Maybe they missed it, but people don't exactly have the greatest faith in the way the White House negotiates with anyone about anything. They certainly haven't been impressive from a consumer perspective with the banks so far and it was only a few months ago they decided to play nice with BP as well. Everyone can appreciate the negative impact of delayed business in this economy but people can also appreciate the harshness of throwing a family onto the street.
Telling the public that the Justice Department will get tough but not open a criminal investigation could lead people to believe that another big talk, little action move is ahead. For some reason this administration is afraid of conflict and ready to fold at even the slightest hint of it. They forget that they have already played the "let's talk tough but act nice behinds the scenes" card a few too many times. Asking nicely does not work with this industry. It also doesn't win over a suspicious public that is already upset with the financial industry.
The full extent of the foreclosure mess is still coming into focus. Congress has called for a hearing on the subject, and the housing market in certain parts of the country has come to a near standstill.
The officials on Sunday stopped short of announcing a criminal investigation, and did not suggest that one was imminent. Instead, Mr. Donovan wrote that the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force — a coalition of federal agencies and United States attorney’s offices — has made the foreclosure issue “priority No. 1,” adding that Attorney General Eric Holder has said that if wrongdoing was discovered by the task force, it “will take the appropriate action.”
“Banks must follow the law,” Mr. Donovan wrote on The Huffington Post, “and those that haven’t should immediately fix what is wrong.”
A telling exposé on President Obama from Peter Baker in the NYT. What's interesting about the piece is what Obama and the White House think and say about themselves. It's a huge piece, and worth a read:
“Given how much stuff was coming at us,” Obama told me, “we probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right. There is probably a perverse pride in my administration — and I take responsibility for this; this was blowing from the top — that we were going to do the right thing, even if short-term it was unpopular. And I think anybody who’s occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can’t be neglecting of marketing and P.R. and public opinion.”
That is utter nonsense. It's difficult to find an administration more political, more worried about what people think (at least people on the right), than Team Obama. When have they ever forged ahead with "the right thing" to hell with the consequences? That simply is not the way they operate. The President starts a negotiation by looking for the lowest common denominator, the thing least likely to make waves with the opposition, and then, after a comfortable period of time doing next to nothing, rallies around whatever is left.
"But I keep a checklist of what we committed to doing, and we’ve probably accomplished 70 percent of the things that we talked about during the campaign. And I hope as long as I’m president, I’ve got a chance to work on the other 30 percent."
That's a tad disingenuous. On health care reform, he didn't push for what he promised - he didn't even try - and was forced to settle for much less than he could have gotten. Is that really a full accomplishment, getting a B- when you could have gotten an A? And how about the stimulus, another "promise kept": The President failed to ask for the full amount needed, and now the economy is in the crapper while Democrats prepare to lose control of the House, and possibly the Senate. How is that a full success?
“It’s not that we believed our own press or press releases, but there was definitely a sense at the beginning that we could really change Washington,” another White House official told me. “ ‘Arrogance’ isn’t the right word, but we were overconfident.”
No, arrogance is the right word. This is a group of people who think they are so right that they don't need anyone else's help. Other than bad people who won't help them anyway. It's an odd mixture of arrogance and insecurity, really (thus the constant right-wing outreach).
The biggest miscalculation in the minds of most Obama advisers was the assumption that he could bridge a polarized capital and forge genuinely bipartisan coalitions. While Republican leaders resolved to stand against Obama, his early efforts to woo the opposition also struck many as halfhearted. “If anybody thought the Republicans were just going to roll over, we were just terribly mistaken,” former Senator Tom Daschle, a mentor and an outside adviser to Obama, told me. “I’m not sure anybody really thought that, but I think we kind of hoped the Republicans would go away. And obviously they didn’t do that.”
They thought the Republicans would just go away? That is beyond naive. How could any Democratic leader lead based on the assumption that the Republicans would simply go away on their own? In other words, Obama didn't feel the need, or desire really, to fight back.
Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, though, is among the Democrats who grade Obama harshly for not being more nimble in the face of opposition. “B-plus, A-minus on substantive accomplishments,” he told me, “and a D-plus or C-minus on communication.” The health care legislation is “an incredible achievement” and the stimulus program was “absolutely, unqualifiedly, enormously successful,” in Rendell’s judgment, yet Obama allowed them to be tarnished by critics. “They lost the communications battle on both major initiatives, and they lost it early,” said Rendell, an ardent Hillary Clinton backer who later became an Obama supporter. “We didn’t use the president in either stimulus or health care until we had lost the spin battle.”
Note how Rendell mentions "using the President" too late in the game on HCR and the stimulus. That's a point I've been making for over a year: That the President sat back and refused to get involved until it was too late on far too many policies. Apologists argued that the President had little role in legislating. Those of us who have actually worked in legislating know that the apologists were wrong. And now Rendell confirms it.
