Socarides: Obama is more concerned about the constitutional rights of Gitmo detainees than of gay American service members

Former Clinton White House adviser Richard Socarides, writing in the Wall Street Journal:

Many wonder when their president will show the same kind of concern for the constitutional rights of gay American service members as he has for enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay. Many wonder what the administration's willingness to treat gay Americans as second-class citizens says to Uganda and other countries that are considering laws that would subject gays to imprisonment and even death.

Wow. Read the rest of this post...

Krugman on the notion that Obama shouldn't have focused on health care reform in his first year

Krugman notes that Obama had two options for straightening out the economy: a full-blown stimulus, and a major recapitalization of the banks. Obama chose neither (he went for a bite-sized stimulus, not the nearly $2 trillion that many thought was needed). Krugman says that once the window passed by last summer, there was nothing more that could have been done for the economy, so health care did not suck the wind out of focusing on jobs. Read the rest of this post...

WH's Axelrod signals support for weaker health care compromise

Someone needs to get David Plouffe on the phone, because I'm pretty sure Axelrod's interview is the textbook definition of "bed-wetting."

Now, Benen says that Congress doesn't need the President to move ahead. And that's true to a degree. But Congress and the President reinforce each other. If Congress tries to move ahead, especially in this uncertain an environment, and the White House were to publicly undercut them (as it did when Harry Reid was trying to include the public option in the Senate plan and the White House was working behind the scenes to stop him), it would hurt their chances, a lot. And even presidential silence comes at a cost - it's hard work corralling congressional cats, at least on the Democratic side of the aisle. The opportunity cost of a weak president is huge.

I don't absolve Reid and Pelosi of blame for not corralling their cats better, but governing is an intricate dance that runs a lot smoother when both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue are working in concert. And currently we're witnessing concerted bed-wetting all around. Read the rest of this post...

UK to promote CCTV in the sky

This is nuts and when they mention "protesters" you really have to wonder. In recent protests the British government has been known to go well overboard and there's nothing that suggests this will be different. They're obsessed with creating a police state and monitoring everything. Another victory for democracy, huh?

Police in the UK are planning to use unmanned spy drones, controversially deployed in Afghanistan, for the ­"routine" monitoring of antisocial motorists, ­protesters, agricultural thieves and fly-tippers, in a significant expansion of covert state surveillance.

The arms manufacturer BAE Systems, which produces a range of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for war zones, is adapting the military-style planes for a consortium of government agencies led by Kent police.

Read the rest of this post...

It's never a winning strategy in Washington to tell everyone how powerless you are

For a while now, the White House has been pushing the talking point that the presidency is inherently weak, that it can't accomplish much on its own, and that the true power in Washington is on the Hill, where the President has little to no influence. The White House pushed that spin again today in the Washington Post:

White House advisers say Democrats need to understand that Obama is not all-powerful.

First off, that is an amazingly naive and dangerous talking point. Where in life do you achieve success by telling everyone how little power you have?

Second, it's simply untrue. The Bush example, which we've talked about many times before, gives truth to the lie. George Bush was many things, but impotent was not one of them. Did he push good policies? No. Did he get what he wanted far too often? You betcha. And Bush had only between 50 and 55 GOP members in the Senate during the height of his effectiveness. That is not to say that Obama should emulate George Bush's conservativeness. It is to say that he should emulate Bush's strength. Much of what Bush did he did legally, via his rubber-stamp Congress. The President has an awesome amount of power, if he recognizes it and knows how to use it.

The article continued:

"There is this sense on Capitol Hill that somehow the president can go out and make a speech and everything just magically becomes better," said a senior White House adviser who requested anonymity in order to speak frankly. "If there is a lesson out of the Massachusetts race, it is the people on Capitol Hill have to realize nobody can go win this for you. If you're going to cast the vote, then you have to be prepared to argue why it was the best vote."

Pot calling kettle on that one. When fighting back against accusations that the President didn't do enough on health care reform (or on gay rights, or any other issue), the most-often cited talking point is how many speeches, town hall meetings, YouTube videos the President did on the issue's behalf. Left out of the discussion is just what those speeches, meetings and videos actually said - whether the President endorsed and pushed for specific policy changes, rather than general principles that could be applied to any outcome, no matter how weak. And whether the President did anything substantive to actually push for specific legislation, lobbying members of Congress, etc. Read the rest of this post...

Democrats rally to support Bernanke confirmation

Besides supporting Obama, why? A bad choice is a bad choice regardless of Obama's self-made problems.

President Barack Obama phoned Senate allies Saturday as two key senators predicted that embattled Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke will be confirmed for a second term.

Obama made calls from the White House to members of the Senate leadership and others and was assured Bernanke would win confirmation, a senior White House official told The Associated Press. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private phone calls.

Read the rest of this post...

Sunday Talk Shows Open Thread

Good morning. Today, the talk shows are guaranteed to be more annoying than usual. It's all about the new political order after the Massachusetts election. Because, you know, the Democrats only have an 18-seat advantage in the Senate.

The crack team at White House is in full spin mode, sending Valerie Jarrett to NBC, David Axelrod to ABC and CNN and Robert Gibbs to FOX (yes, FOX.) We really need to hear from them how Obama is going to finally be a leader. All three were on the campaign trail with Obama. Maybe, they could explain where "campaign Obama" went and if he's coming back to deliver on his campaign promises. And, it would be great if one of them could clarify what's going to happen on key issues like health care. This morning, for example, we'd like to hear whether Obama still supports his promise to require coverage for pre-existing conditions.

There are a total of eight Senators on the shows this morning. Reflecting the perceived balance of power, you'll see six Republicans (fully 1/7 of the GOP caucus) and two Democrats.

In 2001, Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party, becoming an independent. At the time, the Senate was split 50/50 (the GOP controlled the chamber because Cheney was VP.) Jeffords defection caused the GOP to lose its actual majority status. Yet, I don't remember this much hand-wringing and whining. George Bush, who didn't even win the popular vote, just plowed ahead with his agenda.

The full lineup is here. Read the rest of this post...

Malcolm McClaren

It sounds a bit dated after so many years but in it's day, it was a big deal. I still love the street dancing. Malcolm McLaren's name hasn't popped up in ages. What's he up to? Read the rest of this post...