Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
My good friend Michael Tomasky has a blog over at The Guardian...
I consider it what he called it in his subject line--an "affectionate joust." (Mike is an ace former Nation intern, a longtime friend, a brilliant writer and not-frequent-enough-in-my-view Nation contributor.) In his blog he takes on (some of) my comments on MSNBC's Ed Schultz show last night. (A little friendly cherry-picking, Mike!) I don't disagree with much of what Mike writes. My first reflex is certainly not to blame Obama. (See my column on "Obama, One Year On"--posted below, for more on why I think progressives would be wise to avoid reflexive criticism.) But I do think President Obama could step forward at this time, challenge lobbyists more directly, speak out more forcefully about the cruel Stupak language, call out self-righteous egotists like Joe Lieberman, demand some party unity on a bill that will define not only the Democratic party's future in 2010--but for a long while. And why not bring in LBJ? Sure history by analogy is often imperfect, but there are also lessons to be drawn from models of Presidential leadership.
What I did refer to on the Schultz show (in a 3 minute segment!) and what Mike fails to mention--is the desperate need for structural reform of a dysfunctional and increasingly anti-democratic body. (That would be the Senate) Here we agree. Mike writes that we need process reform of Congress--a grassroots movement to do away with the filibuster, for example. The Nation has been championing this critical reform for decades--most recently with must-read pieces by Thomas Geogeghan, William Greider and Chris Hayes. I also had the cojones to write an 8000 word essay--"Just Democracy"--in July 2008 which focused on the filibuster and laid out a passel of other pro-democracy reforms which groups like FairVote and Public Campaign have championed for many years.
And in a column I wrote on the first anniversary of Obama's election--taking stock of what has and hasn't been accomplished, disappointments and hopeful steps--I point to structural obstacles. Hell,I know one election isn't going to solve all of our problems. I post that column below, and hope Mike will link to it, because he must know that real short television segments do not do justice to the complexity of our arguments and ideas. That's why my job is to edit this rag.
Obama, One Year On
By Katrina vanden Heuvel
This article appeared in the November 23, 2009 edition of The Nation.
Barack Obama was elected president at a time defined by hope and fear in equal measure. It was a remarkable moment in our country's history--a milestone in America's scarred racial landscape and a victory for the forces of decency, diversity and tolerance. For the first time in decades, electoral politics became a vehicle for raising expectations and spreading hope while it mobilized millions of new voters. Obama's was a campaign built on the power and promise of change from below. At the same time, he was elected as the nation was rapidly sinking into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
The night Obama was elected, relief was felt around the world. There was a widespread feeling that the United States had turned its back on eight years of destructive, swaggering unilateralism and was re-embracing the global community. In many ways, the election was a referendum on an extremist conservatism that has guided (and deformed) American politics and society since the 1980s. The spectacular failures of the Bush administration and the shifts in public opinion on the economy and the Iraq War presented a mandate for bold action and a historic opportunity for a progressive governing agenda.
A year later, it's clear we are a long way from building a new order and reshaping the prevailing paradigm of American politics. That will take more than one election. It requires continued mobilization, strategic creativity and, yes, audacity on the part of independent thinkers, activists and organizers. The structural obstacles to change are considerable. But at least we now have the political space to push for far-reaching reforms.
Whatever one thinks of Obama's policy on any specific issue, he is clearly a reform president committed to the improvement of people's lives and to the renewal and reconstruction of America. Yes, his economic recovery plan was too small and too deferential to the Republican Party and tax cuts. But it has kept the economy from falling into the abyss, and it includes more new net public investment in antipoverty measures than any program since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
We need a much more robust jobs program--without one, Americans will not believe this president stands with the working people. Obama would be wise to use his presidential pulpit and brilliant oratorical skills to explain that when one out of six Americans is unemployed or underemployed, our greatest fear should be joblessness, not deficits.
Still, there's much to be praised. Obama has spoken eloquently of a new and progressive role for government. His first appointment to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, was a strong choice--the first Latina on the Court and a powerful progressive jurist. In selecting Sotomayor, Obama has finally halted the Court's long drift to the right. The president says the labor movement is the solution, not the problem. (If he really believes this, he should act on it by pushing for speedy passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.) He has reinvigorated the regulatory agencies in Washington, from the EPA to the FCC (in doing so he has, ironically, fueled a full-employment program for K Street lobbyists). He has repealed the global gag rule on abortion, has spoken of the urgency of the climate crisis and has restored integrity to the government's scientific research programs.
The president's quartet of major speeches abroad--in Cairo, Prague, Moscow and Accra--began to lay out an Obama Doctrine in international affairs: support for diplomacy and the UN; commitment to a nuclear-free world; a belief that democracy is strengthened not through US intervention but when people win for themselves their rights and liberties; and engagement and cooperation with, rather than antagonism toward, the Muslim world. However, the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned against grows ever stronger. And so far Obama has been unwilling to rethink skewed priorities in this arena; he just approved a bloated military budget despite his rare cancellation of several costly weapons programs.
And then, of course, there is Afghanistan. Historians have warned that wars kill reform presidencies. The most recent, and perhaps most relevant, example is the Vietnam War's undermining of the Great Society. Obama is wisely taking his time to make a decision about Afghanistan, but he appears to have excluded the one option that makes the most sense--a responsible exit strategy--and seems poised to escalate this unnecessary war. If he does so, he will endanger his reform presidency and squander funds needed to rebuild and renew our country.
Obama could have used the moment of economic crisis to restructure the economy and rein in the financial sector, not simply resuscitate it. The taxpayer-funded bailout of the banks has contributed to a popular backlash. If Obama doesn't respond to the widespread anguish and anger with constructive support for those in need, the GOP will continue to channel it in destructive directions.
