Tag: ek Politics

Oct 13 2010

Oil Spill Sell Out

This WaPo article is a revealing look at how Barack Hussein Obama is willing to sell out key principles, campaign promises, and core constituencies for…

Underpants.

How politics spilled into policy

By Michael Leahy and Juliet Eilperin, The Washington Post

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Behind closed doors with his Democratic Senate colleagues, a frustrated Nelson was making no secret of his unhappiness with the administration’s deal making. Drilling advocates were getting concessions, while the climate-change bill appeared to be going nowhere. What sort of bargain was that? At a meeting on the bill in March, Nelson challenged Lindsey Graham.

Whose votes are you bringing with you? Nelson demanded.

“Only me,” Graham replied.

Nelson pressed him: You’re selling the gulf and you’re only getting yourself?

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who liked the idea of his state receiving royalties from drilling, stood in defense of Graham. “It isn’t just Lindsey Graham who wants offshore drilling,” Warner said, according to Graham and others who were there. “I’m a coastal-state Democrat, and I support drilling.”

On the day before Obama’s March 31 drilling announcement, Interior officials began calling influential Democrats to give them advance notice. Salazar left phone messages for some of his old Senate friends.

“I took care of you, Bobby,” he said in a voice mail to Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), an apparent reference to the plan’s protection of New Jersey’s coastal area.

But Menendez was still upset by Obama’s decision to open Mid-Atlantic zones to possible exploration. A spill off Virginia, for example, might spread north with potentially devastating consequences for New Jersey’s waters and tourism.

“You’ve lost a vote for climate change,” Menendez told Salazar in a return voice mail.

And Obama is still doing it and is doing it again today.

He has the trustworthiness of Richard Milhouse Nixon without any of the political acumen.

Oct 12 2010

Another Opportunity for FAIL

BREAKING: Federal judge orders Obama admin. to stop DADT discharges immediately. Will Obama comply, or side with the bigots?

Posted by John Aravosis (DC) at 10/12/2010 02:49:00 PM

The President, who is himself a constitutional scholar, has been handed the golden opportunity to end DADT once and for all. A federal judge has now ruled that the gay ban is unconstitutional, and he has ordered the federal government to stop the discharges immediately. The President now has the power – given to him by a federal judge – to do the right thing, to do what he promised, to side with the civil rights community. All he has to do is not appeal, and DADT is over.

It’s a no-brainer. Even for this administration that is loathe to do anything bold, loathe to be seen as responsible for anything even slightly “controversial.” Well, now they have their out. It’s the judge’s fault. President Obama can simply choose not to appeal the case, to respect the judge’s decision, and DADT is over. It’s history.

Or the President can direct his Department of Justice to oppose the judge’s order, to appeal the case, and to defend DADT – to defend bigotry, to go down in history on the same side as those who chose to defend discrimination against another class of Americans earlier in the 20th century. It’s no longer up to Congress, it’s not longer “out of the President’s hands.”  It’s in Barack Obama’s hands. Will America’s first African-American president side with the bigots, or will he side with civil rights.  Will he act boldly, or will he choose the way of the coward?

Oct 12 2010

Not Just Foreclosures!

Do you want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?

Special today just for you.

If there is one single simple message I want you to take away from my writing about this issue, IT’S NOT JUST FORECLOSURES!

Every transfer of real estate from a seller to a buyer involves a title search which includes little things like just what are the boundaries of the property AND WHO OWNS IT!

If you pay cash, who owns “your” property is perfectly clear (usually) but we don’t customarily hand over wheel barrows of bills or even cut a check.

Usually you purchase by financing and share your title with a bank which has the right to seize your property if you don’t make the payments specified in your contract.  You’ll also be expected to pay for “title insurance”.  This protects the bank’s investment if it is later discovered that the person who sold it to to you has about as much right to sell it as I have to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge (you set a hard bargain, how about just what you have in your pocket right now?).  You, on the other hand, won’t get much satisfaction from it.

