverage, thus addressing a major concern noted by CBO when it reviewed the earlier proposals.
[...]
In their letter, Kennedy and Dodd said the Congressional Budget Office “has carefully reviewed our complete bill, and we are pleased to report that CBO has scored it at $611.4 billion over 10 years, with the new coverage provisions scored at $597 billion. …The completed bill virtually eliminates the dropping of currently covered employees from employer-sponsored health plans.
[Emphasis mine]
The crux of Republican opposition to health care reform are that it would cost huge amounts of money and it would (allegedly) drive private insurance out of business by causing a large amount of employers to dump their employees onto the public option.
But this new CBO analysis shows that both of those talking points are untrue. The GOP now has no solid ground upon which to oppose health care reform beyond simple, craven, conservative obstruction.
In fact, the cost of health care reform is so low that we can already pay for it out of the funds allotted in Obama’s budget:
President Barack Obama’s first budget will seek $634 billion over 10 years as a down payment on health care reform, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
Down payment? The Democratic health care reform proposal is so good that the down payment is going to be the only payment.
Of course, Republicans will still obstruct the plan. But with 60 Democrats in the Senate, the GOP will no longer be able to stand in the way of sensible, necessary health care reform.
Filed under: 2010 Election, Breaking, House, Polls, Progressives, Senate | Tags: 2010, Carolyn Maloney, House, Kirsten Gillibrand, New York, Primaries, Senate
Even more big primary news today–NY Rep. Carolyn Maloney will mount a primary challenge against Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who was appointed by the very unpopular Governor Paterson to replace Hillary Clinton:
An adviser to Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) confirmed Wednesday that the congresswoman will enter the state’s Senate primary against appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).
Paul Blank, who works with Democratic consultant Joe Trippi’s firm, said Maloney is officially in the race. Blank is set to serve as a top adviser for her Senate campaign.
“Congresswoman Maloney has made her decision,” Blank said. “She believes times are too tough and our challenges too important for politics as usual.
He added: “Congresswoman Maloney is putting together a campaign team and will make her announcement in two weeks.”
[...]
It might not matter, though, as the GOP doesn’t appear close to landing a big-name candidate. Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) said in recent days that he is leaning against running now that he has landed a spot on the House Intelligence Committee. Former Gov. George Pataki (R) is also weighing a run but is not expected to make a bid. A new Marist poll, coincidentally released Wednesday, showed Maloney leading Gillibrand within the margin of error, 38-37. Gillibrand is still unknown to about one-third of voters.
[Emphasis mine]
Maloney’s strength isn’t surprising–she was widely rumored to be eying a Senate run in 2000 before Clinton stepped in, and the district she represents is more populous than Gillibrand’s upstate district was; she has also been serving in Congress since 1993 (as opposed to Gillibrand, who took her seat in 2007).
I don’t have strong opinions on either Gillibrand or Maloney, but considering the GOP’s recruiting failure I don’t see how a primary will hurt–putting pressure on our elected officials to represent their people better is never a bad thing.
Filed under: 2010 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, House, Progressives, Senate | Tags: 2010, Arlen Specter, Congress, Democrats, Joe Sestak, Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania, Primaries, Republicans
Congressman Joe Sestak has decided that he will mount a primary challenge against newly-minted Democratic Senator Arlen Specter:
Wayne County, Pa. – A congressman from the Philadelphia suburbs will challenge U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic Senate primary.
In an interview with The Wayne Independent Wednesday morning, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa.,confirmed his intention to run against Specter, a long-time Republican who switched to the Democratic party earlier this year.
“I am going to get into the race against Arlen Specter … for senator,” said Sestak in his first media interview as part of a three-week tour through all of the Commonwealth’s 67 counties.
[Emphasis mine]
I’m glad to see Sestak enter the race against Specter, because no matter who emerges victorious from the Democratic primary we will be in better shape for it.
Honestly, I’m no fan of Arlen Specter–I would rather have an actual Democrat like Joe Sestak in that seat than someone who only became a Democrat to save his otherwise-doomed career.
Plus–as we learned when Pat Toomey was mounting a challenge against Republican Senator Specter–Arlen Specter is highly susceptible to partisan pressure. It’s likely that–if he believes Sestak has a shot at beating him–he’s going to start towing the Democratic line more often in order to ensure he wins the primary.
In other words, no matter who wins, we all win–either we end up with a more progressive Democratic candidate or we pressure Specter into being a more progressive Democratic candidate.
So I say welcome to the race, Congressman Sestak.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, Governors, Polls, Progressives, Senate | Tags: 2008, Al Franken, Democrats, Judiciary, Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Norm Coleman, Republicans, Tim Pawlenty
It’s been nearly 8 months since Election Day.