There are other disappointments. I am sure you have your list. At the top of mine is Obama's failure to end the excesses and abuses associated with the Bush/Cheney national security apparatus; also on it is his unwillingness to push more strongly for a public option on healthcare reform. But instead of playing the betrayal sweepstakes, which promotes disappointment and despair, we'd be smart to practice a progressive politics defined by realistic hope and pragmatism. That is, simply denouncing the administration's missteps and failures doesn't get us very far and furthers what our adversaries seek: our disempowerment. We can't afford that. These are times to avoid falling into either of two extremes: reflexively defensive or reflexively critical.
Remember that throughout our history, it has taken large-scale, sustained organizing to win structural change. There would have been no New Deal without the vast upsurge in union activism and unemployed councils, no civil rights legislation without the mass movement. We need to learn from those inspiring examples and build our own movements. And we need to start playing inside-outside politics too: engage the administration and Congress, even as we push without apology for bolder solutions than the ones Obama has offered.
Progressives should focus less on the limits of the Obama agenda and more on the possibilities that his presidency opens up. Like all presidents, Obama is constrained by powerful opponents and deep structural impediments. Independent organizing and savvy coalition-building will be critical in overcoming the timid incrementalists of his own party and the forces of money and establishment power that are obstacles to change. But if we work effectively, we can push Obama beyond the limits of his own politics and create a new progressive era.
Katrina vanden Heuvel is Editor and Publisher of The Nation.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
"Progressives should focus less on the limits of the Obama agenda and more on the possibilities that his presidency opens up. Like all presidents, Obama is constrained by powerful opponents and deep structural impediments."---K vH
Sorry, Ms vanden Heuvel, our local Purists will have none of it. They want it all and they want it right now or else they're going to start searching for Ralph Nader in his undisclosed location today!
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 12:05pm
It is hard to see how a process reform of Congress can be achieved by anything short of a new Constitutional Convention. Gore Vidal was promoting this about thirty years ago. My first reaction was that it was a good idea, but then I remembered all the agonies of the first Constitutional Convention having to deal with ITS special interests. In a country that is now so divisive, it is hard to imagine that such a convention could produce a revised document, let alone one that would be ratified by all fifty states. This may be a case where it would be better for us to play with the cards we have been dealt.
Posted by smoliar at 11/17/2009 @ 12:15pm
-KVH..."We need a much more robust jobs program--without one, Americans will not believe this president stands with the working people."
Looks like the Obama admin has already figured that out. All you need to do is report false employment claims from congressional districts that don't exist.
An $18 million website that tracks jobs and the WH doesn't know these districts are phoney? These are the same people who want to run our healthcare system? How's that hope and change working out?
Posted by fram at 11/17/2009 @ 12:28pm
"Obama, One Year On?" - Indecisive.
Posted by sofakingdabest at 11/17/2009 @ 12:32pm
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 12:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
KVH is a smart cookie, is she not?
powerful and wealthy foes are marshaled against mr. O. the fight has only begun!
i had a friend who whined and carped and "everything sux'd"himself into a nader or no voting frenzy every four years then returned to his marvin the depressio robot routine of "told ya so" hectoring crapola til next self defeating/justifying confirmation of masochism and warm hopelessness.
got sick of it. don't talk to the worm much anymore.
but rather than boohoo into one's belly button like some 19 year old idiot just figuring out his stripper girlfriend is a skanky, money grubbing ho, why not DO SOMETHING???
sign some petitions, get effing involved, stand around at a protest, insinuate a political party and either practice destructive ketman or work your ass off?
why not write or strive or...DO SOMETHING beyond weaving self fulfilling loser prophesies of doom and gloom?
effing useless...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/17/2009 @ 12:56pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/17/2009 @ 12:56pm
Fortunately, Nader in 2000...and especially the obvious vanity run in 2004, ended a lot of the strong "purist" movement on the Left.
Since Perot, the Right has learned its lesson. Despite their post-2008 carping, nobody seriously thinks "conservatives stayed home because McCain wasn't conservative enough!" McCain lost...period.
Same reason when Romney/Whoever talks "die-hard conservative" in the 2012 Primaries....and then runs like an Olympian to the Center for the General Election....we'll hear a lot of carping from guys like Larry/antisoc or tepid "Okay, he's not the best, but..." from other right-wingers....but come Election Day?
They'll be in the booths pulling the "R" lever, while guys like B-Kool and Purist Liberals (and a few poser right-wingers) will tell us "No! Vote for Ralph again. He can win....and we'll finally get a REAL progressive in the White House."
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 1:14pm
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 1:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
"Well, my days of taking you half serious are coming to a definite middle..."
i love throwing in "firefly" quotes when i can. that pretty much sums up my feelings when it comes to third partyers of any stripe who think they have a chance at the presidency.
barring the complete collapse of one of the two biggies (which would likely not be an overnight process), beyond the local, i can't see it happening. its contrary to the nature of our system - not purposefully so, but in practice.
third partyers are most effective when they realize their limitations and work at least to some extent from within established parties. they can win local posts in the right places, and they can definitely influence the platforms of existing parties.
but they can't get everything they want. lacking an understanding of this, many just carp destructively and deserve to be taken no more than half seriously unless their self absorbed foolishness threatens to throw an election...
sigh...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/17/2009 @ 1:28pm
>>>But I do think President Obama could step forward at this time, challenge lobbyists more directly, speak out more forcefully about the cruel Stupak language, call out self-righteous egotists like Joe Lieberman, demand some party unity on a bill that will define not only the Democratic party's future in 2010--but for a long while. And why not bring in LBJ?<<<
I think KVH is correct in calling for some reflection and long-term strategic policy making rather than reflexively reacting to Obama based on years of frustration with the success of the Reagan Revolution.
Challenging lobbyists? Obama made a big deal of this on the campaign trail, and even "yours truly" is a little disappointed that he has not moved more aggressively on REAL campaign finance reform that ends the pay-to-play culture in Washington. I have been told that he promised Ted Kennedy he would "start" with healthcare reform, but as we have seen with the HMO and pharmaceutical lobbies in Washington, if you don't start with serious campaign finance reform FIRST, then all other reforms are unnecessarily more difficult.
