If, as reported, Bush will issue a clarion call on Monday in support of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only that between a man and woman, the only sensible response will be gales of laughter. Really, with Iraq close to disintegration, gasoline prices high, confusion over immigration, continuted trade and budget deficits, uncertain economic outlook, and a pessimistic public, is that really supposed to help the president?
Those tactics probably would work if Bush has higher approval ratings (say, over 50%). But when there are real problems out there, pandering to a conservative minority just looks bad. It hightens the weakness.
In fact, those hoping for a Democratic take-over of Congress probably should welcome this move by Bush. And hope that he speaks out on it throughout the summer. One of the striking poll results over the last couple of years is that people no longer think that Bush "cares about people like me". Plugging for a marriage amendment isn't going to register with people struggling to deal with higher food, energy, and mortgage costs. Or healh care or college or any of that.
Same thing with the flag burning amendment. It's something that Fred Barnes thinks will work to boost Bush politically, but he's almost certainly wrong.
Pope Benedict goes to Auschwitz and speaks about the Holocaust: (emp add)
"To speak in this place of horror, in this place where unprecedented mass crimes were committed against God and man, is almost impossible — and it is particularly difficult and troubling for a Christian, for a pope from Germany," he said later.
"In a place like this, words fail; in the end, there can be only a dread silence, a silence which itself is a heartfelt cry to God: Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?"
Those would be good questions for Pope Pius XII, who said absolutely nothing about the Holocaust while it was raging. He didn't even speak out after Rome was liberated in 1944 (giving the lie to the argument that, as long as he was effectively "captive", he couldn't speak out without endangering the papacy).
Some questions for the current pope:
Are you going to put the brakes on the move to make Pius XII a saint? (It had progressed to the Venerable stage under Pope John Paul II.)
MS. O’BEIRNE: We do know 80 percent of the public wants the border enforced, they want to stop the hundreds of thousands coming over, and they support workplace sanctions. They think you shouldn’t be able to hire illegals. So they’re with the public on the enforcement side, and they’ll talk incremental.
Once we have that in place, then we can adopt - and I think there’s more support among House Republicans than people think for a guest worker program. They are hearing from employers back home.
Fine. This blog totally supports the notion that who you sit down for an interview with can be credibly associated with you.
Case and point. Dick Cheney has repeatedly been interviewed on Rush Limbaugh's program. Rush Limbaugh celebrates torture. We can now, using the Ney Rule, confidently say that Dick Cheney celebrates torture. And all the rest of the White House staff that have chatted it up with Rush.
In Bush and Blair's "press availability", the following exchange took place: (emp add)
Q Mr. President, you spoke about missteps and mistakes in Iraq. Could I ask both of you which missteps and mistakes of your own you most regret?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Sounds like kind of a familiar refrain here -- saying "bring it on," kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner -- you know, "wanted dead or alive," that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted, and so I learned from that.
Will somebody in the press - anybody - please ask the president the following question:
What is the proper interpretation of "bring it on"?
Looking at how very different the Senate and House approach the illegal immigration issue, it's hard to see how they can arrive at a compromise regarding the status of those currently in the country. The House wants penalties and expulsion. The Senate wants a road to citizenship for most that are already here. How does one find middle ground?
That leaves the fence. It's passive. It doesn't address the issue of immigrants here, only those trying to get in. It may be mostly for show, but it is something. It wouldn't be surprising if the only substantial element the two chambers of Congress can agree on will be a fence.
Taken 19 December 2005 at sunrise, looking south from a third floor apartment towards another wing of the same apartment complex. Los Angeles.
Sure, I could have put up an image of windows and balconies, and this is clearly an uncommon situation, but wouldn't you prefer to look at something nice?
