“Give ’em hell, Barry!” Part 2

The Republican controlled Congress has brought the country to the brink of disaster. In Part 1, of this post, I argued that the clear path to victory for Barak Obama is to ignore the Republican nominee and run against Congress the way Harry S Truman did in 1948, earning for himself a second term and a place in history as one of the greatest upset victors in history.

As usual, the President does not seem to be taking my advice. I would not find this surprising in and of itself, but for the fact that Obama is such a smart man that I would have figured him to come to this on his own.

Instead, the President is said to be preparing a campaign that capitalizes on Romney’s shortcomings. People think Romney is weird. His business experience consists of buying companies, firing employees and selling the companies in parts – hardly the resume you want if the country is clamoring for jobs creation. Romney-care was the template for Obama-care, et cetera, ad nauseum.

Will it work? People hate negative campaigning but the fact is that it works, especially if the candidate isn’t perceived as the first one to go negative. But in the case of Obama there are special circumstances. First, as an incumbent, negative campaigning may be perceived as infra dig. Second, it is so counter to the President’s persona, as we have come to know it, that it may appear to be desperation. Beyond that, given Obama’s personality, whether or not he could pull it off is a fair question. Finally, there will be plenty of surrogates available to remind the public of why we don’t like Romney, and the question is what should the President do. What I have proposed is not inimical to surrogates attacking Romney.

But what would it look like if the President followed the advice of Big Mitch, and patterned his campaign after the 1948 campaign of President Truman? Let's take a look.

Harry Truman called a special session of Congress known as the Turnip Day session during his 1948 presidential campaign. The Research Division of the Democratic National Committee came up with the idea as a way to dramatize the differences between the Republican platform and the performance of the Republican Congress. The special session of Congress, which began on the day known as “Turnip Day” in Missouri, proved to be an effective strategy in Truman's campaign.

Batt, William L., Jr., Origin of the 1948 Turnip Day Session of Congress (Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol 29 No 1 March 1999)

Today, in Michigan the President addressed factory workers. Here’s some of what he said:

You know, in the aftermath of this whole debt ceiling debacle, and when the markets going up and down like they are, there’s been a lot of talk in Washington right now that I should call Congress back early. The last thing we need is Congress spending more time arguing in D.C. (Applause.) What I figure is, they need to spend more time out here listening to you and hearing how fed up you are. (Applause.) That’s why I’m here. That’s why I’ll be traveling to a lot of communities like this one over the next week. That’s what Congress should be doing -- go back home, listen to people’s frustrations with all the gridlock. Listen to how frustrated folks are with the constant bickering and the unwillingness to compromise and the desire to score points, even if it’s at the expense of our country. And if they’re listening hard enough, maybe they’ll come back to Washington ready to compromise and ready to create jobs and ready to reduce our deficit -- ready to do what you sent them there to do.

Maybe he is just ignoring my advice. Or maybe he is laying the ground work for a call to convene Congress next summer. You know what they say in Missouri,

On the twenty-fifth of July, Sow your turnips, wet or dry...

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Romney is weird, but why mention it now?

Soon, I will post an addition to my previous post, “Give ’em hell!” But I want to quickly respond to the leaked news that Obama is planning to run a negative campaign against Romney. Look, this news didn’t leak out because of a slip of the tongue. Someone in the Obama corner planted it in the press for a reason. And what would that be?

Off the top of my head, they wanted to boost Romney’s chances of getting the nomination.

Here’s how it would work. Negative campaigning is perceived as a desperate tactic. Letting the story get out creates the impression that Romney is the only one that Obama is afraid of. That has to be good for Mitt.

Why would the President’s political team want to boost Romney’s chances of being nominated? They know any easy mark when they see one. They have been concerned about Huntsman for years, which accounts for why they sent him to the other side of the world. Gingrich is a capable orator, and he could damage the President even if he can’t win the election. After a little more exposure to wild-eyed craziness, a la Bachmann, Paul, and Cain, boring might start to look good, to the benefit of Pawlenty.

I didn’t mention Perry, because his craziness is of the squinty-eyed variety, redolent of George W. Bush. Suffice it to say of Perry, that the Bush people say he is “more interested in sound bites, than drilling down into the issues.” If you are too shallow for George W. Bush acolytes, you might as well have “No diving” tattooed on your forehead.

Of the three real potential candidates– Romney, Gingrich, and Pawlenty – Romney is easiest to beat.

Want an example? On the stump today in Arizona, Romney got laughed at for saying “Corporations are people.” Really, Mitt? Doesn't that mean that any corporation with a net income of more than $379,150 should be taxed at a marginal rate of 35%?*

Here’s another example: Tonight Faux News aired a debate in Iowa, in advance of the straw poll coming up this Saturday. Here’s Romney talking about withdrawing from Afghanistan:

Sometime within the next two years, we are going to draw down our troop strength and reach a point where the Afghan military is able to preserve the sovereignty of their own nation from the tyranny of the Taliban. That has to happen. It's time for the troops of Afghanistan to take on that responsibility, according to -- as I said in the last debate -- according to the timetable established and communicated by the generals in the field.

Those generals recommended to President Obama we should not start drawing our troops down until after the fighting season in 2012. He took a political decision to draw them down faster than that. That is wrong. We should follow the recommendation of the generals, and we should now look for the people of Afghanistan to pick up their fight and preserve that liberty that has been so dearly won.

Spoken like a real Commander-in-chief, Mitsy. You should just come out and say, “I will do whatever the Generals tell me to do, because I don’t know shit.” I realize that you can’t help to criticizing whatever the President does, but really, do you want to court the “we need to stay in Afghanistan longer” vote?

Good luck with that …

“ … and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”

* Tip o' the hat to my pride and joy.

Give ’em hell!

You could say that the midterm elections resulted in a shellacking. I’m talking about the 1946 midterm election which resulted in a Republican pick up of 55 seats in the House, giving them a majority. Democrats had controlled the house for 14 years. In the Senate, Republicans gained 12 seats and also took over the majority. The election was seen as a referendum on President Truman.

Two years later, Democrats regained control of congress and Truman, who had ascended to the presidency when FDR died, was returned to office. How did it happen, and what lessons does the 1948 election hold for us today?

In 1948, the Republican nominee was Thomas Dewey, popular governor of the largest state, New York. The easterner was chosen after a contentious convention rather than Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, who campaigned for the nomination as an isolationist. Harold Stassen, the wonder boy from Minnesota, who had knocked out any hopes of Douglas MacArthur’s supporters, could not extend his popularity beyond his Midwest base. When Stassen lost the Ohio primary to Taft, and then lost the first ever nationally broadcast debate to Dewey in advance of the Oregon primary, it was all over but the shouting.

Basically, Dewey’s success was as an eastern establishment Republican. He prevailed against challengers who wanted to abolish many of the New Deal social welfare programs that had been created in the 1930s, which they regarded as too expensive and harmful to business interests. Dewey had previous experience, having been the Republican nominee against Roosevelt in 1944, but he was unpopular with Republicans who considered him cold, stiff and calculating. He was compared to “the little man on the wedding cake,” by Teddy Roosevelt’s socialite daughter.

As you might expect, an incumbent President was the odds-on favorite to win the nomination of his party. However, Truman was not without detractors. Liberals were not enthusiastic supporters of Truman – the Progressive party had their own nominee, former Vice-president (under FDR) Henry Wallace. Nor was the Democratic Party popular in what had been called the solid south. Because of Truman’s support of civil rights, the southern Democrats peeled off and formed the States Rights Democratic Party, aka the Dixiecrats. They nominated Strom Thurmond.

Given the three way split in the Democratic party, and the fact that the Republicans had taken control of both houses of the United States Congress as well as a majority of state governorships during the 1946 midterm elections by running against Truman, it came as no surprise that public-opinion polls showed Truman trailing Republican nominee Dewey, sometimes by double digits, after the Democratic convention.

Interestingly, the conventional wisdom had it that the front-runner after the conventions would be the eventual winner. Accordingly, little attention was paid to polling in the run-up to the election, with the result that the 1948 election is remembered as one of the greatest upsets in the history of electoral politics.