Stupak is a land mine politically, and that is why the C-streeters put it in to the bill. Obama has been solidly pro-choice his entire political career, and I know the Stupak language will not make it into the "final" bill if it changes the status quo on abortion. But making a public fuss about it is EXACTLY what conservative strategists want Obama to do to undermine inroads he has made into the evangelical voting block.
Lieberman is a bad joke, but it is hoped that he will support OTHER Democratic reform efforts so it would be wise not to alienate him at this point. The better course is to steer around him using budget reconciliation to get a strong public option with 51 votes.....
Posted by Metteyya at 11/17/2009 @ 1:44pm
As for "bringing back LBJ by analogy", I think this is a fatally flawed analogy since there was no TERRORIST THREAT or the prospect of "another" 30 years of conservative policies if Obama provides an opening for conservatives by not withdrawing "responsibly" from Afghanistan in a manner that does not subject the US to another terrorist attack orchestrated from that country after we leave.
You have already reported KVH that the Taliban is easily bribed, and if we withdraw immediately without any other counter measures, there is not doubt in my mind that the Taliban could be bribed to allow terrorists that want to harm Americans back into their country.
Afghanistan has a SERIOUS lack of governability issue, and unless we are able to successfully address this in a sustainable way that secures America from another attack, we are putting ourselves in a position for a repeat of 30 more years of conservative policies.
I don't know about you, but the last 30 years was "extremely" tough for me, and I was even considering immigrating elsewhere until Obama decided to run. My thought was to give it ONE LAST SHOT so I can say "I tried", and if Obama failed to get elected I was outta here!
The CULTURE OF SELFISHNESS that Reagan made popular - even cool - was wearing thin on me, and I know I cannot take 30 more years of those kinds of policies.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/17/2009 @ 1:53pm
Posted by Metteyya at 11/17/2009 @ 1:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
hmmm...
not meaning to pick (we're on the same side here) but what specifically do you recommend in terms of further finance reform? i think we already have some pretty solid restrictions that enable grass roots fund raising obama style.
how to get the lobbyists under control is to me a big blank. i'm wary of falling into the "gosh i hate those bastards lobbying against my pet policies. lets get them!" then find my pet lobbyists shut out as well...
again, mett, not picking on you, just picking your brain.
one year into the nastiest economy in three quarters of a century here and sure, living on the raggedy edge, but not starving yet.
my nastiest vitriol, however, is reserved for folks like bought-and-paid-for baucus and his quisling parasite slaves. how to light a fire under those traitorous asses without losing seats??
but the tasks of hercules to which mr. O has devoted himself are mighty, and i, like most others, understand that as he promised,
"it won't be like...i'm president and suddenly all the problems will go away..."
i do love the guy, and have patience, and i think he appreciates the howls and shrieks from the p-nut gallery. sometimes something worthwhile escapes.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/17/2009 @ 1:55pm
Although I appreciate that Ms. vanden Heuvel continues to fight the good fight, it is the problems of propaganda that continue to haunt this great nation. Namely, we sit comfortably in front of our television sets night after night imbibing the mother's milk of our media machinery while remaining oblivious to how warm the burner is getting underneath our lazyboy. Simply put, if we had our collective wits about us we would be infuriated and marching in the streets. Instead, we get Beck and Limbaugh's lunatic battalions doing the work for us.
This is a recipe for unprecendented disaster in this country and by extension, the planet. I'll have more to say myself soon, in the meantime here's a fine web letter response to KvH's piece:
Alvin D. Hofer St. Petersburg, FL:
Ms. vanden Heuvel's assessment is what one would expect from a disappointed left journalist. Her preference may be not to "play the betrayal sweepstakes," but betrayed she was, betrayed by her judgment in supporting candidate Obama. There is a less personal betrayal at work. She and all of us have been betrayed by our Constitution and Supreme Court, which have given rise to a two-party sham that serves a single constituency: corporate America. Though Americans are divided on so-called cultural issues, corporate America is not divided on projecting military power abroad, trade policies, financial regulation, environmental issues, healthcare or taxation. The latter are the ones that count. The cultural issues are good for keeping the voters occupied.
To assert that time and patience are required for our system to work is to ignore the fact that we are living in an autocracy and that the tipping point against democracy was passed sometime during the Reagan administration. All the rest is noise.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/17/2009 @ 2:03pm
ok...check in later. must go meet people and pick their brains.
america, eff yeah!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/17/2009 @ 2:07pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/17/2009 @ 1:55pm
I think SERIOUS campaign finance reform is pretty straightforward - you publicly fund federal elections and prohibit fundraising from any other source by a candidate for office.
You ALSO have to place "reasonable" restrictions on free speech so that moneyed interest groups cannot run ads for or against a candidate within 90 days of an election.
Both of these reforms reorient Congress so that they are focused on the public's business, not those who fund their campaigns.
The Supreme Court has already allowed "reasonable" restrictions on free speech - you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, for example. So a reasonable restrictions that actually preserves the integrity of the democratic process will pass Supreme Court scrutiny.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/17/2009 @ 2:20pm
FORCES OF EVIL IN A BOZO NIGHTMARE
The memories of the victory celebration now seem like some forgotten dream, it was quite a gas at the time, but did it really even happen?
I'm talking about November 4th, 2008, of course. I was at a house party for an acquaintance of a good friend who was running for local political office. It was a cool house and a good party filled with folks I didn't know, but for whom I felt a natural warmth that accompanied the fact that we were gathered together to celebrate the expected victory of good over the dank evil of the last eight years. A victory that would be as local as it was global.
