Just Some Folks Torturing Other Folks

Gina Haspel oversaw a secret prison in Thailand where she approved the torture of at least one detainee.  She also signed off on the destruction of evidence of these so-called enhanced interrogations. Although it seems that initial reports of her involvement in the brutal torture of Abu Zubaydah was in error, this does not undermine the view of the New York Times, which editorialized:  "when it comes to torture, no American officials have been more practiced in those heinous dark arts than the agents and employees of the Central Intelligence Agency who applied it to terrorism suspects after 9/11 [and] few American officials were so directly involved in that frenzy of abuse ... as Gina Haspel."  Neither she nor any other government official was prosecuted when President Obama determined to look forward instead of backward, and so instead of spending these last years in prison, she has moved up the ranks of the CIA and is currently the agency's deputy director.  The current president, an unabashed torture supporter, has nominated current CIA director and fellow torture supporter to be Secretary of State, and has announced that he was going to name Haspel to head the CIA.  We thus have to once again debate what should not be debatable, but it is a debate worth having.  Below is a piece I wrote in August 2014 about the need for a true reckoning.

Previewing a declassified report that concludes the prior Administration used techniques on terrorism suspects amounting to torture, President Obama conceded that "we did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks."

Of course, Obama couldn't quite make himself confront Bush, Cheney & Co. with a point blank accusation.  First, he had to couch the statement by using the pronoun "we" as if either he or his political party or the citizens of the United States were responsible for torture.  Then, like a good Dad who praises his child before making a critical remark, he stated that a lot of things were done right, before pointing out that "we tortured some folks."  'That's OK, Junior, try harder next time.'  And, by the way, what were those "right things" to which he was referring?

To further minimize the impact of his statement, Obama relied on the colloquialism -- "folks."  We tortured "some folks."  He sounds like President Gomer Pyle.  'Well, golly.  I guess we tortured some folks.'   Those who were tortured were real flesh and blood people, human beings capable of feeling the extreme pain and humiliation of "enhanced interrogation techniques."  They were entitled to being treated as such.

It gets worse.  The President then rationalized the use of torture in the context of the stressful times we were in.  While it was certainly not cool to torture folks, it was understandable that our government would resort to such techniques because, you know, it was kinda scary back then.

I think it's important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the twin towers fell and the Pentagon had been hit and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And, you know, it's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots, but having said all that, we did some things that were wrong.

So, our folks -- meaning, the leaders of our government -- were frightened and working under pressure, but, nevertheless, they were "real patriots" and so we shouldn't hold them accountable just because they tortured other folks.

As if the use of torture was simply an understandable spontaneous reaction to the tragedy of 9/11 and not a well calculated policy decision that those in the Bush Administration and their allies and apologists continue to believe was justified. As Charles Pierce puts it:  "Quite simply, nobody who engaged in torture, nobody who worked to establish a legal rationale for torture, nobody who applauded torture or encouraged it or welcomed its practice, has any right to be referred to by anyone, let alone the president, as a patriot."

I've written before that President Obama's biggest mistake when he first took office was refusing to allow his Justice Department to investigate, much less prosecute, the government officials who authorized torture.  He maintained that since his Administration wouldn't condone torture we can simply move forward.  (See, e.g., Pitfalls of Only Looking Forward, Tortured Logic.)  But we are not moving forward.  If we are to remain a nation of laws, when high government officials break the law or cynically bend the law to justify human rights violations there must be consequences.

Obama's latest comments, as mealy-mouthed as they were, elicited the predictable backlash from the right while the media noted that they "reopened debate."   The upcoming report by the Senate Intelligence Committee is significant, but without a true reckoning that confirms once and for all the immorality, illegality and inefficacy of torture, we remain stuck in a debate that should have been resolved.

When Was The Last Time A Popular Incumbent Actively Supported His Successor?

President Obama endorsed Hillary Clinton yesterday, proclaiming: "I don’t think there’s ever been someone so qualified to hold this office.”  And he promised to take an active role in seeking her election: “I’m with her, I am fired up, and I cannot wait to get out there to campaign for Hillary.”

With his approval ratings high and going higher, Obama's participation in unifying and energizing the Democratic base for Clinton could be pivotal.  As Heather Digby Parton points out, Obama is a key member of a deep bench of influential and politically talented Democratic surrogates that includes Michelle Obama, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and (eventually) Bernie Sanders who will enthusiastically hit the trail for Clinton.

Obama's role is unique in modern presidential politics.  Indeed, there hasn't been a sitting president who was not otherwise diminished by scandal or dementia or both who actively campaigned for his successor since ....

It wasn't Bush II, whose universally-acknowledged ineptness kept him out of McCain's Straight Talk Express. 
It wasn't Clinton I, whose popularity was high but whose scandalous behavior had Gore running scared.
It wasn't Reagan, whose popularity was also high, but whose effectiveness was diminished by his waning cognitive skills and the Iran-Contra scandal.
It wasn't LBJ, whose popularity was so low that he decided not to seek a second full term for himself.
It wasn't Eisenhower, who when asked to list one of Nixon's policy ideas he had adopted, responded, "If you give me a week, I might think of one. I don't remember."
It wasn't Truman, who was very unpopular at the end of his second term and only became a folk hero years later.

The answer is:  Calvin Coolidge, who decided not to seek a third term and supported his commerce secretary, Herbert Hoover to succeed him.  Although even Cal did not do so enthusiastically, saying of Hoover, "for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice—all of it bad."

It is, thus, virtually unprecedented for a presidential candidate to have the active support of a popular U.S. president, not to mention being married to another still-popular former U.S. president.  As for Trump, perhaps he can call upon the world leaders who have already endorsed him -- Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un.  I like our team better.

American Exceptionalism: Celebrating Our Favorite War Criminal

"Don't look back. Something might be gaining on you."  -- Satchell Paige

Interesting juxtaposition.  President Obama announces plans to become the first sitting president to visit Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima -- the very spot where an American nuclear bomb exploded, killing more than 100,000 people.  Meanwhile the Department of Defense presents Henry Kissinger the Distinguished Public Service Award. 

Needless to say, the United States has a very complicated relationship to war crimes.  We crow about our values, our freedoms and our exceptionalism, and condemn as unpatriotic and treasonous any American who has the temerity to question the darker aspects of our history.

And we celebrate Henry Kissinger, one of the most villainous U.S. political leaders of the 20th Century. 

Kissinger's role in the Viet Nam War, from undermining the Paris peace talks prior to Nixon's election to directing the massive clandestine bombing campaign in Laos and Cambodia, which indiscriminately killed and displaced millions of civilians, is not in dispute.  That should be enough to remove him from polite society much less make him a sought after foreign policy expert and Hillary Clinton's bff.  But, of course, there is plenty more, including his planning of the overthrow of  Chile's democratically elected president, his support for Indonesia's massacre in East Timor, his  encouragement of right wing military leaders in Argentina's Dirty War, and his role in other so-called proxy wars.  As put by Greg Grandin, the author of Kissinger's Shadow, Kissinger is "responsible, directly or indirectly, for the deaths of millions of people in Southeast Asia, East Timor, Bangladesh, and southern Africa, among other places."