In an Op-Ed you've got to read to believe, Koppel promotes the notion of contracting out the use of military force. In particular, he cites Blackwater USA and quotes approvingly a couple of executives from that firm. To give you an idea of Koppel's tone, read this excerpt:
So, what about the inevitable next step -- a defensive military force paid for directly by the corporations that would most benefit from its protection? If, for example, an insurrection in Nigeria threatens that nation's ability to export oil (and it does), why not have Chevron or Exxon Mobil underwrite the dispatch of a battalion or two of mercenaries?
Chris Taylor, the vice president for strategic initiatives and corporate strategy for Blackwater USA, wanted to be sure I understood that such a thing could only happen with the approval of the Nigerian government and at least the tacit understanding of Washington. But could Blackwater provide a couple of battalions under those circumstances? "600 people in a battalion," he answered. "I could source 1,200 people, yes. There are people all over the world who have honorably served in their military or police organizations. I can go find honorable, vetted people, recruit them, train them to the standard we require."
It could have the merit of stabilizing oil prices, thereby serving the American national interest, without even tapping into the federal budget. Meanwhile, oil companies could protect some of their more vulnerable overseas interests without the need to embroil Congress in the tiresome question of whether Americans should be militarily engaged in a sovereign third world nation.
Some points:
It's only a battalion or two, so don't get upset.
It really is tiresome to discuss using military might, isn't it? Koppel is right to say such issues are better left outside of politics.
What is to be done? Clearly, hand over all power to our capitalist lords.
It's not just corporations, though. Koppel toys with the idea of having the U.S. use contractors as well (it "might relieve us of an array of current political pressures").
Koppel goes beyond most libertarians in this regard. Their ideal is a government restricted to military and police roles. But even that limited scope is too much for Koppel. Let the market - infallable and just as we all know - do everything. If Chevron can pay for defending facilities, great. And if Sinclair Oil can't? Well, justice is only for those who can afford it in Koppel's New World Order.
President George W. Bush rides in a U.S. Border Patrol dune buggy during a tour of the Yuma sector near the U.S. Mexico border in Yuma, Arizona, Thursday, May 18, 2006. White House photo by Eric Draper
UPDATE: Related Jeff Danziger cartoon here (19 May)
US President George W. Bush (seated-C), joined by House and Senate leaders, signs The Tax Increase Prevention Reconciliation Act of 2005, extending his 2003 tax cuts on dividends and captial gains on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC.(AFP/Paul J. Richards)
Transurban Group, Australia's second- biggest toll road owner, agreed to buy Virginia's Pocahontas Parkway for $611 million, gaining its first U.S. motorway.
Transurban is among companies attracted to the reliable cash flows from toll roads that it estimates will spur some $200 billion of deals worldwide in the next 10 years. Macquarie Infrastructure Group and Cintra SA got state approval in March for their $3.85 billion bid for Indiana's toll road as U.S. states sell rights to their highways to pay debt.
"A lot of the state governments there are running budget deficits and they need the cash from wherever they can get it."
More U.S. states will sell roads as they seek to raise non- tax revenue to pay for repairs to heavily traveled highways and bridges, Merrill Lynch & Co. said in a report in March.
That's what happens when you don't tax enough to pay for stuff. You end up selling your assets.
Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees, because of the widespread problem of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law Â? and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place.
Here is the breakdown of worker types:
type
claim
"proof"
U.S. citizen
U.S. citizen
birth record
immigrant
U.S. citizen
forged birth record
immigrant
legal foreign worker
green card
immigrant
legal foreign worker
forged green card
Bush is only proposing a secure Green card (or equivalent). He is not proposing anything that would make it harder for immigrants to falsely claim to be U.S. citizens. That would require either a national ID card or an enhanced identity verification process. So Bush is letting businesses off the hook by retaining a lax system that allows for a certain type of false identity (of citizenship). That's to be expected. One of the biggest backers of illegal immigrant labor is business.