It turns out that the wife of the local candidate was my gym teacher in elementary school. Good laughs rippled outward as that fact began to make its way among the gathered guests. I shared a few blasts from the past with a few smaller groupings, and refrained from sharing my buzz kill doubts about the new president and his specifics-devoid campaign. Those memories, the quality beers and wines we drank, the delicious and satisfying food, and the faces I spoke to are still quite crisply etched somewhere on the wrinkled surface of my cortex, but the feelings of warm anticipation of a bright new future are as faded as the firelight at a beachfront bonfire. All that remains is the erasing surf.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/17/2009 @ 2:29pm
We see him now, he stands stock still before a huge crowd of admiring observers. An occasional roar reverberates and it seems as if the whole place will explode before the fireworks are even launched. Another faces him with grim, taut-faced determination from 60 feet away. The signal is received, the bases are full, the home team trailing by three, the outs are at two, and it's the last of the ninth.
The ball zips right down the heart of the plate and the batter remains as wooden as a cigar store Indian. "Is he alright?" many in the mammoth, jam-packed crowd begin to quiver. The aging, once great, but now tired pitcher looks in for the next sign and nods. His curve is ineffective and his fastball is substandard, but he chooses the latter because it's all he's got left to hang with. Do or die.
The next pitch again whizzes right down the heart of the plate, a bad mistake in location to be sure, and the glamour boy superstar again remains motionless. It's as if our hero has been stricken by the sudden lightning bolt of a nervous disorder. Not a disorder of nervousness, but a disorder of the lack of nerve.
After a millisecond of incomprehension, the crowd goes apoplectic with rage. "SWING THE DAMN BAT, OBAMA!.....FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!".
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/17/2009 @ 2:30pm
Look, we all know that Barack Obama is faced with probably the greatest challenges since A. Lincoln –I would argue that the challenge now is much greater, if nothing else, because of the lurking specter of a climate disaster--, but the reason we saw greatness in Obama was for his oratorical brilliance. The very squandering of that incredible talent right out of the gate has rendered Obama's presidency a lame duck less than a year in.
This is a disaster folks. Make no mistake. Successful Presidencies are about momentum and wise use of political capital. The "O" has blown the game by playing overtly obsequious from the word go. He'll get no respect from anyone of importance from here on out, and indeed, he's already been trounced by his health care cave in, and even more embarrassingly –if less noticeably in our "mainstream media"--by Netanyahu on the Jewish West Bank settlements issue.
Dog help us, folks.
THE "O's" A LOSER, BABY....now, if he'll just prove me wrong.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/17/2009 @ 2:30pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/17/2009 @ 2:30pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/17/2009 @ 2:30pm
Told ya.
"They'll be in the booths pulling the "R" lever, while guys like B-Kool and Purist Liberals (and a few poser right-wingers) will tell us "No! Vote for Ralph again. He can win....and we'll finally get a REAL progressive in the White House."------Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 1:14pm
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 3:35pm
If we reason from the premise that since 22 November 1963, the United States has only one purpose -- the protection and expansion of monopoly capitalism (absolute power and unlimited profits for the ruling class; total subjugation and bottomless poverty for all the rest of us) -- then "change we can believe in" was never anything more than an especially clever Big Lie.
Indeed the ultimate proof of this premise is to be found in the adoption of "hope" as a viable political slogan.
Psycholinguistically speaking, the sloganizing of "hope" is the ultimate admission of powerlessness -- and hopelessness too. Empowered peoples demand change, but slaves -- in this instance the newly enslaved workers of the neo-manorial economy in which Big Business has already eternally imprisoned the U.S. -- can only "hope" their masters will prove merciful.
To bring this reality into sharper focus perhaps we should stop thinking of our nation as the "United States" and instead began calling it what it has truly become: the United Estates.
Had Ms. vanden Heuvel not followed the rest of the our nation's post-McCarthy Era (pseudo) Left in its cowardly abandonment of the principles and historical truths of class struggle, perhaps too she would understand what has been done to us during the past 46 years -- a process merely continued (albeit in more devious form) by the election of 2008.
Posted by lorenbliss at 11/17/2009 @ 3:41pm
fram, that is BS about the congressional districts, I just busted tucanosomebody on the other blog about that, go read it.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/17/2009 @ 3:47pm
Fram, your lieing, that is a lie! Just google how many districts in a state!
Posted by Denise29 at 11/17/2009 @ 3:48pm
Maskot:
"No! Vote for Ralph again. He can win....and we'll finally get a REAL progressive in the White House."
Yo', stupid beagle, go back to eating your old, hardened, crusty backyard shit, and leave the nuanced commentary to those who can articulate it.
Thanks.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/17/2009 @ 3:55pm
For those who are paying attention --as well as those who are more clueless, perhaps-- here is just one more excellent bit of journalism warning us about the inanity that continues unabated under our savior, Obama:
By the esteemed Nat Hentoff
excerpted:
In October, during an interactive session with students in Pakistan, a female medical student praised Hillary Clinton for inspiring women, but then the same admirer asked the secretary of state how the United States justifies using those CIA remote-controlled Predator drone planes without sharing intelligence with the Pakistan military (The New York Times, Oct. 30). These airborne assassins kill civilians while targeting terror suspects in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Clinton refused comment on this expansive and lethal program, details of which are, of course, classified state secrets.
But another Pakistani woman flatly told Clinton that these drone devastations of suspected terrorist hideouts are like "executions without trials" (New York Daily News, Oct. 31)
The secretary of state's blunt response about these sometimes-summary executions was: "There is a war going on."
PREDATOR CONCERNS
On Oct. 27, as Agence France Press reported, our killer drones were confronted at the United Nations by Philip Alston, the U.N.'s Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions.
"My concern," he said, "is that drones/Predators are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law."