Now if you don’t pay the bank they take your property and sell it.  That’s foreclosure.  But what if you are paying the bank and have a better offer come along?

Well, normally you could just pay the bank what you owe (including the penalties in the fine print that they use to make this difficult and expensive for you and profitable for them) and accept the money from the new purchaser and transfer the title.

You found a sucker who’s willing to buy the Brooklyn Bridge for more than you paid me?  Congratulations Gordon Gekko.  Greed is good.

On the other hand, what has happened if you have financed or re-financed in the last 10 years is that your title (even supposing I had a legitimate claim to the Brooklyn Bridge because it was built on and with the bones of my Viking Ancestors) has been sliced and diced into so many pieces that the banks can’t track it anymore.

You can’t sell your property because you don’t have clear title.

Anyone who buys property at the moment is no better than a rube who’d buy the Brooklyn Bridge if the price was right, and this is ALL property.  That there is a market at all is a testimony to how many rubes are born every minute.

Now me, I have the $6.45 you had in your pocket which I’ve already invested in a bottle of Night Train so I can sleep under my bridge.

Your government, Barack Hussein Obama and all his Washington Wall Street Wizard Advisors, think that if they can just keep you from peeking at that man behind the curtain you’ll always find a sucker to sell to, but the title insurance companies aren’t buying it.

Nor should you.

Oct 12 2010

Barack Hussein Obama: Fierce Advocate!

Miami Thrice: DCCC to Gay Iraq Vet, "Your Money’s No Good Here"

By: Teddy Partridge Monday October 11, 2010 4:55 pm

Your money’s no good here, sir: seems to cover it. Anthony Woods was good enough to get sent to Harvard by the military, good enough to lead men in battle in Iraq, and good enough to admit to West Point. But his money’s no good to the Democrats who won’t repeal DADT. And the President who won’t issue a stop/loss order to suspend DADT discharges can’t even face Anthony Woods man-to-man.

Or perhaps this black gay man was unwelcome in NBA superstar Alonzo Mourning’s home.

Well, then – my money is no good either. I’ll give when I get Equal, too.

More posts by Teddy about today’s protests at the Barack Obama/Alonzo Mourning Miami Fundraiser.

Coverage from Americablog Gay-

Oct 10 2010

Things to remember while watching the morning shows.

First of all they’re preening pits of political hackery dominated by Radical Racist Republicans and Moronic Teleprompter Readers none of whom have any idea what it is to be a “real” American because they’re privileged pampered  assholes.

And also we will have “insightful analysis” like this, helpfully telegraphed by Jon Walker at Firedog Lake–

I find this memo from Third Way (PDF) to be comically poorly timed. No surprise they mine any and all data points to claim the need for Democrats to move to the right, but they also claim the path to victory this November is not rallying the liberal base, but winning over the moderates-despite the fact that Democrats have already won over moderates:

…

The irony is that, right now, Democrats are facing massive losses this November and they are actually doing extremely well with self-described moderates. According to Tom Jensen at Public Policy Polling, Democrats are winning over moderates by a two-to-one margin:

…

Winning over moderates has not saved the Democratic party this year. Despite the false narrative that is almost assured to follow this election, the problem is not that the Democratic party has moved too far to the left. Voters who consider themselves moderates overwhelming prefer Democrats. The problem is that voters that support Republicans are extremely excited to vote while the Democratic party has not made the moderates and liberals that support them excited about keeping them in.

…

(O)n a policy front, the country is dramatically to the left of what dominates Washington, DC, thinking. A health insurance public option, prescription drug re-importation, ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” closing the hedge fund managers’ tax loophole-and more-all have the support of huge majorities of the American people despite the idea that these are supposedly “too leftist” to get passed by the Democratic party in Washington. Hell, a plurality of the country actually wants a distribution of wealth resembling socialist Sweden.