The other side would like more ideological rigidity. Norman Solomon, a leading progressive activist and the president of the Institute for Public Accuracy, said Obama has “totally blown this great opportunity” to reinvent America by being more aggressive on issues like a public health care option. Other liberals feel the same way about gays in the military or the prison at Guántanamo Bay. “It’s been so reflexive since he was elected, to just give ground and give ground,” Solomon told me. “If we don’t call him a wimp, which may be the wrong word, he just seems to be backpedaling.” Solomon added: “It makes people feel angry and perhaps used. People just feel like, Gee, we really believed in this guy, and his rhetoric is so different than the way he’s behaved in office.”
Spot on.
As a senior adviser put it, “There’s going to be very little incentive for big things over the next two years unless there’s some sort of crisis.”
There was very little incentive over the past two years either. Well, to be more precise, there was an incentive to do a few big things, and then cave on them from the outset.
Read More......
Steve Hendricks is the author of A Kidnapping in Milan, a new investigative book that looks into the CIA's rendition program from a historical perspective, with a special look at the 2003 kidnapping and rendition for torture of Abu Omar from the streets of Milan. This act was investigated by the Italian judicial system, and 23 U.S. operatives were convicted in 2009 of kidnapping and other crimes related to the event.
Scott Horton has a six-question interview with Mr. Hendricks. It's a fascinating exchange if you're interested in these matters. I reproduce just a part of it here.
About the rendition program in general, Hendricks says:
Before September 11, 2001, the CIA carried out at least seventy extraordinary renditions—the vast majority, it seems, under Clinton. We know very little about most of these renditions, but the fact of our knowing little suggests they were carried out with a degree of discretion and competence. Under George W. Bush, the quantity of renditions went up and the discretion and competence went down. At the very least Bush rendered several score victims, and more probably a couple hundred. His demands for renditions were so great that, for example, the CIA’s in-house air fleet didn’t have enough planes, so the agency had to lease torture taxis from outside the agency. The CIA also rented many of the renderers—the on-the-ground planners, the heavies who actually grabbed the victims, the in-flight medics, you name it. A lot of them were poorly trained. Then there was Bush’s brazen approach to covert action, which filtered down to the lowest level of the CIA. Even in the best of times, the CIA thinks it can get away with murder (sometimes literally), but under Bush the hubris reached heights not seen since the anything-goes Cold War days.
The Clinton point is worth noting. That fact of its invisibility is a mark of its "success" — in James Bond terms at least.
About Abu Omar as a worthwhile target, Hendricks says:
Abu Omar was almost certainly a terrorist but, as you say, of middling or even lowish rank and without imminent plans to attack. ... The most convincing theory to explain why the CIA snatched Abu Omar is that the agency’s chief of station in Italy, Jeff Castelli, wanted a promotion. After September 11, renditions were all the rage in the CIA. Station chiefs around the world were collecting scalps. Several Italians and Americans who worked with Castelli believe he convinced Langley to approve the rendition by exaggerating the threat Abu Omar posed and denigrating the Italians’ monitoring of him. Castelli had boosters at Langley who were grooming him for a higher post, and at least one or two of them were among those who weigh the merits of proposed renditions and approved or denied them.
He goes on to note that whatever else the CIA is, it's also a bureaucracy, with all that this implies. Imagine being tortured for years by third-world thugs because someone wanted a promotion. The banality of evil.
The interview covers other aspects of the case as well, including what motivated the charismatic chief prosecutor, Armando Spataro, and how much Berlusconi knew of the CIA mission before it was conducted. (If he knew ahead of time, he's arguably part of the conspiracy.)
The final question deals with Obama and the rendition program. One comment is worth quoting (my emphasis):
A lot of Americans think Obama ended it, but the program is alive and well. Obama did ban U.S. personnel from torturing captives, but, after some initial obfuscation, he said through subordinates that he intended to continue extraordinary renditions, which is to say to continue torture-by-proxy, which is to say to violate, as Bush did, the UN Convention Against Torture, to which the United States is a signatory. In court Obama has argued, again just as Bush did, that lawsuits against the United States by victims of renditions must be dismissed because they jeopardize national security.
Never look back, right sir? Except when looking for models, of course.
Elena Kagan came to the Supreme Court with twin concerns, one real and one manufactured. The manufactured concern was from the Right (natch), that she's "too far left," based on no evidence at all (no link, but the quote is everywhere).
The real concern was that she was too much of a "blank slate" and her barely expressed leanings were far more rightward than Justice Stevens, whom she replaced. Of particular concern was her suspected deference to executive power.
[T]here are two cases in which Kagan's actions shed some minimal light on how she is approaching her role -- minimal, though still worth noting, particularly in light of how much time and attention was devoted here to her being named as Justice Stevens' replacement.
One case was a request to stay the execution of Teresa Lewis in Virginia. The other was a request to review a lower court dismissal of a lawsuit by two Denver residents against the government — these are the two ejected from a Bush campaign event in 2005 because they had a "No More Blood For Oil" sticker on their car.
In both cases, Kagan sided with the conservative majority and against Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Regarding the first:
Lewis' lawyers argued that execution was unjust because "she is borderline mentally retarded, with the intellectual ability of about a 13-year-old," because she "had been used by a much smarter conspirator," because she had no prior history of violence and had been a model prisoner, and because "the two men who fired the shots received life terms."