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/17/2009 @ 5:30pm
Alston sent a strong message, without naming him, to President Obama: "We need the United States to be more upfront and say, ‘OK, we're willing to discuss some aspects of this program,' otherwise you have the really problematic bottom line that the CIA is running a program that is killing significant numbers of people and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws" (AFP, Yahoo News, Oct. 27).
Is it possible that the CIA would actually commit alleged war crimes -- and the U.S. government would not hold the CIA and itself accountable in any way?
Is water wet?
Wasn't that a global charge against the CIA and the previous American administration? But isn't this a new administration of transparency and accountability?
I eagerly await Obama's answer to Alston on CIA extrajudicial executions on his own watch....
In the same Oct. 27 report, Agence France Press noted that "since August 2008, around 70 strikes by unmanned aircraft have killed close to 600 people in northwestern Pakistan."
Were all of them terrorism suspects?
As Clinton found during her visit, many Pakistanis would like to know our answer to that -- as well as to Alston's additional question, which was so often asked of the Bush-Cheney regime: "I would like to know the legal basis upon which the United States is operating, in other words ... who is running the program, what accountability mechanisms are in place in relation to that."
Once again, our credibility as a nation of laws is being questioned around the world, including in nations that are allies.....
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/17/2009 @ 5:30pm
IGNITING RETALIATION
In the Oct. 26 issue of the New Yorker, Jane Mayer has written an extraordinarily important, detailed account and analysis of "The Predator War." To my great surprise, this incisive probe of the CIA's secret remote-controlled assassinations of terror suspects, and unintended others, has received remarkably limited attention in the press. As Mayer said on Terry Gross's "Fresh Air" program on National Public Radio (Oct. 21): "You can't really go around the globe killing people as the United States government without igniting some kind of retaliation. Once you start killing people on the other side of the world, you are going to, first of all, kill some of the wrong people, which this program has done."
And, Mayer adds, instead of obliterating them, by capturing terrorism suspects, "you can then interrogate them and learn about what they're trying to do and unravel any kind of plots before they're carried out."
Doesn't that make some sense? And shouldn't Congress be demanding accountability for these summary killings even if the president remains silent? And what of We the People, also silent?
End quote.
Source: tinyurl.com/ylqlrue
It's past time to wake the hell up, folks.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/17/2009 @ 5:30pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/17/2009 @ 5:30pm
I think there are two problems with the drone attacks, and both may be fixable.
First, there does not appear to be any international judicial authority that can rule on whether terror "suspects" are actually guilty of terrorism and likely to engage in further acts of terrorism that would warrant a drone-based assassination. There has to be a way to present evidence to a neutral party on the international stage and get a ruling authorizing the drone attacks.
Second, there is FAR too much collateral damage from the drones, and this appears to be a technology problem as well as "intentional" hiding of terrorists in areas where there is a lot of civilians.
The first issue could be handed over to some sort of magistrate at the World Court in The Hague. There also has to be a credible showing that the "suspect" is still engaged in terrorism and is likely to strike again if not stopped. I guess you could "publish" notice internationally and give the "suspect" a chance to defend themselves in court, but in practical terms, no terror suspect will show up to such a hearing, so there has to be some authority to proceed if they don't show or their legal representative does not show.
Technology is improving all the time, and I think the next wave of "precision" drones may solve the collateral damage issue. Sounds kind of spooky, however, and reminds me of some Dark Angel episode with a miniaturized drone hovering outside a target's window waiting for them to show themselves.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/17/2009 @ 6:38pm
Hey Ms. Katrina vanden Heuvel ,,,,
During my workout at the gym tonight I caught a replay of your comedy routine from last night's Larry King Show....... Girl you are hysterical and so was you're lil friend,,,,, ahhhhhh what's her name I can never remember...O..O...OK I got it now, it was Naomi Wolf.
I must tell ya, everyone was rolling on the floor laughing when your bit was on the TV monitors... Cardio at the gym has never been so much fun and I hope you make another video real soooooooon.... What did you say Mary?...... Oh wait a minute, my roomie just told me your CNN appearance was not a trial run for a nightclub act... She said you 2 gals were serious as hell on that show. Well shut my mouth,,,,, and just when I was wanting to see if you had any club dates already set in stone ... Lemme tell ya, the 2 of you sure did fool all of us at the gym tonight....
Listen up, I don't know much about entertainment... but if I was you or Ms Wolf, I would seriously consider a career in standup. I know the truth hurts, but if that video was an example of the how you 2 plan on making a living as political pundits,well then you 2 wackadoodles are gonna starve. Cause no one in their right mind will ever swallow brand of BS you 2 Beltway babes were trying to propagate on CNN last night.
I wish both you ladies well... Please let me know when you finally do see the light and change careers for the better.
Posted by ImNoPUNK at 11/17/2009 @ 8:28pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/17/2009 @ 2:30pm Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/17/2009 @ 2:30pm Told ya. "They'll be in the booths pulling the "R" lever, while guys like B-Kool and Purist Liberals (and a few poser right-wingers) will tell us "No! Vote for Ralph again. He can win....and we'll finally get a REAL progressive in the White House."------Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 1:14pm
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 3:35pm
COKE! PEPSI!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/17/2009 @ 9:18pm
well, regardless of his et al. culpability,
mr. obama sure has superrocky road ahead:
http://tinyurl.com/propertyprice
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/17/2009 @ 9:33pm
I wonder how long will I continue to see my mayor "fight" for money at the top ad position...? 2010 will be a bad year for Mayor White to try to become Senator White, D-TX.
Posted by Happy at 11/17/2009 @ 10:03pm
It is becoming more and more obvious that Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter. An administration that means well but never does well. And whether you folks like it or not, Carter's was the worst administration in the history of this country. Worse than Bush. He was a disaster. So bad that he got us Reagan who served for 6 years with dementia while his wife Nancy and their astrologist made all the decisions. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama gets us, PPPPPPalin!!!