And, as Grandin points out, even Kissinger's arguably admirable role in fostering détente with the Soviet Union and an opening to China was undermined by his own actions:

In one region after another, [he] executed policies that helped doom his own grand strategy, undermining détente and canceling out whatever steadying effect it might have provided the planet. In southern Africa, for instance, Kissinger supported civil wars that would last decades and kill millions. In the Middle East, he pointlessly provoked the Soviet Union and laid the foundation for the jihadists. The militarization of the Gulf, including the brokering of ever larger arms sales to Saudi Arabia in exchange for petrodollars, was a Kissinger initiative.

So why is Henry Fucking Kissinger being honored with the Pentagon’s highest award for private citizens?  And what does it say about a country that cannot confront its worst excesses? 

When President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for "all offenses against the United States," he stated that it was out of concern for the "immediate future of this great country." Next came Iran-Contra. While the Republicans stacked the joint legislative committee undertaking the investigation with the conservative wing of their party (e.g., then-Representative Cheney), the Democrats relied mostly on moderates, and thus the committee members were skewed toward those who were disinclined to probe very vigorously.  By rashly granting immunity to key witnesses such as Ollie North, the committee undermined prosecutions by an independent counsel.  The Iran-Contra Affair culminated in the pardon by first President Bush of several participants who had been implicated.

More recently, President Obama refused to seek any investigation of his predecessor's "War on Terror," despite substantial evidence that wiretapping laws were broken and torture was authorized at the highest levels.  Much like President Ford, Obama claimed that “nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.” 

As we look ever forward, never backward, the presumptive nominee for president of one of this country's two major parties unequivocally calls for combatting terrorism with torture and other violations of human rights.  The other considers Kissinger a dear friend and trusted adviser.

What's next?  Given our penchant for whitewashing the past and honoring our war criminals, someone should tell Dick Cheney to get ready for his close-up. 

Obama's Mic Drop In Flint

"And this kind of thinking -- this myth that government is always the enemy; that forgets that our government is us -- it’s us; that it’s an extension of us, ourselves -- that attitude is as corrosive to our democracy as the stuff that resulted in lead in your water." -- President Obama

While we anxiously await the decision of Republican leaders (whose anti-government, anti-regulatory, climate change-denying, anti-choice, anti-immigrant ... rhetoric created the primordial soup out of which rose their presumptive presidential nominee) on whether they will endorse or merely support Mr. Trump, President Obama happened to deliver a speech in Flint, Michigan. 

It was a stemwinder that should have gotten a lot more attention.  It destroyed long-cherished Republican talking points about the dangers of government overreach, and gave an unapologetic, irrefutable defense of government's critical role in the welfare of our society.  And it provides an extremely useful template for the presumptive Democratic nominee and other Democrats running for office this fall.
 
Here are some of the key nuggets:

[I] do think there is a larger issue that we have to acknowledge, because I do think that part of what contributed to this crisis was a broader mindset, a bigger attitude,
And it’s a mindset that believes that less government is the highest good no matter what.  It’s a mindset that says environmental rules designed to keep your water clean or your air clean are optional, or not that important, or unnecessarily burden businesses or taxpayers.  It’s an ideology that undervalues the common good, says we’re all on our own and what’s in it for me, and how do I do well, but I’m not going to invest in what we need as a community.  And, as a consequence, you end up seeing an underinvestment in the things that we all share that make us safe, that make us whole, that give us the ability to pursue our own individual dreams.  So we underinvest in pipes underground.  We underinvest in bridges that we drive on, and the roads that connect us, and the schools that move us forward.
And this is part of the attitude, this is part of the mindset:  We especially underinvest when the communities that are put at risk are poor, or don't have a lot of political clout -- and so are not as often heard in the corridors of power.
And this kind of thinking -- this myth that government is always the enemy; that forgets that our government is us -- it’s us; that it’s an extension of us, ourselves -- that attitude is as corrosive to our democracy as the stuff that resulted in lead in your water.  Because what happens is it leads to systematic neglect.  It leads to carelessness and callousness.  It leads to a lot of hidden disasters that you don't always read about and aren’t as flashy, but that over time diminish the life of a community and make it harder for our young people to succeed....
So it doesn't matter how hard you work, how responsible you are, or how well you raise your kids -- you can't set up a whole water system for a city.  That's not something you do by yourself.  You do it with other people.  You can't hire your own fire department, or your own police force, or your own army.  There are things we have to do together -- basic things that we all benefit from.
And that’s how we invested in a rail system and a highway system.  That's how we invested in public schools.  That's how we invested in science and research.  These how we invested in community colleges and land grant colleges like Michigan State....
So the people in Flint, and across Michigan, and around the country -- individuals and church groups and non-for-profits and community organizations -- you've proven that the American people will step up when required.  And our volunteers, our non-for-profits, they're the lifeblood of our communities. We so appreciate what you do.
But volunteers don’t build county water systems and keep lead from leaching into our drinking glasses.  We can’t rely on faith groups to reinforce bridges and repave runways at the airport.  We can’t ask second-graders, even ones as patriotic as Isiah Britt who raised all that money, to raise enough money to keep our kids healthy.
You hear a lot about government overreach, how Obama -- he’s for big government.  Listen, it’s not government overreach to say that our government is responsible for making sure you can wash your hands in your own sink, or shower in your own home, or cook for your family.  These are the most basic services.  There is no more basic element sustaining human life than water.  It’s not too much to expect for all Americans that their water is going to be safe....
But it’s not enough just to fix the water.  We’ve got to fix the culture of neglect, the mindset I was talking about -- that has degraded too many schools and too many roads and hurt too many futures.  We’ve got to fix the mindset that only leaves people cynical about our government.  Our government is us -- of us, by us, for us -- the people....
So Flint is just a tip of the iceberg in terms of us reinvesting in our communities. We’ve seen bridges fall and levies break.  So we’ve got to break that mindset.  These things aren’t a coincidence.  They’re the same mindset that left Flint’s water unsafe to drink.  And it’s self-destructive when we don’t invest in our communities.  Because a lot of times the people who are against government spending, they’ll say, well, the private sector is the key.  The private sector is the key for our economy.  Free markets and free enterprise are great.  But companies won’t invest in a place where your infrastructure is crumbling and your roads are broke.  You’re not going to start a business or be able to recruit outstanding staff if there’s no safe drinking water in the city.
So my hope is, is that this begins a national conversation about what we need to do to invest in future generations.  And it’s no secret that, on this pipeline of neglect, a lot of times it’s the most poor folks who are left behind.  It’s working people who are left behind.  We see it in communities across the Midwest that haven’t recovered since the plants shut down.  We see it on inner city corners where they might be able to drink the water, but they can’t find a job.  We see it in the rural hills of Appalachia.
We’ve got to break that mindset that says that that neighborhood over there, that’s not my problem; those kids over there, they don’t look like my kids exactly, so I don’t have to worry about them -- out of sight, out of mind.  We’ve got to break that attitude that says somehow there’s an “us” in “them,” and remind ourselves that there’s just one big “we” -- the American family, and everybody has got to look out for each other.   Because the kids here in Flint aren’t “those” kids, they’re “our” kids....
That’s America.  That’s who we are at our best.  We are a nation of individuals, and we should be proud of everything that we can accomplish on our own through hard work, and grit, and looking after our own families, and making sure we’re raising our children right.  But we don’t do these things alone.  Ultimately, our success is dependent on each other.  Our success is dependent on each other.