It’s been more than 6 months since Inauguration Day.
And, finally, Minnesota’s outstanding Senate race has been decided.
Minnesota’s Supreme Court has affirmed [PDF] that Al Franken is the duly-elected junior Senator from Minnesota, having garnered more votes than former Senator Norm Coleman.
Of course, Franken still needs a certificate of election signed by his state’s governor, Republican Tim Pawlenty. But Pawlenty said that he would abide by the Supreme Court’s decision:
Minnesota law does not allow the governor to sign an election certificate until the state court process is complete. And when it is, and they direct me to sign the certificate, I’m going to sign it. There’s not going to be any undue delay or the like. But I’m going to follow the direction of the courts in that regard and we’re going to be having a decision here in the coming weeks … I have to follow the law. If the Minnesota Supreme Court says, “You sign the certificate” — and there’s not an appeal or some other contrary direction from a federal court — you know, that’s my duty. I can’t just ignore that or say I don’t feel like following a directive from the Minnesota Supreme Court. That would not be the responsible thing to do.
[Emphasis mine]
There’s a chance that Coleman could appeal this decision to the federal judiciary, which may give Pawlenty room to once again put off signing a certificate.
But the Minnesota Supreme Court should be the final say in this case, and they have resoundingly affirmed that Al Franken is the junior Senator from Minnesota.
UPDATE: I should note that the decision was unanimous–the court ruled 5-0 in Franken’s favor.
Here’s the key part of the ruling:
For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court that Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under Minn. Stat. § 204C.40 (2008) to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota.
UPDATE II: Norm Coleman just conceded; congratulations to Senator Al Franken!
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Health Care, IOKIYAR, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine | Tags: Barack Obama, Budget, Congress, Democrats, George W. Bush, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Hypocrisy, Iraq, Republicans, Taxes
There is a lot of misinformation and garbage talking points on health care reform being spread around by conservatives. But, despite all the sound and the noise, there doesn’t seem to be a single worthwhile argument against health care reform buried anywhere in there.
Republicans claim–falsely–that a public option would result in the “rationing” of health care. But what is rationing?
ra⋅tion
1. a fixed allowance.
2. an allotted amount.
By that definition, isn’t health care already rationed? Health care isn’t unlimited–first, whether or not you even have health insurance depends on where you work and how much money you have. And both of those influence the quality of coverage you can get.
Second, even if you have the means to get health insurance, the insurance companies can still deny you coverage for a variety of reasons–a pre-existing condition, for instance.
Third, even if you have health insurance, insurance companies can deny your claim for a particular medical treatment for a variety of reasons. So, even if you are covered you might not be able to get the treatment you need.
Health insurance companies make a profit by denying as much coverage as possible to as many people as possible; their entire business model is centered around rationing.
Conservatives also argue–falsely–that a public option would put “government bureaucrats” between citizens and their doctors in terms of making health care decisions.
Yet, bureaucrats are already between people and their doctors–instead of being government bureaucrats whose jobs are to serve the American people, it’s private health industry bureaucrats whose jobs are to try to deny you as much health care as they can. That is how they make money, after all.
Conservatives are also asking where the money for health care reform is going to come from, claiming a plan including a public option would cost somewhere between $1.5 and $2 trillion.
Of course, that crowd includes a fair number of newly-minted deficit hawks who didn’t seem to care very much when George Bush and the Republican Congress were spending huge amounts of money on utterly frivolous things.
Where were these guys when Bush was pushing his $1.6 trillion tax cut package through Congress? Why weren’t any of these conservatives complaining about the cost of the Iraq War, which will cost us nearly $3 trillion?
Of course health care reform will be expensive–it’s going to help insure tens of millions of Americans who are currently going without health care. The question isn’t simply how much it will cost, but whether or not the benefit is worth it. For instance, to an average middle-class family buying a house is incredibly expensive, but the benefit they receive from that purchase justifies the cost.
Plus, we already pay a significant portion of what health care reform would cost in other ways–our salaries are lower because our employers have to pay greater health care costs. We pay more in taxes to help support overburdened hospitals that have to treat a large number of uninsured Americans. We pay higher health insurance costs and premiums to a veritable monopoly with no competition and massively-high prices, which would be challenged and kept honest by a public health insurance option.
I wonder just how much of that $1.5-$2 trillion would come from costs that the American people already pay in some form or another?
On one hand, conservatives–falsely–claim that a public health care plan would be massively inefficient, resulting in long waits for treatment, reduced choice in doctors, limited treatment options, etc.