Posted by bean22 at 11/17/2009 @ 10:38pm
actually, if you had listened to mr. carter instead of just hearing him.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/18/2009 @ 12:46am
>>>I wouldn't be surprised if Obama gets us, PPPPPPalin!!! Posted by bean22 at 11/17/2009 @ 10:38pm>>>
We can only get Palin if Obama does EXACTLY what some reflexive progressives want and withdraw "immediately" from Afghanistan and some corrupt Taliban operative is bribed to allow terrorists back into Afghanistan to orchestrate another attack on America.
The REFLEXIVES are literally playing with fire in calling for an "immediate" withdrawal.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/18/2009 @ 03:42am
The problem with arguing against the drone attacks is that they are used in an area where the writ of law doesn't run. It's easy to say targets there should be captured instead, but it is actually a war zone and capture is much more easily said than done.
This raises the charge that drone attacks are extrajudicial executions. Although the phrase "war on terror" is a polemical misnomer, the Af-Pak border has been the one place where the war metaphor is accurate as it is the base for guerrilla insurgencies. Consequently, targets here are of a military nature and the extrajudicial execution charge is inapplicable.
"You ALSO have to place "reasonable" restrictions on free speech so that moneyed interest groups cannot run ads for or against a candidate within 90 days of an election. "
This isn't even close to yelling "FIRE!" in a public theatre. The imminence of a stampede in such an instance justifies the ban. A blanket bar on political speech in a given time period is something else entirely.
Posted by brunowe at 11/18/2009 @ 03:53am
What about the "Magical Mystery Tour" that has taken the Obamanation away where he scrapes and bows before Asian regimes unlike any President of the U.S.A. in 200yrs? Wasn't his foolish tour of apoligetics for being an American enough in Europe and his praise for Islam and Muhammod the "Prophet of Doom" enough for him in Cairo?
He is still trying to reframe the "Islamic Terrorist" attack at Ft. Hood as some sort of failed law enforcement action!
Funny how the leftist web sites still ignore the idiocy of Obamanation , and power grabs of the Demoncrat congress clinging desperately to their failed totalitarian rule which totally ignores the real unemployment of 17% and over 15,000,000 jobless Americans.
Having bilked American taxpayers out of $787,000,000,000. to reward their Demoncrat supporters in the last election and buying auto companies for some of their failed union friends do they really think we will support their rampant socialistic power grab of healthcare?
That koolaide is getting staler every day isn't it?!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/18/2009 @ 05:05am
"No! Vote for Ralph again. He can win....and we'll finally get a REAL progressive in the White House." Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 1:14pm |
Well..you see...there are these *big* forces aligned against President Nader...
Posted by snowball777 at 11/18/2009 @ 05:39am
Posted by BigPasture at 11/18/2009 @ 05:05am |
I have to admit that I skip forward in your posts to the first instance of the word 'Doom' now, in an effort to 'conserve' (get it!) my time.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/18/2009 @ 05:43am
"No! Vote for Ralph again. He can win....and we'll finally get a REAL progressive in the White House." Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 1:14pm |
Nader has never won any election. he is in short a loser, much like this poster.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/18/2009 @ 09:03am
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/17/2009 @ 3:55pm
I stand by my prediction, KOOL.
You will demand we "support ____, they're a REAL progressive and if everybody gets behind them, they can beat (GOP candidate) and Obama!" come 2012.
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2009 @ 09:23am
Well..you see...there are these *big* forces aligned against President Nader...----Posted by snowball777 at 11/18/2009 @ 05:39am
The biggest force aligned against Ralph Nader ever becoming President, past or future....
is Ralph.
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2009 @ 09:24am
I'mnopunk-Only a punk coward would come on here attacking two women,like you did.Is the gym you were working out in at your local prison?Punk is a term frequently used by convicts.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/18/2009 @ 10:33am
I suggest my cat for president of the United States. he, like Nader, has never been elected to anything either, and he's real progressive.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/18/2009 @ 11:23am
-KVH
"But I do think President Obama could step forward at this time, challenge lobbyists more directly,"
You mean, like ACORN and the SEIU? Or do you mean the ones he pledged not to hire into his administration...but ended up doing anyway?
"...speak out more forcefully about the cruel Stupak language,"
Yep, it's almost as if he really doesn't care, isn't it? Like it's really all just about him and he doesn't consider much else beyond that.
"...call out self-righteous egotists like Joe Lieberman,"
The Narcissist calls out The Egotist? I'd like to see that exercise in hypocrisy.
"...demand some party unity on a bill that will define not only the Democratic party's future in 2010--but for a long while."
Yes, really upsetting how there are Democrats who think they represent their states and districts first, before their party.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 11:43am
-KVH
"But I do think President Obama could step forward at this time, challenge lobbyists more directly,"
You mean, like ACORN and the SEIU? Or do you mean the ones he pledged not to hire into his administration...but ended up doing anyway?
"...speak out more forcefully about the cruel Stupak language,"
Yep, it's almost as if he really doesn't care, isn't it? Like it's really all just about him and he doesn't consider much else beyond that.
"...call out self-righteous egotists like Joe Lieberman,"
The Narcissist calls out The Egotist? I'd like to see that exercise in hypocrisy.
"...demand some party unity on a bill that will define not only the Democratic party's future in 2010--but for a long while."
Yes, really upsetting how there are Democrats who think they represent their states and districts first, before their party.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/18/2009 @ 11:43am
Nader has never won any election. he is in short a loser, much like this poster.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/18/2009 @ 09:03am | ignore this person | warn this person
Actually we're the losers. Whatever Obama originally said, the banking system is much as it always was and continues to suck in productive capital to support non productive broken banks and finance. Whatever Obamas said in the Middle East, the administration's actions over the Goldstone Report and Israeli settlements is much like what has been policy before. Whatever Obama said to the democratically elected governments of Latin America, US actions in Honduras are much as they have ever been and the US will increase military presence in Colombia. Same could be said about Iran and nuclear proliferation. There has been little redefinition of US strategic interests or US social and economic policy.
