US Politics VIII

[DanteGabriel]

And the banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.

One might think it would be a big news story for the second most-powerful member of the U.S. Senate to baldly state that the Congress is "owned" by the bankers who spawned the financial crisis and continue to dictate the government's actions. But it won't be. The leading members of the media work for the very corporations that benefit most from this process. Establishment journalists are integral and well-rewarded members of the same system and thus cannot and will not see it as inherently corrupt (instead, as Newsweek's Evan Thomas said, their role, as "members of the ruling class," is to "prop up the existing order," "protect traditional institutions" and "safeguard the status quo").

That Congress is fully owned and controlled by a tiny sliver of narrow, oligarchical, deeply corrupted interests is simultaneously so obvious yet so demonized (only Unserious Shrill Fringe radicals, such as the IMF's former chief economist, use that sort of language) that even Durbin's explicit admission will be largely ignored. Even that extreme of a confession (Durbin elaborated on it with Ed Schultz last night) hardly causes a ripple.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/30/ownership/

Truth, Senator. Truth, Mr. Greenwald.

[TrackerNeil]

Actual rich people can’t ever be the target. It’s a classic peasant mentality: going into fits of groveling and bowing whenever the master’s carriage rides by, then fuming against the Turks in Crimea or the Jews in the Pale or whoever after spending fifteen hard hours in the fields.

This kind of thing always gets me. We're in the midst of the biggest economic melt-down since the Depression, and Obama still gets flak for wanting to exclude the rich from Bush's tax cuts. I don't get it.

Maybe it's got something to do with the American idea of fairness; that what you get is what you deserve, generally speaking. That works fine when everyone plays by the rules, but of course when you get banks making deals even they don't understand and insurance companies giving out AAA ratings for suspicious loans, people don't get what they deserve. They get whatever they can sneak through, which isn't the way I thought America was supposed to operate.

[Annelise]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/30/ownership/

Truth, Senator. Truth, Mr. Greenwald.

This is neither here nor there, but I thought the NRA was the most powerful lobby. I guess I've lost track of which lobby owns who.

ETA: And maybe that's indicative of one reason why it's not a bigger story.

[Annelise]

So.. arms control or no arms control.. whatcha think?

[...]Now, Obama is trying to reverse that legacy and Bring Back Arms Control, on the idea that Washington's participation in cooperative efforts will build goodwill and legitimacy for a collective response to global proliferation. This month, he promised to push "immediately and aggressively" for ratification of the CTBT; negotiate deeper, binding arms reductions with the Russians; and begin work on a global ban on the production of fissile material. So how are conservatives planning to prevent this counterrevolution?

I recently attended a policy breakfast with Senator Jon Kyl--the Republican whip and a seasoned killer of past arms control treaties--to preview the arguments his party will use against Obama's nuclear agenda. Flanked by American flags and a bust of Herbert Hoover, he launched into a semi-apocalyptic multi-part tirade against Obama's agenda. "Why return to arms control?" Kyl asked. "Why risk bipartisan consensus?"

:lol: Sorry, had to stop at that line and have a laugh. As if!

Okay, onward.

After lambasting Secretary Gates's proposed missile defense cuts, he revived the arguments conservatives have been employing against arms control since the 1950s--sometimes with devastating success. (This was fitting, given how many elements of Obama's platform the GOP has responded to with used ideological orthodoxies.) Kyl warned that arms control does nothing but constrain the United States, while allowing evil states' nuclear-arms programs to grow unchecked. "Which is the real threat," he asked. "Thousands of nuclear weapons in the American and Russian arsenals, or a nuclear Iran and North Korea?"

Riffing on this theme, he argued that the CTBT is unverifiable--meaning that the United States might somehow 'fall behind' while other nations cheat on the treaty, setting off small, secret nuclear blasts that we cannot detect in order to improve their nuclear arsenals. (In fact, we would be able to detect these blasts.) And he argued that the United States--which has abided by the test ban's terms for almost two decades, even though it hasn't been ratified--cannot maintain its nuclear arsenal without violating the ban. This, too, is inaccurate.

While this approach doesn't hold together from a policy standpoint--witness the early Bush administration's total lack of success at stopping nuclear proliferation to Iran and North Korea--it is intuitively compelling. Obama's vision of a world where the United States gives up some of its own nuclear arsenal in order to strengthen the Non-Proliferation treaty, and then uses that goodwill to fend off proliferation in the Middle East and Northeast Asia, is far less clear-cut than Kyl's, in which we build impregnable missile defenses and keep as many nukes as possible in order threaten our enemies. Furthermore, all Kyl needs to do is hold together 34 Senate Republicans in order to win. Joe Biden, on the other hand, has been tasked with cobbling together a supermajority--which would mean picking off 7 Republicans who are not yet willing to vote for the treaty. If he can't, John Bolton's revolution may yet be secure.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/a...ear-agenda.aspx

It's hard to see Biden getting 7 Republicans for this so I personally think the point is moot, practically-speaking. Not that it will kill the debate on the best road for the US to take.

