Today's Must-Read: No Secrets

Between our president and our enemies, at least. Here's a really scary article by Howard Blum at Vanity Fair on Trump blowing the Israelis' cover.

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, President Donald Trump, and Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergei Kislyak meeting in the Oval Office at the White House on May 10th, 2017.

By Alexander Shcherbak/TASS/Getty Images.

On a dark night at the tail end of last winter, just a month after the inauguration of the new American president, an evening when only a sickle moon hung in the Levantine sky, two Israeli Sikorsky CH-53 helicopters flew low across Jordan and then, staying under the radar, veered north toward the twisting ribbon of shadows that was the Euphrates River. On board, waiting with a professional stillness as they headed into the hostile heart of Syria, were Sayeret Matkal commandos, the Jewish state’s elite counterterrorism force, along with members of the technological unit of the Mossad, its foreign-espionage agency. Their target: an ISIS cell that was racing to get a deadly new weapon thought to have been devised by Ibrahim al-Asiri, the Saudi national who was al-Qaeda’s master bombmaker in Yemen.

It was a covert mission whose details were reconstructed for Vanity Fair by two experts on Israeli intelligence operations. It would lead to the unnerving discovery that ISIS terrorists were working on transforming laptop computers into bombs that could pass undetected through airport security. U.S. Homeland Security officials—quickly followed by British authorities—banned passengers traveling from an accusatory list of Muslim-majority countries from carrying laptops and other portable electronic devices larger than a cell phone on arriving planes. It would not be until four tense months later, as foreign airports began to comply with new, stringent American security directives, that the ban would be lifted on an airport-by-airport basis.

In the secretive corridors of the American espionage community, the Israeli mission was praised by knowledgeable officials as a casebook example of a valued ally’s hard-won field intelligence being put to good, arguably even lifesaving, use.

Yet this triumph would be overshadowed by an astonishing conversation in the Oval Office in May, when an intemperate President Trump revealed details about the classified mission to Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, and Sergey I. Kislyak, then Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. Along with the tempest of far-reaching geopolitical consequences that raged as a result of the president’s disclosure, fresh blood was spilled in his long-running combative relationship with the nation’s clandestine services. Israel—as well as America’s other allies—would rethink its willingness to share raw intelligence, and pretty much the entire Free World was left shaking its collective head in bewilderment as it wondered, not for the first time, what was going on with Trump and Russia. (In fact, Trump’s disturbing choice to hand over highly sensitive intelligence to the Russians is now a focus of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump’s relationship with Russia, both before and after the election.) In the hand-wringing aftermath, the entire event became, as is so often the case with spy stories, a tale about trust and betrayal.

Since I'm feeling charitable this morning, I'll just note that I don't believe Trump was purposely undermining Israeli (and Western) intelligence efforts in the Middle East (although he's repeatedly shown that he has no love for the intelligence community). It's that he's a show off ("Looky what I got!"), pathologically insecure, completely ignorant of foreign affairs, has no concept of consequences -- that there even are such things -- and fairly stupid.

And he's managed to do incalculable damage to our intelligence efforts.

Read the whole thing. It's appalling.

Via Balloon Juice.

Today's Must-Read: Yes, There Are Fifty States

Interesting piece by Tom Sullivan at Hullabaloo on a grassroots effort to reinstate the 50-state strategy in the Democratic Party:

A friend sent a DKos post about a new organization, It Starts Today. The group hopes to "restart the 50-State Strategy" by raising small-donor money for every Democratic House and Senate race in the country, regardless of candidate. The reason is the Democratic Party has been playing the strategic targeting game at least since after 1994 and in the process losing ground in large swaths of the country:

Every time, it made sense in the short term. And, every time, this decision to be “strategic” and “efficient” also caused us to abandon more and more districts, essentially ceding them to the Republican party. As a result, each Democratic wave—think 2008—got reversed fairly quickly, as the Republican party rallied around a consistent message and fought back. Meanwhile, each Republican wave—think 2010—became that much harder to undo, as the Democratic Party focused on an increasingly smaller pool of “competitive” districts.