But on the other hand, they claim that the public option will drive the private insurance industry out of business. That’s right–they claim that public option will be terrible, but so many people will opt into it that the entire private health insurance industry will go bankrupt.
They also claim that private insurance will go out of business because it’s impossible for a private entity to compete with a government program. Except:
I immediately thought of the U.S. Postal Service. Here’s a government-run service that can deliver a paper document to any remote location you choose for 42 cents. They can also deliver packages quickly and at a very competitive rate. Impressive.
But even with this efficiency the “public option” for package delivery has a number of healthy competitors. There’s FedEx (started in 1971 as Federal Express), DHL (founded in 1969), UPS (founded in 1907) among others.
Somehow, despite the government-run program, these private delivery services have managed to survive by offering customers something they found worthy of their business.
Conservatives don’t want to admit it, but America is facing a health care crisis. Costs are rising because there’s nobody to compete with the insurance industry. Tens of millions of Americans go without health insurance for themselves and their families, relying on overburdened, understaffed hospitals to be their first–and last–resort in the event of injury or illness. The time for change has come, yet conservatives are content to simply drag their feet and say “No.”
UPDATE: And keep in mind that there is already a public option for health care–it’s just restricted to members of Congress. That’s right–every member of Congress currently receives taxpayer-funded, government-provided health insurance.
So any Senator or Representative who opposes a public health insurance option is a complete and utter hypocrite, unless they put their money where their mouth is and reject their free government health care in favor of buying private insurance out-of-pocket.
But I guess those are conservatives for you–they have no problem accepting free government handouts hand-over-fist when it benefits them and their families, but will fight tooth and nail to prevent those same benefits from being extended to regular, everyday Americans.
Filed under: Breaking, Conservatives, Government, IOKIYAR, International, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights | Tags: Arrogance, Barack Obama, Democrats, Elections, Foreign Policy, George W. Bush, Iran, Neoconservatives, Republicans, Revolution, Violence
Conservatives are hitting President Obama over Iran, arguing that he should be doing more to support the opposition there. I bristle at the politicization of the situation in Iran because, ultimately, what the Iranian people are going through isn’t about us, it isn’t about American politics and we shouldn’t be making it about us.
First off, I find it pretty disingenuous for conservatives–who spent years calling for the United States to bomb Iran–to suddenly show so much concern for the Iranian people. As Glenn Greenwald pointed out a few days ago:
During the presidential campaign, John McCain infamously sang about Bomb, Bomb, Bomb-ing Iran. The Wall St. Journal published a war screed from Commentary’s Norman Podhoretz entitled “The Case for Bombing Iran,” and following that, Podhoretz said in an interview that he “hopes and prays” that the U.S. “bombs the Iranians.” John Bolton and Joe Lieberman advocated the same bombing campaign, while Bill Kristol — with typical prescience — hopefully suggested that Bush might bomb Iran if Obama were elected. Rudy Giuliani actually said he would be open to a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran in order to stop their nuclear program.
[…]
Advocating a so-called “attack on Iran” or “bombing Iran” in fact means slaughtering huge numbers of the very same people who are on the streets of Tehran inspiring so many — obliterating their homes and workplaces, destroying their communities, shattering the infrastructure of their society and their lives.
Second, like I said, this isn’t about us. It’s about Iran and the Iranian people. The uprising in Iran is really two simultaneous conflicts–the fist is pro-democracy demonstrators facing off against an oppressive government. To that extent, Obama has done what should be expected of a President of the United States—he spoke out in favor of democracy, in favor of free speech and free assembly, and denounced the Iranian government for their violent, brutal crackdown against their own people.
But there’s another conflict here that conservatives are not seeing or not acknowledging–the political conflict over the disputed election. The major players in Iran’s unrest are the ruling party and the opposition party. That’s partially why Obama hasn’t done what conservatives want and side with the demonstrators—that would, in effect, be telling the Iranian people who their next president should be.
One of the basic tenets of democracy is that sovereign states should be able to hold elections without interference. The Iranian people have a right to decide—as much as they are allowed to—who should govern them; it’s not the job of the United States (or anyone else) to declare winner.
Iran’s election occurred, was stolen, and resulted in violence. But, in the end, this is still an Iranian political dispute, though a decidedly violent one. Iran–and only Iran–should determine the course their country takes. They have that right, and Obama has said from the start he isn’t going to take that right away from them.
Honestly, if Iran’s conflict didn’t involve a disputed election, I too would be criticizing Obama for not doing more. But the fact that the core of this fight is about who will run Iran makes it infinitely more complex.