That ruling was 7–2. About the second, Greenwald cautions against reading too much into the case — refusing to review a case doesn't imply agreement with the outcome. Nevertheless:
[I]n a fairly unusual written opinion dissenting from that refusal [pdf], Ginsburg -- joined by Sotomayor -- argued that these ejections constituted a clear violation of these citizens' First Amendment rights which the Court should adjudicate. She wrote: "ejecting them for holding discordant views could only have been a reprisal for the expression conveyed by the bumper sticker." Kagan, again, refused to join those two Justices, siding instead with the conservative bloc and Breyer in voting to refuse the case.
As I said, a first read; but it seems the "real" concern was real enough, and the manufactured one just smoke and a place to blow it.
More of the same — now there's a change I didn't see coming. Thank you, sir.
As the sun sets in Miami, the GetEqual Seals return to harbor. Mission accomplished. Now the President knows what a fierce advocate really looks like.
UPDATE from JOHN @ 6:35 PM: UPDATE: 6:30PM - GetEqual protest makes the White House pool report - this is big, because it means the story will now go nationwide - the pool report also confirms that the guests at the dinner can hear GetEqual's bull horns:
At the reception in a "small" white tent around the back of the house, Rep. Chris Van Hollen was touting Democrats' accomplishments before a small crowd when pool got there. Compared it with New Deal, Great Society. Covered health-care bill, student loan overhaul. Says things have gotten better on economy.
"The president needs a Congress that is going to work with him...it is now halftime in the first time of Barack Obama's administration...dos the Miami Heat quit at halftime?" Crowd cheers.
POTUS takes the stage to applause. Mistakenly refers to Ron Klein as Ron Klain and apologizes. Ron Klein is inside the home.
As he is speaking, air horns can be heard across the bay, and pool is told by a GetEQUAL spokesman that they are activists protesting the administration on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Appear to have several small boats, at one point pool can hear some yelling. Some members of the audience look over but noise is not loud enough to disrupt and POTUS continues uninterrupted.
POTUS says economy is begining to recover because lawmakers were willing to take tough votes. Says: "The question in this election is not whether or not things are where we want them" but who will take us there.
They said no each and every time...they don't have new ideas."
Hits GOP Pledge to America. "They're selling the same snake oil they were before." says the 700B to pay for the wealthy tax cuts would be borrowed from China and Saudi Arabia.
Uses the ditch analogy yet again. It's muddy, R's tell Dems they aren't pushing hard enough -- you know the drill. "We've got to tell them in this election you can't have the keys back. You don't know how to drive!"
Says he and Democrats won in 2008 because of voters who want the American dream.
"That wasn't the end of the dream. That was only the beginning of the dream." Implores people to help get out the vote. POTUS spoke for about 12 minutes.
Pool is told the Miami Dade police have circled the GetEQUAL activists' boats and sirens can be heard.
Now at main dinner tent awaiting a second set of remarks.
UPDATE from John @ 6:21 PM: They're in a tent. The fundraiser is a dinner, taking place in a tent, by the water, 500 feet away from GetEqual's 3 boats that are going crazy with bullhorns and loudspeakers. There is no way the dinner guests aren't listening to this.
This is the 40 foot banner on boat number two:
UPDATE from John @ 6:10PM: The three boats of protesters and media are now 500 feet from the shore at Alonzo Mourning's home, and are shouting on bullhorns with an extra strong speaker system, and are also broadcasting the President's own words promising gay rights advances that he has refused to deliver.
Obama's limo driving by protesters. This is when he cracked the window and waved.
UPDATES from John: One of the weather balloons released near the Obama fundraiser.
UPDATE: 5:42PM - Robin McGehee of GetEqual, who is on one of the boats heading for Mourning's house, has just texted "Mission Accomplished." We assume this means she has reached the position in the water off of the house, and the action is underway, including bull horns, weather balloons with signs, 40ft signs saying "stop the discharges now," and an extra large/loud sound system booming quotes of the President himself making gay rights promises. All of this underway under the watchful guise of two boats full of media, including the Miami Herald and all the local Miami TV affiliates, and two Spanish stations.
UPDATE 5:37PM: The three boats of protesters and media have just rounded by the bend and are within 5 minutes of reaching Mourning's house.
UPDATE: President cracked limo and waved to GetEqual protesters, so he definitely saw the signs and protesters.
GetEqual's press release explains what they're up to today - the press release reads in the past tense, when in fact the actions are ongoing:
“DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL” ACTIVISTS CONFRONT PRESIDENT OBAMA BY AIR, LAND, AND SEA AT NBA STAR'S FUNDRAISER IN MIAMI
GetEQUAL, along with a group of Florida and national Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender activists, surround Miami Heat star Alonzo Mourning’s house demanding President sign Executive Order Stopping Discharges
MIAMI, FL (October 11th, 2010)– Earlier Monday evening from 5:00 pm until 6:30 pm (ET), GetEQUAL, a national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, and other Floridian activists, unleashed a barrage of protests by air, land, and sea targeting President Obama for his failure to sign an executive order barring gay and lesbian servicemembers from being discharged under the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.