If you don't show up to play, you forfeit. It's been shortsighted, clearly, for Democrats in Congress, for winning the presidency, and for being able to advance an agenda when Democrats win it. Mark Warner put it bluntly when he told Yearly Kos in 2006, "[W]e cannot just go after 16 states and then try to hit a triple bank-shot to get Ohio or Florida." Yet that's how the party plays it again and again.

Let's face it, the Democrats' strategy for the past few cycles, ever since Howard Dean left the chairmanship of the party, has been a disaster. As Sullivan points out, not only have Democratic mid-term sweeps been reversed in the next election, but Republican sweeps haven't. And the GOP has made strong gains in state houses, and not just in red states: I'm still trying to figure out how our current governor in Illinois got elected, in a state where Democrats dominate the legislature.

Read the whole thing, of course.

Another WTF? Moment

This, via TPM:

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Sunday said that President Donald Trump's budget, which will be sent to Congress in March, will not propose cutting funding for all social safety programs.

"We are not touching those now,” Mnuchin said on Fox News’ "Sunday Morning Futures” when Maria Bartiromo asked if the administration planned to cut funding for programs like Social Security and Medicare. “So don't expect to see that as part of this budget."

I wouldn't expect to see Social Security as part of this or any budget: SS is funding entirely by payroll taxes and interest earned on trust fund moneys loaned to the US government. Nothing comes from general revenues. I would expect Mnuchin to know that.

As for Medicare, there seems to be some difference of opinion (if there can be opinions on something that should be this unambiguous): According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 41% of Medicare funding comes from general revenues:

The Medicare website lays it out a bit differently, citing two Medicare trust funds, but apparently at least one of those is funded at least partially by allocations from Congress. However, I don't know if this is considered a budget item or not.

I'm inclined to be a bit dubious about the Kaiser Foundation's assertions simply because they include Social Security, as well as Medicare, in their first graph showing government expenditures, which, while strictly true in that the government administers both programs, is misleading when discussing funding sources, since neither Social Security and at least most of Medicare are budget items.

All of which is by way of saying, as far as Mnuchin's statement goes, "Bullshit."

It Just Gets Worse

Here's a summary-to-date of the Trump/Russia connection(s) from The Guardian:

The Russian influence scandal engulfing the White House deepened dramatically on Tuesday night with reports that some of Donald Trump’s campaign aides had frequent contact with Russian intelligence officials over the course of last year.

A report in the New York Times came nearly 24 hours after the national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign over conversations with the Russian ambassador to Washington and misleading statements about them to the press and vice-president Mike Pence.

The New York Times report cites four current and former US intelligence officials who are unnamed and who conceded they had “so far” seen no evidence in the intercepted phone communications that Trump campaign officials had cooperated with Russian intelligence in Moscow’s efforts to skew the election in Trump’s favour. The officials do not explain what, in that case, the contacts were about.

A CNN report said “high-level advisers close to then-presidential nominee Donald Trump were in constant communication during the campaign with Russians known to US intelligence”.

Add in that Trump knew about Michael Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador for quite some time before the story went public. My own guess -- and I'm not alone in this -- is that Flynn's resignation is the direct result of the story breaking.

From Dan Rather, who knows a little bit about this sort of thing:

Watergate is the biggest political scandal of my lifetime, until maybe now. It was the closest we came to a debilitating Constitutional crisis, until maybe now. On a 10 scale of armageddon for our form of government, I would put Watergate at a 9. This Russia scandal is currently somewhere around a 5 or 6, in my opinion, but it is cascading in intensity seemingly by the hour. And we may look back and see, in the end, that it is at least as big as Watergate. It may become the measure by which all future scandals are judged. It has all the necessary ingredients, and that is chilling.

