THE MOST DISPIRITING OBAMA MOVE YET: Remember how the Democrats in the Senate ushered in a sweeping new bill that would authorize indefinite detention of American citizens (and everyone else) suspected of supporting terrorism and would require that all such detentions, interrogations, and investigations be conducted by the military rather than law enforcement? Remember how the Obama Administration threatened to veto that bill? Remember how hopeful you were that that strong veto threat would kill this monstrosity once and for all? Yeah, well, now the White House has changed its mind on the veto. In conference, the bill was changed to make the required military detention provision optional, though military detention remains the default presumption that the President would have to affirmatively reject. As Adam Serwer explains, “The changes allow members of Congress to claim they're not hampering counterterrorism operations while still leaving them room to slam the president should he decide to forgo military detention.” He also points out that the new bill keeps in place the ban on transferring Gitmo detainees to civilian courts that was passed along with DADT repeal last year. “It also retains the language of the Senate ‘compromise’ on indefinite detention without trial of American citizens apprehended on US soil, leaving the issue an open question for the courts to resolve. The way the compromise is worded, however, could be construed as authorizing military detention of American citizens who are captured abroad, even if they're not apprehended fighting on a hot battlefield such as Afghanistan.” (And of course, the indefinite detention provision applies to noncitizens as well.) This bill is a disgrace, an abomination, a spit in the face of civil liberties and our constitutional tradition. Where the hell is this guy? Or this one? I have been one of Obama’s staunchest defenders, constantly telling his critics on the left that they are massively discounting political realities, or the problem of the filibuster, or the intransigence of Republicans. But this is simply indefensible. It was Bush’s moves on exactly these issues that took America down an unprecedented and radically cynical path -- and that played an enormous role in our bowels-deep hunger for a change of direction. In this, Obama has now proved to be an unmitigated failure. (Watch ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer discuss the bill with Rachel Maddow.)
GOP UPDATE - NEWTMENTUM SLOWING?: The Republican candidates gather tonight for yet another debate, this one hosted by Fox News, so you’ll have to wait for next week for a recap of that one. In the meantime, let’s take a closer look at our frontrunner-of-the-moment. At last week’s debate, Gingrich appeared nasty, snarling, and unpleasant (read: ugly) -- but everyone loved it and declared him the winner. (No one remarked on the really intense scowl and totally gross winking that I was disturbed by, so maybe it’s just me.) But poll numbers out today suggest we may have reached “Peak Gingrich,” no doubt because of the focused, passionate hatred directed his way from GOP elites. Check out what Andrew Sullivan has identified as the GOP’s “full unconcealed panic” (Here’s a taste, from David Brooks: ‘“[Newt] has every negative character trait that conservatives associate with ’60s excess: narcissism, self-righteousness, self-indulgence and intemperance. He just has those traits in Republican form.” And Joe Scarborough: “He will destroy the party. He will re-elect Barack Obama and we’ll be ruined.” And the National Review: “His character flaws — his impulsiveness, his grandiosity, his weakness for half-baked (and not especially conservative) ideas — made him a poor Speaker of the House. … Again and again he put his own interests above those of the causes he championed in public.”) Along with the massive resistance from elites, Gingrich is rapidly running out of money; that’s why a cash infusion of $20 million from right-wing casino owner Sheldon Adelson to a group affiliated with Gingrich’s campaign came as a lifeline today. This week Newt also took the seemingly humiliating move of publicly promising not to cheat on his current wife. Have we really sunk so low? He followed that up by signing the National Organization for Marriage’s anti-gay marriage pledge today, promising to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and to appoint judges who will deny gay people their equal rights. Not that we should be surprised, but the crassness of Newt’s particular brand of bigotry -- infused as it is with such profound personal hypocrisy -- should truly raise our level of disgust to new heights.
In other GOP news, Mitt continues to showcase eye-popping levels of chutzpah, debuting his latest attack against Gingrich: that Newt is an “extremely unreliable” conservative. This comes the same week as a video from 2002 -- a mere 9 years ago -- emerges showing Mitt proudly proclaiming to be a “moderate” whose “views are progressive.”