Today, the talking heads are saying that Obama’s most likely opponent is Mitt Romney and that the President is a slight underdog. As of this writing, Intrade, the on-line betting site, calculates only a 54.8% chance of Obama winning.

The comparison between Romney and Dewey is obvious. Both are not beloved of the Republican Party. While Dewey was considered “calculating,” Mitt Romney’s flip-flopping is legendary. Basically, he will say whatever he expects his audience wants to hear. Although Romney never received his party’s nomination, he does have the experience considered necessary to get it this time. To do so, Romney will have to prevail over the most conservative elements in his party including crazies from Minnesota, who want to turn back the clock on the New Deal.

Moreover, in the general election, Dewey was so sure of victory that his strategy was basically “take no chances and don’t blow a good thing.” In its execution it amounted to speeches filled with mealy-mouthed assertions of the obvious, including the now infamous quote “You know that your future is still ahead of you.” Although Romney has made more aggressive statements about his putative opponent, he has a history of back-tracking and flip-flopping that leaves his words with no more gravitas than Dewey’s. Consider how long it has taken him to come up with a snappy retort to the fact that Obama-care was patterned after his program in Massachusetts. Has he yet?

And what of the comparison between Harry S-for-nothing Truman, and President Obama, who has been accused of standing for nothing? Truman was an unelected incumbent, while Obama – who won decisively in 2008 – has never been considered fully legitimate by certain elements in the country. It is foolish to discount the existence of racism in the Old South, but suffice to say, the old Dixiecrats are now Republicans.

It is widely reported that Obama faces a serious enthusiasm gap, but it is hard to imagine that it is any worse than the abandonment by the left that Truman experienced. Truman’s Democratic base in the solid south split off from the party. It is hard to think of Dems similarly walking away from Obama, especially since many in Obama’s camp are Black, and he remains overwhelmingly popular with them. Someone is sure to remind the African-American community that not too long ago—in Romney’s lifetime—the Mormon Church openly discriminated against those whom they regard as bearing “the mark of Cain.” Furthermore, many bigoted voters in the South have as much of a problem with Romney, whom they regard as un-Christian, as they do with Obama.

But Obama may have a problem that Truman didn’t. It’s the economy. Unemployment is at 9%, the credit worthiness of the United States has been downgraded. The deficit is large and recent kerfuffle regarding the debt ceiling has made lots of folk antsy for lots of reasons. As I write these words, investors are awaiting with dread the opening of the market on Monday morning.

Congress is so dysfunctional that Sen. Dick Durban (D-IL) commenting on the 14% approval rating said he was surprised that congressmen had so many relatives. And herein lies the reason the Obama should follow Truman’s example.

The key element of Truman’s re-election campaign was to run against that 80th Congress, whom he described as “do nothing, and good-for-nothing.” Truman’s attack was caustic and unrelenting. He toured the country and everywhere he went, enthusiastic crowds shouted, “Give ’em hell, Harry!” Although there were no debates in those days, nor even television, American movie theaters agreed to play two newsreel-like campaign films in support of the Republican and the Democratic nominee. Truman was strapped for campaign funds and so he relied upon public-domain and newsreel footage of him taking part in major world events and signing important legislation. For undecided voters, the Truman film reinforced the image or the President as being engaged and decisive.

Truman simply ignored the fact that Dewey's policies were considerably more liberal than most of his fellow Republicans, and instead he concentrated his fire against what he characterized as the conservative, obstructionist tendencies of the unpopular 80th Congress. If you think Romney will not move back to the center after his flirtation with the extremist elements in his party, you’re naïve. But if you are right, Obama is a shoe-in.

The problem with this advice is the same problem that condemns all good advice. To be useful, it must be heeded. Obama came to national prominence as an orator who extolled the fact that there is “not a blue America, or a red America, but only a United States of America.” He has tried to be the great compromiser, and this tendency may have been his undoing in the recent debt ceiling negotiations. He has tried to appease the right, appeal to the center and hold on to the left.

President Obama believes in the basic goodness of the American people, and he wants to govern from the middle of the road. But as Dan Rather in his inimitable way, pointed out today, “The only thing in the middle of the road is yellow stripes and dead armadillos.” So Mr. President, stand up and fight for what Americans believe in.

Give ’em hell, Barry! And remember what President Truman said: “I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.”

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Knowing Republicans (in the Biblical sense)

We read in Genesis 41 that Pharaoh had two dreams that his advisers could not interpret for him. In one, seven fat, healthy cows are devoured by seven meager and ugly cows. In the other, seven healthy ears of corn are consumed by seven sickly ears of corn. Joseph is called upon to explain the meaning of these dreams to Pharaoh:

25. And Joseph said to Pharaoh, Pharaoh's dream is one; what God is doing He has told Pharaoh.

26. The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good ears of grain are seven years; it is one dream.

27. And the seven meager and ugly cows coming up after them are seven years, and the seven empty ears of grain, beaten by the east wind, will be seven years of famine.

28. It is this matter that I have spoken to Pharaoh; what God is about to do He has shown Pharaoh.

29. Behold, seven years are coming, great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt.

30. And seven years of famine will arise after them, and all the plenty will be forgotten in the land of Egypt, and the famine will destroy the land.

31. And the plenty will not be known because of that famine to follow, for it [will be] very severe.

32. And concerning the repetition of the dream to Pharaoh twice that is because the matter is ready [to emanate] from God, and God is hastening to execute it.

33. So now, let Pharaoh seek out an understanding and wise man and appoint him over the land of Egypt.

34. Let Pharaoh do [this] and appoint officials over the land and prepare the land of Egypt during the seven years of plenty.

35. And let them collect all the food of these coming seven good years, and let them gather the grain under Pharaoh's hand, food in the cities, and keep it.

36. Thus the food will remain as a reserve for the land for the seven years of famine which will be in the land of Egypt, so that the land will not be destroyed by the famine."

37. The matter pleased Pharaoh and all his servants.

You bet it pleased Pharaoh. If it weren’t for Joseph, his nation would have been plunged into famine that would have killed millions. Pharaoh had billed himself out as a god, and a famine that kills the majority of his nation is bad for the brand. Joseph’s plan offered a way out of this problem. The plan worked out so well that Joseph was elevated to the position of viceroy, and the nation of Egypt survives to this day.

But it didn’t have to be that way. Imagine if Joseph’s plan had to also account for political realities that included a Republican House of Representatives intent upon toppling the regime. What would that look like?

38. But lo! There were those among his advisers who were not loyal to the Pharaoh. They huddled together and said, Who has made Pharaoh to be a god above us? Are we not fit to rule the empire as is he?

39. They looked upon his alabaster palaces, his monuments, and even unto the jewels with which he was bedecked. And they thought of the many who would face famine, while Pharaoh lived amid such magnificence and splendor.

40. And they had another thought. Thus said they, We, too, want to live in splendor and magnificence, for surely we have merited it. Were not our fathers men of stature?

41. God’s word to Joseph was fulfilled. Verily, the land produced a great abundance and a surplus of all manner of grains, such that the Egyptians needed to build great storehouses as Joseph directed, so that they could store the grain for the seven years of famine.

42. Now, the advisors who were not loyal to Pharaoh huddled together again. They looked upon the vast storehouses of grain, and they thought of the many who would face famine. And they said, We, too, want vast storehouses of grain, for surely we merit it. Were not our fathers men of stature?

43. So, they went abroad in the land and they spoke to the multitudes. Thus, said they: Our fathers were men of stature, so surely we know whereof we speak. Look you upon the wealth of our kingdom. Do you see starvation?

44. And the multitudes answered as one, There is no starvation in this land.

45. And they said, Are there not great surpluses, and storehouses of wealth, and gold and jewels in the Pharaoh’s alabaster palaces? And the multitudes answered as one, Yea, verily, it is so.

46. The disloyal advisors continued further. Does the Pharoah need more gold? Why then does he demand that we bring him grain?