Whatever your position on immigration, what Bush is proposing is not an honest solution. If you want immigrants here and working, then be frank about it and fashion policy to match. Same for those opposing immigration. But let's not have this half-assed "we're making sure that those who claim to be legal foreign workers are legal" while ignoring others who are pursuing a different tactic to obtain employment
Regarding the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan deadline, we read [Forbes]:
Speaking last week to seniors in Florida, President Bush refused to move the May 15 midnight deadline for penalty-free enrollment. As reported by The Associated Press, Bush said "Deadlines are important. Deadlines help people understand there's finality, and people need to get after it."
That's rich, coming from a guy who failed to file a Form-4 on time regarding the sale of Harken stock. From Slate: (selected excerpts)
A form on which Bush was supposed to report his stock sale wasn't filed until eight months after it was due.
Years ago, Bush said his form was filed late because the SEC had lost it. Last week, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer retracted that claim and blamed Bush's lawyers: "The President believed at the time that he had filled out all the paperwork that was required, and it was filed, and that the lawyers did as they were required to do."
This coming week could be a very bad one for Bush. The speech on Monday about immigration isn't likely to help. It's not a topic people relish discussing, and whatever Bush proposes will take time to work (if it can work). Then, expect Rove to be indicted. Plus, further revelations about the NSA snooping. Top that off with continued high gas prices and further mayhem in Iraq, and you've got a potent mix of negatives. Oh, and don't forget that the housing market is cooling down - removing a potent palliative.
Perhaps I'm just reflecting my own mood right now, but I get the feeling that this country is close to full-blown disgust with Bush. Like it's about to lurch out of its passivity and towards open hostility to the powers that be.
In Sunday's Washington Post, David Broder frets about the budget deficit, praises Republican senator George Voinovich, and writes this:
[Voinovich quote] "The question is, are we willing to be honest with ourselves and the American people and make these tough decisions?"
The answer from Congress was to pass a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts for capital gains and dividends -- a $70 billion package that mainly benefits those with annual incomes over $200,000.
Voinovich was one of three Republicans who joined most Democrats in opposing the budget-buster. His candor is unfortunately not contagious.
Setting aside the fact that Broder fails to identify it as a Republican Congress, let's focus on this line:
Voinovich was one of three Republicans who joined most Democrats in opposing the budget-buster.
Dictionary entry for most - 2 : the majority of <most people>
What was the vote? How did it break down by party? The numbers:
93% of Democrats voting opposed the tax cuts. This, Broder will not tell you. Instead, he characterizes them as "most Democrats", which obscures the full force of their position and prevents them from getting proper recognition for opposing a policy Broder himself doesn't like.
The fact that Broder is highlighting a Republican in the wake of last week's vote shows you one thing clearly: Broder is only interested in having Republicans handle policy. He'll nag Republicans, tout those that he finds sensible, but won't consider turning to the Democats as a party for needed reform.
Film star and director Mel Gibson has launched a scathing attack on US President George W Bush, comparing his leadership to the barbaric rulers of the Mayan civilisation in his new film Apocalypto.
The epic, due for release later this year, captures the decline of the Maya kingdom and the slaughter of thousands of inhabitants as human sacrifices in a bid to save the nation from collapsing.
Gibson reveals he used present day American politics as an inspiration, claiming the government callously plays on the nation's insecurities to maintain power.
He tells British film magazine Hotdog, "The fear-mongering we depict in the film reminds me of President Bush and his guys".
The amazing Professor Pollkatz keeps the charts of Bush's Approval and Approval-Disapproval Spread up to date with the latest breaking news. The Harris 29% is already plotted. Truly a sight to behold. (And the Flush Bush circular chart is devastating.)
These tax cuts don't magically pay for themselves. This Congress and administration are putting the nation deeper and deeper in debt to benefit a sliver of the population that doesn't need the help. Someone's going to have to pay for these deficit-financed tax cuts eventually, and it's likely to be your grandchildren.
