Tom DeLay Wants To Impeach Obama Over Gun Regs. Tom DeLay, F'Chrissake...

Tom DeLay,
not that many years ago

Here's the story; Tom the Crook doesn't like enhanced background checks (which even a lot of conservative gun owners are inclined to accept), and wants to impeach the prez for moving to implement them. And here's part of the wiki on DeLay, as context for any support you may be inclined to give him on any issue.

Some muthafuckas don't deserve your support, ever...

TPP Fast-Track Fails Crucial Senate Vote

Wow; who knew (aside from Harry Reid) this would happen! Here's Yves Smith:

Fast Track Authority for Toxic Trade Fails Key Vote in Senate

From Reuters:

Legislation giving U.S. President Barack Obama authority to speed trade deals through Congress failed a crucial procedural test on Tuesday, delaying a measure that may be key to President Barack Obama’s diplomatic pivot to Asia.

In a setback to the White House trade agenda, the Senate voted 52-45 – eight votes short of the necessary 60 – to clear the way for debate on the legislation, which would allow a quick decision on granting the president so-called fast track authority to move trade deals quickly through Congress.

...

I am glad I am not a White House Laundry worker, because I'm certain Obama soiled his underwear over this...

(H/T Enfant, in comments to previous post.)

Is Obama Preparing To Join With Republicans In Cutting Social Security?

The short answer, via Dylan Scott at TPM: Obama won't say:

When House Republicans signaled last week that they would provoke a fight over Social Security in the next two years, progressive stalwarts like Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren decried the action, with Brown alleging the GOP wanted to "set the stage to cut benefits for seniors and disabled Americans.”

Who's our friend?
Neither one!

But notably silent on the Republican stance, which prevents what has been a routine transfer of revenue between the retirement and disability funds, upping the chances of a crisis for the latter in late 2016, was the Democratic official who might actually be at the table if conservatives succeed in forcing negotiations in the next Congress: President Barack Obama.

TPM asked multiple times last week for the White House's position on the House action, but never received a formal response, a stark contrast to the loud public pronouncements of Brown, Warren, and others. It also invokes the uneasy relationship between the White House and Social Security advocates, who were dismayed by Obama's willingness to accept cuts to the program during the 2011 grand bargain talks with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).

,,,

(Bolds mine. - SB)

I live mostly on Social Security retirement benefits. Forced to retire five years early by the Baby Bush recession, I was inevitably compelled to begin using my carefully accumulated retirement savings for living expenses long before I anticipated having to retire. But I wasn't too worried: not only had I saved for the rainy day that arrived early and just kept raining, but Social Security retirement benefits had my back, so to speak. I had paid into SocSec all my working life (actually, all but the 10 years I worked for the State of Texas), supporting earlier generations in their retirement years in the good-faith understanding that younger generations would, in part, support me in my own "golden" (yeah, right) years.

But as we all are discovering, the "contract across generations" was never based on anything more substantial than good faith... and our current government officials, in both parties and at least two branches, seems ready and willing to break faith with me and everyone like me. Why? Good question; the best answer I can come up with is a combination of "because they can" and "because it better serves the exceedingly wealthy," who provide elected officials with the obscene amounts of money they need to run for office.

Fv<k them all, and fv<k the horses they rode in on. If we can disrupt this vicious cycle, we certainly should do so. And if we can't... well, there's no telling what a hungry person will do, is there?

Border Patrol Official: Agents Who Talk To Reporters May Be Prosecuted

Kevin Gosztola of FDL:

CBP Agents Learn to STFU

In an email the Associated Press obtained,  an assistant chief patrol agent warns thousands of Border Patrol agents if they talk to journalists about the crisis with immigrant children crossing the US-Mexico border they may be charged with committing a crime.

Eligio “Lee” Pena warned “more than 3,000 Border Patrol agents that journalists looking for information about what Obama has described as a humanitarian crisis are likely to ask for information,” according to the AP.

Pena’s email also suggested that reporters “may try to disguise themselves” to get agents to provide information. “Agents should not speak to reporters, on or off duty, without advanced permission and warned that anyone who does could be charged with a crime or disciplined administratively.”

...

Bolds mine. I almost titled this post "Executive control freak orders suppression of all conversations between government officials and reporters." But that's not really true, is it? It's really only conversations with Executive branch agents, not the entire government, that are being squelched. Still, it's troubling beyond mere annoyance that the Obama administration feels a compulsion to do this heavy-handed silencing of its Customs‑Border Patrol agents.

