Republished from The Daily Dish:
Pointing Fingers – The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan.
read the whole thing.
…
O’Donnell is an important figure not because she is a flake, as Bill Kristol says. She is important because she is as yet too guileless to lie about her real views, or to conceal the reactionary worldview that animates them. She is not an outlier. She is a very powerful way to understand what the theoconservative project is really about – and what the GOP base truly believes in.
She is the modern GOP. And maybe her emergence will help more people snap out of denial.
From the same writer who brought to you “Brownback and Landrieu Introduce Bill to Ban Mermaids”, which is among the great political farce-commentary-on-reality that has been written, I bring you the beltway media’s pointless debate over Elizabeth Warren. Don’t get me wrong; the discussion about what she will and should do as head of the Burea of Consumer Financial Protectiony is a good discussion. But this, which I will copy out in detail, is not a debate.
The piece begins with the editors stating that they have “qualms” with Warren. Why is that? Well, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection will have a big budget and regulatory power. But so do lots of agencies! But this particular outfit was Warren’s “brainchild!” Which, doesn’t seem that bad to me, but continue. They note that the agency “emerged from Warren’s zealous campaign against what she called the “tricks and traps” of the banking industry, which has made her a hero to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.” I imagine it makes just about everyone who had been tricked and trapped partial to Warren, and her idea as well. They conclude their first paragraph, thusly:
Like many such activists, however, Ms. Warren can be simplistic and hyperbolic.
To which I say, “Sayeth the editors, simplistically and hyperbolically!” because up to now, they’ve not presented any evidence that would give them the right to make such a claim. The piece continues:
Certainly, her dim view of the banking industry is fully reciprocated — and, egged on by Wall Street…
Huh? You realize that by attesting to the fact that Warren’s take on Wall Street is well-founded, and that it is “egged on” by their behavior and practices, it sort of undercuts your original premise that she is being hyperbolic, don’t you?
Republicans probably would have filibustered her nomination to be the bureau’s first director. That, in our view, would have been unjustified.
Well, you had, in fact, just justified it, at the end of your first paragraph. But then you recanted the justification at the beginning of your second paragraph. I have to say, I sort of feel for the filibustering GOP, if they’re actually looking to the editors for guidance.
Ideologically contentious as she may be, Ms. Warren is qualified for the job.
Wow. You guys really should just take one stand on the matter and stay there!
In an ideal world, as opposed to the polarized Washington in which we actually live, she would have received at least a prompt hearing and a floor vote.
I don’t know if the Washington Post is up on current events, many of which have been chronicled in a paper called the Washington Post, but the lack of “prompt hearings” and “floor votes” have nothing at all to do with “polarization,” and everything to do with the fact that the GOP has adopted as its strategy the practice of delaying those hearings and votes as part of an overall obstructionist agenda.
An example: just last week, the GOP ended a 400-day long obstruction of Jane Stranch, who was nominated for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. After 400 days of delay, she was confirmed 71-21! Ian Millhiser adds:
It seems odd that a nominee who received such a lopsided 71-21 vote would be the victim of obstructionism, but these kinds of mindless objections to Obama’s nominees have become commonplace. Conservatives filibustered Judge Barbara Milano Keenan’s nomination to the Fourth Circuit for months. She was then confirmed 99-0. Judge Denny Chin was filibustered for months, only to be confirmed 98-0. And dozens of nominations continue to languish, despite no serious opposition.
These eventual, lopsided votes tell the story: they were just holding up these nomination, for the hell of it! But I guess the world in which Senators behave professionally and execute the duties of their office with dignity is now the Platonic ideal, something mankind should never actually hope to achieve!
Still, Republicans would have been within their rights.
To do what? Pointlessly obstruct nominees for kicks? They certainly have the right to do that, according to the letter of the law, but it’s certainly a violation of the spirit of the law. Besides, according to the same set of laws, the White House has a right to end these blockades through whatever legal means they have at their disposal.
Can the same be said for Mr. Obama’s end run of the Senate confirmation process?