There's nothing in it for most Americans, and yet all Americans will pay its cost: $69 billion over the near term. That price tag will be reflected in incessant budget deficits, which will further impair the government's ability to meet Americans' needs, and force the government to borrow more, mostly from abroad, to plug the budget gap.
There are more than a few reasons not to like this bill. It is skewed toward the wealthy; average households (earning the U.S. median of about $44,000) would save less than $50 a year, according to the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, while those earning more than $1 million would save almost $42,000. The plan would also add to the deficit.
President Honors Recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom
THE PRESIDENT: Welcome to the White House. Laura and I are so pleased that you could join us on this proud and happy occasion. It's a special honor for us to be in the company of this distinguished honoree.
This morning, across the United States, many Americans started their day reading Richard Cohen. People everywhere feel like they know the man, and for so many Americans, no week is quite complete without a couple of essays by Richard chastising liberals. This tireless pundit is up every day before the sun, writing his column for an audience that can't wait to learn about the anger, hatred, and rage that is the exclusive property of Democrats and Liberals and Centrists and Libertarians and moderate Republicans and fiscal conservatives and Greens and anybody else that disagrees with my administration.
He first started writing for the Washington Post in 1974, and he's never stopped. Americans like the way he writes, and over the decades we have come to recognize in his column some of the finest qualities of our country: the patriotism, the good humor, the kindness and common sense of Americans. It's always a pleasure to read to Richard Cohen, and it's a real joy this afternoon to honor him, as well.
Is it possible that President Bush doesn't really enjoy his job?
Asked by a German tabloid to name the most wonderful moment of his presidency, Bush on Friday said it came while he was on vacation, fishing on his private lake.
Bush was obviously joking -- to a point. But the thing about Bush is that he has stock answers to all the expected questions. So it's the unpredictable ones where he's the most revealing.
Remember when he was asked to name his biggest mistake and what he'd learned from it -- and he couldn't name any? (He hasn't held a prime-time press conference since.)
Froomkin doesn't say when that prime-time press conference took place. You have to click on the link to find out.
The date? April 13, 2004
Isn't that amazing? A prime-time press conference is an opportunity for the press to prepare questions and it allows the nation to watch the event. It's what used to be called a real press conference. Instead, Bush has impromptu press conferences early in the morning when most people are getting up and heading for work - or are already there. Often with literally less than an hour's notice.
The country has been fighting a war and fierce insurgency for a little over three years, and yet in the last two of those years, Bush hasn't had a prime-time press conference.
Kevin Drum provides an abridged list that Atrios created. A list of things "he thinks most lefty bloggers agree on".
It certainly looks good from here. But in addition to the fact that most on the left would agree with the list, it's also useful to examine how different types of Republicans would react to it. Partly to see what cleavages might take place over in Republican-land, but also to establish who the "lefty bloggers" most likely opponents are.
This list takes a stab at how various Republicans might position themselves on each of the issues. Moderate Republicans are what you'd expect, although in the current environment they are sidelined and ignored as well as being timid. Goldwater Republicans are conservative but generally honest and libertarian in inclination. Religious Right seem to care about moral issues to the exclusion of everything else. And Corporate Republicans are looking out for Number One - and keeping and acquiring money is their overriding concern. That said, here is a breakdown on the issues:
Moderate Republican
Goldwater Republican
Religious Right
Corporate/Rich Republican
Undo the bankruptcy bill enacted by this administration
Probably oppose
Oppose
Indifferent
Oppose
Repeal the estate tax repeal
Indifferent
Oppose
Oppose
Oppose
Increase the minimum wage and index it to the CPI
Indifferent
Oppose
Indifferent
Oppose
Universal health care (obviously the devil is in the details on this one)
Probably oppose
Oppose
Indifferent
Oppose
Increase CAFE standards. Some other environment-related regulation
Probably support
Oppose
Indifferent
Oppose
Pro-reproductive rights, getting rid of abstinence-only education, improving education about and access to contraception including the morning after pill, and supporting choice. On the last one there's probably some disagreement around the edges (parental notification, for example), but otherwise.