None of the above involves veto power, but it does says something about Obama and follow thru. There is no reason to go any easier on Obama than anyone else who acts in the same way. Nader simply points out the reality. And we do continue to lose and get poorer.
Charlie M.
Posted by cmsandia at 11/18/2009 @ 11:59am
Posted by cmsandia at 11/18/2009 @ 11:59am | ignore this person | warn this person
shoulda voted for McCain, huh?
Posted by emile duBois at 11/18/2009 @ 12:18pm
KVH, what world are you living in.
First a history lesson. Barack Obama's election was an anomaly. While republicans sat on their hands, disenchanted with their own front runner or voted for the black guy to ease their own guilt or really like the phrase, 'yes we can', as vague as it was said, democrats came out enmasse to support anything they had to offer. After eight years of GWB, abandonment of conservative principles and a charasmatic candidate in the glib Obama, the country was ripe for change, any change. So the electorate, boosted by what some consider a fraudulant get out the vote effort by ACORN, and an influx of black and young first time voters, held their collective noses and gave the black guy a chance.
So how does Obama reward the country. He immediately goes on his apology tour all over the world, especially to Muslim countries and embarrasses the hell out of patriotic Americans. He goes around bowing before Saudi Princes and Japenese leaders as though the American President is somehow subservient to those leaders. That is not proper protocol. Imagine JFK bowing to the Emporer of Japan.
Then he's got the nerve to move so far to the left on his domestic policies that even Dennis Kucinich is stunned. He gets slapped down by his own party so what does he do? He turns either a deaf ear or he loads up domestic and foreign policy bills with so much pork theat Miss Piggy would be alarmed. Remember John McCain's promise that he wouldn't sign one bill that had one dime of pork in it?
And don't even get me started on Afghanistan. Today the President said that he's very close on his decision to send more troops there. His decision is only WEEKS away. If GWB was the 'Decider' this President is the 'Indecider In Chief.'
2010.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/18/2009 @ 12:36pm
Add to that, the arrogance toward the 9/11 victims' families in bringing tose terrorist to American soil for trial, just a few blocks away from the actual site of their dastardly deed so that they can get a large stage and it's not hard to understand that this president doesn't understand Americans. Maybe his sympathies lie with Muslims afterall.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/18/2009 @ 12:39pm
The barely contained disappointment bordering on rage at Obama coming from the Left is rather amusing to us who didn't vote for either major party candidate in 2008. Ya'all voted in a smart man, no argument there, and a man who is a politician to the very core of his being. Indeed, his resume shows he has done little else but be a politician. He's also smart enough to see that regardless of the reports emanating from union halls and faculty lounges, this is a Center/Right country; always has been. The endless "fat cat" class-warfare drivel isn't sticking as most folks understand that rich people provide jobs and innovation, taxes kill economic recovery, and we can't print money out of this air forever; our Chinese bankers won't stand for it. By 2010, the Obama revolution will be over, there will be many a born-again fiscal conservative in both parties as we continue into a decade or so of reduced living standards, paying down debt and getting our financial house in order. The Sarah Palin and Michael Moore crowds, court jesters and clowns that they are, will throw red meat to the fringes of their respective parties, but the Center will be dominant. You already see both parties tacking furiously to the Center and Obama sees it too. Now that will be real "Progressive"
Posted by alf at 11/18/2009 @ 12:43pm
Sorry, Ms vanden Heuvel, our local Purists will have none of it. They want it all and they want it right now or else they're going to start searching for Ralph Nader in his undisclosed location today!
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 12:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Ghost of Christmas Present to Scrooge:
'There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not here any more.'
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2009 @ 1:07pm
A question for all the bleeding heart liberals and progressives out there" Considering that KSM has already admitted his guilt and asked for the death penalty, what are the chances of his being executed in New York and how many years will we be housing and feeding his evil ass while he's on death row exhausting the appeals process? Wouldn't it have been more practical and a whole lot less expensive to just go ahead and execute him by military means after his guilty plea?
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/18/2009 @ 1:26pm
"A question for all the bleeding heart liberals and progressives out there..."
~Nutlicker
The problem with liberals/progressives is there aren't enough with the balls to call it straight up and apply the requisite pressure --i.e. we've devolved into an authoritarian state along the lines of what Sheldon Wolin refers to as "Inverted Totalitarianism".
Count me as a former Marine who is sickened to the point of nausea by the spineless Democratic Party. This country will die by a self-inflicted sword thrust deep into its midsection by a military gone mad.
History is littered with the headstones of nations like ours.
As for the vast majority of "conservatives", if they had two neurons of sanity to rub together they might recognize how fiendishly foolish and utterly repulsive they've become.
I'll pit my so-called bleeding heart against your putrid, stinking gray matter any day of the week, Nutlicker.
See you on the Palin book tour with your head buried up her monumentally ignorant a$$.
Peace out, ~B
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/18/2009 @ 2:39pm
"The barely contained disappointment bordering on rage at Obama coming from the Left is rather amusing to us who didn't vote for either major party candidate in 2008. Ya'all voted in a smart man, no argument there...."
~Alf at 12:43pm
I don't prefer to flame on folks I consider to be allies, but that is a shamefully smug, pompous post, Alf.
I was certainly one of those who railed against Obama's vapid electoral platform. I urged progressives to vote other than Obama, if nothing else, to apply pressure on Obama to get much more specific in his campaign pledges. Nothing is working at this point for the good of this once largely admirable nation.
If anything, the proper tone at this point should be focused anger and renewed resolve to oppose rightwing lunacy, and the leftwing lack of integrity that The "O" is exhibiting in spades.
Progressives need to pull their heads out almost as badly as most conservatives today should be committed.....to Bellevue.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/18/2009 @ 2:53pm
Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2009 @ 1:07pm |
OV, we know who YOUR candidate is...