Gods, what a mess.

Addendum: This is the sort of thing that needs to be pinned very firmly to the Republicans, especially considering that they're MIA on it. Witness a couple of reactions:

Speaker Ryan declines to call for congressional investigation into Gen. Flynn; says need to get more info before rushing to judgment.

— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) February 14, 2017

You know what's a great way to get more information before you make judgments? AN INVESTIGATION YOU COLOSSAL FUCKWIT https://t.co/rzlgqBzpaP

— Rogue Rogue One Acct (@ZeddRebel) February 14, 2017

And Ryan is the GOP's great policy wonk and knight in shining armor?

.@SenOrrinHatch says Flynn resignation doesn't "deserve" investigation. "I think highly of him, he's a hero of this country for many years"

— Jacqueline Klimas (@jacqklimas) February 14, 2017

That speaks for itself.

Rep Jason Chaffetz R-UT tells reporters there's no need to further probe Flynn. "It’s taking care of itself"

— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) February 14, 2017

I'm sure Chaffetz is deciding whether to investigate Beghazi or E-mails. Again.

"America First!": National Security Edition

We all know, because we've been told endlessly over the pas couple of generations, that the Republicans are the party of national security, while the Democrats are too willing to give away the store. After all, that was the shitgibbon's major talking point throughout his campaign to add the White House to his various resort properties.

Well, maybe not so much. From Betty Cracker at Balloon Juice, a good summary/analysis of the Michael Flynn/Russian Ambassador phone conversations before the election. She starts off with this clip from Rachel Maddow -- I recommend that you watch it all the way through:

Trump and the Republicans (which sounds like a really bad garage band) are downplaying this, needless to say, with Trump finally assuring us that "he'll look into it." There -- doesn't that make you feel better? Yeah -- me, too.

The Democrats, for a change, are all over it:

“The President and his National Security Advisor have given the Russians the impression that whatever they do, they are not to worry, because the Trump White House will not stand against their aggression,” Pelosi said in a statement on Saturday.

“General Flynn should be suspended and have his intelligence clearance revoked until the facts are known about his secret contacts with the Russians,” she said.

Pelosi also called on the FBI to further investigation Trump’s relationship with the Kremlin, and urged Congress to launch an “outside commission” to examine the ties.

“President Trump’s kowtowing to Vladimir Putin is endangering our national security and emboldening a dangerous tyrant,” Pelosi said. “What do the Russians have on President Trump that he would flirt with lifting sanctions and weakening NATO?”

[snip]

“This action would be deeply troubling under any circumstances, but considering Russia’s effort to tip the election toward President Trump, the General’s actions are disqualifying,” Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement.

“If he did so, and then he and other Administration officials misled the American people, his conduct would be all the more pernicious, and he should no longer serve in this Administration or any other,” House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said.

That's the kind of thing that leads to reactions like this:

U.S. intelligence operatives are withholding sensitive information from the White House for the first time in history because they believe that Russia will find out anything they tell Pres. Donald Trump and his aides. . . .

“Our Intelligence Community is so worried by the unprecedented problems of the Trump administration — not only do senior officials possess troubling ties to the Kremlin, there are nagging questions about basic competence regarding Team Trump — that it is beginning to withhold intelligence from a White House which our spies do not trust,” wrote former analyst for the National Security Agency Jack R. Schindler.

Not only has Trump gone out of his way to discredit the nation’s spy agencies, his main national security guru, Gen. Mike Flynn either appears to by lying about his conversations with the Russian government about U.S. sanctions or can’t remember breaking the law.

How bad is this? When your own spies don't trust you enough to pass along information that you're supposed to have, I'd say you've got a serious problem.

Does anyone doubt at this point whose puppet is in the White House?

The Set-Up

This, from AP via Talking Points Memo:

According to one U.S. official, national security aides have sought information about Polish incursions in Belarus, an eyebrow-raising request because little evidence of such activities appears to exist. Poland is among the Eastern European nations worried about Trump's friendlier tone on Russia.