47. The multitudes were confounded. And they said, we have been taxed too much, for surely, the Pharaoh has grain and gold and jewels. And lo! They believed it for they saw with their own eyes that the storehouses were overflowing with grain. So, they stopped bringing grain to the storehouses, and thus they departed from the plan that had been revealed to them by Joseph.

48. Now the disloyal advisors were wealthy men, for their fathers had been men of stature. And they built great storehouses for their own grain, for the land continued to produce more than they could use. And the multitudes could not store their grain, for they had not the wherewithal to build great storehouses. And vermin seized the grain that the multitudes could not consume.

49. But the men of substance said to the multitudes, give us your grain, and we will store it in the great storehouses. And you will pay us to store the grain, that you may have it in your time of need.

50. And it was well with the multitudes. Verily, they had enough to eat, and lo, they had savings with which to protect themselves against famine if ever it should arise.

51. And they forgot that the seven years of plenty were the work of God. And they believed that they, in their wisdom, had made the grain to grow. And they thought they could do no wrong.

52. Now the men of substance said, For storing your grain in our storehouses, and because we are wise men of substance, whose fathers were men of stature, you must pay us to use our storehouses one half of one half of one half of your grain each year that you shall use our storehouses.

53. And the multitudes readily agreed, for verily there was no want in the land. And so it was that after 7 years, there was but little grain in the storehouses for the multitudes, for the men of substance had earned it all by storing it in the storehouses that they had seen fit to build.

54. And so it was that the mighty Pharaoh had to borrow wealth from his neighbors so that the masses could be fed. For he had learned, that during seven fat years, it is wise to do as God had foretold to him through Joseph, and save for lean years.

55. And so, he borrowed from his neighbors to the east.

56. And the famine became hard on the multitudes, for lo, the grain that they had stored in the storehouses of the men of substance was lost to them for now it belonged to the men of substance.

57. But Pharaoh’s heart was not yet hardened, and his saw the misery of the people. So he borrowed more from his neighbors to the east. And he promised to them, that upon his oath, they would be paid back when good times returned, and he pledged to them the good reputation of the men of substance and of his entire kingdom.

58. For, surely, he said, the men of substance will pay their fair share, as they have benefitted the most and indeed, it was their cunning that had caused his nation to foreswear saving in the kingdom’s storehouses.

59. When the cunning men of substance heard that they would be expected to help the nation pay the neighbors to the east, they recoiled in horror. Said they, We did not cause this famine. We have saved for ourselves in our own great storehouses. And so, they forbade the Pharaoh to borrow any further.

60. And there was great starvation in the land.

61. And the neighbors to the east said, You have made a pledge to us. Will thou not uphold the honor of your nation? And thus Pharoah came to understand the words of Joseph regarding “the seven empty ears of grain, beaten by the east wind.”

62. Thus, did Pharaoh implore the men of substance: If it pleases you, and if your heart has been moved by the suffering of the people whom you did lead astray, and if you value your honor, then I beseech you to let me borrow from the neighbors to the east.

63. But the men of substance said, What will you do for us, if we allow you to do this thing for youself?

64. And the Pharaoh responded, What is it you demand of me?

65. And the men of substance replied as one, You must promise to us that we will never again save for lean years, but rather that which you spend shall be neither more nor less than what you collect from the multitudes. And you enshrine into law this promise, so that it will be a covenant for all time.

66. And so it was that Pharaoh enacted a law that forbade him to save grain during fat years, and thus, he was unable to feed the multitudes in the lean years. And his nation became impoverished. And there was a great suffering in the land, for the people had been persuaded by the men of substance to disobey God’s plan which was to care for all the people He had created.

“ … and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

If not now, when?

President Obama summed up the need for a comprehensive budget deal with these memorable words: “If not now, when?” Many may have presumed that the President was trying to appease right-wingers by quoting their patron saint, Ronald Reagan, who used the same quote without attribution in his second inaugural address.

Actually, the author is Rabbi Hillel, who lived from 30 BCE to 9 CE and is recognized as one of the very greatest Jewish scholars in history. The full quote is, “If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?”

The President would do well to remember the entire quote. The President was elected because he is a man of the people. If he doesn’t stick up for his core constituencies, who will be for him? If he wants to serve the country he loves, he needs to get reelected. I hear talk that his reelection is not a sure thing. If he buckles on social security, on medicare, on tax breaks for millionaires, then I guess one has to wonder from whom his passionate support will come.

And what of these people whose greed is so out of control and so over the top that they have the nerve to say that they need more tax cuts? They are only for themselves, and the President doesn’t need to lower himself to their level. Indeed, he needs to oppose these kleptocrats.

By the way, if President Obama wants to pay homage to St. Ronny, he should remind the Republicans that during Reagan’s term the debt ceiling was raised 17 times, taxes were raised in 7 of 8 years, and tax rates were higher than they are now.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch set ya!”

Calling out Justice Roberts

Campaign Finance Law Strikes Out

“Every judge I appoint,” said President George W. Bush, “will be a person who clearly understands the role of a judge is to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench.” He appointed John Roberts, the current Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Sounds good, eh? Who wants activist judges passing legislation? Besides the fact that it is impossible, it is just not democratic. But one thing that courts can do is repeal legislation. It’s not any more democratic, but at least judges can be activists to further an agenda if that’s the kind of judges they are.

And that’s the kind of judge John Roberts is. You bet he has an agenda. What’s his game? It’s serving up softballs to the rich and mighty. Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett is a perfect example.

The State of Arizona through the democratic process of citizen referendum, enacted a law that was intended to “level the playing field” of electoral politics by eliminating the advantage that money bestows upon thems that got it. The system was a model of simplicity. You could get funding for your campaign if you promised not to spend any money of your own. If your opponent started to spend his own money on a campaign, the state would match it up to a limit. Note that your opponent could spend as much of his money as he likes: there’s no limit. The Supreme Court, in Citizens United, held that money is speech and so, ipso facto, the law in no way restricts free speech.

Let’s take a look at the curve-ball Roberts court threw the citizens of Arizona. As the income curve in the United States begins to resemble a bell curve less and the grin of a Cheshire Cat more, up go the barrier to entry in diverse fields like, say, politics. Of course, anyone can beg for money to run for political office. But that means that in order to become elected, you have to become, if not indebted, at least beholden to the moneyed class. By a strange coincidence, the opinion in AZ Free Enterprise v. Bennett came down on the same day that the jury handed up a verdict in United States vs. Blagojevich.

Before John Roberts was confirmed he made his pitch to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment. … And I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.” As it turns out, he threw a knock down pitch at the body politic when he authored a judicial repeal of the Arizona law enacted to prevent corruption and level the playing field.

As Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion of AZ Free Enterprise v. Bennett, “‘Leveling the playing field’ can sound like a good thing. But in a democracy, campaigning for office is not a game.”

The funny thing is that I don’t much care for a level playing field, either. I prefer a mound 10 inches high, 18 feet in diameter, with the front edge 50 feet, 6 inches from home plate. I guess that makes me more like an umpire than John Roberts is.

And speaking of baseball, here's what Justice Elana Kagan, the woman who saved the National Pastime, said in her dissenting opinion:

“Less corruption, more speech. Robust campaigns leading to the election of representatives not beholden to the few, but accountable to the many. The people of Arizona might have expected a decent respect for those objectives. Today, they do not get it.... Truly, democracy is not a game.”

Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the UC Irvine School of Law, put it this way: “Campaign finance laws have now gone 0 for 5 in the Roberts Court.”

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Who wants a shutdown?

Suppose for the moment that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was serious when he said, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

And assume that Michelle Bachmann meant it when she told the Conservative Political Action Conference, “The all-important must have for 2012 is making Barack Obama a one-term president.”

Back in September, when people were preparing for a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, Speaker-to-be John Boehner held a series of talks to plan their agenda. “The goal, obviously, would be to make it a one-term presidency,” said a GOP lobbyist familiar with the talks.

Let’s take them at their word. If you were to plan the defeat of President Obama, especially in advance of choosing who will be your standard-bearer, what are the things that you would do? It’s a simple question, really. You would fully embrace the Rush Limbaugh “hope” that President Obama fails. And then, you would work tirelessly to make it so.