ETA: from another article.

Today, Biden again will be in a pivotal position to win approval of a controversial treaty. This time, to secure enough votes for passage of the CTBT, he will need to sit down and work out an arrangement with Kyl and Sessions, House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and other key Republicans such as McCain and Lugar. What compromises and agreements will be necessary are anybody's guess. But the key will likely not be facts or persuasive arguments, but rather a painstakingly and carefully negotiated deal.

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/fea...val-of-the-ctbt

[Annelise]

So the state secret doctrine came up last night and OBama answered thusly:

Obama: I actually think that the state secret doctrine should be modified. I think right now it's overbroad. . . . earching for ways to redact, to carve out certain cases, to see what can be done so that a judge in chambers can review information without it being in open court, you know, there should be some additional tools so that it's not such a blunt instrument.

TPM puts it this way: "State's Secrets Privilege Too Broad. I Know! I've Used It!"

:lol:

But, perhaps his answer is an indication that it will go this way:

This morning, I asked Sen. Feingold -- who has been highly critical of Obama's state secrets behavior and is leading the way in the Senate to enact the State Secrets Act -- what his reaction was to Obama's comments and whether (as Obama claimed) there were any efforts underway by the White House to limit the privilege. This is the statement I received:

I have been very critical of the Obama administration’s decisions to continue the Bush administration’s practice of seeking dismissal of entire cases based on the state secrets privilege. The President’s statement last night, however, was encouraging, and I hope it means that the administration will announce its support for the State Secrets Protection Act, which I have proposed along with several other senators. The administration’s backing would boost the bill’s already strong prospects in the Judiciary Committee and the Senate.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/30/obama/

[Annelise]

On the fate of RNC chairman Michael Steele... and a possible rechristening of the Democratic Party, at least so far as Republicans would be concerned:

The Washington Times reports that Michael Steele is facing a new threat to his leadership of the Republican National Committee -- a proposed rule being circulated by some RNC members that would impose new restrictions and oversight measures against Steele's ability to spend money:

The Pullen resolution would make it a written rule that contracts of $100,000 or more be open to competitive bidding; that all checks be signed by two RNC officers; that party staff be prohibited from signing on behalf of an officer; and that all contracts be reviewed and approved by the members of the RNC executive committee.

Wisconsin GOP chairman Reince Priebus, a Steele supporter, is circulating a letter warning against "this hostile attempt to embarrass and neuter the chairman of the RNC."

Steele has already lost one fight going into the special May 20 RNC meeting: Sufficient signatures have been gathered to vote on a resolution calling for the Democratic Party to be renamed the "Democrat Socialist Party," even though Steele had already advised against it.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04...rnc.php?ref=dc1

[TrackerNeil]

The Democrat Socialist Party? Tee-hee...shall we rename the GOP the Glenn Beck - Rush Limbaugh Party?

[ztemhead]

not following the gist of the thread because I won't get sucked in, I won't! I won't! I won't!

but after a discussion with a friend yesterday I found a little gap between my perceptions of Obama and hers vis a vis whether he's a liberal or centrist. I say in word and deed he's way more to the liberal wing of the party, not that that's a bad thing for a group that has compromised its beliefs as much as the democrats have over the last two decades. She, OTOH, was disappointed because in her mind Obama turned out to be far more centrist than she anticipated.

What do you all think?

[DanteGabriel]

The Democrat Socialist Party? Tee-hee...shall we rename the GOP the Glenn Beck - Rush Limbaugh Party?

I'd prefer "the Republican Torture Cheerleaders and Lying Liars Who Lied Us Into War Party."

[DanteGabriel]

not following the gist of the thread because I won't get sucked in, I won't! I won't! I won't!

but after a discussion with a friend yesterday I found a little gap between my perceptions of Obama and hers vis a vis whether he's a liberal or centrist. I say in word and deed he's way more to the liberal wing of the party, not that that's a bad thing for a group that has compromised its beliefs as much as the democrats have over the last two decades. She, OTOH, was disappointed because in her mind Obama turned out to be far more centrist than she anticipated.

What do you all think?

It's probably too soon to tell. But from my lefty perspective, I think he's largely a centrist, and I admit that I assumed he was more left than he was during election season, especially in the primaries. But I secretly hope that he has a wide-reaching liberal agenda (entitlement reform, health care, military reform, pot legalization etc) that he's just keeping his cards close to the vest.

[Annelise]

What do you all think?

Well, liberals do have their issues with him, that's not limited to your friend. Same w/centrists viewing him as more liberal than centrist. And the Right thinks he's a socialist. I would plot him between the liberal and centrist dots, closer to liberal, based on the centrist and right view of things... what they consider liberal, centrist and conservative & what Obama's actions say to them. But I think it's important to listen to liberals, too.. they'd claim him, if he was meeting their ideal. He's not.