Okay, I need the editors of the Washington Post to pay attention to this, because I weary of repeating it. The process that has been used to install Warren is in the damn law, you idiots. A law passed by both Houses of Congress, enacted by the president’s signature. So the answer to the question is YES, THE SAME CAN BE SAID OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE PRESIDENT. And moreover — and this is really, really important — following the language of a law is NOT AN END RUN. It is a run, right up the middle of the law, right through the obstacles which the law has parted, like the Red Sea.
Senate confirmation of the bureau’s director was one of the few checks Congress built into an office that otherwise will be very powerful and independent.
Yes, of course! IN AN “IDEAL WORLD,” right? But Congress actually did apply their “check” when they granted the president the power to do exactly what he did! The matter was deliberated, and the law was passed. Everyone had a chance to register their objection!
Besides, the Congress was given the exclusive check on the power to declare war, too! Want to know how that worked out?
Nevertheless, the statute establishing the bureau gives Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner interim authority in the absence of a permanent director, at least until July 21 — when the bureau officially absorbs and consolidates various federal agencies’ consumer-protection functions. And, under the arrangement the president outlined, Ms. Warren will work for Mr. Geithner. Of course, she’ll also be on the White House staff, reporting to the president — as Mr. Geithner does.
Wait, wait. Hold up, Washington Post editors. You mean to tell me that you actually do understand what the law permitted in this instance? Did it not occur to you that these are precisely the sort of “facts” that should have clued you in to the fact that the entire premise of your editorial is, as they say, “bullshit?”
Mr. Obama would have been better off picking a more confirmable candidate, as some senators from his own party had urged.
TAKE IT TO THE CHORUS! In an “ideal world,” right? When the “more confirmable candidate” is also going to end up getting obstructed, for years, what is the point? At some point, don’t you have to get down to the task of governing? Especially when Congress has provided you with the explicit means to do so?
Even a recess appointment for Ms. Warren — which would have lasted through 2011 — would have been preferable in terms of sticking to constitutionally prescribed processes for filling federal offices.
But that would have been the “end run!” You would have actually preferred an “end run” recess appointment to following the law that Congress actually wrote? You are really, really confusing, Washington Post editors.
But either move would have infuriated progressives, who still dream of a full five-year term for Ms. Warren — and whose support Mr. Obama needs in November.
What? Progressives would have been FINE with the recess appointment! Progressives cheered when the president made a slew of recess appointments back in March of this year. They would have dearly loved for Dawn Johnsen to have been appointed to the Office of Legal Counsel in that fashion.
That’s just some stunning ignorance. It’s like the editors got to the end of their piece, realized that they hadn’t met their quota for false claims, and just crammed something stupid into the piece at the end.
For all intents and purposes, the president has created, and filled, a de facto directorship.
As the law enacted by Congress granted him the right to do! HISTORY’S GREATEST MONSTER.
This might have been in keeping with the letter of the laws, but not with their spirit.
You know what is in keeping with the letter of the laws, but not their spirit? The pointless obstruction of nominees that are preventing the “hearings” and “floor votes” of the “ideal world.”
Also in keeping with the letter, but not the spirit of the law? THE TRICKS AND TRAPS IN THE FINE PRINT OF CREDIT CARD AGREEMENTS.
I am trying to figure out how to write optimistically without bias. Those of you who read my blog know that I try to write about more just myself — that is, I try to universalize what I write — and so I do not wish just for myself to know how to write without bias, but how I can do so for better reading, etc.
However, I do not know that it is possible to write without bias. Certainly not on politics. If I write about taxes, I write about taxes for how they would best benefit me; if I write about infrastructure I write about how city or country, developed or undeveloped land, is my preference; if I write about social policy, I write about my views.
Now, why write optimistically without bias? The media has recently received much attention (from itself?) for paying attention to completely pointless stories, as it often does. It entered my head, then, to create something to called The Optimist Media, or something of the sort, which concentrates on stories and looks at the good, optimist, part of the story. Clearly, if I write something, there will be some bias. So is an optimist media possible?
with credit to Margaret and Helen.