Although after the last congressional elections, Republicans were quick to claim that the mandate they received was to reduce the deficit. As I have noted elsewhere, I don’t recall anyone actually campaigning on that. Rather, my recollection is that that the election was about jobs, jobs, and jobs, with a soupçon of tax cutting. Only the greenest naïf would be surprised that Republicans engaged in a little bait and switch. But the real question is this: Why have they suddenly pivoted to a philosophy that deficits matter, contrary to what Dick Cheney said? Now that Republicans control the house, you would imagine they would be eager to bring home the pork barrel spending.

After all, when you have a recession, deficit spending spurs the economy. A resurgent economy leads to the creation of jobs, which translates to lower unemployment numbers. The Republicans are demanding $61 billion in cuts. Moody’s Analytics chief economist, Mark Zandi, an architect of the 2009 stimulus package who has advised both political parties, predicts that the GOP package would reduce economic growth by 0.5 percentage points this year, and by 0.2 percentage points in 2012, resulting in 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of next year.

If you are the least bit concerned about the deficit, you know that the Health Care law passed by the last congress and signed into law is essential to curtail the government’s deficit which is largely fueled by expanding medical costs. And yet the Republican enthusiasm for deficit reduction does not diminish their hostility to Obama-care. Michelle Bachmann has stated that she will not vote for any budget that does not defund Obama-care.

The Democrats have met the Republicans more than half way by agreeing to a $31 billion dollar deficit reduction plan. Senator Chuck Schumer has let it be known that privately John Boehner has agreed to this compromise, but Leader Boehner can’t publicly acknowledge the truth because he is a hostage of the Tea-party freshmen.

Why? Because the Republicans speak the truth. To them, the most important thing is for Obama to fail. They want unemployment numbers to go up. They want the government to shut down because that will kill the recovery and lead to inflation. They don’t care about the human suffering caused by the resultant increase in the misery index. They know that the higher the misery index, the better the chances of defeating an incumbent President.

They mewl and puke about the deficits, while ignoring the fact that much of the deficit was caused by the need to dig us out of the financial crisis caused by the Bush administration and the Republican congress he enjoyed. They forget that the extraordinary expenditures saved the American auto industry and hundreds of thousands of jobs. They forget that tax cuts to the super-rich and corporate welfare decimated America’s revenue base.

Soon you are going to hear Republicans asking “are you better off now than you were three years ago?” They know that if you answer “no” then you are less likely to vote for an incumbent president. They are banking on the fact that many people will forget how bad things were when the Obama administration inherited a mess that could have turned into a reprise of the Great Depression. And they are depending on the making the lives of Americans worse, and hoping that they can blame that misery on an incumbent president.

Who will rip the scab off this wound on the body politic? Who will call a spade a stinking shovel?

“... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!"

John McCain's reckless attacks

Today, Senator John McCain was on Meet the Press for the 60th time. Thank God the man was not elected to the presidency. Listening to him, it is hard to escape the conclusion that he is a lunatic. He chose to attack President Obama's response to the Libya crisis. Here is some of what he said about how the U.S. should respond to the situation in Libya:

“We could impose, and could have imposed a no-fly zone. They would have stopped flying if that had been imposed. They’re using air power and helicopters to continue these massacres. We should recognize a provisional government somewhere in eastern Libya, perhaps Benghazi. We should make it clear that we will provide assistance to that provisional government. And finally, we should make it absolutely clear that anyone who continues or is engaged in these kinds of barbarous acts is going to find themselves on trial in a war crimes tribunal. We’ve got to really get tough.”

On Friday night’s edition of Washington Week in Review, Martha Raddatz, Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent for ABC News, ridiculed the idea of a no-fly zone, thus:

“I love that they keep talking about this no fly zone. I can’t imagine that that could happen, because, first of all, you would really have to have the U.N. It would be tantamount to an act of war if you went in and had a no-fly zone. I mean the same reason you can’t really land in Libya –it’s still a sovereign country. And if you don’t have permission to land there, you can’t do that. So I think a no-fly zone is not a reality here.”

So, John McCain, in order to prove that he is going to “really get tough,” would start a war in Libya. But wait! There’s more! He recommends that we support a provisional government in Benghazi. Does anyone know who’s in charge in Benghazi?

Here’s how David Zucchino described it for the L.A. Times:

“In Benghazi, the center of the eastern rebellion that broke free from 41 years of despotic rule a week ago, everyone is in charge — and no one is in charge. But everyone seems to have claimed a piece of the revolution.

“Men toting shotguns and hunting rifles operate checkpoints. Teenagers in sneakers direct traffic. Young men dance in the back of pickup trucks towing antiaircraft guns, and the makeshift government center in the downtown courthouse has the strung-out, manic feel of a college all-nighter.”

Not exactly De Gaul in 1943 Algiers.

Here’s a late breaking news item from the British newspaper the Independent:

Former justice minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil announced that he would head an interim government with the suggestion that it has the backing of the US. He also said an agreement could be reached with the sons of Col Gaddafi to end the spiraling violence.

But confusion and controversy surrounded the announcement after the official spokesman for the Council disputed that version of events, saying that Mr Abdel-Jalil had expressed purely personal views. Abdul Hafiz Gouga added that there could be no accommodation with remnants of the regime because of "the huge human rights abuses" that had been committed. He insisted Mr. Abdel-Jalil would only be a member of the Council rather than its head. In fact, said Mr. Gouga, the organisation will have no hierarchy with the members, their numbers as yet undisclosed, all having an equal say on policy.”

Does this sound to you like the type of provisional government we want to recognize? I don’t think so. But Senator McCain not only wants to recognize it, he wants to provide assistance to it. There’s one small problem: the government has no address. In fact, on February 27th, the Libyan Youth Movement tweeted at 16:36: “Tripoli is and will be the capital of Libya, any talk of a 'Libyan' government on hold until Tripoli liberated.”

Now let’s assume that we could overcome the no-address problem and send war materiel and maybe even advisors into Benghazi to help sustain the resistance to Qaddafi. It could all turn out for the best. Or not.

First, the Arab world will not immediately forget that the U.S. has been supportive of some of the worst tyrants in the Muslim world, from the Shah of Iran, to Saddam Hussein, to Hosni Mubarak, and, some would say, to Mo Qaddafi. There is a risk that a peck on the cheek from the U.S. government to a nascent democratic movement in Libya could be the kiss of death.

Most Libyans have never known any form of government other than the Jamahiriya (a state of the masses) which in theory is government by the populace through local councils and in practice, an authoritarian kleptocracy. Can anyone guarantee that the next government in Libya will not also be corrupt? Do we want to be the midwife of such a government?

In case you haven’t noticed, Libya is oil-rich, producing about 2% of the world’s production of oil. Do you suppose any neighbors of Libya could covetously look upon those oil reserves? Algeria and Niger have border disputes with Libya and Chadian rebels are living in South Libya. If the rebels in Libya succeed in dismantling the Libyan army, will the country be vulnerable to attack from any of its neighbors? If so, who will the Libyans blame?

And last but not least, what are we to make of John McCain’s threat that “anyone … who is engaged in these kinds of barbarous acts is going to find themselves on trial in a war crimes tribunal?” I mean, other than McCain’s weakness with English grammar.

This threat must really put shivers in the boots of Mo. Qaddafi, who admitted to complicity in the Lockerbie bombing, for which he was rewarded with diplomatic recognition from George W. Bush. More directly to the point, Qaddafi has no intention of leaving office alive whether it is to go to exile or the Hague.

I can hear you now saying, “Big Mitch, you’ve successfully proven that John McCain is a reckless know-nothing, but we knew that since the day he nominated Sarah Palin. What do you propose to do about Libya?

Well, I am glad you asked. How about nothing. It sounds to me that things are going pretty well there.

