* Colin Powell -- the one conservatives seem anxious to drive out of the GOP -- remains a popular national figure. Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh aren't.
* It didn't generate a lot of attention on Friday, but President Obama signed into a law a measure on military procurement that's likely to save taxpayers a lot of money
- Heather (C&L):
Mary Matalin thinks having a few more "conviction conservatives" like Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh out there would be a winning formula for the GOP in future elections. I wonder if she actually thought this one through ahead of time.
I don't think it bodes well for Republicans to be using phrases which include the word convict and Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh in the same sentence. The only thing that magnifies for me is a reminder that if they were both treated like most Americans who aren't rich or well connected, they would both have already served some time in prison.
Just a moment ago on TV, would-be warlord and preemption dead-ender John Bolton was on TV arguing that in response to this morning's nuclear test, the US should push to have North Korea expelled from the UN -- something that brought an amused chorus of IM guffaws in the TPM newsroom. Zack Roth: "that will get them to stop!" Me: "that would teach them ... what a buffoon."
Really though, I found myself oddly disappointed. I've grown to rely on Bolton for over-the-top and generally insane responses to foreign crises. But expulsion from UN? As Kleefeld said, coming from Bolton, is that a punishment or a reward? Something's fishy in Denmark.
Yglesias: News That’s Fit to Print, Plus This
More tales of the MSM as a New York Times article discusses Republican messaging on Gitmo at great length while doing basically nothing to assess the merits of the underlying claims.
Outside a tiny circle of people who work in politics or political messaging full-time, the ins-and-outs of GOP messaging tactics has no impact whatsoever on the American people. By contrast, people would be really interested to know if it’s actually true that the President of the United States is proposing to create a dangerous situation in which terrorists are likely to escape from prison and murder people. I think people would also be really genuinely interested in whether or not their elected representatives in the US House and Senate are lying to them. Yet the Times article gives us no real insight into those issues. Instead, it treats the debate like it’s maybe a hockey game.
Not unusual, of course, but I think it’s always worth pointing out.
- Steve Benen adds: QUITE A FEW GITMO ENDORSEMENTS....
Colin Powell offered some subtle criticism yesterday of President Obama's handling of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, arguing the White House should have articulated a more detailed plan for the detainees before starting the process. But Powell's general take (pdf) was a rather forceful endorsement of the president's general approach on the issue.
"I felt Guantanamo should be closed for the past six years, and I lobbied and presented reasons to President Bush. And Mr. Cheney is not only disagreeing with President Obama's policy. He's disagreeing with President Bush's policy. President Bush stated repeatedly to international audiences and to the country that he wanted to close Guantanamo. [...]
"Guantanamo has caused us a great deal of trouble throughout the world. And Mr. Cheney the other day said, 'Well, we're doing it to satisfy European intellectuals' or something like that. No. We're doing it to reassure Europeans, Muslims, Arabs, all the people around the world that we are a nation of law. [...]
"This business about making the country less safe by bringing these people to our prison system, we have got two million people in jail in America. The highest incarceration rate in the world. And they all had lawyers. They had all had access to the writ of habeas corpus and they're all in jail. And I don't know, Bob, if you've ever seen some of these prison reality shows on television where they show you what a super lock-up is. I'm not terribly about worried one of these guys going to a super lock-up."
Hearing this, it occurred to me that the list of leading Republican officials -- or officials appointed by a Republican president -- who support shutting down the Gitmo facility includes quite a few names. Bush's Secretary of State (Powell), Bush's Defense Secretary (Robert Gates), Bush's chairman of the Joint Chiefs (Mullen), even Bush himself, all believe the nation's security interests would be well served by shutting down the detention facility.
Now, that doesn't necessarily translate into merit. It's a lazy argument to say, "Group A believes this is a good policy, therefore the policy is worthwhile." Obviously, Powell, Gates, Mullen, et al can be wrong about this.
I mention it, though, because the Republican Party has decided that this is the killer issue upon which the GOP can build a comeback. They decided quite some time ago -- even before last year's election -- that public fear and confusion were ripe for exploitation, and the party that couldn't make headway on anything of substance could turn Gitmo into demagogic gold.
It creates an odd dynamic. The one issue Republicans believe is the president's Achilles' heel is the same issue in which Obama enjoys the support of Colin Powell, Bush's Defense Secretary, and the Bush-appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Collectively, they're up against Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and craven members of Congress.
In terms of public credibility, it's a match-up that seems to favor the White House -- or at least it would, if more congressional Dems stopped being so cowardly about this.