Adds Josh Marshall:

I don't patrol the Poland/Belarus border myself. But I have not heard and I don't think anyone has heard that such is happening. It is however the kind of thing you would expect to hear from Russian propaganda sources, a hostile Poland menacing its neighbors to the east.

What better way to destabilize the West than to invent agression against Russia by a NATO member? And that is, after all, one of Putin's chief goals in putting Trump in the White House.

This article is also worth a read, just for a take on how chaotic and unformed the administration's foreign policy is.

Today's Must-Read: The Trump White House

From Digby

It ain't pretty, but it's pretty much in character:

We have never seen anything like this. And the wingnuts and ring kissers can pretend this is part of some master plan or present it as a genius form of organization but it is not. It is incompetence and paranoia, which is probably even more dangerous. Politico reports:

A feeling of distrust has taken hold in the West Wing of Donald Trump's White House and beyond, as his aides view each other and officials across the federal government and on Capitol Hill with suspicion.

The result has been a stream of leaks flowing from the White House and federal agencies, and an attempt to lock down information and communication channels that could have serious consequences across the government and at the Capitol, where Trump tries to implement and advance his agenda.

In the White House itself, one top aide tried to take the office slated for another aide, Steve Bannon is looking to hire his own PR guru, and the details of Trump’s calls with foreign leaders, typically closely held, are suddenly out in the open.

Read the whole thing. If you've ever studied the Renaissance in Italy, I have a name for you: Borgia.

Diplomacy, Trump Style (Update)

Apparently Fearless Leader had a busy day on the phones. First, he threatened to invade Mexico:

President Donald Trump threatened in a phone call with his Mexican counterpart to send U.S. troops to stop "bad hombres down there" unless the Mexican military does more to control them itself, according to an excerpt of a transcript of the conversation obtained by The Associated Press.

The excerpt of the call did not make clear who exactly Trump considered "bad hombres," — drug cartels, immigrants, or both — or the tone and context of the remark, made in a Friday morning phone call between the leaders. It also did not contain Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto's response.

Be it noted that the Mexican government has issued a response to the story, saying it is "based on absolute falsehoods."

Then he accused the Prime Minister of Australia of sending us "the next Boston bomber":

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Wednesday refused to talk about a report that a weekend call with President Donald Trump came to a blistering head after Trump attacked a plan to resettle refugees in the U.S. as “the worst deal ever.”

The conversation between leaders of the two longtime allies quickly devolved into Trump accusing Turnbull of trying to send the “next Boston bombers” to America, according to a report published Wednesday night by The Washington Post. Trump, who told Turnbull he had spoken to other world leaders earlier Saturday, said the interaction was his “worst call by far” and hung up more than a half-hour early, the Post reported, citing unnamed U.S. officials.

They were discussing an agreement, concluded in November, between the two countries to resettle refugees who have been confined to one of Australia's offshore camps.

So of course, Cheeto-in-Chief tweeted about it:

Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2017

"Illegal immigrants"? From Australia"? So now refugees, who go through an eighteen-month to two-year vetting process, are "illegal immigrants." One wonders if this is deliberate misrepresentation, or if he's just not intelligent enough to be able to discern the difference.

And now, through his equally deranged national security adviser, we've put Iran "on notice":

The Trump administration has said it was “officially putting Iran on notice” in reaction to an Iranian missile test and an attack on a Saudi warship by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen but gave no details about how Washington intended to respond.

The threat was made on Wednesday by the national security adviser, Michael Flynn, in his first public statement since taking office.

Speaking in the White House briefing room, Flynn said a missile launch on Sunday and a Houthi attack on a Saudi frigate on Monday underlined Iran’s “destabilizing behavior across the Middle East.”

Flynn did not specify how the new administration would respond. Asked for clarification, the White House spokesman, Sean Spicer, said the president wanted to make sure the Iranians “understood we are not going to sit by and not act on their actions”.