Indifferent
Oppose
Oppose
Indifferent
Simplify and increase the progressivity of the tax code
Support
Probably support
Indifferent
Oppose
Kill faith-based funding. Certainly kill federal funding of anything that engages in religious discrimination.
Indiffferent
Probably support
Oppose
Indifferent
Reduce corporate giveaways
Support
Support
Indifferent
Oppose
Have Medicare run the Medicare drug plan
Support
Probably support
Indifferent
Oppose
Force companies to stop underfunding their pensions. Change corporate bankruptcy law to put workers and retirees at the head of the line with respect to their pensions.
Support
Probably support
Indifferent
Oppose
Leave the states alone on issues like medical marijuana. Generally move towards "more decriminalization" of drugs, though the details complicated there too.
Support
Support
Oppose
Indifferent
Paper ballots
Support
Support
Indifferent
Probably oppose
Improve access to daycare and other pro-family policies. Obiously details matter.
Probably support
Oppose
Oppose
Oppose
Raise the cap on wages covered by FICA taxes.
Probably support
Oppose
Oppose
Oppose
Marriage rights for all, which includes "gay marriage" and quicker transition to citizenship for the foreign spouses of citizens.
Probably support
Oppose
Oppose
Indifferent
It seems clear from the layout that the folks most opposed to lefty blogger policy positions are the Corporate Republicans or their spokespeople (that means you, Tim Russert), and the Religious Right. At least on domestic issues. Bring in Iraq and you introduce a fifth type of Republican: the Neo Con (and possibly a sixth type: the Bush Groupie).
Setting foreign policy aside, it seems clear from the matrix above that Atrios' List is not radical. That the epithets "far left" and "fanatics" are totally inappropriate for those inclined towards progressive policy positions. That 40% of the nation would support or accept such policies. And that to be even having this discussion shows how much the "center" has moved to the right by commentators, pundits, and hacks.
The editors at the National Review are B. S. artists:
In an editorial that claims the CIA is practically run by liberals, we read: (emp add)
... the CIA used its funding clout to underwrite Bush’s opponents. From 2001 through 2004, the agency’s Counterterrorism Center provided more than $15 million for various studies led by former Clinton officials (such as Richard Clarke) and Bush critics (such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).
Here is the biography of Richard Clarke: (emp add)
Richard A. Clarke (born 1951) provided national security advice to four U.S. presidents: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, consulting on issues of intelligence and terrorism, from 1973 to 2003. Clarke's specialties are computer security, counterterrorism and homeland security. He was the counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council when the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred.
Starting in 1985, Clarke served in the Reagan Administration as Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence. During the presidential administration of George H.W. Bush, he coordinated diplomatic efforts to support the 1990-1991 Gulf War and the subsequent security arrangements. He also advised Madeleine Albright during the Rwanda crisis. His positions inside the government have included:
United States National Security Council, 1992-2003
Special Advisor 2001-2003
National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, 1998-2000
Chair of the Counter-terrorism Security Group, 1992-2003
United States Department of State 1985-1992
Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs, 1989-1992
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence, 1985-1988
Richard Clarke is not a "former Clinton official" - in the commonly understood meaning of that expression. The National Review is tossing B. S. right in your face.
President George W Bush has said that his best moment in more than five years in office was catching a big fish in his own lake.
"You know, I've experienced many great moments and it's hard to name the best," Mr Bush told the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag. "I would say the best moment was when I caught a 7.5lb large-mouth bass on my lake."
The souring of the nation's mood has accelerated the past three months, with the percentage of people describing the nation on the wrong track rising 12 points to a new high of 73 percent.
Here in Los Angeles, the rise to $3.33 is causing a lot of pain. If the prices had continued to rise for all regions in the nation, the howls of protest would be even louder than they are now. It's not clear why this dislocation in trends took place two weeks ago. Is it a sign of pending price declines? Will the California experience of mid-three-dollar gas prices spread to other states? Stay tuned.