At this juncture, it appears nearly certain that Qaddafi will be hanging from a tree before the ides of March. Sadly, many Libyan patriots will be the victims of his violence before his reign of terror is over. The price of Libyan freedom will be paid in much blood, but there is no other way. It is cold comfort to know that the Libyan military has been kept weak by Libya because Qaddafi did not want to lose power the way he gained it, viz., by military coup.

An American hands-off policy seems to have worked in Tunisia and Egypt. Both countries have survived revolutions with little or none of the knee-jerk anti-America and anti-Israel rhetoric that should have been expected. Perhaps Arabs are seeing that President Obama was serious when he said he would respect their desire for self-determination. And our non-involvement seems to be working in Libya:

As we read in the Daily Caller

The Arab League has barred Libya from attending meetings of the bloc until it ends its violent crackdown on protesters, which it said involved violations of human rights and international laws.

Of course, we know that a policy of non-intervention will displease some cranky old men like Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchens sounds intelligent because he uses words like “obtrudes.” But here is what he said about Obama’s careful measured response to the situation in Libya:

"For weeks, the administration dithered over Egypt and calibrated its actions to the lowest and slowest common denominators, on the grounds that it was difficult to deal with a rancid old friend and ally who had outlived his usefulness. But then it became the turn of Muammar Qaddafi—an all-round stinking nuisance and moreover a long-term enemy—and the dithering began all over again. Until Wednesday Feb. 23, when the president made a few anodyne remarks that condemned "violence" in general but failed to cite Qaddafi in particular—every important statesman and stateswoman in the world had been heard from, with the exception of Obama.”

I’ve already written about Obama’s “dithering” over Egypt, praising him for laying the groundwork for a peaceful revolution in Egypt, and then letting it take its course. But on the subject of Libya, Hitchens seems to think that Obama’s reticence was a character flaw.

What he fails to understand is that a matter of the safety of hundreds of Americans had obtruded itself into the calculus. U.S. efforts to evacuate hundreds of Americans from Libya were being stymied by bad weather on the coast — and by the refusal of Qaddafi's government to allow American charter planes to land there. Ramping up the rhetoric could have had disasterous results for those whose safety is a primary concern of the POTUS.

A few hours after Hitchen’s idiocy hit the blogosphere, the U.S.-chartered ferry the Maria Dolores carrying 300 passengers, including at least 167 U.S. citizens Americans finally arrived at the Mediterranean island of Malta. We will wait in vain, for Hitchens message of congratulations to Obama.

With Americans out of Libya, we can expect to see coordinated efforts to oust Qaddafi. The most successful of these will be those of Libyans fighting for their basic human rights and for their freedom. God bless them for doing so, and for the bravery and self sacrifice that their task demands.

"... and tell ’Big Mitch sent ya!"

Government shutdown, or, Republicans get their wish.

It has been a goal of the Republican Party at least since the time of Ronald Reagan, to destroy the government. I am not trying to read the minds of Republicans. Rather, I am listening to their words and taking them at face value.

Take Ronald Reagan, who famously said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; Government is the problem.” He explained his plan for reducing government’s role in our life: “Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker.”

When George W. Bush took office, he fully embraced the “starve the beast” mentality. In 2001 he said, “so we have the tax relief plan [...] that now provides a new kind -- a fiscal straightjacket for Congress. And that’s good for the taxpayers, and it’s incredibly positive news if you’re worried about a federal government that has been growing at a dramatic pace over the past eight years and it has been.”

Grover Norquist wins the prize for the most memorable quotation on the subject: “I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

Give the Republicans their due. Their plan seems to be working. Let’s take a look at how they have accomplished so much.

First, there is the tax code. As we all know, Bush turned a budget surplus into a huge deficit by reducing taxes on the very wealthy.

They also went after the inheritance tax which taxes income gained not by innovative thinking or hard labor, but by the good fortune of being the child of a dead rich guy. I don’t begrudge anybody money made in this way. Au contraire, I send my condolences to the orphans and widows. But for two centuries the estate tax served as a check on the tendency of the rich to get richer while the poor got poorer. It prevented the amassing of huge fortunes and the creation of an European-style aristocracy.

Then, there is the destruction of civil discourse, and comity. Without a spirit of compromise and bi-partisanship, government cannot function. Grover Norquist – who described bipartisanship as “date-rape” – explained, “We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals -- and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship.” Is it any wonder that fellow conservative Tucker Carlson described Norquist as “repulsive:” He’s “a mean-spirited, humorless, dishonest little creep… the leering, drunken uncle everyone else wishes would stay home.”

We have seen the mean-spirited Republican obstructionism at work in Congress for the last two years. Consider the unprecedented increase in the number of filibusters by Republican senators in the last congress. The 111th Congress again broke the record for the number of filibusters in a session. In March 2010, freshman senator Al Franken attacked the majority of the filibusters—some on matters which later passed with little controversy—as a “perversion of the filibuster.”

Or consider the alarming – nay, shocking – refusal to confirm judges. Here’s how Doug Kendall, President of the Constitutional Accountability Center described the situation:

“Across the nation, Americans seeking justice in our federal court system depend on a functioning judiciary to hear their claims and adjudicate their complaints. While it is positive news that 19 of President Obama’s judicial nominees were confirmed by the Senate during this lame duck session of Congress, it is outrageous that Senate Republican leaders denied floor votes for 19 others.

“Throughout the 111th Congress, conservatives in the Senate have blocked floor votes for even the most uncontroversial nominees, creating a roadblock that needed to be cleared in the lame duck session. While votes have now been allowed on 19 previously blocked nominees, 19 other nominees will have to be re-nominated, and will be forced to go through a duplicative confirmation process – all while Americans wait for justice.

“Fifteen of the 19 blocked nominees were reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee without recorded opposition or with overwhelmingly bi-partisan votes. Worse still, 13 were nominated to fill ‘judicial emergencies,’ a designation by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts denoting a vacant judicial seat with a crushing caseload. Such inaction by the Senate, while our judiciary is literally pleading for qualified judicial personnel, is unconscionable.”

Thanks to Proposition 13, California is broke. They can’t keep the courts or the DMV open five days a week and they are laying off teachers like nobody’s business. In Wisconsin, a state with a rich history of workers’ rights, citizens by the tens of thousands are marching on the Capitol to protest the Governor’s plan to strip state workers of collective bargaining rights under the pretext that their state is also broke.

In Michigan, state education officials have ordered the emergency financial manager for Detroit Public Schools to immediately implement a plan that balances the district's books by closing half its schools.

And in Congress, there is a real threat that the government will actually shut down for lack of funding, when the continuing budget resolution expires early next month. Make no mistake about it: this is the Republican plan.

How many times have you heard a Republican say, “we were elected to cut the deficit.” The funny thing is, I’ve never met a person concerned about the deficit. I think Dick Cheney struck a popular chord when he said, “deficits don’t matter.”

Now let’s assume ad arguendo that Republicans really do want to cut the deficit. You can cut the deficit by making the wealthiest 2% pay their fair share of taxes. Take the case of Warren Buffett who in 2007 was estimated to be worth $52 billion. He said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made in 2006, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.

You have often heard it said that the U.S. tax-rate on corporations is higher than any Western nation’s. Well, consider General Electric. Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing in U.S. taxes. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion!

ExxonMobil had a pretty good year. It made $37.3 billion on sales of 311 billion. I’m betting that you, dear reader, paid more taxes to the U.S. government than ExxonMobil. Hint: I’ll win my bet if you paid anything at all in federal taxes.

Bank of America managed to eke out 4.4 billion in pre-tax income, so the government paid them 1.9 billion in tax credits. Forbes reports they won’t be paying taxes anytime soon because of a $49 billion “provision for credit losses.”

Ford Motor Company didn’t take any bailout money and still managed to earn 3 billion on sales of 118 billion. On that profit they were required to pay 2.3% to Uncle Sam. Verizon did okay, raking in pre-tax income of 11.6 billion, but they were able to keep their effective tax rate down to 10.5%, which is considerably lower than the rate at which Warren Buffett’s secretary paid.