At a White House briefing, senior administration officials repeatedly refused to rule out any options for a US response, including military intervention.

I'm reminded of the accounts of the beginning of World War I, which was sparked by a particular incident but might have been avoided except for bad communications, bumbling incompetence, and over-reliance on inflexible plans.

One can hardly wait for the next diplomatic initiative.

Update: And from Reuters, Trump's first military venture:

U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.

As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists.

Today's Must-Read: How to Run an Administration

Advice from Obama to Trump, as reported by Brian Beutler:

“[H]ow you put a team together to make sure that they’re getting you the best information and they are teeing up the options from which you will ultimately make decisions, that’s probably the most useful advice, the most constructive advice that I’ve been able to give him,” he said. “That if you find yourself isolated because the process breaks down, or if you’re only hearing from people who agree with you on everything, or if you haven’t created a process that is fact-checking and probing and asking hard questions about policies or promises that you’ve made, that’s when you start making mistakes. And as I indicated in some of my previous remarks, reality has a way of biting back if you’re not paying attention to it.”

Trump ignored it. Given what we know of Trump's personality, Obama might as well have been talking to the wall. What he put together is just the opposite:

Heeding Obama’s advice might have helped Trump avoid making an obvious and monumental error, but Trump either lacks the capacity to run the government in an orderly fashion or intentionally discarded Obama’s recommendations, or both. When reality quickly asserted itself, as Obama promised it would, Trump claimed (out of ignorance or malicious dishonesty) that he was merely reprising “ what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months”—a “ban” that quite literally never happened.

Of course, the author assumes that Trump wants to run an administration that actually functions to the benefit of the country. I've seen no evidence of that. He thinks it's a reality show, and is acting accordingly.

Read the whole thing, needless to say.

Via Balloon Juice, which has some interesting additional information.

Today's Must-Read: The Russian Connection

Vis-a-vis the last post, this from Kurt Eichenwald on the relationship(s) between the Trump campaign and the Russian government:

In phone calls, meetings and cables, America’s European allies have expressed alarm to one another about Donald Trump’s public statements denying Moscow’s role in cyberattacks designed to interfere with the U.S. election. They fear the Republican nominee for president has emboldened the Kremlin in its unprecedented cyber-campaign to disrupt elections in multiple countries in hopes of weakening Western alliances, according to intelligence, law enforcement and other government officials in the United States and Europe.

While American intelligence officers have privately briefed Trump about Russia’s attempts to influence the U.S. election, he has publicly dismissed that information as unreliable, instead saying this hacking of incredible sophistication and technical complexity could have been done by some 400-pound “guy sitting on their bed” or even a child.

Officials from two European countries told Newsweek that Trump’s comments about Russia’s hacking have alarmed several NATO partners because it suggests he either does not believe the information he receives in intelligence briefings, does not pay attention to it, does not understand it or is misleading the American public for unknown reasons. One British official said members of that government who are aware of the scope of Russia’s cyberattacks both in Western Europe and America found Trump’s comments “quite disturbing” because they fear that, if elected, the Republican presidential nominee would continue to ignore information gathered by intelligence services in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy.

I really am trying to resist seeing grand conspiracies here -- I don't think anyone involved is that together (except maybe the Russians) -- but it's getting a little too close for comfort.

Via Joe.My.God.

I Begin To Wonder

as the election season progresses, whether we might just be able to do without a president for four years. After all, we haven't had a Congress for six years, and the world hasn't ended.

What sparks this comment is this post from John Aravosis and the attendant discussion in the comment thread. The post itself is about the Sanders campaign's repeated attacks on Peter Staley:

American AIDS activist Peter Staley.

For the second time in a week, the Sanders campaign has launched an oddly personal attack on Peter Staley, one of America’s top AIDS activists. . . .