Third, if Iran’s opposition wanted America to get involved they would ask us to. Mousavi and his movement are the center of the world’s attention at the moment; they have a large microphone at their disposal. Yet, we’re not hearing the opposition call for the United States to get involved. As the National Iranian American Council says,
People in Iran have told NIAC’s Iranian-American membership that they don’t want the US to get itself involved in the conflict, but they do want to see the government’s use of violence condemned
[...]
If America’s posture returns to that of the Bush administration, these indigenous forces for change may be quelled by the forces of fear and ultranationalism
I trust the opposition to understand more than anyone how American involvement would affect their movement. The the fact that they haven’t called on Obama to do what conservatives say he should do is telling.
Fourth, it’s funny how conservatives–who like to dismiss Barack Obama as nothing but lofty rhetoric–are now suddenly believers in the power of a speech. But even if Obama did what conservatives wanted and spoke out in favor of the opposition, nothing would change. The opposition would still demonstrate; the government would still crack down; the situation would be as bloody and violent as it currently is if not moreso. As it is, the Iranian government is trying to portray the protesters as puppets for America and the West; if Obama came out fully on the side of the opposition, it would vindicate those paranoid, conspiratorial fantasies and justify even more violence and murder. Obama taking the opposition’s side would do little to help but a lot to hurt; the opposition knows this and that’s why they aren’t asking for Obama’s support.
As an additional note, conservatives are outraged that the administration is going ahead with a planned diplomatic meeting with Iranian representatives on July 4th. But that shouldn’t be surprising or controversial—Obama has always said that America shouldn’t talk only to its friends and that diplomacy shouldn’t be a reward for good behavior. And Obama’s foreign policy was the one chosen by the American people last November.
And how idiotic is it that conservatives are calling for Obama to make a speech, which would accomplish very little, yet they attack him for wanting to engage iwth Iranian diplomats, even though that would actually give us a chance to affect Iran’s polity. And for anyone who would claim that a despotic, terrorism-supporting nation cannot be changed through diplomacy, all I have to say is: Libya.
The arrogant conservatives who would have America further meddle in Iranian affairs don’t know what they’re talking about; they’re the same arrogant conservatives who engineered the Bush administration’s failed, disastrous foreign policy. Iran isn’t about us. It isn’t about Barack Obama or the Democrats or the Republicans; it’s about Iran and the Iranian people. If you truly believe in democracy, then you must believe that the Iranians should decide their own fate instead of having America decide it for them.
UPDATE: Super special note to Sen. John McCain: you lost the election. Get over it.
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Polls, Progressives, Race, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Senate | Tags: Congress, Democrats, Fail, Florida, Hispanics, Judge Sotomayor, Judiciary, Lindsey Graham, Mel Martinez, Numbers, Republicans, South Carolina
Turning back to domestic politics for a bit, the GOP is failing to reap political benefits from opposing Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court:
Nearly a month after President Barack Obama picked her for the Supreme Court, Republican senators say Sonia Sotomayor isn’t serving as the political lightning rod some in their party had hoped she would be.
“She doesn’t have the punch out there in terms of fundraising and recruiting, I think — at least so far,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who most likely will be elected as the No. 4 Republican in Senate leadership this week.
[...]
“Right now, you don’t have the fever pitch you did over the filibuster,” said [Sen. Lindsey]Graham, a member of the Judiciary Committee. “It depends on how she does [at the hearings]. If she performs well, no. If she performs poorly, potentially, yes.”
“I don’t think she’s the kind of person that invites that kind of reaction,” said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) of the possibility of making major political gains over Sotomayor’s nomination. “I don’t think her judicial record warrants the ability to do that with her.”
Who could have imagined that an experienced, talented, highly-accomplished judge with a history of moderate, sensible decisions would turn out to be completely uncontroversial?
The GOP bungled this from the start. They only had two options–filibuster or let Sotomayor slide. It would have been extremely hard for them to filibuster; in fact, it’s likely Sotomayor will be confirmed by a wide margin.
Therefore, conservatives would have been smart just to let Obama have his nominee and avoid a political battle. Plus, going along with him on this one would have helped dispel the perception that the GOP is made up of kneejerk obstructionists; sometimes, a little bipartisanship can go a long way.
Instead, conservatives attacked Judge Sotomayor from the start, desperately grasping at one ineffective attack after the next, clearly lacking any semblance of a strategy. Now conservatives are being forced to eat their words as the likelihood of Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation looms.