I could go on and on, but by now you get the point: America’s wealthy and American corporations are not over-taxed. And yet, the so-called liberal press has completely bought into the idea that the deficit cannot be cut without slashing entitlements.

Entitlements are things people are entitled to. They are not government largess. In most cases, they are deferred compensation for a lifetime of work and service. In other cases, they provide the modicum of dignity that – forgive me for saying it – everyone is entitled to. Social Security, which is fundamentally sound for the foreseeable future, doesn't count in the deficit, because it is "off-budget." But that doesn't stop the chattering class from saying that we must attack Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

John Boehner has said over and over again, “We’re broke.” If the Republicans shut down the government again, the sound you will hear is the sound of your government gurgling bathwater.

Thanks, Republicans.

“and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

The dog that didn't bark

“And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more. But no dog shall bark …” Exodus 11:6, et seq.

From this, we are to learn that God’s hand was at work in the miraculous changes in Egypt. Once again, we are observing events in Egypt that defy logic and reason. Let’s review.

On June 4, 2009, at Cairo University, President Obama gave a speech entitled “A New Beginning.” Here’s some of what he said:

“I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

He expressed his “belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.”

The President acknowledged that “there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq.” He also stated clearly to the Egyptians, “no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.”

Here’s what he said that is of special relevance to the situation in Egypt today:

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

Four months later, President received the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee’s press release said:

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.”

In January of this year, protesters took to the streets in Cairo to overthrow Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak was a staunch friend of the United States, but a tyrant nevertheless. For nearly three decades he ruled under an “Emergency Law” that allowed for the brutal suppression of all opposition. His nation suffered from extreme poverty, although he amassed a fortune which we have since learned is in the order of $70 billion. Successive American administrations had warned him that the situation was untenable, and had unsuccessfully urged him to liberalize his autocratic rule.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of the Egyptian-American alliance. The Camp David Peace Accords essentially made it impossible for there to be a unified Arab attack on Israel, as there had been in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973. There is a reason why Egypt is the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid.

By February 11th, Mubarak had resigned, and the government was in the hands of the military. The leadership of the military has strong ties with the Americans and they have expressed that they will honor all peace agreements, including Camp David. From the American point of view the outcome of the revolution could not have been better. This is true for the Israelis, as well.

Egyptian democracy will face many challenges before it fully takes hold. Perhaps, the Muslim Brotherhood will get a foothold in electoral politics, and then renege on the commitments they have made. Ambassador Martin Indyk opined on Meet the Press, “I don’t think the military is going to let the Muslim Brotherhood takeover. The Muslim Brotherhood knows that and they are keeping their head down and saying they don’t want to takeover.”

For the time being here’s what their website says:

We aim to achieve reform and rights for all: not just for the Muslim Brotherhood, not just for Muslims, but for all Egyptians. We do not intend to take a dominant role in the forthcoming political transition. We are not putting forward a candidate for the presidential elections scheduled for September.

...

We envision the establishment of a democratic, civil state that draws on universal measures of freedom and justice, which are central Islamic values. We embrace democracy not as a foreign concept that must be reconciled with tradition, but as a set of principles and objectives that are inherently compatible with and reinforce Islamic tenets.

What does all this have to do with dogs not barking in Egypt? In the Sherlock Holmes story, Silver Blaze, Doyle writes:

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

By my lights the most curious thing about the Tahrir Square Revolution is the fact that the demonstrations were almost totally devoid of anti-American sloganeering. Nor was there any of the anti-Israel rhetoric that could have been expected. Who could have imagined that a popular revolution in the most populous Arab nation in the world, would not contain elements of reflex anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism?

If things do go badly in Egypt, Barack Obama will surely be blamed by those who hate him. But for now, it is hard to envision a better outcome. Give credit where credit is due.

"... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!"

Post Script: I must the biggest dope of all time. I stupidly thought that the haters of Obama would wait until something went awry in Egypt before they criticized him. As you can see below, Newsweek's new columnist Niall Ferguson earns his wings by jumping on President Obama. The logic of his argument doesn't stand up any better than the headline-writer's spell-checker.

Newsweek:

Obama's Egypt and Foreign Policy Failires

NEWSWEEK’s new columnist on Obama’s Egypt debacle and the vacuum it exposes.

Building Peace in East Jerusalem

Israel has decided to build 1,600 homes in East Jerusalem, and the announcement came while Vice President Joe Biden was in that country to promote peace talks. It was seen as a slap in the face to Mr. Biden who is a strong supporter of Israel, and the highest ranking American official to visit there. Predictably, the Palestinians have pulled out of planned shuttle diplomacy.

I make no secret of my strong support for Israel, which is based on my analysis of what is best for the United States and my belief in the necessity of a Jewish homeland. Nor am I ashamed to say that my support of Israel is informed by my religious beliefs.

Having said that, I am not clear on what Israel did that is so wrong. Undoubtedly, the Israelis have jurisdiction over East Jerusalem. It was ceded to them by Jordan, the previous sovereign, which has renounced any claim to the territory. (This, by the way, is the reason that the term “occupied” does not apply to the West Bank, although by constant repetition, it has become accepted -- a huge propaganda boon to the Palestinians.)

If the Israelis have jurisdiction over the land, they have the right to regulate land use there. Case closed. Those who argue otherwise would have you believe that because the land is disputed, Israel should take no steps that might prejudice the outcome of future negotiations. However, what these people fail to understand is that by forbearing to exercise jurisdiction, the Israelis would be conceding to the Palestinians the very point of the negotiations. Such a major concession on the part of the Israelis ought to be matched with some consideration from the other side. But it is assumed by these people that Israel should make concessions before negotiations.

The action taken was the beginning of a zoning process that would allow construction some number of years in the future. It should be noted that the land is in the middle of a Jewish neighborhood, and across the entire Israeli political spectrum there is universal agreement that the land will never be ceded to a future Palestinian state.

By taking this action, Israel gives an incentive to Palestinians to negotiate now. An important part of any negotiation is getting the other side to believe that it is in their interests to strike a deal, and that any future deal will be less favorable, or at least, harder to come by. Building within a Jewish neighborhood in the eternal capital of the Jewish state creates just that dynamic.

Let us suppose that the Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem will one day be part of a Palestinian state. Said state will be able to make whatever zoning decisions it likes. And if that does not come to pass until Israelis have built apartments there, we must ask this question: Did the buildings make the land less valuable to the future state? While it is true that Palestinians destroyed Israeli-built agricultural installations in Gaza when they were granted jurisdiction there, that was a choice they made for their own reasons. But they could just as easily have chosen to use the farms to feed their population.

As I have said, the Palestinians’ use of this excuse to pull out of negotiations was predictable. The chattering class would have you accept the notion that therefore, Israel was scuttling the peace talks. In every other area of discourse we encourage people to take responsibility for their actions. Is there a good reason why the Palestinians cannot be expected to take responsibility for pulling out of the peace talks? Can it truly be said that they had no other choice? If the Palestinians cannot accept responsibility for their intransigence, then perhaps they are not ready to govern an independent state, in which case, negotiations are worse than useless. By the way, the evidence that Palestinians are incapable of self governance also comes from the fact that the Gaza is ruled by Hamas (officially listed as a terrorist organization) and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) are ruled by the successors to the PLO.

But what of the timing of Israel’s decision? Wasn’t that an insult to Vice President Biden? The answer is yes, it was, and for that reason it was a mistake. It was a mistake committed by a minister of housing, who belongs to the right wing religious party, Shas. Israeli democracy is composed of many diverse groups and undoubtedly, the decision will receive great condemnation for its timing from the many opponents of Shas. When Vice President Biden announced to an audience at Tel Aviv University that he had recommended to the President that the Israeli action be condemned, his remarks drew loud applause.

In fairness to Shas, we should examine the internal logic of their decision. The vice president was embarrassed on foreign soil, notwithstanding his long term, genuine support for Israel. It makes it much less likely that President Obama will be rushing to put himself in the same position. There are those who believe that President Obama will tilt American foreign policy toward the Palestinians, and keeping him away from the region weakens his ability to do so. Some of these people may think that in three years, there might be a different American president, who is more sympathetic to Israel. I don’t agree with any of this reasoning, but it is internally consistent, and explains more than the presumption that Israel was just trying to be mean to friends like America and Joe Biden.