- C&L: Admiral Mullen says we need to close Guantanamo Bay
John Amato Monday May 25, 2009 1:00pm
On ABC's THIS WEEK, Admiral Mullen reiterated President Obama's call to close Guantanamo Bay to be closed.
The concern I've had about Guantanamo in these wars is it has been a symbol, and one which has been a recruiting symbol for those extremists and jihadists who would fight us. So and I think that centers -- you know, that's the heart of the concern for Guantanamo's continued existence, in which I spoke to a few years ago, the need to close it," Mullen said.
Didn't the Bush administration and all their flunkies, including Newt Gingrich, say that you can never go against the military or you hate the troops?
REP. GINGRICH: Let me say, first of all, there were over 550,000 troops who served in Iraq. I'm sure you can find one to agree with you.
OK, I guess Newt only likes troops who agree with his positions, and I guess Admiral Mullen is one of those troops too. Well Newt, are you now putting all your hate on the members of our armed forces who want to close Gitmo?
Just what the American public wants to hear from Republicans:
“We are very excited about waging an ideological debate,” says Richard Viguerie, the well-heeled conservative fundraiser and direct-mail guru. “We never lose battles. Even if we lose the vote we win, we build the movement.”
“Remember,” adds Princeton law professor Robert George, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, “that the base does not expect to win this. That’s the little secret. [Republicans] don’t have the filibuster, the Democrats have the votes. For [the conservative base], this is about the future of the Republican Party, not who is going to sit on the Supreme Court. . . . . That is why conservatives are going to be interested in it, and what they are going to hold people accountable for.”
Let’s see. Battle you know can’t win? Check. Ideological battle no one but the fundies is interested in? Check. Possible party purges down the road? Check.
Even when conservatives lose, they win. The conservative cause can never fail, it can only be betrayed.
Benen: ANOTHER ONE?...
Let's see, Liz Cheney practically lives on cable news. She also lies routinely, accuses the president of helping terrorists, and is so mindless in her attacks on the nation's elected leadership, she's something of a national embarrassment.
And for Republican recruiters, apparently she's perfect.
The hottest Republican property out there isn't former Vice President Dick Cheney but his daughter Liz, who has taken to the airwaves to defend her dad and the whole Bush administration on national security and Guantánamo Bay issues. Liz Cheney, who followed the former veep's hard-hitting speech criticizing President Obama's policies with a CNN appearance, is becoming so popular in conservative circles that some want her to run for office. "She's awesome. Everyone wants her to run," said a close friend.
But others say that she is unlikely to run for office now because she is raising five young children, helping to write her father's book, and working on other major conservative projects. "She's a chip off the block!" said a longtime friend.
A forceful defender of the administration and her dad, Liz Cheney has been appearing on TV with greater regularity. She brings to the screen a combination of her dad's steely focus and her mom's softer touch. "It's a two-fer. She comes off a bit better than he does sometimes," a conservative consultant said.
The U.S. News report envisions a plan in which she sets up shop at a right-wing think taken, where she could "build a base of support." From there, the next time there's a Republican president, the younger Cheney "could take the policy under secretary's position in a Republican administration when her children are older."
I can't help but find all of this rather ridiculous. For one thing, Liz Cheney's penchant for dishonesty rivals that of her father's. For another, the "Cheney" name is not exactly a strong political "brand" right now.
"Everyone wants her to run"? Who are these people?
Tim F.: The Dave Niewert Decade
The Washington Post, lamenting that personal threats against judges have doubled in six years, describes two basic kinds of culprit: defendants with anger management issues, and conservatives.
Worried federal officials blame disgruntled defendants whose anger is fueled by the Internet; terrorism and gang cases that bring more violent offenders into federal court; frustration at the economic crisis; and the rise of the “sovereign citizen” movement—a loose collection of tax protesters, white supremacists and others who don’t respect federal authority.In their classic language guide Elements of Style, William Strunk and E.B. White encourage writers to use avoid abstract language when a simpler, familiar, word will do. In that vein I would remind the Washington Post that most readers will have never heard of ‘sovereign citizens’. The crazy band of teabaggers, racists, militiamen, abortion clinic bombers and secessionists could equivalently be known as ‘the Republican Party’.
Benen: MAKING LIEBERMAN LOOK LOYAL BY COMPARISON...
Did you happen to catch Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska on Fox News yesterday?
President Obama said on Saturday that a Supreme Court nominee is coming soon, but Republicans in the Senate have spent weeks working to frame the type of judicial resume that would be unacceptable on the bench. On Sunday, the GOP got what could be a bit of a boost, as a key moderate Democrat left the door open to filibustering a possible Obama Court nominee.
Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Ben Nelson warned the president against appointing an activist judge to replace the retiring David Souter. In the process, the Nebraska Democrat acknowledged that the scenario could present itself where he joined the GOP in voting against cloture.
"I think that's the test, will they be an activist or not?" Nelson said. "And I would hope that there wouldn't be any circumstances that would be so extreme with any of the president's nominees that the other side would feel the need to filibuster or that I might feel the need to filibuster in the case of extraordinary circumstances." [emphasis added]
Nelson added that he wants to Guantanamo detainees incarcerated in other countries ("I don't want to see them come on American soil") and said he's open to maintaining Bush-era torture policies ("What we need to do is make sure that the intelligence information that's gathered is accurate, that we do everything within our power to get good intelligence, and it may or may not consist of coming from enhanced techniques").
This comes about a week after Nelson voiced his support for a Republican filibuster of Dawn Johnsen's nomination to head the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel -- because she has the audacity to be pro-choice -- taking a much harder line on Obama nominees than Bush nominees.
Whenever you hear talk about Dems having a "filibuster-proof majority" after Al Franken is seated, remember that Ben Nelson is one of the 60, and he'll betray his allies whenever it suits his purposes.
Think Progress: Durbin Calls On Gingrich To Apologize For Attacking The CIA In 2007
Last week, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich called on Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to resign her current position as Speaker. He said that she “disqualified herself” over her comments that the CIA was “misleading” Congress.
As ThinkProgress pointed out, Gingrich himself has accused the CIA, among other U.S. intelligence agencies, of misleading Congress and undermining the president. In response to the release of the 2007 Iran National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) — which concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program — Gingrich said that he believed the NIE and its authors were “damaging to our own national security.” He said that the document was “a deliberate attempt to undermine the policies of President Bush by members of his own government by suggesting that Iran no longer poses a serious threat to U.S. national security.”
Today on NBC’s Meet the Press, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) brought up this point. He said that if Gingrich is so offended by Pelosi’s comments, then he should also apologize for what he said in 2007:
DURBIN: I’d just say that I’m afraid Mr. Gingrich is suffering from a little political amnesia here. He’s forgotten that in year 2007, he criticized the National Intelligence estimate in regard to the capability of Iran to develop nuclear weapons and said that — if I remember the quote correctly, I’m looking down here — that what they did damaged our national security and misled the American people. Mr. Gingrich, would you like to make an apology to our intelligence agency for what you said in 2007?
GINGRICH: I said that particular report was intellectually dishonest. It was a public, non-classified report, and we were debating it. I said it was intellectually dishonest. I never said the CIA lied to the Congress, which would be illegal. It would be a felony.
Watch it:
During the exchange, Durbin also brought up Rep. Pete Hoekstra’s (R-MI) criticisms of the CIA, including his 2008 statement that the CIA “may have been lying or concealing part of the truth” in testimony to Congress regarding a 2001 incident in which the CIA mistakenly killed an American citizen in Peru. “We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress,” Hoekstra said of the incident. “Should he apologize?” asked Durbin. Gingrich, of course, responded that there was nothing wrong with what Hoekstra said.
- Josh Marshall: Speaker Gingrich?
At our editorial meeting this morning we were trying to reason our way through the renewed prominence and media omnipresence of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich -- something that actually seems to happen every few years when the GOP starts taking on water. Now, though, Newt's out there calling on Speaker Pelosi to resign, considering running for president and generally speaking out on every issue under the sun.
But one thing we keyed into -- especially when considering his calls for Pelosi to stand aside -- is, does Newt realize he's not Speaker any more?
He seems to insist with members of the press that he still be referred to as "Speaker Gingrich." And actually his website is speakergingrich.com. Not former Speaker Gingrich, Speaker Gingrich. And it goes beyond him. On Meet the Press this weekend, he repeatedly refers to former intel committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra as "Chairman Hoekstra."
It is almost as if the Republican party, as it moves into its own tea bagging time warp has rendezvoused with Newt in imagined past and found that they're once again made for each other.
DougJ has been doing a great job describing the post-wingnut phenomenon, in which the right becomes so compartmentalized and separated from the rest of us (and reality) that they just speak in terms and codes that make no sense to the majority of America, but which make a great deal of sense and carry great symbolic meaning to them. The classic examples are the recent flare-ups over arugula and Dijon mustard, in which right-wingers see the dread menace of elitisteuroliberalfascism and react hysterically, while the rest of us are left wondering just what the hell is wrong with mustard and tasty lettuce.