President Obama attended a star-studded Democratic Party fundraiser at NBA star Alonzo Mourning’s bayfront estate. During the hour and a half President Obama was at Alonzo's home for this big-money, Democratic Party fundraiser, LGBT activists confronted him at every turn, demanding he finally show some leadership and stop the discharges of openly gay and lesbian servicemembers by signing an executive order. Video and photos from today’s action will be released shortly and will be available at: www.getequal.org and www.youtube.com/getequal.
BY LAND
As the Presidential motorcade drove into the private estate located in Coconut Grove, activists held four 10 ft. signs demanding President Obama “End the Discharges Now,” and reminding him that “We’ll Give When We GetEQUAL”. The LGBT activists were stationed on the motorcade route directly outside of the private estate and at a park roughly a quarter of a mile down the road.
Inside the event, Democratic congressional candidate and Army veteran, Anthony Woods, who was discharged under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, approached President Obama to inform him what the protests were about, and to remind him of his campaign promises. [NOTE FROM JOHN: This didn't happen because the White House refused to let Woods attend the event.]
BY SEA
While the President was inside the private fundraiser, another round of protests were unleashed from the bay just outside the event. From the bay abutting Mourning’s home, a second swarm of LGBT activists arrived by boats with two 40 ft. signs and shouted via bullhorns “End the Discharges Now” and “We’ll Give When We GetEQUAL”.
BY AIR
During the second swarm by boat, LGBT activists also launched two, large 8 ft weather balloons carrying 10 ft. long banners reading “GetEQUAL.org”. Those weather balloons were anchored in the water directly in front of the tent hosting the dinner reception and highly visible to guests.
The Advocate reveals that the White House turned away an African-American former congressional candidate, Anthony Woods, from the fundraiser. He thinks it was because he had been discharged under DADT. More from Kerry Eleveld:
A group of LGBT equality activists working to end “don’t ask, don’t tell” launched an elaborate protest early Monday evening as President Barack Obama attended a private Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fund-raiser in Miami, FL, at the home of NBA star Alonzo Mourning.
As the president headed toward Mourning’s Coconut Grove residence where donors had paid as much as $5,000 and $18,000 per person to see him, members of GetEqual, a national LGBT rights organization, along with local activists intended to line the street holding four, 10-foot signs that read “End the Discharges Now,” and “We’ll Give When We GetEQUAL” – a reference to the group’s recent campaign encouraging people not to donate money to either the Democratic or Republican parties or their campaign committees until the president signs an executive order immediately stopping the discharges.Video of GetEqual and media - one of three boats just launched - heading towards Mourning's home and Obama fundraiser.
Three full boat-loads of press and protesters have now launched, and are heading towards Alonzo Mourning's house (site of the fundraiser) by sea....
UPDATE FROM JOHN: Obama has just driven into the estate, and according to witnesses on the ground, the President absolutely saw the protesters.
NOTE FROM JOHN: I've just been informed that GetEqual is in the process of protesting the President's high-dollar fundraiser at the home of Miami Heat star Alonzo Mourning. GetEqual members, and local Florida allies, are at this moment lining the streets, protesting the President's inaction on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and GetEqual has just launched a weather balloon with a GetEqual banner hanging from it - the balloon is drifting in the direction of the Mourning bayside mansion where the fundraiser is being held, and where Obama is currently heading.
Below is GetEqual's Robin McGehee speaking with reporters near Mourning's home.
A mere bagatelle for your weekend consideration. I found this quote interesting. Again, from Barton Gellman's excellent Timecover story on domestic militias in the age of Obama & financial distress (our previous coverage is here):
"We're not planning to overthrow the government," he said. "We're planning for what could happen." He proceeded to list, among other scenarios, a pandemic; economic collapse; hunger-driven big-city refugees; a biological, chemical or nuclear terrorist attack; an electromagnetic pulse from the sun that wrecks earthly machinery; invasion by Mexican drug cartels; and an eruption of ash from Yellowstone that "wipes out the breadbasket of the United States." Any one of those would likely give Washington the excuse to declare martial law. If so, Wright and his brothers in arms would fight back. "Hopefully," he said, "if they rule the cities, we'll rule the countryside."
Just because it sounds like a down-market Dolph Lundgren vehicle doesn't make it less real. Some of those events — and several he didn't mention — could actually happen. And if they do, consider the scenarios.
Rightly so. It took the White House a month to get on board and even when they finally came around, they deferred to BP much too often. Instead of supporting BP the administration should have been supportive of the US public and environment. Even now it's laughable to think back to the way the Republicans fumed about the administration mistreating BP. Why should either political party put the best interest of a corporation over the best interest of the country? This story is a bit too common from both parties, unfortunately.
One staff report said that the Office of Management and Budget denied a request by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to release "worst-case discharge figures" in late April or early May, weeks before the dire dimensions of the spill were publicly known.
"Putting aside the question of whether the public had a right to know the worst-case discharge figures, disclosure of those estimates, and explanation of their role in guiding the government effort, may have improved public confidence in the response," said one of the working papers by the staff of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.
"Moreover," the paper added, "the national response may have benefited early on from a greater sense of urgency, which public discussion of worst-case discharge figures may have generated."