It looks like Republicans have become completely politically tone-deaf. They obstruct for the sake of obstructing without giving a single thought to whether or not they can succeed; they waste political capital on battles they can never hope to win, and then pat themselves on the back for their self-defeating and ultimately pointless opposition. Once again, the GOP has failed to deliver; no wonder people are abandoning their party in droves.
UPDATE: Hispanics, especially, are abandoning the GOP in droves:
The latest numbers from the nonpartisan Research 2000 for Daily Kos find that only eight percent of Latinos view the [GOP] favorably, while an astonishing 86 percent view it unfavorably.
That’s a real shift from what were already pretty bad numbers from before the Sotomayor nominatino, when 11% of Latinos viewed the GOP favorably, and 79% viewed it unfavorably.
One of the big stories today is that Republicans are realizing that there’s no political percentage in fighting the Sotomayor nomination. It’s striking that Latino opinion about the GOP is dropping so fast, even at a moment when GOP opposition to Sotomayor appears to be flagging, as opposed to intensifying.
This continuing drop among Latinos, coming at a time when many party strategists recognize the party’s desperate need to broaden its appeal, only reminds us that not only are there few apparent upsides in opposing Sotomayor, there are potentially serious costs, too.
[Emphasis mine]
Filed under: 2009 Election, 2010 Election, Conservatives, Governors, Polls, Progressives | Tags: 2005, 2009, Attorney General, Bob McDonnell, Brian Moran, Creigh Deeds, Democrats, Republicans, Terry McAuliffe, VA-GOV, Virginia
With 60% of precincts reporting, Creigh Deeds (50%) leads Terry McAuliffe (26%) and Brian Moran (24%) in VA’s Democratic gubernatorial primary. That’s a pretty insurmountable lead, even with 40% of precincts outstanding; at the risk of being premature, I’m going to call this one for Deeds (who, in the interest of full disclosure, I voted for).
Deeds had a late surge in the polls to become the strong front-runner. Even though a lot of people had started to consider Deeds an also-ran due to his dismal early polling, primary elections are volatile and Deeds ended up emerging as the safest choice.
McAuliffe had a lot of money and connections but no electoral experience, and his checkered past as head of the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign flack was a major strike against him. Brian Moran portrayed himself as the progressive alternative to McAuliffe’s establishmentarian record, but Moran’s newfound progressiveness always rang somewhat hollow. And all of the sniping between presumed front-runners McAuliffe and Moran left Deeds virtually unblemished.
Deeds was the safest choice, being the only candidate in the race who had run for statewide office before. In fact, he ran against the GOP’s gubernatorial candidate, Bob McDonnell, for Attorney General; Deeds lost by only several hundred votes, the smallest margin in VA history.
A Deeds-McDonnell rematch is both poetic justice and welcome news, since VA is certainly more progressive-friendly than it was in 2005. As The Washington Post said, Creigh Deeds will be a Governor in the successful Warner-Kaine tradition.
UPDATE: File this under things I’ve never seen before–a Twitter concession from Brian Moran:
And make sure to stop on by and show your support for newly-minted Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds.
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Progressives, Race, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights | Tags: Constitution, Democrats, Judge Sotomayor, Judiciary, Pappas v Giuliani, Racism, Republicans, Sonia Sotomayor
One of the prevalent anti-Sotomayor talking points on the right is that Judge Sotomayor uses race–not the letter of the law–to decide certain cases. This is the basis of the right’s ‘racism’ and ‘racialist’ attacks on Sotomayor–the assumption that she substitutes her background for the rule of law.
Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever that Judge Sotomayor actually does that. Conservatives will point to the Ricci case, where Judge Sotomayor–along with two other justices–agreed with a lower court ruling that the city of New Haven could throw out an aptitude test for promoting firefighters on the grounds that the test they were used was racially biased. But their decision was hardly controversial–they upheld a lower court’s decision that the city of New Haven could correct systematic racial bias.
A more revealing case to look at here is Judge Sotomayor’s dissent in Pappas v. Giuliani. Thomas Pappas was fired from the NYPD when they discovered he was sending racist and anti-Semitic literature through the mail while off-duty. Sotomayor’s colleagues upheld the firing, claiming that Pappas’ racist speech was of public concern and, therefore, interfered with the operations of the NYPD.
But Judge Sotomayor dissented, claiming that the NYPD infringed on Pappas’ freedom of speech by firing him for what he did while off-duty. That’s right–Judge Sonia Sotomayor sided with a white racist on 1st amendment grounds, which hardly sounds like the actions of a ‘racislist’ judge to me.