Obama's Troubling SCOTUS Pick

President Obama's choice for the Supreme Court of the indisputably brilliant and eminently qualified jurist, Merrick Garland, seems like the tactical move of a political genius.  Garland is truly a "centrist" judge, with a reputation for fairness, civility and following the rule of law.  He has taken the traditional route to the federal judiciary:  (1) Harvard Law School, (2) prestigious clerking positions (Judge Friendly on the Second Circuit and Justice Brennan on the high court), (3) prosecutor (including supervision of the Oklahoma City bombing prosecution), (4) corporate lawyer.  He is a 63-year old white male who has served on the D.C. Circuit since 1995.  Republicans have no legitimate argument for blocking confirmation hearings or, much less confirmation itself of such a reputable, non-partisan nominee. 

Thus, Obama has laid the groundwork for a sustained attack on the unprecedented obstruction of the GOP.  Republicans in the Senate will be able to do little more than offer increasingly lame arguments that have no basis in tradition or logic that will resonate only within their rabid, fact-free echo chamber. The Democratic nominee for president will have strong grounds for challenging the extremism of a Republican Party that won't even given such a moderate choice a hearing. 

But while this might appear to be at least a shrewd short-term strategy, I fear that it is an enormous mistake for several reasons.

First, key to using Republican obstruction against them and highlighting the importance of the Supreme Court as an election issue is a unified push by liberals that urges the Senate to, as Elizabeth Warren so forcefully put it, "do your job."  But, I for one, don't want the Senate to confirm this particular nominee, particularly given his pro-prosecution record on criminal justice issues.  I may be wrong, but I doubt if there are many progressive advocacy groups excited to mobilize for his nomination either.

Second, assuming Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency, the Senate Republicans will likely have an epiphany about doing their job, realizing that Garland is going to be a far more conservative pick than anyone that Hillary will nominate.  Thus, while there is no chance Garland will be confirmed before the election, he will likely be confirmed during the lame duck period before Hillary takes office.  This will deprive the next Democratic president of filling Scalia's seat with a progressive or at least a left-of-center nominee.  And it will put on the bench a justice who is unlikely to shift the court on many critical issues, particularly when it comes to criminal justice and the death penalty.

Third, Obama could have chosen from a deep bench of progressive legal minds with diverse ethnic backgrounds that would fire up a liberal base that might not otherwise be very enthused about a Clinton candidacy.  I couldn't agree more with Kerry Eleveld who put it like this:

Progressives could have had three people on the ballot come November—the nominee, VP, and the SCOTUS pick who never got a vote. If that person had looked in any way like the group of voters who form what's become known as "the Obama coalition," she or he could have symbolized the very future of our nation that Republicans are actively working so hard to deny.

On the other hand, this could turn out to be genius.  Perhaps the Garland nomination will hurt vulnerable Republican Senators who must uncomfortably defend their obstruction.  Then, when Hillary wins and the Democrats take back the Senate, Obama can graciously withdraw the nomination, claiming that, as the GOP had been saying all along, it is up to the next president to choose the next Supreme Court justice. Hillary then picks a true progressive that shifts the balance of the Court and we all live happily ever after.

A Public Defender For Justice

The typical path to becoming a federal judge is to have been a prosecutor and/or a big firm lawyer representing corporate interests.  This is true whether the president is Democrat or Republican.  Indeed, while President Obama can rightfully boast about the diversity of his federal court appointments in terms of race, gender and sexual orientation, it is troubling that roughly 85% of his federal court nominees have been corporate attorneys, prosecutors or both

In addition, according to an Alliance for Justice report published last year:

Fewer than four percent of President Obama’s judicial nominees have worked as lawyers at public interest organizations;

Fewer than four percent have significant experience representing workers in labor and employment disputes;

Prosecutors outnumber public defenders (state or federal) by more than three to one;

Only four out of 56 circuit nominees have worked as a public defender (state or federal), compared to 21 who have worked as prosecutors.

.
Lawyers who have represented criminal defendants, who have challenged the power of the government, who have fought violations of human rights and civil rights, and who have taken on Big Business, bring a critical perspective about challenges facing the most vulnerable in our society, and about the inherent biases in the legal system against the poor and people of color and those accused of crime, who are often both. 

Countless legal determinations require applying a "reasonableness" standard -- what a reasonable person would do or understand -- or deciding whether a particular claim is "plausible."  Such judgments are necessarily filtered through one's personal and professional experiences.  Thus, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren has explained:  “It matters that someone has represented people other than corporate clients, that they’ve had real experience with people who can’t afford lawyers, that they’ve had real experience trying to fight for the public interest …. It matters where you come from.”

This is a perspective that is sorely missing on the Supreme Court.  Even so, Supreme Court watchers who bandy about qualified nominees to replace Justice Scalia rarely mention the host of brilliant candidates with experience as public defenders or public interest lawyers.

A article appearing in the National Association for Public Defense provides an impeccable list that begins with a perfect choice:  Bryan Stevenson:

Stevenson, 56, is our country’s greatest human rights lawyer. Stevenson is the founder and head of the Equal Justice Initiative, fighting poverty and challenging racial discrimination in the criminal justice system for 30 years. He has successfully argued in the Supreme Court, including this January’s decision striking down mandatory life-without-parole sentences for children. Stevenson speaks eloquently about America’s troubled history of racial strife and injustice, and about how to heal the wounds of that history. President Obama selected Stevenson to serve on last year’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing.

The NAPD piece provides several other stellar candidates, including practicing lawyers (Lisa Feeland, David Singleton, Christine Swarns) law professors (Ronald Sullivan, James Forman, Michelle Alexander) and federal appellate judges (Robert Wilkins, Jane Kelly). 

It goes without saying that no matter who President Obama chooses to replace Justice Scalia, he or she will be met with unprecedented obstruction from the Republican-led Senate given that anyone to the left of Justice Kennedy will dramatically shift the Court's ideological balance and provide a liberal majority for the first time since the early 1970s.  But that shouldn't stop Obama from choosing a candidate who has devoted a legal career to fighting for justice rather than for power. 

Barack Obama: Great President Or The Greatest President?

With apologies to Stephen Colbert, the title of this post is not meant as parody (for the most part).

Not that I don't have serious issues with some of Obama's policies and positions.  His refusal to investigate, much less prosecute, the Bush Administration officials who authorized torture and lied us into war remains his most egregious mistake.  (See Just Some Folks Torturing Other Folks.)  His unwillingness to hold Wall Street accountable for the financial crisis is another glaring failure.  His resort to drone warfare is a deeply troubling approach to national security.  And his first term was badly marred by an infuriating inability to recognize or confront the utterly obstructionist nature of the Republicans in Congress.

While far from perfect, I would argue that Obama's presidency -- particularly in light of the domestic and foreign shitpiles he inherited and the racially and politically motivated efforts by the GOP to oppose everything Obama -- has been a transformative one, and should be ranked as one of the greatest. 

Obama has resuscitated a key pillar of liberalism  -- discredited not only by Republicans but by the last Democrat in the White House -- that big government can be an important, positive force in the lives of Americans.  The Affordable Care Act is not ideal, but it has provided health insurance for more than sixteen million people who were previously uninsured.  Its success has instilled in a majority of Americans the notion that health care is not just a benefit, but a right.  Indeed, the panic among Republicans concerning the potential political fallout, when it appeared that the Supreme Court might invalidate the portion of the Act that provided federal subsidies in conservative-leaning states which had failed to set up exchanges, speaks volumes about how quickly expectations about government-mandated health care have changed.  [Updated: see Obama's Mic Drop in Flint]

The nuclear arms deal with Iran provides a stark contrast between the Obama Presidency and the dead-enders in the GOP, whose response to every international crisis seems to be a call for bombs in the air and boots on the ground.  Particularly since 9/11, but really since the Cold War, our foreign policy has been dominated by fear --  resulting in overreactions to real and perceived threats out of fear of attack from abroad and fear of being called weak at home. 