How did that delay of information work out? The funny thing is that much like Obama's gentle handling of Wall Street, these people still complain and attack him. When will this administration ever learn? I wish it wasn't so, but there's little expectation that they will learn.
Read More......
The new guy is Pete Rouse, who plays nicely with Republicans. This is an informative piece, and a little complex in that it doesn't sum to a single idea. Tim Dickinson in Rolling Stone called him the man "who brought 'no drama' to Obama", and Keith credits him with making the Elizabeth Warren appointment fly with her opponents.
Yet in the first minute, Olbermann also says that Rouse is an ex-Daschle aide who "works well across party lines" — like we don't have enough of that already from these guys.
And then there's the question of does he also "play nicely with progressives?" Keith and Richard Wolffe, who seems to have lost his consultant tag, talk that through. (The Wolffe interview starts at 1:55 in the clip.)
See what I mean? On the one hand, Rahm was the fighter; too bad he fought with the wrong people. On the other hand, Pete is more conciliatory; but will he "conciliate" with the wrong people, the right people, or with everyone? There's a way this could be OK, and a way it could go way wrong.
We'll see if Wolffe's assertions in the last half-minute of the interview are true, that "they" realize that Repubs are a no-go from here on out and Fox is their enemy. Color me not sure. I've had that Hope thing kind of kicked out of me. I'm in a "prove it" state of mind these days.
By the way, Pete Rouse's Wikipedia page is interesting. Among other things, it says:
Rouse also is credited with persuading Obama to vote against the nomination of John G. Roberts, who was nevertheless confirmed and is now Chief Justice of the United States.
Really? Obama needed convincing? And Rouse got it right. As I said, complex.
I've been using the phrase "slow-motion coup" to describe the slow take-over of our political process by billionaires and their Big Money friends. (The "billionaire's coup" has gone international, by the way; Karl Rove has been consulting in Sweden.)
But Digby points us to another "Creeping Coup" — this one in the military. She examines an article in Politics Daily that starts with this:
The military officer corps is rumbling with dissatisfaction and dissent, and there are suggestions from some that if officers disagree with policy decisions by Congress and the White House, they should vigorously resist.
Officers have a moral responsibility, some argue, to sway a policy debate by going public with their objections or leaking information to the media, and even to sabotage policy decisions by deliberate foot-dragging.
This could spell trouble ahead as Washington grapples with at least two highly contentious issues: changing the policy on gays and lesbians in the military, and extricating U.S. forces from Afghanistan. In both cases, senior officers already have disagreed sharply and publicly with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President Barack Obama, and in some cases officers have leaked documents to bolster their case.
I believe this began in the 90s, when Clinton "was faced with the clearest insubordination from his senior officers one of whom (Colin Powell by name) was conspicuous" (Christopher Hitchens).
It's since gotten worse. We've had tales of evangelicals taking over the Air Force Academy (ah, Colorado; some day I'll write about how the mountain states got to be "that way"). And as Digby points out (my emphasis):
This coincides with our new fetish for everything military, including the president of the United States announcing over and over again that he would "listen to the commanders on the ground" which likely gave more than a few of them the idea that they were the ones in charge. When you add that to the canonizing of the The Man Called Petraeus during the Bush years, this seems like a logical outcome. (I would also add that more than a few of them may be part of the religious "crusade" that some of the evangelical military brass are involved with.)
This is perfectly coincident with all of our recent fetishes — cops with Tasers, soldiers with shoot-first in their eyes, politician with whips, all the strong Daddies that frightened tough-guy conservative voters (in and out of the Republican party) worship and adore. Seems like a problem to me. Good catch, Digby.
I'll make a larger point as well, one that points to world-historical arcs. This nation (going back to its pre-Revolutionary roots) has had a major internal crisis roughly every seventy years — the Constitution discussion, the Civil War, the Great Depression. We're about due.
Each of those earlier times has seen the emergence of a "great man" — Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt — who has led us truly forward. (I'm deliberately referring to Carlyle's "great man" theory of history. I don't think "dialectic" helps much in a crisis.)
It feels like we're at another of those world-historical moments. And if the past is anything to judge by, we're going to need another great man, another real Lincoln. It won't take a Hitler to sink us, just another non-entity, a General McClellan, let's say. Someone who thinks he means well, but fails to lead.
Let's keep that in mind as 2012 approaches. The easiest solution would be that the current office-holder find his Inner Lincoln. But whether he does or not, we do need a solution, and for my Carlylian money, that's a person, not a process — or an ad campaign.
That person may need to start by standing up to the army.
In his penultimate post at Harpers, Ken Silverstein follows up on his investigation of the paid speaking gigs of David Broder and Bob Woodward.
What emerges shows pretty clearly how people like Broder are "incentivized" to align their interests with those who, for example, have a strong belief in "the destructive effects of the estate tax to families and their businesses."
Speaking gigs lead to sejours at "retreat(s) open exclusively to ... client family members," which lead, apparently, to posh-friendly articles suggesting that what's good for "ultra-high net worth families" (to pick one gig's crowd) is also good for those "small people" whose interests people like Broder can always instantly feel, like an itch on the back of their leg, but higher up.