In an essay in the Los Angeles Times, Jonah Goldberg, unhappy with the politics surrounding high gas prices, writes: (emp add)
Why, this week, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) even conjured the specter of those old devils, the "robber barons." "Sadly," she declared with barely suppressed glee, "we are now living in a new era of robber barons." Pelosi, who is more of a student of polls and left-wing blogs than history, probably doesn't much care that the modern stereotype of the robber baron as rapacious economic predator is more a product of the collectivist spirit of the New Deal than of the 19th century. "The Robber Barons," an error-filled 1934 tract written by a socialist named Matthew Josephson, was intended to pump up Depression-plagued readers with bile about "economic royalists" blocking social progress.
This is yet another example where Goldberg has taken a policy, action, or in this case term - that is widely used throughout history and by people of all ideological stripes, and attached it to his bogeyman: The New Deal.
Many of you who took history in high school remember learning that robber barons were part of the politics of the early 20th century, which was the era of the muckrackers and reforms championed by people like Teddy Roosevelt. "robber barons" were not the invention of fevered New Dealers looking for scapegoats. In fact, we learn this about robber barons from Wikipedia:
Robber baron was a term revived in the 19th century in the United States as a pejorative reference to businessmen who dominated their respective industries and amassed huge personal fortunes, typically as a direct result of pursuing various allegedly anti-competitive or unfair business practices.
To repeat: Goldberg is on constant patrol for anything, no matter how obscure (a book by Matthew Josephson!), that can be used to make the New Deal look bad.
The blog Calculated Risk is an excellent place to go for a sober assessment of where the economy is headed. Not a perma-bear. Not a perma-bull. Highly recommended.
This blogger is about to do a switchover for ISP connection and may be underwater for a while. In the meantime:
How about Bill Frist's proposal to give folks a $100 tax break in the wake of the high gasoline prices? That sure confirms the stereotype of Republicans: only think in terms of money and taxes, plus unconditional faith in the market and no government action to mandate changes. That's not entirely true. There were some policy issues the Republicans were tossing around, but the predominant message was "money is the solution". As Kevin Drum remarked, "bad optics". No question about it.
On the gasoline front again, saw an ad for a Ford truck that extolled the high mileage ("best in its class"). Expect more of that. For those who were around in the 70's, it sounds familiar. If the gas prices stay high or go higher, be fully prepared to see large used vehicles being sold for cheap. Thirty years ago, giant cars with all sorts of cool things (back then it was power seats) were going for incredible discounts. Maybe a similar thing will take place again.
Related to high gas prices: Folks like to point out that the prices are similar to those post-Katrina, which lasted a month but didn't seem to hurt the economy too bad. But now, for a lot of people, the high gas prices are a problem because in the last six months there has been inflation in other goods (food and rent the most notable) which combine to make it a major squeeze for those on the lower end of the economic ladder.
Related to above: In Los Angeles we've had the first report on television about how people are heading to pawn shops to get money in order to pay at the pump. Sure, it's small scale and might only represent a short-term phenomenon of failure to plan for higher expenses, but it's not a good-news story, that's for sure. Guy interviewed pawning his silver chain to pay for gas in order to be able to drive to a job interview. And Republicans wonder why many Americans are worried about the future? There's definitely a sense of unease.
The American consumer: Still spending. You thought the end of low interest rates meant less refinancing and therefore less cash being taken out and then spent? There is less refi action but according to blogger Calculated Risk:
Homeowners continued to borrow substantially against their homes in Q1 2006 according to the BEA. Hence the strong increase in Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) and GDP in Q1 ... and the negative savings rate.
It's not REFI anymore. It's MEW (mortgage equity withdrawal). Looks like the American consumer will keep on spending until literally there will be no more money to borrow or extract from homes.