Recall Obama's response to a question during the 2008 campaign about whether he would be willing to negotiate with our adversaries without preconditions:  "I would," he said, reasoning that "the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of [the Bush] administration — is ridiculous."  As Dylan Matthews writes, what was then considered by many to be a "gaffe" now feels like a statement of purpose:  "Obama has reestablished productive diplomacy as the central task of a progressive foreign policy, and as a viable alternative approach to dealing with countries the GOP foreign policy establishment would rather bomb."  This thoughtful, measured approach to foreign policy has also led to ending the pointlessly destructive embargo with Cuba.

The president of the United States has the unique ability to use his lofty position as a bully pulpit -- to give a powerful voice to issues and ideas that might otherwise be muffled.  At least in his second term, Obama has embraced this prerogative with intelligence, passion and grace unparalleled in recent times -- and he has done it on the most fraught of subjects.  Obama's discussion of race in America is helping to upend the long-held whitewashed and uncritical narrative of our moral superiority and exceptionalism, building momentum to forge meaningful policy changes that can begin to repair the long-lasting damage caused by slavery, Jim Crow, and institutional racism.  His speech on the 50th anniversary of Selma (see President Obama's Exceptional Speech) encouraged us to confront our shameful past -- "loving this country requires more than singing its praises or avoiding uncomfortable truths." And, as he explained in his eulogy for Rev. Pickney in Charleston, it isn't just about the past: "for too long, we've been blind to the way past injustices continue to shape the present."   

The Charleston speech, known mostly for Obama's poignant rendition of Amazing Grace, covered a wide swath: gun violence ("for too long, we've been blind to the unique mayhem that gun violence inflicts upon this nation"), the Confederate flag ("a reminder of systemic oppression and racial subjugation" and removing it from the state capitol "would be one step in an honest accounting of America's history"), the pervasiveness of racism ("maybe we now realize the way racial bias can infect us even when we don't realize it, so that we're guarding against not just racial slurs, but we're also guarding against the subtle impulse to call Johnny back for a job interview but not Jamal"), and voting rights ("so that we search our hearts when we consider laws to make it harder for some of our fellow citizens to vote.")

This was followed by a series of remarkable moves aimed at highlighting the unjust nature of a criminal justice system that disproportionately affects men of color and has led to mass incarceration.  Obama commuted the sentences of 46 people, most of whom were serving long sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. He delivered a speech proposing wide-ranging reforms at the annual convention of the NAACP, where he pointed  out that "a growing body of research shows that people of color are more likely to be stopped, frisked, questioned, charged, detained. African Americans are more likely to be arrested. They are more likely to be sentenced to more time for the same crime."  He talked about root causes of crime and police abuses, calling for investment in early childhood education, police reform, ending mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug offenses, and reducing the use of solitary confinement. 

And then, Obama visited a federal prison -- the first president to do so (though, it must be said that certain of his Republican predecessors should have been more than visitors).  This simple but unprecedented act acknowledged the humanity of the incarcerated -- in this case, those serving mandatory sentences for nonviolent drug offenses -- and further underscored the human toll of thoughtless, overly punitive crime policy.

One need only compare this with the rhetoric and reality of Bill Clinton's "tough on crime" and "war on criminals" approach -- which even Clinton has belatedly (and rather lamely) apologized for -- to get a sense of the historic nature of this call for ending mass incarceration that, as Obama put it, “by a wide margin … disproportionately impacts communities of color.”

Although late to accept same-sex marriage until it was more politically palatable, Obama has been a strong supporter of LGBT rights, stating unequivocally that LGBT rights are “human rights.”  He ended the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and ordered his Justice Department to reverse itself and stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court.  Last year he signed an executive order banning workplace discrimination against LGBT employees of federal contractors.  And, more recently, his Administration sided with the parties who argued against state bans on same-sex marriage in the Supreme Court.  

Coming into office during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Obama had to fight the deficit fetishists of both parties to push through a stimulus package that led us to a recovery.  While he should have pushed for larger stimulus and remained too long in the thrall of the aforementioned fetishists, as Paul Krugman notes, "there's overwhelming consensus among economists that the Obama stimulus plan helped mitigate the worst of the slump."

While the Obama administration failed to go after the architects of the financial crisis, he did sign Dodd Frank into law -- a law that provides significant oversight and created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Just look at how badly the Republicans want to overturn or neuter Dodd Frank to get a sense of how effective it is or will be.

In the wake of Congress's inaction on immigration, Obama did an end run, signing an executive order that allows "four million undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least five years to apply for a program that protects them from deportation and allows those with no criminal record to work legally in the country."  Another "one million people will get protection from deportation through other parts of the president’s plan to overhaul the nation’s immigration enforcement system, including the expansion of an existing program for 'Dreamers,' young immigrants who came to the United States as children."

Obama's environmental record is mixed, but faced with a Republican Party that does not believe in climate change and is trying to gut the Environmental Protection Agency, Obama has pushed back -- issuing executive orders to curb greenhouse gas emissions and achieving an historic climate change agreement with China. 

Obama has appointed two extremely well qualified, liberal justices to the Supreme Court -- Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.  Approximately a third of the federal judiciary are Obama appointees.  Although there are far too many former prosecutors and corporate defense lawyers among them, it is also true that Obama has literally changed the face of the judiciary -- with the majority of his appointments being women and nonwhite males.

So, to recap, while rescuing the economy from a disaster of President Bush's making, President Obama risked his political capital on an admittedly unwieldy plan to reach a goal attempted and abandoned by so many presidents before him -- national health insurance.  He has achieved critical foreign policy successes by relying less on reflexive military action and more on cooperative, thoughtful diplomacy.  In response to the unspeakable outrage of police killings of so many young black men by the police, and the unspeakable tragedy of a seemingly endless series of tragic shootings, Obama has spoken -- and by doing so he is forcing us to confront not only our history of slavery and Jim Crow, but the institutional racism that persists today.  He is engaging us in a national conversation about crime, gun violence, and mass  incarceration  -- and he is committed to pushing through Congress a series of landmark criminal justice reforms that appear to have bipartisan support.  He is the first president to fully embrace the LGBT community.  And the first to recognize the devastating reality of man-made climate change.  He has appointed the most diverse federal bench in history.  And he has done all this while the opposing political party, having purged itself of moderates, has produced the most reactionary and obstructionist legislative branch in modern times.

A great president or the greatest president?

President Obama's Exceptional Speech

"What greater form of patriotism is there than the belief that America is not yet finished, that we are strong enough to be self-critical, that each successive generation can look upon our imperfections and decide that it is in our power to remake this nation to more closely align with our highest ideals?" -- -- President Obama, March 8, 2015

After President Obama got walloped for having the audacity to observe, in the course of cautioning us not to condemn Islam because of the barbaric acts done in its name, that here at home "slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ," I wrote:

The American psyche is not so fragile that it can't stand a bit of reflection and self-criticism.  We really aren't such a simpleminded people that we can't hold two conflicting concepts at the same time -- we can love our country and the many great things about it while recognizing its deep flaws. 

Instead, almost on cue, we had the spectacle of Rudy Giuliani, proclaiming that the President doesn't love America. 