Barbara Streisand asks us all a question:
It’s not news… many people in our country are suffering. Uncertainty over our economy continues with high unemployment, which in turn has triggered many more home foreclosures. The lack of jobs has left a lot of people understandably angry, fearful and cynical about what they will face in the days ahead.
It’s natural to want to stop the pain, to find a fast solution or look for a quick fix to end the agony of the last twenty months. But it took many years (eight) to unravel the policies and regulations that both protected our economy and kept it strong, and it is going to take time to rebuild and restore it.
The patience of the American people has worn thin. However, as we head into a midterm election, we must not make decisions based on frustration or anger, and revert back to the party and the leaders that turned a $236 billion budget surplus left by President Clinton into a $1.2 trillion deficit left by President Bush. We cannot, out of fear, go back to the same party and policies that created this economic meltdown, abused the system, and did little to help those who were left victimized by the greed of Wall Street and the special interests from K Street.
Republicans spent eight years creating and supporting the destructive policies of the Bush Administration, which systematically debilitated the economy as well as weakened our regulatory system. They created the biggest disparity between the ultra rich and the poor, while working to relax and eliminate rules governing banks, corporations, and financial institutions. Now, as we near Election Day, they are again asking hardworking Americans to trust them with their vote. Why should we trust them? They spent twenty months stonewalling the President’s efforts to recharge our economy and put Americans back to work.
My question to the Republican Party is: What actions would you take that would differ from the actions that originally got us into this mess? Would you extend the Bush tax cuts that primarily benefit the top 1% of our country? Continue to block energy policies that will create millions of new green jobs? Keep policies in place that reward corporations that ship American jobs overseas? Oppose strong financial reform that insures that transactions, loans and credit cards are fair and transparent? Oppose a jobs bill that helps small businesses get the loans and the tax cuts that they need to prosper? Those are not the decisions that will lift America out of its difficulties and make our country stronger.
Week after week, on the 24 hour cable news cycle, Republican officials and prominent GOP leaders twist, distort and misrepresent the facts in order to place blame on others, while they continue to obstruct progress. It’s like the old saying that if you tell a lie big enough and you keep repeating it often enough, people will eventually come to believe that it is true. Whether they are discussing financial regulation, health care, jobs, the economy, energy policy…virtually every important issue our country is grappling with today, the Republican Party that once stood for something, now refuses to engage in constructive conversation about anything, all the while, offering virtually no new policy alternatives in return.
Since President Obama took office, the Republican narrative has been to serve their party over serving the people. They have been committed to blocking progress at all costs in order to insure the failure of this President. But now is the time to give President Obama a chance to fulfill his promise of reviving the spirit of hope and possibility that has always allowed our country to dream and to make the impossible possible. The only way he will be successful is if he has a Congress that dreams with him and an American electorate that gives him the chance!
I believe that Americans truly want a government that represents the middle class and working families of this nation, not the extremely rich, the bankers, and the CEOs. We have experienced a difficult recession, but due to the President’s policies, the country has avoided a total depression. What matters as we move forward is that consumers are protected, Wall Street is regulated, children have health care, and our representatives in Washington are committed to working for the people, not the private interests. I only hope that we can all take a deep breath and show the patience that is required to give our smart, committed and hopeful young leader the time he needs and the elected allies in Congress he requires to lift us all into a new time of innovation and prosperity.
For all the news about unemployment, there is far less news about jobs that exist. These jobs only exist because of government intervention. And whose fault is that? The conservatives, who say “no government!” and want teachers to somehow pay their own wages, who want firemen to fund their own equipment to put out fires, and construction workers who should acquire their own material to repair roads.
Go ahead, check out that site. Let the conservatives tell you that Federal funding, that money to states, is bad. Without that money, would you have a job?
Lynn Harsh (aptly named), Chief Executive Officer (of something), issued a press release regarding a lawsuit filed in Washington State, against governor Gregoire. Since Harsh didn’t use any legal arguments in her points, and didn’t cite any sources, I’m going to do the same. What you read, the, is a moral argument, based from the opposite side of the spectrum from that of Harsh. However, it may benefit you to read some of the original article to understand my points and contentions.