Someone in comments to Gosztola's post remarked that Obama's real similarity is not to GeeDubya Bush, but rather to Richard Nixon. Yep!

‘Liberal Revolt’?

I suppose it is good to see the word "liberal" in a headline at a Democratic web site, even if the article is a sort of complaint from the O-bots: "Obama Faces Liberal Revolt On Social Security Cuts" isn't much encouragement to liberals that our brand is enjoying a resurgence of influence. I can just imagine Jay Carney shouting, "Sire! Sire! the peasants liberals are revolting!" and O supplying the conventional reply...

Obama Targets Another American Citizen For Assassination By Drone

From Dennis Trainor Jr. at FDL, we learn that he's doing it again:

...

Two recent stories that shed new light on how the Obama administration utilizes drones in the war on terror came to light yesterday. First, Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, via their new venture First Look revealed that:

... [please read the quotations for particulars — SB]

In a related story, the Associated Press reported on the “case of an American citizen and suspected member of al-Qaida who is allegedly planning attacks on U.S. targets overseas underscores the complexities of President Barack Obama’s new stricter targeting guidelines for the use of deadly drones.”

The AP was complying with a White House Request not to release the country where this American Citizen was located because this country, which the Los Angeles Times later revealed to be Pakistan, was not friendly to US Military intervention...

...

I'm sorry, but this is not the procedure our nation's founders envisioned for dealing with even the most vicious American criminal.

Obama's action is, on its face, unconstitutional: he is playing the roles of judge, jury and (virtual) executioner for an American citizen who has had no trial for the crime of which he is accused. That practice should be unacceptable to every American who ever (in any context) took an oath to that Constitution, and it is certainly unacceptable to me.

I am relieved that my late father did not live to see the day that a president... indeed, a Democratic president... took it upon himself to play all those roles in any case whatsoever. Lots of controversial terms for such a president come to mind, but I don't want to feed the right-wing noise machine...

Obama's Speech: The Oh-Dash-It-All Of Hope

Bryan points us to five analyses of the President's speech on "reforms" of US intelligence practices. All are worth your time, but if you have time to read just one, read emptywheel's interleaved annotation of the text of the speech itself.

The short version: any hope that Mr. Obama would make substantive changes to NSA practices rather than merely spouting platitudes using all the right words amounts to... Zero. Ain't gonna happen. "Trust me," says Mr. Obama... who then gives us every reason not to do so.

I may have more to say, on this or on other issues. Or I may just hang it up. Now might be a good time to subscribe to my feed; I certainly don't feel like posting daily in the next few days.

Admit It: Obama Has Excellent Political Skills, When He's Inclined To Use Them

House GOP demands Pony

Obama and the House GOP both needed to make a point about the relative significance of things. The GOPers threatened... are still threatening, as far as I know... a government shutdown if Obama doesn't both sink his signature health care legislation and give them their entire conservative Christmas list, probably including a pony. Obama, on the other hand... well, let Daniel Strauss at TPM tell us about it:

The White House released a photo of President Barack Obama's phone call with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Friday.

...

The photo follows the White House announcing that the two leaders spoke on Friday. According to the Associated Press, the phone call was the first conversation between an American president and an Iranian president in three decades.

After the phone call Obama said it he could see the United States and Iran coming to an agreement concerning Iran's nuclear program

President Obama
calls
President Rouhani

Right. OK. Let's see. The GOPers demand a pony or they'll hold their breath 'til the government turns Blue. Meanwhile, OBAMA ESTABLISHES DIRECT LEADERSHIP TIES WITH AMERICA'S GREATEST NUCLEAR-CAPABLE ADVERSARY IN THE MIDDLE EAST FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES. Hmmmm, which is more deserving of public attention? which event puts which event in perspective? Of course, the public could always find out from Fox News...

I wish I could like the man better as president, but I have to admit he can play the House GOP like a circus calliope...



AFTERTHOUGHT: Heh. It didn't dawn on me until later. It's not Obama's fault if the only tune anyone can play on the House GOP calliope is Waitin' for the Robert E. Lee...

Five Years

That's how long it took... at most... for President Obama to belie himself on warrantless wiretapping. Please read "Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me" back in January 2008. How quickly things change!

(H/T L'Enfant de la Haute Mer.)