The President's speech on Sunday commemorating the 50th Anniversary of Selma was, among many things, an eloquent retort to the Giulianis and Huckabees and Fox News pundits who have no clue about what patriotism really is.

Obama made the case that "loving this country requires more than singing its praises or avoiding uncomfortable truths.  It requires the occasional disruption, the willingness to speak out for what is right, to shake up the status quo.  That’s America."

The President made an appeal to our exceptionalism, as James Fallows summarized, by "embracing our capacity for renewal, self-criticism, and inclusiveness."

We are Lewis and Clark and Sacajawea – pioneers who braved the unfamiliar, followed by a stampede of farmers and miners, entrepreneurs and hucksters. That’s our spirit.

We are Sojourner Truth and Fannie Lou Hamer, women who could do as much as any man and then some; and we’re Susan B. Anthony, who shook the system until the law reflected that truth. That’s our character.

We’re the immigrants who stowed away on ships to reach these shores, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free – Holocaust survivors, Soviet defectors, the Lost Boys of Sudan. We are the hopeful strivers who cross the Rio Grande because they want their kids to know a better life. That’s how we came to be.

We’re the slaves who built the White House and the economy of the South. We’re the ranch hands and cowboys who opened the West, and countless laborers who laid rail, and raised skyscrapers, and organized for workers’ rights.

We’re the fresh-faced GIs who fought to liberate a continent, and we’re the Tuskeegee Airmen, Navajo code-talkers, and Japanese-Americans who fought for this country even as their own liberty had been denied. We’re the firefighters who rushed into those buildings on 9/11, and the volunteers who signed up to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We are the gay Americans whose blood ran on the streets of San Francisco and New York, just as blood ran down this bridge.

We are storytellers, writers, poets, and artists who abhor unfairness, and despise hypocrisy, and give voice to the voiceless, and tell truths that need to be told.

We are the inventors of gospel and jazz and the blues, bluegrass and country, hip-hop and rock and roll, our very own sounds with all the sweet sorrow and reckless joy of freedom.

We are Jackie Robinson, enduring scorn and spiked cleats and pitches coming straight to his head, and stealing home in the World Series anyway.

We are the people Langston Hughes wrote of, who “build our temples for tomorrow, strong as we know how.”

We are the people Emerson wrote of, “who for truth and honor’s sake stand fast and suffer long;” who are “never tired, so long as we can see far enough.”

That’s what America is. Not stock photos or airbrushed history or feeble attempts to define some of us as more American as others. We respect the past, but we don’t pine for it. We don’t fear the future; we grab for it. America is not some fragile thing; we are large, in the words of Whitman, containing multitudes. We are boisterous and diverse and full of energy, perpetually young in spirit. That’s why someone like John Lewis at the ripe age of 25 could lead a mighty march.

This is a far cry from how most Republicans would describe our country.  Conservatives seem to cherish a whitewashed nostalgia for an unapologetic Ozzie and Harriet America that only existed on TV.  They remain resentful because they believe that the hippies, the Democrats and, most of all, Barack Hussein Obama took it all away.

As Paul Waldman says, no conservative would have given a speech like this.

Conservatism is about conserving, so of course the story they tell about America isn't one of constant change in order to improve the country. Their story, particularly in the last few years, is one of a kind of immaculate conception, in which the framers issued forth the nation in a state of perfection. The problems we have now can be solved if we would only revert back and be true to their vision. And the way you express that patriotism is precisely with the "stock photos or airbrushed history"—it's about praising America with the strongest voice you can muster and insisting that it is better than every other country, always has been and always will be.  

I'm all for an America that's inclusive.  But do we have to include them?

Obama's Crusade, High Horses And American Exceptionalism

The reaction to President Obama's observation that we shouldn't condemn an entire religion, in this case Islam, because of the barbaric acts done in its name is another reminder of how difficult it is to have a serious conversation about issues that have the potential to undermine our unwavering belief in American exceptionalism.

Obama stated a fairly obvious truth:  "Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ."

The overheated response from the right, from Christian groups, and even from some mainstream pundits for what Ta-Nehisi Coates described "as relatively mild, and correct, point" should not have come as a surprise.  We don't really like to think about those burning crosses do we?  We don't like to think about slavery or Jim Crow or the institutional racism that continues to have a profound impact on our society.

We don't like to think about the decimation of the native population that succumbed to our Manifest Destiny.  We don't like to think about the internment of Americans of Japanese heritage or the deployment of not one, but two atomic bombs.  We don't like to think about the many popularly-elected governments we have overthrown in the name of freedom.  We don't like to think about our use of torture (we don't even like to use the word, preferring 'enhanced interrogation').

There have been critical moments in our country's history where it was imperative to face up to some of our more malevolent deeds, confront hard truths, point out where we have strayed from what America is supposed to stand for and deal honestly with the fall out.  All too often, we have punted. 

When Richard Nixon resigned, his successor Gerald Ford declared that "our long national nightmare is over."  A month later, Ford pardoned Nixon, apparently deciding that the nightmare was not over.  Ford did not wish to "prolong the bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter that is closed" and exercised his power "to firmly shut and seal this book."  And so, for the sake of less fitful sleep, we were denied a true reckoning of the many abuses of power committed by the Nixon Administration, all but guaranteeing that future high government officials would feel similarly unconstrained.  (See, e.g., Iran Contra Affair)

Say what you will about the inefficacy of Jimmy Carter's presidency but he did try to get us to be a bit more reflective.  His derisively (and inaccurately) dubbed "Malaise Speech" in July 1979, describing a "crisis of confidence" in America's future, was supposed to be a wake up call for the nation to pull together to ease the energy crisis.  Carter acknowledged the loss of faith in government stemming from "the murders of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.," "the agony of Vietnam," and the "shock of Watergate."  He conceded that "these wounds are still very deep" and "have never been healed." Carter's idea was to reinvigorate Americans through our joint efforts at energy conservation and innovation:  "the solution of our energy crisis can also help us to conquer the crisis of the spirit in our country. It can rekindle our sense of unity, our confidence in the future, and give our nation and all of us individually a new sense of purpose." 

Americans soon opted instead for Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America" and the promised end to our national nightmares.  Reagan disavowed Carter's pessimistic soul-searching for a rosy view of America as a "shining city on the hill."  The cure for Carter's "crisis of confidence" was  an invasion of the little island of Grenada to restore our military glory.  Reagan cloaked our unsavory policies in patriotic rhetoric.  The "contras" we armed and trained to overthrow the Nicaraguan government were "freedom fighters," "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers."  In Reagan's America there were no hungry children, ketchup was a vegetable and welfare queens drove Cadillacs. 

Jeane Kirkpatrick, U.S. Ambassador to the UN, gave the keynote address at the 1984 Republican National Convention, where she portrayed Democrats who criticized U.S. policy as disloyal, repeating the mantra, "they always blame America first." She closed by saying:  "The American people know that it's dangerous to blame ourselves for terrible problems that we did not cause . . . With the election of Ronald Reagan, the American people declared to the world that we have the necessary energy and to defend ourselves, and that we have as well a deep commitment to peace. And now, the American people, proud of our country, proud of our freedom, proud of ourselves, will reject the San Francisco Democrats and send Ronald Reagan back to the White House."

We did send Reagan back to the White House, and more than 30 years later, the same dynamic remains.  True patriots  are "proud of our country, proud of our freedom, proud of ourselves."  Then there is the pessimistic "Blame America First" crowd whose relentless questioning of the underpinnings of America's mythic greatness is a threat to that very greatness.