IRAQ WAR ENDS, FOR REAL: This week, the Iraq War finally ended. People don’t seem to be paying much attention to this, for some reason, but 9 years and $1 trillion and 4,000 American lives later, this is a pretty big deal. The costs of this war were enormous. More than 100,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives, and 1.6 million people became refugees. Of the more than 2 million Americans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan, over 32,000 Americans were wounded in Iraq; estimates put the cost of these veterans’ health care and disability payments between $420 and $750 billion. This was a war started under pretenses that were misleading at best, and became a quagmire from which the United States has struggled to extricate itself. But now that Obama is withdrawing all American troops (the last soldiers leave at the end of December), his Republican opponents are, unbelievably, arguing that the war should keep going. Romney called the withdrawal an “astonishing failure,” a claim that is itself astonishing. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was similarly disdainful of the president’s decision to end the war -- on the timeline negotiated by the Bush administration, mind you: “I fear this decision has set in motion events that will come back to haunt our country,” he said. It’s hard to know what to expect in Iraq as we leave, and what will happen to its people. NBC’s Richard Engel has said that the thousands of American contractors still there are going to pose an enormous problem in the future. He also is pessimistic about the increasingly Shiite character of the country, writing this week, “As I drove on from Dora, I kept thinking, sectarian violence is going to blow up in Iraq again. Many Sunnis feel they have no future in the country.”
NEW MEDICARE REPLACEMENT PLAN?: The Beltway was very excited today when news broke that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) had come up with a bipartisan plan to reform Medicare. Ryan is the GOP whiz-kid behind last year’s plan to replace Medicare with vouchers that would pay for only a tiny fraction of seniors’ health care costs. I admit, I find it difficult to judge the Ryan-Wyden (try saying that 10 times fast) plan, given the complexities of the policies. So I basically rely on TNR’s Jonathan Cohn to tell me (and, by extension, you) what I (we) should think about this. Cohn says this plan is “less radical” than Ryan’s 2010 plan, though it does include a voucher-type system while also purporting to leave traditional Medicare in place. His bottom line, though, is that the plan is still a bad one. “But if the Ryan-Wyden plan improves upon the original Ryan plan, does it also improve upon Medicare? Would seniors really be better off? Would the government save a lot money? I think the answer to all three questions is no.” Cohn has a detailed, clear rundown of the flaws with the plan that’s worth a read. He also explains what a true grand bargain would look like -- Dems agree to transform Medicare into a premium support system, Republicans agree to expand Obamacare into effectively Medicare-for-all -- and shows that the Ryan-Wyden plan isn’t close to such a compromise. (Can you guess which side is giving away more?)
GOOD NEWS -- HOLDER SIGNALS MOVE ON VOTING RIGHTS: For a year, we’ve been following the numerous state laws passed to intentionally make it harder for people -- usually people who tend to vote Democratic -- to vote. States have passed voter ID laws, constrained residency requirements targeting college students, and made it nearly impossible for civic groups to register voters. On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder made it clear that the DOJ is paying attention, and will be investigating. “Although I cannot go into detail about the ongoing review of these and other state-law changes, I can assure you that it will be thorough — and it will be fair,” he said at a speech. There are five lawsuits pending across the country aiming to strike down the Voting Rights Act, and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case over Texas’ redistricting plan. Potentially, the Court could totally eviscerate the law’s protections. But in the meantime, it looks like the DOJ will be moving to use the Voting Rights Act to try to curb the worst abuses of these GOP-led state efforts. ThinkProgress has a three-part analysis of Holders speech here, here, and here, including a highlight of Holder’s idea to have automatic, national voter registration.
Promising Development of the Week: In just one month, Wisconsin Democrats have already collected 507,000 signatures to recall Gov. Walker, putting them well on their way to the 540,000 they need by the Jan. 15 deadline.
Great Chart(s) of the Week: CAP has put the 10 craziest components of Gingrich’s tax plan in visual graph form.
Fun Video of the Week: The Daily Show reports on Lowe’s insane bigotry regarding the TV show “All-American Muslim.” Part I here; Part II here.
No comments:
Post a Comment