Of course, we all know that the right’s talking points aren’t grounded in reality. But Pappas v. Giuliani blows a huge hole in conservatives’ attempts to portray Judge Sotomayor as some kind of racist radical or Latino supremecist. Judge Sotomayor is a fair-minded justice who puts the law ahead of everything else. In one case, she sided with a group of minorities; in another, she sided with a white racist. To me, that’s a pattern not of racialism, but of respect for the rule of law.
Filed under: Breaking, Governors, Progressives, Rights | Tags: Connecticut, Democrats, Gay Marriage, Iowa, John Lynch, LGBT, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont
New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed legislation today that will legalize same-sex marriage in that state, making NH the sixth state (after CT, ME, VT, MA, and IA) to legalize same-sex marriage:
Lynch, a Democrat, had promised a veto if the law didn’t clearly spell out that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services. Legislators made the changes.
“Today, we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities–and respect–under New Hampshire law,” Lynch said.
[...]
Lynch said it is now time for the federal government to extend full equal rights to same-sex couples.
This means that every state in New England–save for Rhode Island–now recognizes the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Toward a more perfect union…
Filed under: Breaking, Conservatives, Government, House, Progressives, Race, Right-Wing Noise Machine | Tags: Congress, Fail, Judiciary, Newt Gingrich, Racism, Republicans, Sonia Sotomayor
Newt Gingrich is walking back his smear of Judge Sotomayor as ‘racist’:
My initial reaction was strong and direct — perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court have been critical of my word choice.
With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word “racist” should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted).
[Emphasis mine]
Hear that, Republicans? It’s the sound of your opposition campaign against Judge Sotomayor imploding.
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Media, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine | Tags: Congress, Democrats, Epic Fail, Judiciary, Republicans, SCOTUS, Sonia Sotomayor, Surrender
It looks like that, in the wake of Judge Sotomayor’s accomplished academic and judicial records, her abundance of experience, moderate stances and bipartisan history, the GOP is giving up the fight against her nomination to the Supreme Court:
Top Senate Republican strategists tell POLITICO that, barring unknown facts about Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the GOP plans no scorched-earth opposition to her confirmation as a Supreme Court justice.
More than 24 hours after the White House unveiling, no senator has come out in opposition to Sotomayor’s confirmation.
“The sentiment is overwhelming that the Senate should do due diligence but should not make a mountain out of a molehill,” said a top Senate Republican aide. “If there’s no ‘there’ there, we shouldn’t try to create one.”
[...]
However, senators on both sides said they are confident that unless the process takes some startling turn, Sotomayor will be confirmed in plenty of time for the court’s opening on the fabled first Monday in October.
[...]
Republicans’ only hope of derailing Sotomayor would be a filibuster — a move countless Republicans have opposed in the context of judicial nominees. And even if they took that route, they are virtually certain to lose badly.
Republicans have 40 votes in the Senate — and it’s hard to imagine someone like Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) or anyone from a state with big Hispanic population blocking the judge.
[Emphasis mine]
The GOP would have very little power to block Sotomayor even if they had some kind of solid ground upon which to oppose her.
If out-of-context quotes are garbage made-up statistics about ‘reversal rates’ are the most conservatives can lob against a 17-year veteran of the federal bench, then Judge Sotomayor has nothing to worry about.
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Progressives, Race, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights | Tags: Courts, Democrats, Judiciary, Racism, Republicans, Sandra Day O'Connor, SCOTUS, Sexism, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court
Let’s debunk some right-wing talking points on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, shall we?
Judge Sotomayor said that the appeals courts make policy! That proves she’s an activist judge!
While it’s true that Judge Sotomayor said:
All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made
She did follow that up with:
I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it.
“She’s not wrong,” said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. “Of course they make policy… You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy.”
[...]
Eric Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University, was equally dismissive of this emerging conservative talking point. “She was saying something which is the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning. It is not a controversial proposition at all that the overwhelming quantity of law making work in the federal system is done by the court of appeals… It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue.”
[Emphasis mine]
Sotomayor said that Latina judges are better than white male judges! That’s racist!
It’s true that Judge Sotomayor said:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Actually, the full sentence is:
Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Looks like we’re missing some context here; keep in mind that Judge Sotomayor was discussing race and sex discrimination cases when she made these remarks:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice [Benjamin] Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
[Emphasis mine]
Sounds a lot less controversial when you put everything in context, huh?
Many of Sotomayor’s rulings have been overturned upon appeal, which proves that she’s an inferior judge.
Actually, Judge Sotomayor’s record on reversals is far above average:
Over each of the last several terms, the [Supreme Court] has reversed 75% of the cases that have come before it.
[...]