If this were a novel, the plot would almost be trite (time for a sex scene near the scented Cleopatra Asp Pond in the retreat's back corner). But in real life, it smells like the real deal. A taste:
Last May, Broder was the keynote speaker at a May 19 to 21 conference sponsored by GenSpring Family Offices, “a leading wealth management firm for ultra-high net worth families. With over $20 billion in assets under advisement, GenSpring…is trusted by more than 700 of the world’s wealthiest families to oversee or manage important aspects of their financial lives.” GenSpring is an affiliate of SunTrust Banks, which lobbies congress. The conference, called the “Men’s Retreat,” was held at The Breakers in Palm Beach, Florida. The conference offered “an opportunity for men to learn and network together, attend and participate in provocative and timely meetings covering the gamut of wealth related topics presented and facilitated by key GenSpring experts as well as select guest speakers who are renowned experts in the fields of finance, communication, health, and wealth preservation.” ...
Among the panelists was Patricia Soldano, a lobbyist who heads up GenSpring’s office in southern California and who is president of the Policy and Taxation Group, “an organization that educates on the destructive effects of the estate tax to families and their businesses.” In other words, the conference Broder spoke at was not only hosted by a business with significant interests in Washington, but the group’s lobbying agenda was a notable component of the event.
Broder writes about financial reform and tax policy with some regularity. Last July ...
How's that for a teaser? The piece isn't long, but it's meaty, and includes some Woodward dish as well. Be sure to click the embedded links if this stuff interests you.
It's a club; we're not members. Our Betters and their propagandists are.
Silverstein is leaving his Harpers day job to do investigative journalism somewhere other than Washington. It's the Obama–Clinton reflux, as he explains in his farewell. (For one of the most prescient pieces on Senator Obama, click here. It's what drew me to Ken's work.)
The first campaign event will be at the White House tomorrow. I say, Good riddance:
President Obama will give his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, a send-off Friday as Mr. Emanuel officially announces his departure from the West Wing to run for mayor of Chicago, officials familiar with the decision said.
The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, at his daily briefing on Thursday afternoon said that the president will give two personnel announcements on Friday morning from the East Room of the White House. Mr. Gibbs, admitting that he was being purposely “oblique,” would not confirm whether the announcements would concern Mr. Emanuel.
The two officials, who declined to be named in advance of the official announcement, confirmed that Mr. Obama plans to name Pete Rouse, a senior adviser, to replace Mr. Emanuel. Mr. Rouse has been at the president’s side since Mr. Obama arrived in Washington nearly six years ago as a senator, serving as his chief of staff.
Can some enterprising reporter ask candidate Rahm his position on same-sex marriage? I suspect Rahm will be seeing and hearing a lot from LGBT activists as he campaigns over the next few months.
Also, I do wonder what Rahm Emanuel would say to any senior staffer who quit a key job with under five weeks to go before an election? I can't imagine it would be pretty, unless said staffer was the kind of disaster that Rahm has been.
Read More......
For the past week or so, President Obama, now joined by Vice President Biden, have been trying to build electoral enthusiasm among the Democratic base by scolding said base for not being overly enthusiastic about the upcoming elections. The message is that Team Obama has done a lot, and those who aren't happy are gripers, groaners, whiners, etc.
The White House is not known for its crack communications operation. Far from it. So, inevitably someone had to ask if this latest messaging strategy, of motivating the base by antagonizing it, is working or is even helpful? AP took a look:
Several Democratic strategists privately fear that the strategy to motivate Democrats with sternness could backfire partly because it runs counter to Obama's carefully cultivated hopeful, uplifting image. There's also some concern that it could further alienate liberals and other Democratic critics who don't think Obama has done enough to pursue issues important to them.
"It's not helpful," said John Aravosis, the editor of the progressive AMERICAblog.com. "The base is depressed and they're depressing it even more, and it's not clear why."
Said DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas: "They wouldn't be in this predicament if they delivered on their campaign promises, rather than waste the last two years putting bipartisanship above action."
Also, there was one other paragraph that warranted additional attention:
Democratic-leaning groups have largely been missing from the TV airwaves this fall as GOP-aligned organizations pummel Democratic House and Senate candidates with attack ads. Seeing allies outspent 6-1, White House aides recently decided to use that disparity to compel their base to vote.
The White House is part of the reason we're being outspent. Read this post where Mike Lux reminded us that the Obama brain trust shut down most of the outside groups in 2008, and redirected donors away from traditional advocacy groups, because Team Obama knew better than everyone else. Now those outside groups don't have the money to help defend the Democratic majority in Congress.
The thing that really sucks is that there are many truly excellent Democratic members of Congress and progressive candidates on the ballot this year who should win. They're bearing the brunt of the Obama administration's failure to even try to deliver on its campaign promises. The good ones shouldn't suffer because of that.
Read More......
Some Saul Alinski protégé. If I were Alinski, I'd ask for the Double-Secret Ranger (no girls allowed) badge back. From Raw Story (h/t SCLiberal):
The FBI said it searched eight homes in Minneapolis and Chicago as part of a terrorism investigation on Friday, and two subjects said the agency is targeting leaders of the anti-war movement.