Executive orders have no holding in law; they are an order issued by an executive that have the full force of that governing executive’s ability to persuade others to follow the order (free the slaves!; intern the Japanese!; torture at Guantanamo!). Although executive orders have no legal holding, they are orders, and are generally followed. Gregoire didn’t circumvent the legal process by issuing an executive order; she did so after failed legislation and used her own executive powers as governor. She does have the right to issue an order; whether the order is right is the point, and I won’t resolve that.
An executive order has nothing to do with “no taxation without representation.” Gregoire is a governor, also known as an elected representative of the people. Moreover, the governor is charged with ensuring the health, welfare, and morals of a state. To do so, an executive order is sometimes necessary.
My apologies for my absence of a week, just when it looked like I would start writing blogs again. I left for a long weekend to visit my brother in New York City. That is a city that has it all. Transportation. Business. People. Art. Culture. More people. Parks. Education. And people everywhere you look.
In one of the busiest cities on Earth you are never alone, and always amidst strangers. If you see someone in New York City, and don’t know them, you’ll never see them again. They just vanish amidst the crowd, to be replaced by another interesting-looking stranger. In a strange sense, although you are never alone, you are always alone; just watching humanity pass you by, each person intent on their own task.
What did I see in the Big Apple? Well, I saw the Big Apple itself, CitiField (Taxpayer’s Stadium), at a distance (I was looking at it from Arthur Ashe Stadium, watching the opening day of the US Open. I saw some sights, including New Jersey, from the a harbor cruise tour. I saw the Guggenheim. I saw the United Nations – and let me comment briefly on how unknowledgeable most of the people, including those who choose to visit the UN, are about basic programs, like UNICEF, ECOSOC, how the Security Council works, the number of countries, or freerice.com. And I saw a good cross-section of New York City in all that I did.
So, welcome back, me.
There is some political news I should like to comment on, but now is not the time for that. Another post will come, with more discourse on my views of the way of man.
I was just repeatedly clicking through facebook’s social interview application, and I realized how frustrating facebook is. And no, this is not a revelation. Clearly I’m neither the first nor the last – nor is it the first time that I have noticed – to notice that facebook is frustrating. It brings me closer to my friends, because at a click everything about them is right there. But it takes me farther from my friends. It reminds me of every friend I do not keep up with. It reminds me of all the family I should visit more often. And then, because I do not contact that person whose name I see, it becomes more frustrating, and harder to contact them since I feel guilty about not contacting them before, and then repeat process.
So facebook, you are frustrating. But you are useful.
I made a political mistake. Never try to argue with a libertarian who doesn’t even stop to listen to other views. Not such a large mistake to try to engage others, who begin the conversation, in a political discussion; but it is a fruitless effort when only one side of the conversation has reason, has sense, and is willing to listen.
This particular guy, as far as I can gather, is against government to the point of advocating anarchy, but is in favor of the constitution — but is against the 14th Amendment (because Fox says so?). He is an advocate of non-discrimination (he likes racial and gender equality, etc.), but he doesn’t think the government should have a role in implementing non-discrimination. And, in so many words, it seemed that he liked slavery but was against it.
In essence, a political philosophy completely lacking in reason.
But here’s what really gets me…
He doesn’t understand why Americans who disagree with an American policy, foreign or domestic, would stay in America instead becoming an expat. Why would someone who wants a better healthcare system stay in America? Why would someone who disagrees with U.S. foreign policy stay in America? And here is the answer I gave him, and the incredibly frustrating part is that people like him don’t listen. We engage in politics for the same reason our opponent engages in politics; we believe that we can create a better world. Instead of running away from a problem, we say we want to fix it. We have optimism, and we believe problems can be solved. It is a collective ‘we’ that believes this; all of those of us who have not given up. Both sides of the political spectrum. But at least we believe it is worth sticking around to try to improve things.
The Dole Blog 