Israel has a right to build on territory that it controls in its capital city. If Palestinians want Israel to give up that right, they must offer some quid pro quo. Perhaps a declaration that Israel has a right to exist in safe and secure borders would be a good start. Perhaps an agreement to share in Israel’s commitment to allow free access to and protection for all religious sites in the area could be negotiated in exchange for a halt on building permits. But it is not for me to decide the outcome of negotiations. That is for the parties. And they can’t do it, as long as Palestinians refuse to come to the table.

Cheney surrenders to terrorists

Dick Cheney, Revisionist Historian and former Vice President, says we should treat the Underpants Bomber as an enemy combatant. It has been brought to everyone’s attention that he is a hypocrite given that did not criticize the previous President who did exactly the same thing with the Shoe Bomber.

The problem is that there must be a better defense for Attorney General Holder’s choice to try the Underpants Bomber in civilian courts than “Bush did it.” In other words, could it be that Bush got it right, and that the reasons for trying Umar Abdulmutallab as a civilian stand on their own? After all, even a blind pig gets an occasional truffle.

At present, the debate is about whether we should try the terrorist in a military tribunal or in a civilian court. The case for the civilian courts is easy to make. The symbolism of trying an al Qaida terrorist in downtown Manhattan is potent, indeed. Additionally, the civilian courts have judges and prosecutors with vast experience in the prosecution of terrorists. The U.S. Attorneys have an excellent record of putting terrorists behind bars with no possibility of escape or release.

Far be it from me, a self-described knee jerk liberal, to prejudge the case of the Underpants Bomber, but safe to say, there is no chance of him being acquitted and released. It is likely that the U.S. Attorney will hold some charges in reserve so that even if he were acquitted, the government would simply bring new charges against him. While it is theoretically possible that he could be acquitted on all charges, it is also possible – in theory, at least – to get hit by lightening twice on the day you win the lottery.

What about the case for military tribunals? They have secured the convictions of three so-called terrorists, two of whom have since been released from custody. The highest ranking al Qaida partisan to be convicted was Bin Laden’s driver.

Military tribunals have a long history in the law of war. They are provided to deal with a particular situation which occurs frequently in the fog of war, videlicet, a person is captured and it is not certain whether he is a combatant or a civilian. If he is a civilian, he must be released, but if he is an enemy combatant, he may be held until the end of hostilities. At that point he must be released, unless he is held over for trial in civilian courts on charges alleging war crimes.

The first question we must ask is whether or not Abdulmutallab is an enemy combatant. It is entirely possible, though not very likely, that he was a mentally disturbed individual who acted on his own, for his own purposes. It is also within the realm of possibility that a fair court could reach this conclusion, by mistake. Let’s assume that if any of these possibilities came to fruition, the would-be Christmas day bomber would be arrested and tried in a civilian court.

Of course, it is much more likely that he would be held to be an enemy combatant, and placed in custody to await the outcome of the war. Say what? What will happen if three years from now, the vigorous efforts of the Obama administration to disrupt, dismantle, and destroy al Qaida are successful? Suppose, for example, that the government of Afghanistan arrives at some modus vivendi with the Taliban, and together they agree to disarm al Qaida and execute the leadership. This sounds like good news, but especially so for Captain Underpants, since the legal rationale for holding him will no longer exist.

In other words, what Dick Cheney and his ditto heads are saying is that we will never win the war on terror. The question that needs to be asked is why are Republicans surrendering in the War against Al Qaida?

If we are going to follow the example of the previous administration shouldn’t we start with framing the issue to our best advantage? After all, the party that won World War II shouldn’t lose an argument to the party that cut and ran in Vietnam. The party that won the war in Kosovo, shouldn’t take a back seat to the party that got us mired in Iraq by lying to the American people. The party that sold arms to Iran to raise money for the Contras ought not to be lecturing Democrats on national security. The party that tried to destroy the American constitution isn’t the one teach us about criminal procedure.

... and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!

Update to "Who's responsible ..."

TPM Muckraker alerted me to the news that some of the “facts” reported by ABC – and repeated by me – are not true. ABC has issued a retraction and/or correction. Only one of the planners of the attempted Christmas day bombing was released from Gitmo by the previous administration.

Interestingly, the tenor of the TPM article suggests that the original story has been a darling of right wing blogs. What am I? Chopped liver?

“… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Who is responsible for the attack on NW Flight 253?

A new attack on an airliner in the United States has brought forth the predictable attacks on President Obama from the Revisionist Right. The congressman from Holland, Michigan, Peter Hoekstra, who also happens to be the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, sent out a fund-raising letter that is typical:

In the midst of enjoying Christmas with my family, we were quickly reminded that there is still a war against the American way of life; on Christmas morning, it came right here to Detroit.

If you agree that we need a Governor who will stand up the Obama/Pelosi efforts to weaken our security please make a most generous contribution of $25, $50, $100 or even $250 to my campaign.

The Grand Rapids Press also reports that Hoekstra further criticized the administration for plans to close Guantanamo Bay and re-examine interrogation techniques.

Florida Republican Rep. John Mica said in a statement that the TSA had grown lost and bloated in bureaucracy and called for a review. It would be nice if TSA had an administrator, but Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. has held up President Barack Obama's nominee because of his opposition to the prospect of TSA workers joining a labor union.

The President has nominated Erroll Southers, a former FBI special agent, who is the Los Angeles World Airports Police Department assistant chief for homeland security and intelligence. He also is the associate director of the University of Southern California's Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, and he served as a deputy director of homeland security for California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.Two Senate committees have given Southers their bipartisan blessing.

DeMint made the totally incomprehensible assertion that the attempted attack “is a perfect example of why the Obama administration should not unionize the TSA.” He wants Southers to clarify his stand on unionizing the TSA. Perhaps DeMint should clarify his position that the failure of non-unionized TSA workers, argues against hiring union professionals for this important job. DeMint and his Republican co-conspirators cast votes against the key TSA funding measure, the 2010 appropriation bill for the Department of Homeland Security, which included funding for the TSA, including for explosives detection systems and other aviation security measures.

The Revisionistas can also be seen on CNN. Over on MSNBC, Ed Shultz identified what he called “psychotalk,” viz. the assertion by GOP strategist’s Mary Matalin that the September 11th attacks didn't happen on President Bush's watch.

Arguing that President Obama was complaining too much about the problems he inherited from his predecessor, Matalin (who worked for former Vice President Dick Cheney) said her White House was saddled with problems, too. "We inherited a recession from President Clinton and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history," she told host John King on "State of the Union."

In real life, the recession started two months after Bush took office, and from some time before Bush took office, until the very day of 9-11 Richard Clarke and others were trying to get W's attention to let him know that “Osama Bin Laden was determined to strike within the U.S.” Condeleeza Rice testified that nobody could have forseen the attack, but Richard Clarke did.

So far, Rudy Giuliani’s only public pronouncement has been to advise Tiger Woods to “Hang in there,” so we will just have to wait a little longer until he announces that Obama doesn’t appreciate the threat posed by radical Islamic terrorism.

Perhaps this is a good time to ask, “Who is responsible for the failures of security that led to the Christmas day attack?”

Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks would be forthcoming. Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents.

Given the fact that they were released from Guantanamo, one can assume that they were not the “worst of the worst” for which Guantanamo was supposedly reserved. Whether or not they were radicalized after they arrived at George Bush’s Gitmo, is a question that remains unanswered.

American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia where they entered into an “art therapy rehabilitation program” and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials. Space does not permit a complete dossier on the unholy alliance between the Bush Administration and the Kingdom of Saud, so here is a picture worth the proverbial thousand words. More can be found here.

However, for the sake of Mary Maitlin and Dana Perino, I will simply point out that the President of the United States in November, 2007 was none other than George W. Bush.

... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!

I'm just saying ...