So when President Obama, referring to slavery, acknowledged that "the United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history" or suggested we may have "a moral responsibility to act" on arms control because only the U.S. had "used a nuclear weapon," he was hammered for apologizing for America.  When, after Trayvon Martin's murder, Obama explained that the "African American community is looking at this issue through  a set of experiences and a history that doesn't go away," he was accused of fomenting racial divisions.  And, most recently at the National Prayer Breakfast, when he tried to provide some badly needed perspective on religious extremism, his remarks were characterized, for example, by former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore as "the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime" and by Catholic League President Bill Donohue as "insulting" and "pernicious."

The American psyche is not so fragile that it can't stand a bit of reflection and self-criticism.  We really aren't such a simpleminded people that we can't hold two conflicting concepts at the same time -- we can love our country and the many great things about it while recognizing its deep flaws.  It is therefore far past time to rid ourselves of Reagan's literal and figurative amnesia about America, to get off that high horse, and engage in meaningful conversations that raise troubling questions about our history and what it means for the future. 

Looking Forward To Torture

When President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for "all offenses against the United States," he stated that it was out of concern for the "immediate future of this great country."  He should have considered the longer term.

Inevitably, next came Iran-Contra. While the Republicans stacked the joint legislative committee undertaking the investigation with the conservative wing of their party (e.g., then-Representative Cheney), the Democrats relied mostly on moderates, and thus the committee members were skewed toward those who were disinclined to probe vigorously.  By rashly granting immunity to key witnesses such as Ollie North, the committee undermined prosecutions by an independent counsel.  The Iran-Contra Affair culminated in the pardon by first President Bush of several participants who had been implicated.  The lesson was that the president and his circle had nothing to fear from abuse of power. 

With the next Bush came more abuses, including the use of torture (and, by the way, illegal wiretapping).  But President Obama refused to seek any meaningful investigation, much less prosecution, of those who authorized or committed torture.   Much like President Ford, Obama claimed that “nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.”  And more recently, he appeared to rationalize away the use of torture against "some folks" given the stress our "folks" were under in the wake of 9/11. 

The Senate Intelligence Committee's report, which has just laid out in gory detail the CIA's many shades of torture as well as making the case that these techniques were ineffective and counterproductive in obtaining useful intelligence, is perceived as a partisan attack on patriotic Americans who were trying to keep us safe.

In response, former Vice President Dick Cheney and his co-conspirators in the Bush Administration were permitted to flood the airwaves, where they were able to lie, literally with impunity.  They applauded torture's efficacy and provide the most offensive and amoral justifications for it without the kind of meaningful rebuttal that is anathema to network television.  Cheney was not merely unrepentant; he was positively boastful, gleefully acknowledging that despite 1/4 of tortured detainees being innocent of wrongdoing, no "seed of doubt" was planted in his soulless mind.  Indeed, he said, “I’d do it again in a minute.”

And as vile and odious as Cheney is, the Republican leadership (John McCain being the notable exception that proves the rule) has essentially endorsed his repugnant world view -- that anything to keep Americans out of danger as long as it isn't worse than what the terrorists did to us on 9/11 is morally acceptable, and that despite all evidence to the contrary, torture worked.  In essence, they would all "do it again in a minute."  (Significantly, Obama's CIA Director, John Brennan, isn't far from this position.  While he acknowledged the "shortcomings" of the torture program, he insisted that it resulted in obtaining intelligence that "saved lives.")

Thanks to the torture-enablers media blitz and Obama's acquiescence, a recent Washington Post poll showed that "by a margin of almost 2 to 1 . . . those interviewed said that they support the CIA’s brutal methods, with the vast majority of supporters saying that they produced valuable intelligence." 

President Obama came into office and, giving in to his bipartisan fetish, insisted on looking forward, not backward.  But, of course, we are not moving forward.  Without a true reckoning that confirms once and for all the immorality and illegality of torture, a reckoning that holds those responsible accountable, we remain stuck in a debate framed by self-serving Bush officials and their fellow travelers in the Republican Party about its efficacy.  And the winners of the debate will be whoever happens to inhabit the White House next.

A Little Audacity Goes A Long Way: Immigration Reform and the Folly of Bipartisanship

David Brooks and other delusional stalwarts of the pundit class continue to believe that the Republican Party cares about governing and is capable of compromise.  Ignoring GOP efforts since the dawn of the Obama Administration to thwart every moderate proposal supported by the White House, they are excoriating the President for finally eschewing attempts at illusory bipartisanship for the sake of having a direct, positive impact on millions of people.

President Obama's executive order will allow "four million undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least five years to apply for a program that protects them from deportation and allows those with no criminal record to work legally in the country."  Another "one million people will get protection from deportation through other parts of the president’s plan to overhaul the nation’s immigration enforcement system, including the expansion of an existing program for “Dreamers,” young immigrants who came to the United States as children."  (Of course, it wouldn't be an Obama plan without some compromise -- so, farm workers won't receive special protection and there will be no federal subsidies for health care.)

The predictable response, not just from the rabid right, but from the pointless middle, is outrage and disappointment that Obama won't give Republicans a chance to act decently.  According to Brooks, "White House officials are often misinformed on what Republicans are privately discussing, so they don’t understand that many in the Republican Party are trying to find a way to get immigration reform out of the way."  Sure.

Remarkably, neither he nor anyone else seems to recall that a bipartisan immigration bill overwhelmingly passed the Senate in the summer of 2013.  It was scuttled in the House, where the Speaker refused to bring it up for a vote, knowing that the nativists in his Party would reject it because of its provision of a path to citizenship.  Although, according to David Brooks, this was really because they were working on their own secret plan. 

Notwithstanding that prior presidents acted unilaterally on immigration (including Reagan and both Bushes), and that Obama's executive order has been sanctioned by conservative legal scholars, Republicans are now threatening to either shut down the government or initiate impeachment proceedings over Obama's move. At minimum, according to Brooks, "Republicans would rightly take it as a calculated insult and yet more political ineptitude. Everybody would go into warfare mode. We’ll get two more years of dysfunction that will further arouse public disgust and antigovernment fervor." 

Thus, the groundwork has been laid to further blame Obama and the Democrats for gridlock despite the unprecedented recalcitrance of the Republicans who -- according to Brooks and others -- are ready to make nice, roll up their sleeves and govern responsibly if only Obama would meet them half way.  So, in addition to that secret immigration plan that Republicans have been working on that surely would have helped millions of immigrants remain in this country, they are also working on a secret health care plan that could replace Obamacare after they repeal it and provide tens of millions with health care as Obamacare has done.  And, they must also have a secret plan to combat climate change all teed up, as soon as they approve the Keystone XL pipeline and thwart the historic pact over carbon emissions that Obama made with China.

President Obama is going to have to tamp down his instincts towards compromise and moderation these next two years while Republicans block judicial and administrative nominations, attempt to deregulate Wall Street and the EPA, and pass unconscionable bills aimed at gutting the safety net and getting the government out of the way of Big Business.  This will be increasingly difficult in the face of cries from the mainstream media (and moderate Democrats) who believe that bipartisanship is a worthy end in itself.  But what is worthy is ensuring that 5 million immigrants will not be deported and separated from their families and their homes; that at least 10 million people have health insurance that they did not have before; that carbon emissions are reduced.  Given the extremist state of the Republican Party none of this could happen by compromise -- it could only happen by exercising a little audacity.