The attack came once again from Sanders’ senior policy adviser Warren Gunnels, who falsely accused Staley, who has committed his life to HIV activism, of selling out people with AIDS to the pharmaceutical industry.

The Sanders campaign became enraged with Staley and other AIDS activists, including many who are (or were) Bernie Sanders supporters, after the activists called Sanders out for lying about his meeting with the activists last week. In that meeting, the activists raised their concerns about a drug initiative taking place in California, and sponsored by an anti-PrEP organization. When the meeting finished, Sanders issued a press release claiming the activists had joined the Vermont Senator in supporting the initiative.

To be perfectly honest, Sanders lost me a while ago. I was prepared to vote for him in the primary because I'm generally sympathetic to his positions, and then vote for Clinton in the general, since I assumed she would be the nominee.

I've come to the conclusion that Sanders is an idiot. My real concern with him as president was whether he could actually do anything, and it starts to look more and more that my concern was justified. It seems as though he can't even manage a campaign, much less a country.

What's even more interesting than the post, however, is the discussion in the comments thread. Lots of information, a fair amount of vitriol and finger-pointing (but that's normal for blog comments -- at least there is a marked scarcity of trolls) -- one thing about AmericaBlog's commenters is that they're generally well-informed -- and some interesting insights.

It's worth checking out.

Food for Thought

While we're all appalled and/or disgusted by the revelations of NSA hijinks (is there anyone they haven't spied on?), I had a sobering thought -- this is just the top end of a trend that's been happening for a long time, and it's all of a piece: the increasingly interlocked nature of the Internet, with what seems to be a natural phenomenon: a few corporations starting to gobble up everything else so that you have one account for everything -- "for your convenience." (Google keeps trying to sign me into everything with my Google account, which I don't use -- I just created it because of a server glitch causing a site I needed to get into to reject my regular account.)

At any rate, let's start with something a little closer to home for most of us. (At least it used to be, but more on that in a minute.) Notice how militarized our police departments are getting? SWAT teams, assault rifles, body armor, the whole works. Here's the Tampa police department, from their official website:

The 12-ton Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) can drive through five feet of water and withstand winds up to 130 mph helping police operate under the most severe conditions. The carrier, nicknamed "high-top shoe" for its tall silhouette look, can be used for search and rescue during a natural disaster or a terrorist attack. The APC is bullet resistant, can hold 13 passengers and it is virtually unstoppable. On pavement, it can reach speeds of 60 mph. This one of a kind APC was purchased from the military and it was paid for with a Federal security grant.

It's worth going to the site just to see the pictures. Is this Tampa, or Baghdad?

The bottom line is that we're putting huge amounts of lethal force in the hands of people who overreact (remember Chicago, 1968? Imagine that with today's armaments), who make mistakes (and that story is by no means the worst in that vein), who stage full-scale raids on flimsy pretexts (and that story is not the only one about the authorities finding "probable cause" after the fact), and whose judgment is open to question (remember the pepper-spray incident at UC Davis? And to underscore my point, the campus police lieutenant who "pulled the trigger" as it were has filed for worker's comp.).

Which brings us to the surveillance state. The police are armed and ready, now they just need a target. Any target will do, and that's where NSA and its subsidiaries come in. The trend toward constant surveillance started a long time ago -- maybe with police radar to catch speeders. Then we went to cameras in high-crime areas. (They don't actually prevent any crime, as it turns out.) But now, with the advent of the Great War on Terror, there are not only a larger pool of suspects, but a ready-made excuse for watching them. This is choice:

The New York Police Department has secretly labeled entire mosques as terrorism organizations, a designation that allows police to use informants to record sermons and spy on imams, often without specific evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Designating an entire mosque as a terrorism enterprise means that anyone who attends prayer services there is a potential subject of an investigation and fair game for surveillance.