Almost every economist will now admit that progressives were right when they said the stimulus was too small. With 9.6 percent unemployment and jobs being the top issue for almost all voters, there should be little doubt that Democrats would be better off politically if they had been more liberal and pursued a larger stimulus. Democrats are not being punished this election for ideology, they are being punished for incompetence in the face of a economic crisis.

This Third Way memo is just the first in what is sure to be a wave of advice from corporatists about how midterms prove Democrats suffered from liberal overreach, and so need to move to the right (i.e. more tax cuts for the rich). Just remember this: moderates actually prefer Democrats to Republicans. The problem this election year is that Democrats didn’t give their supporters, regardless of ideology, a strong reason vote for them.

Oct 09 2010

Why have laws at all?

You know they’re guilty, your government said so–

Why, then, does the Obama administration seek to prosecute him in federal court? One answer might be that trials permit punishment, including the death penalty. But the Justice Department is not seeking the death penalty against Mr. Ghailani. Another answer is that trials “give vent to the outrage” over attacks on civilians, as Judge Kaplan has put it. This justification for the trial is diminished, however, by the passage of 12 years since the crimes were committed.

The final answer, and the one that largely motivates the Obama administration, is that trials are perceived to be more legitimate than detention, especially among civil libertarians and foreign allies.

…

But Mr. Ghailani and his fellow detainees at Guantánamo Bay are a different matter. The Ghailani case shows why the administration has been so hesitant to pursue criminal trials for them: the demanding standards of civilian justice make it very hard to convict when the defendant contests the charges and the government must rely on classified information and evidence produced by aggressive interrogations.

A further problem with high-stakes terrorism trials is that the government cannot afford to let the defendant go. Attorney General Eric Holder has made clear that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the 9/11 plotter, would be held indefinitely in military detention even if acquitted at trial. Judge Kaplan said more or less the same about Mr. Ghailani this week. A conviction in a trial publicly guaranteed not to result in the defendant’s release will not be seen as a beacon of legitimacy.

The government’s reliance on detention as a backstop to trials shows that it is the foundation for incapacitating high-level terrorists in this war. The administration would save money and time, avoid political headaches and better preserve intelligence sources and methods if it simply dropped its attempts to prosecute high-level terrorists and relied exclusively on military detention instead.

Oct 05 2010

Playa or Liar?

(E)ither Biden got played, or he lied.  Either they didn’t have the votes in the first place, or they couldn’t hold them.  In either case, there is nothing preventing the President, as the Commander in Chief, from suspending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell discharges pending the Pentagon review if he’s sincere and that’s what he really wants.  He could do it today.

Obama says liberals are hurting Democrats and depressing turnout when they criticize him.  Well, he’s not up for reelection in November, and we’re doing plenty to support Democrats.  We’ve raised nearly $40,000 for Russ Feingold in the past week alone.

But right before an election is the time that the public is supposed to express their concerns and hold their representatives accountable.  That’s why we have elections in the first place.  It’s the last chance people will have to push their elected officials on how they plan to vote on the Catfood Commission’s recommendations in December, which members of the commission say will include cuts in Social Security benefits.  A bill that Obama plans to sign.

Anyone who tells people to be silent now is telling you to give up your last chance to fight to keep Congress from voting to reduce the deficit on the backs of senior citizens.

But Obama’s not talking about the fact that people are unhappy about his Catfood Commission plans.  He says that people expect too much too soon, but that’s a straw man.  That’s not what’s happening at all.

People understand when they’re being played.  And they don’t like it.

Oct 01 2010

Optimist

First of all, here’s a great one paragraph description of the current state of the world economy-

Major advanced economies are still reeling from the effects of a burst housing bubble and the financial crisis that followed. Consumer spending is depressed, and firms see no point in expanding when they aren’t selling enough to use the capacity they have. The recession may be officially over, but unemployment is extremely high and shows no sign of returning to normal levels.