Barbara Lee Continues To Speak For Me

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons -- Authorization for the Use of Military Force ("AUMF")

After the attacks of 9/11, Congress gave President Bush carte blanche to use military force.  Only one member of Congress -- one -- had the integrity, the courage and the wisdom to just say "no."  Congresswoman Barbara Lee -- my Congressperson I'm proud to say --warned her colleagues to be "careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target" and explained that the AUMF "was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the September 11 events—anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation's long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit."

Congresswoman Lee, as we now know, was prescient.  Neither President Bush nor his successor, I'm afraid, could be trusted with such authorization, which has been used to justify warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention at  Guantanamo, various and sundry military actions, armed drones and, most recently, airstrikes against our newest terrorist enemy.

Congresswoman Lee has issued a statement expressing grave concern "about the expansion of U.S. airstrikes into Syria and continuation of airstrikes in Iraq." 

It is clear we are rapidly becoming more involved in another war in the Middle East.

President Obama has put together a strong international and regional coalition to address the ISIS threat. We must now leverage this regional coalition to achieve the political solution that will end this crisis. Only a political solution that respects the rights of all Iraqis and Syrians will ultimately dismantle ISIS

I have called and will continue to call for a full congressional debate and vote on any military action, as required by the Constitution. The American people deserve a public debate on all the options to dismantle ISIS, including their costs and consequences to our national security and domestic priorities.

he rapid escalation of another war in the Middle East underscores the danger of the blank check for endless war passed by Congress in 2001. I could not support this blank check for endless war or the 2002 blank check for war in Iraq. I have introduced legislation to repeal the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force and continue to build bipartisan support for their repeal.

There is no military solution to the crisis in Iraq and Syria. In fact, continued U.S. military action will result in unintended consequences. We must remember the roots of ISIS - President Bush’s ill-begotten war.Congress needs to debate the political, economic, diplomatic and regionally-led solutions that will ultimately be the tools for U.S. and regional security.

Barbara Lee was right in 2001.  She is right in 2014.

Reverse Barometers and Perpetual War

General Custer to officer:  Anything that man tells me will be a lie.  Therefore, he will be perfect reverse barometer. . . .

Custer to Jack Crabb:  What should I do, mule skinner? . . . . Should I go down there, or withdraw? . . .  What's your answer, mule skinner?
Crabb:  General, you go down there.
Custer: You're saying, go into the coulee?
Crabb:  Yes, sir. 
Custer:  There are no Indians there, I suppose?
Crabb:  I didn't say that. There are thousands of Indians down there, and when they get done with you, there won't be nothing left but a greasy spot. . . . You go down there if you got the nerve.
Custer:  Still trying to outsmart me, aren't you, mule skinner? You want me to think that you don't want me to go down there, but the subtle truth is you really don't want me to go down there. . . Men of the Seventh! The hour of victory is at hand!  Onward to Little Bighorn and glory!

* * *
Near the close of the movie Little Big Man, General Custer (played by Richard Mulligan) realizes that Jack Crabb aka Little Big Man (Dustin Hoffman) who he hired as a scout, hates him so much that he will purposely give Custer the wrong advice.  Custer therefore treats Crabb as a "reverse barometer," doing the opposite of whatever Crabb tells him.  As the passage above shows, Crabb gets Custer completely flustered to the point where he is able to trick him into making the disastrous decision to attack at Little Bighorn. 

Dick Cheney, John McCain and their fellow War Mongers have much in common with Custer, as he was portrayed in this movie -- arrogant, unfettered by facts, unshakably stubborn and unable or unwilling to reverse a decision or admit a mistake.  They have been wrong about everything, particularly when it comes to terrorism and the Middle East.  But rather than being shamed into silence and appropriately shunned, they continue to seize center stage.  They plague us with their latest ideas for the latest crisis which, invariably, is the same wrong advice that got us into these messes in the first place: perpetual war.

In this way they should provide a useful service as reverse barometers.  Whatever they say, President Obama should enact the reverse.  When they insist that we stay in Iraq, rely less on diplomacy, employ troops on the ground and more bombs from the air in more places, we should do the opposite.  But it seems that, as in the movie, the reverse barometer can sow confusion.  And so after being relentlessly bombarded with the need to act quickly, decisively and, above all, militarily, the President, as William Greider puts it, "is embarking on another Long War in the Middle East."

The fact that we are only committed (for the time being) to air strikes with a limited amount of advisers on the ground is far from comforting.  Greider explains:  "President Obama’s vague assurances are doubtless sincere, but he has left a lot of open space to revise and reinterpret his intentions. If everything does not go well in Iraq, Obama will be pressured to escalate. War enthusiasts in the reserve army of pundits are already clamoring for him to do so. White House sources are already assuring reporters that Islamic State targets in Syria will be bombed. What happens if they don’t fold? The president will be pressed to send more troops—if not in regular uniforms, then as Special Forces, who will use clandestine methods."

Similarly, David Corn notes why it is difficult to "put the case for war back in the box" after commiting us to renewed military action even with a more nuanced approach than his predecessors:  "If US air strikes can make a difference, if other nations join in, if the Iraqi government gets it acts together, if the Iraqi military can do its job, then the United States will use its military might in a limited way to vanquish ISIS. A conditional case for war does not easily sync up with the stark nature of such an enterprise. If any of these ifs don't come to be, will Obama be cornered and forced by his rhetoric to do something? After depicting ISIS as a peril warranting a US military response—and with much of the American public convinced of that—can he then shrug his shoulders and say, "Never mind"? Will he provide the hawks an opening for political attacks and demands for greater military intervention? In his speech, the man who ran for president with the pledge to end the Iraq War declared, "We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq." But what if all else fails?"

Onward to Little Bighorn and glory!

Going Nuclear: GOP Uses Filibuster As A Weapon Of Mass Destruction Because They Hate Our Freedoms

Just when you think the Republican's ideological assault on democracy can't get worse, it does.  But this time it isn't the Tea Party nihilists in the House but Establishment Republicans in the Senate who are obstructing the legitimate operation of government, making a mockery of majority rule by requiring that virtually everything must pass a 60-vote threshold.

After the Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is the nation's most important appellate court.  It has jurisdiction over challenges to executive orders, federal regulations and decisions of many federal agencies on topics, as Nan Aron, President of Alliance for Justice, notes, like the environment, consumer protections, workers' rights, banking regulations, executive power, and other vital issues."  Four of the current Supreme Court justices sat on the D.C. Circuit (Roberts, Ginsburg, Thomas and Scalia).

The court is currently evenly split (4-4) between Democrat and Republican-nominated judges, with three vacancies.  President Obama has nominated three extremely qualified judges to fill the three empty seats (after already withdrawing the nomination of another unassailable choice who was blocked by Republicans earlier this year).  Two of the three have already been filibustered by Senate Republicans, who intend to block the third, advancing the specious argument that Obama is engaged in court-packing when he is merely filling existing vacancies. 

Republicans claim the D.C. Circuit, with its relatively smaller (although exceedingly complex) caseload doesn't need all 11 judges.  Of course, as Harry Reid  pointed out, the contention that 11 judges are not needed it "not what they said when President Bush filled several vacant seats on the court. When George W. Bush was President, Senate Republicans happily filled the 9th, 10th and 11th seats on the D.C. Circuit -- the same three seats President Obama seeks to fill today -- even though the court had a smaller caseload at the time."