Since the 9/11 attacks, the NYPD has opened at least a dozen “terrorism enterprise investigations” into mosques, according to interviews and confidential police documents. The TEI, as it is known, is a police tool intended to help investigate terrorist cells and the like.

Many TEIs stretch for years, allowing surveillance to continue even though the NYPD has never criminally charged a mosque or Islamic organization with operating as a terrorism enterprise.

Digby has a very good, must-read post on the effect of all this on us, the targets. Her summation:

The surveillance society naturally results in less creativity, less innovation, less dissent, less freedom. I know it sounds ridiculously hyperbolic, but this strikes me as a potentially huge social change that nobody's talking about. What kind of a world will it be when people no longer have an inner self, at least an inner self that has any possibility of expression without being revealed to everyone else. What happens when you lose control over your identity, your history, your ability to reinvent yourself and take second chances?

My reaction: Connect the dots: wages sinking, the 1%'s war on the middle class, constant surveillance, get out of jail free passes for the banks* and "energy" companies (not to mention their very sophisticated use of propaganda). Less dissent, less freedom? That's what they want.

* A footnote: ran across this post this morning. From Henry Paulson, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury during the financial collapse in 2008:

“There was such a total lack of awareness from the firms that paid big bonuses during this extraordinary time.”

That is what Henry M. Paulson Jr., former Treasury secretary, said last week. We were discussing the 2008 financial crisis in light of the approaching five-year anniversary of those white-knuckled days, when Lehman Brothers collapsed and the government stepped in to bail out the American International Group and then the banking system….

"Lack of awareness?": Pot, meet kettle. Read on:

He said the hardest part of the bailouts for him was in the disconnect between the bailouts’ ugly image with the public and his faith that the bailouts would help keep the economy from collapsing.

“I understood that people were angry,” Mr. Paulson said. “They wanted to hear that those that made the mistakes were going to be held responsible. Then on the other side was stability. It’s hard to punish and save the banks at the same time.” He paused for a moment. “I was much more concerned with stability.”

I don't understand how that became an either/or proposition. It seems to me that reining in the bonuses and obscene compensation packages for those who caused the crisis might have contributed to public confidence. Maybe the DoJ going after them would have helped as well. But then, I'm not a economics guru, like Hank Paulson -- who, arguably, is one of the people who created the mess.

Draw your own conclusions.

You may wonder

why I've been focusing on marriage lately. Well, it's the best news going. I mean, what's the alternative -- Obama's "budget proposal"? Here's a good analysis of the chained CPI mess that he's proposing from Karoli at Crooks and Liars.

On a policy level, chained CPI is terrible, awful, Pete Peterson policy and shame on David Axelrod for spouting those policy ideas on Rachel Maddow's show and shame on the president if he's actually buying that bill of goods.

It makes almost no dent in the deficit or debt now or in the future.
It takes from those who can least afford it.
It relies on the false premise that Social Security is somehow compromised or bankrupt, neither of which are true.

Chained CPI also has an impact on tax preferences and Medicare benefit payment schedules to providers, so it is ostensibly a way to slow the growth of tax preference items and Medicare costs. While it's important to contain those costs, chained CPI is the gnat straining at an elephant. There is no unbendable law that says chained CPI can't be used for tax preferences without linking Social Security benefits.

Here's the Rachel Maddow segment she refers to:

Axelrod is such a tool. He's just repeating all the catch-phrases that the Very Serious People in Washington repeat. Ad nauseam. And Maddow is absolutely right -- Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit, we can "fix" the solvency issue in SS by raising the cap on payroll taxes, there is no need to go after benefits.

Politically, the Republicans are already going after Obama on this -- "it's the Democrats who are cutting Social Security!" What the hell did he expect?

My own guess is that Obama really wants to go to work for Pete Peterson after he leaves the White House.

Footnote:  Here's some more information on the benefit cuts via Digby.  And more from David Atkins.

"Triggered Co-Op?" You've Got To Be Kidding Me!