A [Redacted] Day For The ACLU

Glenn Greenwald:

The ACLU submitted a FOIA request to obtain the Obama administration's policy on intercepting text messages sent to and from cell phones. This is the document they received - here [.pdf] - from the Most Transparent Administration Ever™. It's hard to believe that the DOJ isn't mischievously cackling at their own brazenly displayed contempt as they do these things.

For those of you reading on the few remaining mobile devices on which .pdf readers may not be universally available, take it from me: all 15 pages of the requested document are wholly redacted. Yep. Fifteen solid black pages, thanks to your sadly misnamed "Justice" department.

I do not believe this response complies with the spirit of the FOIA. But that seems to be the nature of American government these days: the executive branch does whatever it damned well pleases, and the rest of us suck on it and "like" it.

As you contemplate this response, remember not to text your deepest secrets even to your life partner. Good grief... has it come to this, that the increasingly fascist regime feels it necessary to capture... text messages? OMG I hp thy njoy rdng abbrs...

Remind me: why did I ever vote for this prez?

Another Way Obama Disappoints Progressives

There seem to be so many ways, but this is a biggie. Via Avedon, we learn this from Digby:

Demicans and Republocrats
break bread together:
no apparent shortage here

Just FYI, Gene Sperling said today [3/14] on his Reddit chat that the president really prefers the Chained-CPI and that it's not just an inducement to get the Republicans on board with the Grand Bargain. This may sound obvious, since it's been clear from before the inauguration that the administration wants to "reform" the so-called entitlements. But Sperling made it clear today that they believe in this on the merits:

[Gene Sperling's details]

[Digby] ...

You know, I have never understood the logic that says changing to this new cost of living formula more accurately reflects the real cost of living, but don't worry we will fix the part where it hurts the poor, veterans and really old people. The "real" cost of living should be the real cost of living, no? If it isn't a cut, why would these people be hurt?

The fact is that Social Security is already inadequate for millions and millions of people, and not just the poorest of the poor and veterans. And the losses of the past decade have taken their toll on many more millions who are about to go into the system. For reasons that I cannot completely understand, they want to make it worse. There's just no other way to think about this.

...

It's an ugly business. Obama is no Democrat in any form I recognize, and neither is much of anyone else with a 'D' after his or her name these days. There is no progressive party anymore; we are utterly unrepresented. There are several reasons for preferring even a nominal 'D' in the White House (women's rights, for one) but when it comes to social justice and environmental sanity, Obama is no damned better than the Republicans he gives away the store to.

Why I Do Not Admire Obama

Pema Levy of TPM:

Buddies?

House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday applauded President Obama's outreach to Republicans, which included dinner with a group of Republican Senators Wednesday night and an upcoming visit with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), calling it a "hopeful sign" during a press conference Thursday.

"[A] hopeful sign" for whom? Need I say more?

NRA: Any Lie Will Do, If It Serves A Political Purpose

Most sane people would assume that President Obama's daughters' school, Sidwell Friends School, does not have armed guards in its employ. Sidwell, affiliated with the Religious Society of Friends (i.e., Quakers), is about as committed a nonviolent institution as exists anywhere in the United States. And they actively deny that their school guards are packing... at all.

Yet the N.R.A. (forget about my publishing a link; find it yourself), in a TV ad, called the president an "elitist hypocrite" for sending his daughters to a school that has armed guards while opposing such guards at other schools.

So... what gives? what's really going on?

Simple, really... the N.R.A., in its ad, is a bunch of goddamned outright liars.

Yes, apparently it is that simple. Believe Quakers, or believe self-serving liars? I know who I believe.

And their Middle School just took its second First Place debate trophy in the DC Urban Debate League. I'm not sure it's wise for anyone to face down young people packin' words that big...

COLA And Chained CPI: What Are They? What Impacts Would Obama's Proposed Changes Have?

A New York Times editorial discusses these (at greater length than most editorials) and concludes that President Obama, having not gotten his tax concessions from Republicans as they did not get their lowered cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), still seems "determined to include the COLA cut" in forthcoming negotiations... a policy evidently harmful to seniors currently receiving Social Security benefits and liable to be even more harmful as years go by.

If someone can give me a good answer why any Democrat should advocate striking such an obvious blow against seniors... the population cohort overwhelmingly most supportive of the Democratic Party (and quite possibly directly responsible for Mr. Obama's re-election)... I'd really like to hear it. Otherwise, this "chained CPI" approach is nothing but another failure of Democrats to act like Democrats... and thus another sharp stick in the eyes of senior citizens who have supported that party.