US Congressman from the Texas 14th district.
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2009 @ 3:04pm
--...we can't print money out of this air forever; our Chinese bankers won't stand for it. By 2010, the Obama revolution will be over, there will be many a born-again fiscal conservative in both parties as we continue into a decade or so of reduced living standards, paying down debt and getting our financial house in order.--
by alf at 11/18/2009 @ 12:43pm...
By 2010, the "Obama revolution" will be kicking in.
Your pessimism precludes the people's prerogative.
By 2010, the "Bush legacy"... this little 'revolution' we are all up to our waists in... will be all but forgotten.
Chin up!
Posted by ttr at 11/18/2009 @ 3:22pm
"What about the "Magical Mystery Tour" that has taken the Obamanation away where he scrapes and bows before Asian regimes unlike any President of the U.S.A. in 200yrs?"
Posted by BigPasture at 11/18/2009 @ 05:05am
Eisenhower bowed to DeGaulle, and also to the Pope
http://tinyurl.com/ygv5oxv
Nixon bowed to Mao
http://tinyurl.com/y885uqu
Bush kissed king of Saudi Arabia twice
http://tinyurl.com/ylofepg
and walked around holding hands with him.
http://tinyurl.com/ydflx9h
Man, that was a short 200 years, huh, BigP?
Posted by FLaim at 11/20/2009 @ 02:43am
Some may say the Obama behavior is a question of style, not wanting to be confrontational. But my guess is he knows very well what he's doing, and I don't like it. Obama had the nerve to play golf with Robert Wolf the criminal who as CEO of UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), directed 52,000 US citizens to brake the law by sending secretly their money to hidden accounts abroad to avoid paying US taxes, while the bank's officer Bradley Birkenfeld, who blew the whistle and told the Obama government of the scam, was being sent to jail for 40 months!!!
Obama playing golf with the main criminal of the operation while the man who prompted the government to indict the bank and charged it 780 million dollars as penalties from the bank, let's the main culprit off the hook and to compound the pathetic, outrageous deed, send the courageous man who risked his job and freedom, to jail!!!
WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE IS OBAMA SENDING TO ALL WHISTLE BLOWERS???
The message is simple, YOU GO TO JAIL while your BOSSES GO PLAY GOLF WITH OBAMA if you tell the government and society about the dirty misdeeds performed by the corporations you work in!!!
I am disgusted!!
Is this the change we can believe in?
The list of complaints is so long but this should make it very clear who Obama is. Paying lip service to his campaign promises while working for the very "status quo" he constantly refers to, to the detriment of the country and its people.
Obama misused the "Golden Rule: "Who has the Gold, Makes the rules". He used our gold to make the banks stronger, when they were weak, at a time when he could have taken them over, sell off the bad assets, make them healthy, cut them in pieces to avoid" too big to fail", and sell them off again when they became healthy. Obama is a Corporatocrat.
Posted by etniks at 11/20/2009 @ 10:49am
KVH, I'm glad to finally meet up with you. I consider myself a true independent, one who has as they say in California, declined to state a party. Obama should tell Geitner to get the remaining
Posted by dingdong29 at 11/20/2009 @ 3:22pm
KVH, I'm glad to finally meet up with you. I consider myself a true independent, one who has as they say in California, declined to state a party. Obama should tell Geitner to get the remaining TARP money to the community banks and to small businesses so millions of jobs can be created and this recession can truly be over. Also, the insurance industry should be placed under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. That should go a long way toward not only making health insurance but car insurance cheaper, and cut costs for small businesses. That would be more effective than a public option, which most people still don't understand. As far as your atricle on Afghanistan goes, the Obama administration should lokk into the matter that billions of dollars are going to the Taliban. There needs to be close scrutiny of every dollar spent on government programs: defense, health, whatever. One way to save billions of dollars is to eliminate private contractors as much as possible and use federal employees to do the work of such agencies as Halliburton, KBR, etc. Consider me a Jacksonian Democrat; I like to see the national debt eliminated
Posted by dingdong29 at 11/20/2009 @ 3:40pm
KVH, I'm glad to finally meet up with you. I consider myself a true independent, one who has as they say in California, declined to state a party. Obama should tell Geitner to get the remaining TARP money to the community banks and to small businesses so millions of jobs can be created and this recession can truly be over. Also, the insurance industry should be placed under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. That should go a long way toward not only making health insurance but car insurance cheaper, and cut costs for small businesses. That would be more effective than a public option, which most people still don't understand. As far as your atricle on Afghanistan goes, the Obama administration should lokk into the matter that billions of dollars are going to the Taliban. There needs to be close scrutiny of every dollar spent on government programs: defense, health, whatever. One way to save billions of dollars is to eliminate private contractors as much as possible and use federal employees to do the work of such agencies as Halliburton, KBR, etc. Consider me a Jacksonian Democrat; I like to see the national debt eliminated
Posted by dingdong29 at 11/20/2009 @ 3:40pm
KVH, I'm glad to finally meet up with you. I consider myself a true independent, one who has as they say in California, declined to state a party. Obama should tell Geitner to get the remaining TARP money to the community banks and to small businesses so millions of jobs can be created and this recession can truly be over. Also, the insurance industry should be placed under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. That should go a long way toward not only making health insurance but car insurance cheaper, and cut costs for small businesses. That would be more effective than a public option, which most people still don't understand. As far as your atricle on Afghanistan goes, the Obama administration should lokk into the matter that billions of dollars are going to the Taliban. There needs to be close scrutiny of every dollar spent on government programs: defense, health, whatever. One way to save billions of dollars is to eliminate private contractors as much as possible and use federal employees to do the work of such agencies as Halliburton, KBR, etc. Consider me a Jacksonian Democrat; I like to see the national debt eliminated
Posted by dingdong29 at 11/20/2009 @ 3:41pm