Here’s a prescription for at least partially addressing it, at least for the United States-

Taking On China

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: September 30, 2010

So what will the bill accomplish? It empowers U.S. officials to impose tariffs against Chinese exports subsidized by the artificially low renminbi, but it doesn’t require these officials to take action. And judging from past experience, U.S. officials will not, in fact, take action – they’ll continue to make excuses, to tout imaginary diplomatic progress, and, in general, to confirm China’s belief that they are paper tigers.

The Levin bill is, then, a signal at best – and it’s at least as much a shot across the bow of U.S. officials as it is a signal to the Chinese. But it’s a step in the right direction.

For the truth is that U.S. policy makers have been incredibly, infuriatingly passive in the face of China’s bad behavior – especially because taking on China is one of the few policy options for tackling unemployment available to the Obama administration, given Republican obstructionism on everything else. The Levin bill probably won’t change that passivity. But it will, at least, start to build a fire under policy makers, bringing us closer to the day when, at long last, they are ready to act.

Now it all seems a little Smoot Hawley to me but I’m really not equipped to judge, however the mere fact our “educated” elites are reduced to measures this drastic by the narrow mindedness of their thinking just flat out stuns me until I remember how inbred and ignorant they are.

I’m reminded of very serious solutions to problems like climate change where people are paying more and more attention to crackpot terraformers instead of simply inflating their tires and painting their roofs white, investing in Rail (diesel/electric is really efficient) and flying less, eating less meat (factory farming has an incredible carbon footprint) and other really common sense and easy to do things.

I’m not calling Krugman a crackpot terraformer, what I’m saying is that it’s a sorry state of affairs indeed that our only options are extreme.

Sep 30 2010

Show Me The Money!

Soros, Lewis and Other Big Donors Abandon Democrats For Progressives and Weed

By: Jane Hamsher Thursday September 30, 2010 9:29 am

Privately, the closed wallets of Democratic billionaires like George Soros and Peter Lewis is all that the poobahs of the DC fundraising world have been talking about for weeks.  But now it’s hit the New York Times:

Many wealthy Democratic patrons, who in the past have played major roles financing outside groups to help elect the party’s candidates, are largely sitting out these crucial midterm elections.

Democratic donors like George Soros, the bête noire of the right, and his fellow billionaire Peter B. Lewis, who each gave more than $20 million to Democratic-oriented groups in the 2004 election, appear to be holding back so far.

“Mr. Soros believes that he can be most effective by funding groups that promote progressive policy outcomes in areas such as health care, the environment and foreign policy,” said an adviser, Michael Vachon. “So he has opted to fund those activities.”

…

Gay men, pro-choice women and environmentalists are probably the three biggest issue-based donor groups for the Democratic Party, and all three are absolutely ripshit at the way the Democrats have squandered their majorities.  They’re also furious at the veal pen outfits that collaborated with the Democrats and gave them cover for their actions and have cut them off, too. Guess that weekly invite to the Common Purpose meeting turned out not to be such a hot ticket after all.

..

The bigger problem for the Democrats, however,  is not that Lewis and Soros are sitting it out – it’s that Lewis and Soros are considered “lead donors.”  Where they go, other donors follow.  If they decide to sit it out, so will others.

The complaints that Soros and Lewis have are the same ones expressed by all those hippies that Robert Gibbs, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have been punching.  It’s a malaise felt by the entire progressive base, who can’t be spurred into action by being told to “buck up.”

I’ll tell you one thing, though. As pissed off as people are, it’s going to be nothing compared to the rage that will be unleashed if the Catfood Commission’s recommendations to cut Social Security benefits gets passed – and Alice Rivlin says the “stars are aligned” for it to happen.   They could snap the spine of the Democratic party completely with that one.

Citing the same NYT piece-

Nobody Should Give Money to This Crowd

by Taylor Marsh, 30 September 2010 4:00 pm

Pres. Obama, Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi compromised on health care without a fight. They did deals in the dark with the insurance companies, not to mention the Catholic Church, then shoved a mandate on health care down the rest of the Democratic Party’s throat, as well as the American public, while movement progressives screamed to high heaven what it would cost them.