Krugman: Mr. President, Use Your Platinum Ca... Um, Coin

Krugman:

The thing is, the coin option sounds silly, but it clearly obeys the letter of the law. As far as I can tell, none of the other options — other than outright surrender — has the same virtue. Failing to pay debt service would be a breach of contract. Paying contractors, and maybe Social Security recipients, in scrip would violate the law, which says that they should be paid — not given IOUs. Deciding that the president has the right to ignore the debt limit after all would avoid these legal breaches at the expense of another breach.

Indeed, what else would be legal and would work? That's why Obama can be counted on NOT to do it... :-(

(Krugman provides some details here.)

UPDATE: Treasury says they won't do it. WTF happens now? And who gave an executive department the authority to override a presidential order? Stranger and stranger...

Aung San Suu Kyi Of Myanmar: Free, Visiting America, Receiving Awards

If you are inclined to visit this site, you probably need no introduction to Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar's indefatigable democracy and human rights advocate, who struggled for decades with her country's heretofore authoritarian government, frequently imprisoned (usually house arrest) for her activities.

At long last, Myanmar (a.k.a. Burma) is taking some steps toward a freer society and a more representative government... not in a big hurry, but after decades of uncompromising totalitarian rule, the steps they have taken are welcome. Ms. Suu Kyi is a member of the new Parliament. Best of all, this icon of democracy and freedom is now permitted to travel (though I am uncertain what degree of freedom she enjoys). At present, she is in the United States, accepting a Congressional Gold Medal, and meeting informally with President Obama... I'm sure the two Nobel Peace Prize winners had a lot to talk about.

This has been your daily dose of hope and optimism. I wish it were actually daily, but even the struggle, especially with the occasional victory, can inspire the best in us.

Netan-yahoo Invades US Politics

David Jackson at USA Today:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says his demands that the United States step up pressure on Iran's nuclear program have nothing to do with the U.S. presidential election.

"What's guiding me, contrary to what I have read in the United States, is not the American political calendar, " Netanyahu said on CNN's State of the Union. "It's the Iranian nuclear calender."

Netanyahu said "we know they (the Iranians) are working toward a (nuclear) weapon," and he wants the Obama administration to draw a "red line" that Iran cannot cross without inviting military action.

Such a red line "actually reduces the chance of a military conflict" because Iran will pull back its enrichment process rather than risk war, Netanyahu said.

Obama administration officials say economic sanctions are working in Iran, and have urged Israel not to launch any pre-emptive military action of its own.

...

Oh, give me a break... Benjamin Netanyahu reminds me a great deal of George W. Bush: a mean-spirited, reckless cowboy, a small child prone to tantrums when he doesn't get his way. And why not: with tantrums, he often gets his way. Israelis may like this guy, and the US may back Israel, but the two-year-old child has no business drawing the US into a preemptive, invasive war against yet another country that poses minimal military threat to the US. If Israel is so goddamned sure Iran is about to have nukes, but doesn't have them yet, let Israel bomb those presumably secret sites... what do we provide Israel all that high-tech weaponry for, if not so they can defend themselves? Why must the US change their diapers?

If Netanyahu insists on attacking Iran now, let him do it without American help. Israel is threatening a preemptive invasion, much like the one GeeDubya perpetrated against Iraq; we all saw how well that worked out for America. Now Bibi wants a second helping, and has shown clear signs of taking sides in the US presidential election in favor of Rmoney.

A word to the "wise": Bibi... keep your hands off our elections. If you meddle, you might just give us ideas about doing the same in Israel's politics. You wouldn't want that, I'm sure.

'Lesser Evilism'

Adgita Diaries (presumably Michael or Trace; the post is unsigned) points us to a post by Andrew Levine at CounterPunch, who offers us Better Than Lesser Evilism, Version 2012, a long and systematic examination of the choice facing every American voter who stands to the left of today's much-mutated Democratic Party. It is worth at least skimming this article, not that it will change your mind, but it may inform your decision.

I am persuaded that, by my criteria, Obama is in fact the lesser evil, and I shall close my eyes and vote for him on that basis... after which I shall go home and wash my hands. I have tried hard to muster any enthusiasm for the man... he is, after all, an excellent speaker... but in the long run, I have concluded that in 2008 I was taken in by a very slick marketing package, and that Obama does not have the seed of greatness in him, ready to sprout any moment now. He doesn't, and it isn't.