A company that invested millions in the slogan, “Just do it!” hires a guy to be their spokesperson, and now they are thinking of firing him because he was just doing it with every ho who could afford a boob job.

Now, it seems that Tiger was associated with a doctor,who was busted at the border with Human Growth Hormone in his medical kit. Tiger admits that he received treatment from the doctor to speed recovery from a knee injury, but he denies that he received any performance enhancing drugs. Even Tiger's harshest critics agree that there is no reason to doubt him.

When golf tournaments are shown on TV, they interrupted it every 15 minutes to broadcast a commercial for Viagra or Cialis. Personally, I think Tiger could have a real future in being the spokesman for a performance enhancing drug.

I’m just saying…

… tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!

Gevalt! The most annoying thing about “Scoot out of jail free.”

Today, Tony Snow responded to criticism from the Clintons about the Scooter commutation thus:

“I don’t know what is Arkansan for chutzpah [1] but this is a gigantic case of it."

We have reached a sad time when goyishe [2] Tony Snow is speaking Yiddish from the White House. Don’t we Jews have enough tsouris?[3]

Apparently, in this latest iteration of the “Bill Clinton did it, too” excuse, the White House is seeking to evoke the recollection of the Mark Rich pardon. Gay gezinteh heit. Chub a gutten yur. [4]

On Bill Clinton’s last day in office, he pardoned a refugee from the Nazis, Mark Rich, M.O.T., [5] a financier and philanthropist who had been falsely accused of tax evasion by Rudy Giuliani.

I say falsely accused because such is the opinion of U.S. tax professors Bernard Wolfman of Harvard Law School and Martin Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center. It was also the opinion of a panel of distinguished Republican lawyers including I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby. Be that as it may, these kinds of disputes are not unusual, and they are normally resolved in civil suits.

In the Republican orgy of recriminations against the Clinton administration that was the hallmark of the early days of the Bush administration, it was alleged that President Clinton pardoned Rich in return for favors paid to him. Indeed, the Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, who had worked so hard with President Clinton to secure a lasting resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, had made a clemency plea on behalf of Rich, as had numerous other Israeli officials.

Grasping at straws, Clinton-haters pointed out that Rich's former wife and the mother of his three children, socialite Denise Rich, had made large donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton's time in office. A Federal Prosecutor was appointed to investigate whether or not a crime was committed by Clinton’s exercise of the plenary pardon power. The conclusion arrived at by James Comey, who was to later become the Acting Attorney General under George W. Bush, was that there were no grounds to present to a Grand Jury.

Nobody, not even the most rabid Republicans ever suggested that the pardon of Mark Rich was a part of a conspiracy to protect members of the administration. Never was it suggested that Bill Clinton had a political motive for his decision to right a wrong committed by an over-zealous prosecutor, who now happens to be running for the Republican nomination for President.

Still want to talk about Mark Rich? Gai kakhen afenyam. [6]

“… and tell ’em Menachem Mendel [7] sent ya!”

Footnotes for the Yiddish challenged:
[1] lit. Nerve. Colloq: balls, as in “He had the chutzpah of a blind burglar.”
[2] Non-Jewish, and (when used in an otherwise English sentence) non-Jewish in a stereotypical way.
[3] troubles
[4] “Go and be healthy. Have a good year.” The equivalent to the dismissive “Knock yourself out,” you should pardon the expression.
[5] Member of the Tribe, (e.g. Rich, Libby)
[6] Go shit in the ocean.
[7] Big Mitch

Need a good argument for universal health care?

Here’s one:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …

(h/t to Thom. Jefferson)

Call me crazy but to me the right to life includes the right to health. Governments are instituted to secure this right. That means keeping the environment healthy. It means keeping our food supply safe. It means regulating the drug industry and the medical community. And yes, it means universal, single source, not-for-profit health insurance. And since you just called me crazy, let me just add that it means parity for mental health protection.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Do they have Fourth of July in England?

No? So you think that they go straight from the third to the fifth? Sure, it’s an old joke, but try it out at the picnic tomorrow and you might find someone young enough to think it’s funny.

In fact, the mother country is the birthplace of the English common law, which provides the underpinnings of our own legal system. Today they celebrate the ascension of Mr. Gordon Brown to the office of British Prime Minister.

It has been a rough start for him. His first day in office revealed a plot that included car bombs and driving an exploding vehicle into an airport terminal. The plot was hatched and carried out by five physicians. They still have a better health care program than we do.

In Britain the Prime Minister is obliged to appear in Parliament periodically and to answer questions from M.P.s on all sides of the aisle. Here’s my own transcript of an excerpt from Mr. Brown’s opening statement at his first appearance as P.M. in Parliament:

All members of this house and all the people of this country have a shared interest in building trust in our democracy. And it is my hope that by working together for change in a spirit that takes us beyond parties and beyond partisanship, we can agree a new British constitutional settlement that entrusts more power to Parliament and to the British people.

Change with a new settlement is in my view essential to our country's future for we will only meet the new challenges of security, of economic change, of communities under pressure, and forge a stronger shared national purpose by building a new relationship between citizens and government that insures that government is a better servant of the people.

…

So I now propose that in twelve important areas of our national life the Prime Minister and the executive should surrender or limit their powers, the exclusive exercise of which by the government of the day should have no place in a modern democracy. These are:

The power to declare war;

…

The power to make key public appointments without effective scrutiny;

The power to restrict parliament oversight of our intelligence services; …

Power in the appointment of judges;

Power to direct prosecutors in individual criminal cases;

…

And the executive powers to determine the rules governing entitlement to passports and the granting of pardons.

I now propose to surrender or limit these powers to make for a more open 21st century British democracy which better serves the British people.

It’s quite a striking contrast to the current administration on this side of the pond, eh what?

Enjoy your Independence Day.

… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!

A guest editorial from my in-box

My in-box contained this little note from one of the smartest guys I know. He said exactly what was on my mind.

Hey Mitch,

Let's see --

1. Dozens found beheaded in Baghdad -- daily -- with dozens more, including precious American lives, blown to pieces around Iraq in a civil war with no rational or reasonable political or combat end in sight -- but Bush tells us that "the surge" is making progress, really, it just needs more time;

2. Bush's recent Supreme Court appointees help roll back affirmative action, freedom of speech, women's reproductive rights, electoral/voting rights, church-state separation, a century-old rule against price-fixing (gouging) by manufacturers, and they are ready, willing and able to roll back any other social or economic advance made in the last 50 years;

3. Despite the new Democratic majority in Congress, the Republican minority successfully blocks immagration reform, all rational efforts to bring the troops home and end the Iraq madness, and any other "liberal-leaning" legislation -- effectively reducing Congress to a powerless Bush lap-dog. Of course, even when Congress musters the votes, Bush vetoes the bill and his vetoes are bullet-proof;

4. Our beloved Vice President announces that he is above the law -- whether those laws apply to the executive branch, the legislative branch, or the you-name-it branch. He is perched on his own special branch of his own and has no obligation to reveal anything to Congress about anything -- whether it's his secret negotiations with oil company representatives, or his vindictive efforts to reveal the identity of a CIA agent, or his decision to politicize the appointments of U.S. Attorneys around the country, dumping any with the temerity not to do as they're told and prosecute Democractic candidates regardless of the facts, or his involvement in (control over?) unauthorized wiretaps, secret policies on torture, "rendition," or the ongoing violation of the Geneva Convention at Gitmo and elsewhere, etc.

5. Alberto Gonzales -- say no more;

6. Our own Ted Stevens and Don Young -- we are truly blessed;

All in all, the news just can't get any better. And just think, Mitch, virtually all of these lovely developments can be boiled down to one key thing -- the fervent religious beliefs of the majority of Americans residing in all of those pretty "red" states (plus Florida, or Ohio, when needed) -- who would far rather vote Republican in order to ensure that homosexuals never marry or obtain equal rights, that women be forced to bear unwanted children, that African-American children remain in segregated schools, and that creation "science" be taught alongside (or instead of) evolution in our schools, than bring themselves to elect social or political progressives --let alone (dare I say it?) liberals. What a country.