Republican hypocrisy doesn't end there.  Recall those bygone days when Democrats used the filibuster effectively to thwart some of George W. Bush's more extreme judicial appointments (although not by any means all of them).  Republicans argued back then that use of the filibuster was not just wrong, it was unconstitutional.  They threatened to employ the so-called "nuclear option," to change the Senate rules to preclude filibusters for judicial nominees.  Of course, the Democrats blinked.  Seven Democrats joined seven Republicans to form the "Gang of Fourteen," and signed an agreement in which the Republicans in the gang would not vote for the nuclear option and the Democrats would not filibuster except in "extraordinary circumstances."  In practical terms, this meant that Bush was able appoint the conservatives he wanted to the bench and the Democratic minority, without the seven members of the gang, could not stop him.  Thus, five nominees who had originally been filibustered, and several other conservatives, became federal judges, and, perhaps most significantly, Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court was permitted an up-or-down vote.  He was confirmed by a vote of 58-42, with enough Senators voting against him to have successfully filibustered and prevented a vote on his confirmation. 

Republicans, now in the minority, are blatantly violating the agreement not to filibuster judges except in extraordinary circumstances but Democrats are balking at going nuclear.  Recalcitrant Democrats fear that when they are in the minority, a Republican president could nominate a right wing radical to the Supreme Court and Democrats would no longer have the filibuster as a tool to stop it.  Indeed, Charles Grassley, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, explicitly threatened that if Democrats eliminate the filibuster it would be easier for a future Republican president to appoint more justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas: "All I can say is this -- be careful what you wish for. . . So if the Democrats are bent on changing the rules, then I say go ahead. There are a lot more Scalias and Thomases that we'd love to put on the bench. The nominees we'd nominate and put on the bench with 51 votes would interpret the constitution as it was written."

Of course, if there were a Republican president and Republican majority and Democrats tried to employ the filibuster, Republicans would either go nuclear anyway, or the Democrats would cave as they did in the last go round.  Moreover, what makes anyone think that the Democrats would filibuster a  Supreme Court nominee?  There are already four right wing radicals on the high court and Democrats failed to use the filibuster to stop any of them.  To review, Scalia was nominated by Ronald Reagan in 1986.  The Democratic minority, perhaps distracted by the (ultimately unsuccessful) fight over Justice Rehnquist's nomination for Chief Justice, joined Republicans to approve Scalia unanimously.  In 1991, with Democrats in the majority, the Senate voted in George H.W. Bush's nominee, Clarence Thomas, by a vote of 52-48.  George W. Bush's nomination of John Roberts for Chief Justice was approved by a vote of 78-22, and as discussed above, Alito was confirmed after an agreement not to filibuster.

Republican abuse of the filibuster to prevent a president from filling vacancies no matter who is nominated so as not to tip the majority on the court is unprecedented.  If successful, what is to stop them from blocking nominees in every other court where the ideological split would potentially change in the Democrats' favor -- even the Supreme Court?

The "nuclear" option is really a misnomer.  It is the Republican Party that is using the filibuster as weapon of mass destruction -- a weapon to upend the democratic process.  As George W. would say, it is because "they hate what they see right here in this chamber:  a democratically elected government  . . .  They hate our freedom . .  ."  The smoking gun might not be a mushroom cloud, but if the Democrats refuse to change the filibuster rules and allow Republicans to block Obama's nominees for the D.C. Circuit, they may as well cede the federal judiciary branch -- indeed, our federal government -- to a Republican cabal for the foreseeable future. 

Assaulting Democracy Instead of the Democrats May Be Too Radical For Prime Time

Dukakis' Assault on the White House

The lunatic wing of the lunatic party has taken over Washington, D.C. 

As Dan Froomkin puts it: "holding the entire government hostage while demanding the de facto repeal of a president's signature legislation and not even bothering to negotiate is by any reasonable standard an extreme political act." 

This may be historically unprecedented, but James Fallows warned us to be on the look out for false equivalence in the media:  "As a matter of journalism, any story that presents the disagreements as a 'standoff,' a 'showdown,' a 'failure of leadership,' a sign of 'partisan gridlock,' or any of the other usual terms for political disagreement, represents a failure of journalism and an inability to see or describe what is going on."  Because "this isn't 'gridlock.' It is a ferocious struggle within one party, between its traditionalists and its radical factions, with results that unfortunately can harm all the rest of us -- and, should there be a debt default, could harm the rest of the world too."

Unsurprisingly, the initial reporting failed Fallows' False Equivalence Test, and would lead one to believe that this was simply business as usual in the Beltway.  No one is at fault because both sides do it.  Republican lies are just one side of the "he said, she said" style of reporting.  Indeed, Chuck Todd, the posterchild for the traditional media, admitted it that he did not believe it was the media's job to correct the Republican lies -- its the President's job.

At first, the media appeared unable to tell the truth if it meant siding with one political party over the other or as Froomkin describes it, "the political media's aversion to doing anything that might be seen as taking sides — combined with its obsession with process — led them to actively obscure the truth in their coverage of the votes. If you did not already know what this was all about, reading the news would not help you understand."

Joshua Holland aptly described journalists as "frogs in the proverbial pot . . . slowly acclimat[ing] to these extreme, democracy-suffocating circumstances and now seem incapable of describing what’s they’re seeing. Framing everything as a standard-issue partisan fight is almost a professional imperative for many journalists."

So, Joe Nocera, from his perch at the New York Times, points out that, sure, the Republicans have Ted Cruz, but the Democrats used to have their own radicals, like Mike Dukakis.  How's that for false equivalence?  (Rick Perlstein takes on this maddening nonsense)

The consequence of years of this kind of failed journalism, as Froomkin points out, is more extremism: 

When the media coverage seeks down-the-middle neutrality despite one party's outlandish conduct, there are no political consequences for their actions. With no consequences for extremism, politicians who have succeeded using such conduct have an incentive to become even more extreme. The more extreme they get, the further the split-the-difference press has to veer from common sense in order to avoid taking sides. And so on.

The Democratic Party has usually been complicit in this dynamic by trying to appear reasonable and open to compromise no matter how obstructionist the other side is being.  But, with Obama and the Democrats remaining unified and refusing to cave to the craziness (at least for now), while the Republicans appear beholden to the wackiest in their party, there appear to be some cracks in the media's knee-jerk neutrality. (The fact that Wall Street is getting nervous helps too)

Even Thomas Friedman, wanker extraordinaire, who always seems to hope for some moderate leadership to bridge the divide between left and right -- has finally seen the light:  "What is at stake in this government shutdown forced by a radical Tea Party minority is nothing less than the principle upon which our democracy is based: majority rule. President Obama must not give in to this hostage taking — not just because Obamacare is at stake, but because the future of how we govern ourselves is at stake."

Editorial pages of newspapers around the country are taking note, blaming the Republican Party for shutting down the government, undermining democracy and threatening the health of the economy. 

The Washington Post, the establishment's establishment paper, a few days ago argued, in a both-sides do it editorial entitled "U.S. Congress’s dereliction of leadership on government shutdown" that "the grown-ups in the room will have to do their jobs, which in a democracy with divided government means compromising for the common good" has come around.  Now its: "House Republicans are failing Americans in their effort to kill Obamacare," calling Republican's actions "beyond the pale" and demanding that they "fulfill their basic duties to the American people or make way for legislators who will." 

What a difference a few days make.  The Republicans have launched an assault on Democracy not the Democratic Party.  Have they finally gone too far?