…

They passed stimulus with a big “D” on it that wasn’t what was needed, managing to get people furious about the spending, especially since it wasn’t enough to actually do the job. In other words, they failed to do their job, because they didn’t have the courage to do the stimulus that was actually needed and could have proved Democratic policies can work when they’re done the right way.

Pres. Obama, Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi decided that turning into the Bush era crimes of torture, intelligence tampering, as well as constitutional overreach, was not important for Democrats to take up, so not only did they let Bush-Cheney get away with what they did on the run up to the Iraq war, but the negligence of Democratic leadership, starting with Pres. Obama, has actually allowed for the rehabilitation of Bush-Cheney in some quarters.

…

The Catfood Commission is a prime example. The only reason this was set up is because Pres. Obama wanted it. We don’t need no stinking commission, because Congress is perfectly capable of taking care of Social Security, which means preserving it. However, like in all things, Pres. Obama wanted the cover of a commission so he could blame someone else on what he actually hopes to do: raise the retirement age; cut benefits; privatize elements of the plan. Pick one, or choose all. Why a Democrat would put in play a bipartisan commission on a signature Democratic Party issue that cemented the reputation of the party as working for financial security for all, specifically as Americans age, is something that few Democrats can stomach, myself included.

…

There is a cluelessness among Democratic leadership in Congress that has forgotten their job and has them siding with the Executive Branch, because Pres. Obama is one of their own, even if he is calling open season on one of the signature Democratic policies that long time Democratic voters believe in, have worked for all of their activist lives, but is also one of the policies that signifies the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Pres. Obama has already sacrificed health care to insurance companies, putting forth a law that is disliked by the majority of the public, but also will be easy to dismantle by defunding its implementation. He’s mimicked George W. Bush on security issue after issue, while completely forgetting his promise to close Gitmo, with his promises on DADT weighing most gays and lesbians down in disbelief.

…

So why would anyone in their right mind give buckets of money to the Democrats right now? They shouldn’t and they aren’t, and small donations won’t cut it this time around, especially since they won’t be coming in like they used to. Something that will hit Pres. Obama over the head once re-election time begins.

Sep 30 2010

Obama’s recent record on Civil Liberties

emptywheel is spending a week in Scotland and is likely to be pretty soused most of the time.  She left behind some good stuff about the Obama Administration’s recent record on Civil Liberties.

You know, things he’s fucked up just in the last week or so.

Generally they fall into 5 categories-

  • 5 on Assassination Authority
  • 2 on Intelligence Transparency
  • 2 on Indefinite Detention
  • 1 on Electronic Surveillance
  • 6 on FBI Surveillance of Peace Activists

I’ve published some digests below the fold along with a bonus piece by bmaz on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Assassination Authority

Obama Doesn’t Know Why the Fuck He’s Entitled to Kill Al-Awlaki, He Just Is, Damnit

By: emptywheel Saturday September 25, 2010 11:54 am

This is not a court filing. It’s a “choose your own adventure novel” for the judge:

  1. Is AQAP part of al Qaeda? (if yes, then go to dead al-Awlaki)
  2. Is AQAP an “organized associated force of al Qaeda”? (if yes, then go to dead al-Awlaki)
  3. Do Presidents get to self-authorize going to war (if yes, then go to dead al-Awlakil; if no, go to “alternatives to the AUMF”)
  4. What do you think of the “inherent right to self defense”? (if yes, then go to dead al-Awlaki)
  5. To abide by the Constitution and other laws, the President can’t be bound by “generalized standards.” The End. (go to dead al-Awlaki)

And mind you, we’ve set off on this “choose your own adventure in tyranny novel” even before we’ve gotten to the government’s invocation of state secrets. Just in case you had any doubts about their claim to unlimited power…

Load more