Sotomayor’s decisions were upheld far more frequently than the norm. Apparently, out of the 380-odd opinions she penned while on the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court granted cert on just six. And of those six, Sotomayor was reversed on only three. That’s a .500 batting average
[Emphasis mine]
So while the Supreme Court reverses 75% of the rulings they review, they have reversed only 50% of Sotomayor’s rulings they reviewed.
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, International, Iraq, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Scandal, Terrorism | Tags: Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, Democrats, Incompetence, Intelligence, Iraq, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Republicans, Speaker Pelosi, Torture
So DC is consumed with trying to figure out what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew about torture and when.
Strange, since I thought that the people who committed crimes were more important than the people who heard about them.
Still, what led to this media-created firestorm? First, some Congressional Democrats–Pelosi included–discussed launching a truth commission to determine who was responsible for the authorization/implementation of torture.
Second, the CIA released several documents showing that Pelosi and other Congressional Democrats were briefed on “enhanced interrogation techniques” in 2002. There was no indication which techniques were described, nor was there indication of whether Congress was told those techniques were purely hypothetical or being implemented.
Nonetheless, Republicans jumped on the documents of proof that Speaker Pelosi knew about waterboarding in 2002 and was therefore somewhat culpable in the torture coverup. But that conclusion isn’t borne out by the evidence–it makes assumptions about what was in those briefings that aren’t grounded in reality.
The CIA alleged that Congress was told exactly what they were doing; Pelosi contradicted them and said the CIA was misleading the public, just like they had mislead Congress in 2002. Since there are no solid records of what the CIA told Congress–since these were classified intelligence briefings–we don’t know who is telling the truth.
Conservatives are taking the CIA’s side because it’s politically advantageous to them, but it’s not very sensible. It’s hardly as if the CIA is an objective, unbiased player in all this–doesn’t it serve the CIA’s interest to divert attention away from the implementation of torture and onto a political sideshow? I mean, if there was a comprehensive investigation into torture, wouldn’t it put the entire CIA under a microscope? They have a vested interest in clouding up the investigation with political posturing and conflict, since it saves them from having to confront–and be held responsible for–their role in torture.
Plus, the CIA is pulling together records of these briefings from whatever they have lying around from 2002. Remember, the CIA circa 2002 wasn’t a bastion of competence and credibility; that was about the same time they were gathering the faulty intelligence that led to the Iraq War. As much as John Boehner may cry about the poor maligned “intelligence professionals” I don’t think you can give them the benefit of the doubt.
This story is only a few days old and we’re already seeing evidence that the CIA’s recollection of events isn’t accurate. Take this, for instance:
Almost every briefing described in the document — including the September 2002 Pelosi briefing that’s directly at issue — refers to “EITs,” or enhanced interrogation techniques, as a subject that was discussed. But according to a former intelligence professional who has participated in such briefings, that term wasn’t used until at least 2006.
That’s not just an issue of semantics. The former intel professional said that by using the term in the recently compiled document, the CIA was being “disingenuous,” trying to make it appear that the use of such techniques was part of a “formal and mechanical program.” In fact, said the former intel pro, it wasn’t until 2006 that — amid growing concerns about the program among some in the Bush administration — the EIT program was formalized, and the “enhanced interrogation techniques” were properly defined and given a name.
And this:
Rep. David Obey has sent a letter to [CIA Director Leon] Panetta complaining that a staffer identified in the documents as being briefed was in fact denied access to the briefing.
And this:
Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who chairs the oversight subcommittee of the House intelligence committee, told MSNBC’s Ed Schultz (h/t Democratic Underground):
On our subcommittee we are beginning an inquiry into a situation … initiated by the ranking minority member to look at a situation where the CIA did mislead the Congress … a documented issue of the CIA misleading the Congress.
A Schakowsky spokesman told TPMmuckraker that she was referring to the findings of a CIA inspector general report, portions of which were released last fall, which concluded that the agency had withheld crucial information from Congress and DOJ investigators who were probing whether CIA personnel committed crimes relating to the shooting of a missionary plane in Peru in 2001.
[Emphasis added]
And:
April 2002 (two briefings), September 2002: When Bob Graham first asked the CIA when they had briefed him on torture, they gave him a list of four dates, two in April 2002, and two in September 2002. However, when Graham reviewed his famously detailed notes, he discovered he had not attended any briefing on three of those dates (both April dates and one September date). The CIA conceded he was correct on the issue.
[...]
February 4, 2003: The CIA claims that, along with Pat Roberts and two staffers, it briefed John Rockefeller on EITs “in considerable detail” including “how the water board was used.” Rockefeller says, however, that he “was not present and was not later briefed individually by anyone in the intelligence community.”