However, they have absolute gotten to me with the "who else ya gonna vote for" argument. Obama appears to be reasonably solid on a woman's right to choose abortion, and appears determined to trump attempts by fundamentalist crazies and Catholics to interfere with widespread distribution and use of contraceptives in America. He seems at least persuadable on many environmental issues, and does not believe that a scientific response to global climate change is somehow a Communist plot. His record on civil liberties is execrable, worse than GeeDubya Bush's; that's why my hands will need washing after I vote for him for the office of Assassin-in-Chief.

I will not fault anyone who decides not to vote for Obama. But I will remind everyone that a Rmoney presidency, especially if he has at any time a GOP-dominated Congress, could well spell the beginning of the end, a true and unmitigated plutocracy in which all of us who are now citizens will effectively be, at best, wage slaves, and at worst, a starving mob.

I'd say the choice is yours, but the more I read, the more I wonder if that is really so. Nonetheless, if I have only one rock (vote), I have to cast it, and in my long tradition of purely strategic voting, I have to cast it for Obama. Dog help us all in the next four years.

Two Black Men

I have been politely rebuked for dismissing Obama's support of gay marriage for its ambivalence and for its tone of conciliation toward those who deserve no conciliation on issues of human rights. I would like to contrast the words of two African Americans, both of whom loom large in the history of our nation and of their race.

President Barack Obama, 2012: Well-- well-- well, what I'm saying is is that different states are coming to different conclusions. But this debate is taking place-- at a local level. And I think the whole country is evolving and changing. And-- you know, one of the things that I'd like to see is-- that a conversation continue in a respectful way.


I think it's important to recognize that-- folks-- who-- feel very strongly that marriage should be defined narrowly as-- between a man and a woman-- many of them are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective. They're coming at it because they care about families. And-- they-- they have a different understanding, in terms of-- you know, what the word "marriage" should mean. And I-- a bunch of 'em are friends of mine-- you know, pastors and-- you know, people who-- I deeply respect.

Frederick Douglass, 1857: Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.


This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

"Power concedes nothing without a demand." Why is that so hard for President Obama to comprehend?

Reflection On Obama And Gay Marriage

In my post below, I was wrong about Obama's level of commitment to gay marriage. Rick Klein reminds us:

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept.

In other words, don't expect him to bother backing up his personal position with any political muscle. Not that a president could do much at a state level anyway, but this statement, as Jon Stewart put it, is "weak tea." And those who know me well know I detest weak tea.

I wish Obama would do one damned thing to justify my vote for him. But he probably won't do more than he already has. The only thing he has to offer liberals is this: he's not Rmoney.

UPDATE: here's an excerpt from the transcript of the interview by Robin Roberts:

...


PRESIDENT OBAMA: ...


At a certain point, I've just concluded that-- for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that-- I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. Now-- I have to tell you that part of my hesitation on this has also been I didn't want to nationalize the issue. There's a tendency when I weigh in to think suddenly it becomes political and it becomes polarized.


And what you're seeing is, I think, states working through this issue-- in fits and starts, all across the country. Different communities are arriving at different conclusions, at different times. And I think that's a healthy process and a healthy debate. And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what's recognized as a marriage.


ROBIN ROBERTS: Well, Mr. President, it's-- it's not being worked out on the state level. We saw that Tuesday in North Carolina, the 30th state to announce its ban on gay marriage.


PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well-- well-- well, what I'm saying is is that different states are coming to different conclusions. But this debate is taking place-- at a local level. And I think the whole country is evolving and changing. And-- you know, one of the things that I'd like to see is-- that a conversation continue in a respectful way.


I think it's important to recognize that-- folks-- who-- feel very strongly that marriage should be defined narrowly as-- between a man and a woman-- many of them are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective. They're coming at it because they care about families. And-- they-- they have a different understanding, in terms of-- you know, what the word "marriage" should mean. And I-- a bunch of 'em are friends of mine-- you know, pastors and-- you know, people who-- I deeply respect.


ROBIN ROBERTS: Especially in the Black community.


PRESIDENT OBAMA: Absolutely.


...

So that's what it boils down to. To appease Black preachers, Obama is willing to sacrifice a human right, or at least willing to allow it to be sacrificed by others while the "conversation continue[s] in a respectful way." Oh well... add it to the list, along with "tyrant" and "killer"; just remember to vote for him because he's not Rmoney...