I dunno, call him a Librist maybe, haha. :)

[Teri]

His actions have been very much in line with what I anticipated they would be. Someone whose personal ideals are to the left side of even his own party, let alone the nation as a whole, but with a very strong pragmatic and inclusive bent that leads him to pursue compromise ahead of pushing any of his ideals that he perceives do not match the will of the majority. While issues like health care and relieving the systemic problems that perpetuate an underclass are important to him, even more important is making the majority of the populace feel that the government is theirs. So that means giving serious credence to people on all sides of the political spectrum.

But then, I had read both of his books and many of his speeches before he even entered the primary. So I had more concrete material to judge him by than those who are going primarily on the basis of what they see on television.

I think a lot of the divergence in public perception is because he has the kind of empathic personality that leads people to project their own opinions onto him. You know, "he seems to understand me, so he must be like me." Then when he doesn't do what they would do, they're surprised. (I am not entirely immune to this effect, but less subject to it than most people, because I get my information entirely from reading and don't watch any television or listen to any radio.)

[Werthead]

What impending attack? Al-qaeda has vowed to hurt the US wherever, and however, it can. Are you seriously asking why we might interrogate/torture al-qaeda members about impending attacks?

And you have successfully proven through due process that these people captured are members of al-Qaeda rather than Taliban fighters or non-demoninational fighters who simply see all foreigners in Afghanistan as invaders? And the process has actually given up information which has led to the successful prevention of terrorist attacks since 2001? I think not. Other countries have had no problem whatsoever trumpeting when intelligence they have gathered has prevented a terrorist strike (including the USA itself, with the prevention of the Los Angeles airport bombings in 2000). This indicates that any intelligence gained as a result of the practices in Guantanamo Bay has been of little to no use. If it had been, that would be a strong case in favour of trying the prisoners under the law. The fact they are releasing most of them without charge instead is pretty damning proof that the whole exercise was meritless.

Your logic has gone from stupendous to absurd. Just because I do not equate putting a person in a cell with a catepillar to be the same as feeding an individual to the lions, or an open handed slap to be the same as putting bamboo shutes under a person's fingernails, or shackling person to a wall to be the same as electrouction, or waterboarding to be the same as flaying an individual, does NOT mean I think what we did is acceptable or legal.

There is no distinction. Torture is torture is torture.

I'm guessing that you may feel putting the US on level with Iran and N. Korea is overreacting but I think it's important to accept what that says about the damage to our international reputation.

It puts the USA on a worse level than Iran, that's for certain. Widespread torture of foreign nationals is something I haven't seen levelled at Iran in a while.

[ztemhead]

I think a lot of the divergence in public perception is because he has the kind of empathic personality that leads people to project their own opinions onto him. You know, "he seems to understand me, so he must be like me." Then when he doesn't do what they would do, they're surprised.

this is a very good point.

[Annelise]

It puts the USA on a worse level than Iran, that's for certain. Widespread torture of foreign nationals is something I haven't seen levelled at Iran in a while.

The temptation to poke it with a stick proved too strong, I see. ;)

[Werthead]

The temptation to poke it with a stick proved too strong, I see. ;)

Someone responded to a point I made, so I responded to that. Seems fair enough.

The USA is definitely now on the right path to getting over this mess, and as I said before certainly the UK is not guiltless in this situation. Maybe somewhere down the line all the transcripts and materials collected in Guantanamo will be released and we will find out that some dredge of information collected from there did prevent something worse happening down the line. But I will not hold my breath on this score.

[Elrostar]

Changing what you call your political opponents' party? Seriously? Is this what politics is being reduced to? How about we just call each other the 'Poopy heads who don't want to play with us' party? That should work for both side. I mean honestly.

[Annelise]

Someone responded to a point I made, so I responded to that. Seems fair enough.

Sure. :) Whether continuing with comparisions between the US and other countries is a useful pursuit with regard to your broader argument about torture is another question, and obviously your call.

[Annelise]

Changing what you call your political opponents' party? Seriously? Is this what politics is being reduced to? How about we just call each other the 'Poopy heads who don't want to play with us' party? That should work for both side. I mean honestly.

:lol: I believe this is the exact reason Steele argued against it. I don't think he actually said it was juvenile, but that it would be perceived as such.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Changing what you call your political opponents' party? Seriously? Is this what politics is being reduced to? How about we just call each other the 'Poopy heads who don't want to play with us' party? That should work for both side. I mean honestly

This is awesome. If they do this enough then they'll start changing their own party names. "Oh yeah? Well we're the Supreme Grand Party of Awesomeness" "Nuh uh! We're the Super Duper Ultimate Party of Ninjas Times Infinity! You guys are the Party of Toilet Monsters Who Eat Poop!"