And finally, from the CIA themselves:
As the agency has pointed out more than once, its list — compiled in response to congressional requests — reflects the records it has. These are notes, memos, and recollections, not transcripts and recordings.
[Emphasis mine]
In short, the CIA hasn’t proven themselves trustworthy in the past and they don’t appear to be very trustworthy on this particular issue.
Let me be clear: this entire issue is nothing more than a political witchhunt. The CIA is doing classic CYA, trying to keep their complicity in the torture debacle from becoming public. The GOP is piggybcking on the CIA’s CYA in order to attack Speaker Pelosi and Congressional Democrats.
They want to drive a wedge between Pelosi and the anti-torture left by trying to mixing Pelosi up into the Bush administration’s torture program, hoping she’ll be forced to justify at least some of it.
They want to throw enough dirt on Pelosi to keep her from launching a truth commission, in case she ends up implicated.
And most of all, they want a scalp. They want to destroy Pelosi’s career, make that the opening salvo in their much dreamed-of political comeback. All the GOP knows to do anymore is drum up a scandal and ride it to political success; it looks like they’re hoping like that particular chapter of their playbook still works.
Let’s not take our eye off the ball. The Bush administration authorized and implemented torture. They broke the law; they need to be held accountable. Whoever may have been told what when isn’t important; who actually justified torture and made it happen is. Don’t let the real criminals get away; don’t let them divert your attention onto trivial political distractions.
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Scandal, Terrorism | Tags: CIA, Congress, Democrats, George W. Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Republicans, Shame, Spin, Torture
Recently, CIA released memos indicating that Nancy Pelosi, now Speaker of the House, was briefed on “enhanced interrogation techniques” in 2002.
What those memos don’t indicate is which particular “enhanced interrogation techniques” Pelosi was told about, or whether waterboarding was among them. Those memos also don’t indicate whether those techniques were described as something that American forces were using/planning to use, or whether they were described to Pelosi and other members of Congress as purely hypothetical.
Right now, it’s a he-said she-said conflict between the CIA and Pelosi, and who you give more credibility to depends on where you fall politically.
Regardless, Republicans are pretending that, since Pelosi was briefed in some capacity about hypothetical “enhanced interrogation techniques” that neither she nor any other Democrat has any standing left to criticize the Bush administration or Republicans for the use of torture.
Even if you assume that members of Congress had some idea of what techniques were being implemented, this is still a false equivalence. Apples and oranges. Because there is a huge difference between people who justified and implemented torture and people who were simply told about it.
This is the standard GOP technique when they’re caught in some kind of scandal: claim the Democrats are also culpable in order to diffuse the eventual fallout.
Republicans want to shut down the torture debate because they know that it’s going to end poorly for them. A lot of politicos with vested interests in seeing the investigation end before it even begins are out there making these false equivalencies are trying to poison the well.
UPDATE: And here’s the right’s new talking point: they’re claiming that the government has documents proving definitively that torture works, but the Obama administration is refusing to declassify them in order to make the GOP look bad.
I don’t know whether such documents exist or not, but something tells me they don’t–or, at least, they don’t say what Cheney & co. are claiming they do.
Remember, the Bush administration were masters of the strategic leak, declassifying memos or leaking information at opportune moments in order to provide political cover. If they had smoking gun documents that proved torture worked, why didn’t they declassify them when they still had the power to? Even if they waited until Bush’s very last day in office, if those documents didn’t contain information that needed to be kept top secret, why didn’t they release them to the public and vindicate themselves once and for all?
And here’s the thing–even if those documents don’t exist, it doesn’t matter for Cheney and the Republicans; they can continue to claim they do in order to portray the Obama administration as acting in bad faith. The administration can’t prove that nonexistent documents don’t exist, so the Republicans can simply spin any claims that those documents aren’t there as attempts to keep those documents covered up.
I don’t think the GOP is hoping to prove that torture worked; I think they’re simply trying to taint whatever investigation may be launched. Their claims about secret smoking gun documents dovetail nicely with their allegations that Pelosi knew something and their calls for a “full investigation”; conservatives are trying to taint any investigation into torture as inherently politically-biased.
Filed under: Breaking, Government, Governors, Progressives | Tags: Connecticut, Democrats, Gay Marriage, Iowa, John Baldacci, Maine, Massachusetts, Same-Sex Marriage, Vermont
Maine Governor John Baldacci (D) just signed a bill into law that will legalize same-sex marriage in the Pine Tree State.
This makes Maine the fifth state to legalize same-sex marriage (after IA, CT, MA and VT) overall and the second state (after VT) to do it via legislation instead of a court decision.