FBI spokesman Steve Warfield told The Associated Press agents served six warrants in Minneapolis and two in Chicago. "These were search warrants only," Warfield said. "We're not anticipating any arrests at this time. They're seeking evidence relating to activities concerning the material support of terrorism."
The home of Minneapolis anti-war activists Mick Kelly and Jess Sundin were among those searched, they told the AP. "The FBI is harassing anti-war organizers and leaders, folks who opposed U.S. intervention in the Middle East and Latin America," Kelly said before agents confiscated his cell phone. Sundin called the suggestion they were connected with terrorism "pretty hilarious and ridiculous."
Welcome to your base, sir. Bust 'em if you got 'em.
We're all just "seeking evidence." Got me? Midterm elections — check.
I expect such overreach from Republicans, but from a Democrat? Shouldn't someone have to prove the real world value first before implementing such an enormous program in this phony war against terror, or whatever they want to call it now. Since the GOP didn't push this they will surely be up in arms but they will be correct. What a horrible move and another breach of personal privacy.
But critics have called it part of a disturbing trend by government security agencies in the wake of the 2001 attacks to seek more access to personal data without adequately demonstrating its utility. Financial institutions say that they already feel burdened byanti-terrorism rules requiring them to provide data, and that they object to new ones.
"These new banking surveillance programs are testing the boundaries of privacy," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "Many consumers both in the United States and outside are likely to object."
"This regulation is outrageous," said Peter Djinis, a lawyer who advises financial institutions on complying with financial rules and a former FinCEN executive assistant director for regulatory policy. "Consider me old-fashioned, but I believe you need to show some evidence of criminality before you are granted unfettered access to the private financial affairs of every individual and company that dares to conduct financial transactions overseas."
There are two articles in today's Washington Post that complement each other. One explains how the Obama White House functions. The other shows the results of how the Obama White House functions for people who thought they were electing an ally.
The first describes the insular nature of the Obama White House. The President relies on very few people. His little clique consists of Emanuel, Axelrod, Gibbs, Jarrett and Biden. They have shaped this presidency and brought it to where it is now:
"They miscalculated where people were out in the country on jobs, on spending, on the deficit, on debt," said a longtime Democratic strategist who works with the White House on a variety of issues. "They have not been able to get ahead of any of it. And it's all about the insularity. Otherwise how do you explain how a group who came in with more goodwill in decades squandered it?" The strategist asked not to be identified in order to speak freely about the president and his staff.
This is not an uncommon view among Democratic political professionals, many of whom share the goals of the White House but have grown frustrated with a staff they see as unapproachable and set in their ways.
It's also a common view among the "professional left" and the "Internet left fringe," too. Something isn't working in this presidency and the people at the top don't seem to get it. They blame the rest of us when the fault lies within.
Which brings me to another article in today's Washington Post. Last night, at a DCCC/DSCC fundraiser, Obama was heckled from the audience over AIDs and Don't Ask, Don't Tell:
"We need your energy and enthusiasm," Obama said. "This young lady here, she wants an increase in AIDS funding. ... I'm sure we could do more, if we're able to grow this economy again. That young man shouted, 'Don't ask, don't tell.' . . . As president, I said we would reverse it."
Such heckling of Obama at Democratic fundraisers has become routine in recent months. The president was interrupted in April and May - both times at fundraisers for Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.) - by people protesting the president's pace on eliminating "don't ask, don't tell." The policy forbids gay men and lesbians from openly serving in the military; the president has urged its repeal, but Congress has resisted any change.
People are heckling for a reason. Obama and his inner circle have really messed up on the LGBT agenda. They've botched it -- but I keep hearing that they actually think they've done a good job. They're not listening.
The failure to pass DADT repeal rests with the President. And, before the apologists start screeching that it was Congress and the Republicans, ask what Obama did to help pass the Defense Authorization bill. There's a simple answer: Nothing. Not a word.
Yes, there's a reason people are heckling. It's the only chance to be heard. Our advocacy organizations aren't doing their jobs. Most of those groups dropped their organizational missions in exchange for for access and invitations long ago. The only reason the DADT legislative compromise made it this far is because SLDN and SU kept pushing and GetEQUAL upped the pressure.
Being nice doesn't work with Team Obama. If the inner circle isn't worried about you, you don't exist. All we're asking is that Obama keep the promises he has made to us over and over. We've heard the words. We want some action, now.
Soon Team Obama will be in reelection mode. I don't know how they come to LGBT voters and ask for our money, our time and our votes when they aren't fighting to make us equal.
Read More......
Lucky day for the GOP because Obama is already on that path. He's doing his best to kowtow to whatever it is that the GOP is demanding today. And no, that would not be the center. That would be even more to the right of the current team, if that's even possible for a Democrat. If I wanted to vote for Republicans I would vote for Republicans. The difference between the two gets less and less every day so maybe it's time I sit things out until a Democrat shows up who is somehow interested in being a Democrat and in working with other Democrats. That doesn't look like it's the case today. Much like the problem with the bankers, who really wants to support bad behavior? I don't and I won't.