At any rate, I was driving home from Target after replacing yet another household appliance (I’m just buying Kitchen Aid
everything from Amazon from now on, because every other brand name is crap that breaks in a year), and I flipped on the AM radio to hear the beginning of the Rush Limbaugh show. I figured what the hell, I haven’t listened to him for a while, I will see what he is up to and what his main concerns are these days. The show was a “best of,” taped during the Chrysler bankruptcy, and it was like a trip to another dimension.
He was repeatedly referring to President Obama as “Barack Peron,” and he wove this elaborate tale about how the Chrysler bankruptcy was actually a cunning scheme for Obama to reward the UAW, and that while the Chrysler bankruptcy was a huge failure for Obama because the bailout funds were supposed to save Chrysler, it was also a huge victory for Obama because it was exactly what he wanted to do. This went on for like fifteen minutes, and putting aside the fact that I’m pretty sure very few in his audience have any idea who Juan Peron is, it just occurred to me that the only people who could have followed what he was talking about are daily listeners who are so far into the kool-aid that they will believe everything he says, the hopelessly uninformed who won’t know what he is saying makes no sense, and the partisan hacks who don’t care, they just hope it helps Republicans. I understand there may be some overlap with those groups.
At any rate, I googled “Barack Peron,” and fortunately the entire rant is online and you can read it for yourself. Here is a snippet:
So that is what precisely has happened here. The lawful debt holders have been intimidated into surrendering their legitimate claims in a bankruptcy. The next thing you do, right out of the pages of Juan Peron, you force state-owned banks—and we have state-owned banks, don’t we, now? Notice the bankruptcy is happening after the bank takeovers, after nationalization of a certain percentage of some banks. Isn’t it interesting the timing here? So you force state-owned banks—you don’t have to force them because they’re yours anyway—and these state-owned banks, and they’re the big lenders to Chrysler over the years, you force them to give up most of their claims in a bankruptcy, ‘cause you gotta save the company. I mean, that’s the bottom line, gotta save the company for America.Then after you have forced the lawful debt holders to surrender their claims and the state-owned banks, the big lenders, to give up most of their claims in a bankruptcy, then what do you do? You hand the company to your union allies. Fifty-five percent of Chrysler today will be owned by the United Auto Workers. Now, many Americans do not recognize this pattern, because we don’t see this pattern in this country. This method of bankruptcy and of saving a company by basically turning it over to people who have hardly any investment in it, the United Auto Workers, at the result of an iron fist from the state, i.e., Barack Obama, this is so far outside the American political spectrum, business spectrum, people can’t get their arms around it because they’ve never seen it before, and they probably don’t know what Juan Peronism is, they may not even know who Juan Peron is. They know who Evita Peron is, they think it’s Madonna and they think she was great.
If you didn’t know the source, you would think this was babble I had copied down from some unwashed homeless guy with a nervous tic talking to himself while walking down the street. It makes no sense whatsoever. To follow his logic, Democrats secretly crashed the economy last summer, knowing that Barack Obama would get elected, so that the current Republican President would be forced to shower all the major banks with tons of money to keep them afloat and that would in effect nationalize them so that a year later, when an auto company goes bankrupt, President Barack Peron could then flex his muscles and give away the company to the evil autoworkers union, just as he planned to all along, just like Juan Peron. Also, Madonna.
If that “theory” (and I use the term loosely) makes sense to you, you might want to seek help. But there it is, in all its glory, from the guy who is the de facto leader of the opposition party. And it is insane. But if you look at it a again through the post-wingnut filter, it really is the political equivalent of raising a ruckus over dijon mustard. There is no coherent thought, just buzzwords that the in-group is supposed to recognize and react appropriately to:
Nationalization- BOO!
UAW- BOO!
Barack Peron- BOOO!
Madonna- DOUBLE BOO!And reading the transcript really doesn’t give you the whole effect, because you have to hear the caustic sneers and the other tonal shifts to completely get the feel for the crazy. After listening to the entire dizzing opening monologue, I realized why some of these nutters in the birther wing of the current right feel comfortable putting up billboards asking “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” without stopping to realize most people aren’t going to have any clue what they are talking about. Or writing diaries trying to explain that Jesus would waterboard.
They’re crazy and they are increasingly isolated and insular and speaking a language that only makes sense to them. It is just that simple. I have my doubts about the Democratic party, but at least they are functioning in a reality that I can relate to and understand. When we look at the sky, we see the sun and clouds, and not a heliocentric conspiracy to deny the existence of God (and yes, I am aware that is a spoof site).
No comments:
Post a Comment