A day after Summers announced plans to step down as director of the National Economic Council, speculation about his replacement focused on female candidates, many of whom would bring business expertise that some say is lacking in the Obama White House.
The administration needs someone who has a "good understanding of what it takes to create private-sector jobs," Senator Lamar Alexander, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, told Reuters in an interview.
"One of the real problems with this administration -- it seems like they don't know how. And they don't have very many people who've ever tried."
Not so surprisingly, there are more ties to the Clinton administration. Yes, the times have changed yet Obama continues to make every effort to stay inside the lines and rebuild the Clinton team. Also to the surprise of no one, the names floated have deep links to Wall Street and corporate America. Anyone who thought we might be able to move beyond the corporatist Democratic party, they will be severely disappointed. The other unfortunate news is that this may mean an even stronger Tim Geithner.
—Possible successors include Laura Tyson, a former top economic adviser in the Clinton administration, and Vice President Joe Biden's chief economist Jared Bernstein. If Obama looks to the business community, one possibility could be Richard Parsons, chairman of Citigroup, who is close to presidential adviser and confidant Valerie Jarrett.
—Replacing Summers, an academic, with a well-known corporate executive could help defuse the persistent notion that Obama is hostile to business. His administration has also been criticized because none of his closest advisers have a practical management background at that level.
—Summers, known for his abrasive style, has not been the best communicator of the administration's economic policies. His departure would allow Obama to bring in a new public face for his economic agenda.
The issue has not been about delivery of the message, but the content and the actions. Staying the course with superficial tweaks and claiming it's the biggest change in modern history is not what those seeking change were promised. Mocking those who expected delivery on "change" also doesn't help.
Read More......
I know that readers of this site care about abortion rights, but I don't think most Americans still do.
The fight over abortion has been turned ugly (deliberately in my view) so that reasonable people will walk away from both participants, and it. That leaves the playing field open to the most politically adept — the sex-obsessed abortion-haters.
(By the way, if you don't think all those fetuses-as-meat posters aren't designed to disgust the reasonable, to make them leave the discussion, you don't know how advertisers think — which is probably true, since most people don't know how advertisers think.)
The sad fact is that gay rights weren't the canary in the coal mine after all; abortion rights were. And that fight, like so many others, is in the third quarter with the home team losing. (The good news is that gays are fighting back much more effectively than women were able to; and gay rights are advancing while women's rights recede.)
With this in mind, here's Rachel on the Flim-Flam right (people like the sex-averse sex-focused Handmaiden) and its rebranding. The whole segment is here, about 13 minutes long. I want to focus, however, on just the part that deals with abortion rights.
Rachel begins by discussing the re-marketing of the Religiousy Teabaggy Right as something more palatable, then follows with this:
"The culture war is back." Gen–Xers don't have the leisure to be complacent; nor does Gen Y or Z. Sadly, I think they are just that: complacent.
Side note — One of the real triumphs of the 2008 Yes We Can campaign is that it turned the switch on for a whole generation the way the Kennedy campaign did. And one of the great tragedies of No We Can't governance is that it seems to have turned that generational switch back off.
What a gift to the nation that was, the next generation's engagement. You can engineer the event, the campaign, the sell; but you can't engineer the result. Responses like 2008 are just handed to you, if you're very lucky.
It follows, therefore, that if fears about the current administration are true (I won't say they are until after the lame-duck session), discarding that generational gift may be the admin's greatest legacy. And an inverse one — a crime greater even than enshrining the practice of summary execution. That generation's involvement is probably our last great hope.
Just posted this at AMERICAblog Gay. The President's silence on DADT repeal has been deafening, but he hasn't hesitated to take swipes at the Democratic base.
Imagine if Democrats held up a defense bill? Why isn't Obama pointing to the Repubs not supporting the troops in 2 wars? Where is he?
We haven't heard a word. But, last night, Obama was bitching about Democrats who aren't happy with him, via Jake Tapper:
Last night at the Pyramid Club in Philadelphia, President Obama said “when I hear Democrats griping and groaning and saying, ‘Well, you know, the health care plan didn’t have a public option;’ and I don’t know, ‘The financial reform -- there was a provision here that I think we should have gotten better’; or, ‘You know what, yes, you ended the war in Iraq, the combat mission there, but you haven’t completely finished the Afghan war yet’; or this or that or the other -- I say, folks, wake up.”
Continued the president: “This is not some academic exercise."
Actually, we know that. So, while he's out complaining about us -- and last night wasn't the first time, no one has heard a thing from Obama on this upcoming vote. Last night, I reported that the White House wasn't even lobbying for passage of the Defense bill. Yet, Obama is annoyed that we "gripe and groan."
Today, via the Washington Blade, SLDN goes on the record saying the President has been AWOL:
Blame is already being assigned to the White House.
Trevor Thomas, spokesperson for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said his organization hasn’t seen an effort from the White House on the issue in recent days.
“We have not seen any signs that the White House has been whipping this vote in the last 48 hours,” Thomas said.
Thomas said he can’t predict what will happen with the cloture vote and maintained SLDN is “taking nothing for granted.”
Every time this President has had the opportunity to take action for equality, he hasn't. We get nice speeches, but not much more.