Via Joe Sudbay at AmericaBlog, this little tidbit on how the Senate plans to screw up health-care reform:

As we all know, the action on health insurance reform has moved to the Senate. And, the initial indicators from Senate Democrats aren't good. They're already negotiating with themselves and the gimmick of the week is a triggered co-op proffered by Senator Tom Carper from Delaware. National Journal refers to it as a "Public Option Alternative." It's pretty much the most useless and counter-productive alternative.

Let me get this right: the Senate Democrats, who can't negotiate with the Republicans because the Republicans won't negotiate, are now talking amongst themselves about ways to make health-care reform palatable to the Republicans, who won't vote for it no matter what they do. (The Republicans love their insurance companies.) Or maybe they're just trying to keep Joe Lieberman (I-Me! Me! Me!) happy. And so, being the rocket-scientists they are, they come up with a combination of the worst two ideas so far offered -- and rejected by everyone with their heads screwed on straight. (And I have to admit I'm surprised to find that many senators who fit that description.)

Sudbay links to a commentary by McJoan at DailyKos that I can't get to because my ancient computer is having kidney failure or something this morning. (There's also the fact that the new design of AmericaBlog contains so much crap that the pages never finish loading.) She's pungent and right on target, from the quote he posted. If I manage to get to it, I may come back with further commentary.

But for the time being, this fish smell many day dead. (And I wonder how much the insurance/pharma industrial complex has donated to Carper.)

From Codpiece to Ball-less Wonder

I said at one point that we voted for a leader and got a Chicago politician. I take it back -- Obama wouldn't last two minutes in Chicago politics. From John Aravosis at AmericaBlog, a heads-up on this story from NYT:

By signaling that they would seek to revise existing versions of legislation moving through the House and Senate, administration officials and Democratic leaders in Congress - many of whom had said earlier in the summer that they saw no need to scale back their ambitions - made clear that their political calculations had changed. With Congressional Republicans standing almost unanimously in opposition to the Democratic approach, the target now for Mr. Obama is primarily a handful of moderate Democrats and the one Republican who seems open to a deal, Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine.

“It’s so important to get a deal,” a White House official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to be candid about strategy. “He will do almost anything it takes to get one.”

Aravosis:

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but this doesn't read like determination, it reads like desperation - an admission that Obama will agree to almost anything in order to get "some" deal, any deal. Why admit that fact publicly - as disturbing as it would be privately - and why does this not give the Republicans that much more incentive to go for broke, and either bring the deal down entirely (since Obama is so desperate for it), or so pervert health care reform that it becomes virtually unrecognizable (think: giving away 40% of the stimulus bill as worthless tax cuts in order to buy 3 votes).

I'll go him one better: when you're right, you fight for it. The public option has broad public support, but that no longer means anything, certainly not in the Senate, and apparently not in the White House, either. Update: This just noted from AmericaBlog:

Despite the hammering the issue has taken from Republicans and too many Democrats over the summer, the public option still polls strong according to the latest Research 2000 poll for DailyKos. When asked "Do you favor or oppose creating a government-administered health insurance option that anyone can purchase to compete with private insurance plans?" 58% responded yes. 34% responded no and eight percent were undecided. From Markos:

The public option remains popular, by a nearly 3-2 margin. Seems like people like the idea of competition in the insurance market, that would help lower premiums and keep currently unaccountable insurance companies honest.

What's more, the public option is favored by over a quarter of self-identified Republicans, which is more "bipartisanship" than you'll ever see in DC.

Y'know, it's not all that long ago that the Republicans were telling the Democrats to suck on it while ramming through whatever would benefit their major donors. Now the White House is telling the Democrats the same thing -- while helping the Republicans ram through whatever will benefit their major donors.

It's not just a White House problem. The Senate gives every indication of having become completely nonfunctional, thanks in no small part to the "leadership" of Harry Reid and his reluctance -- or inability -- to whip the Blue Dogs into line. (That name is almost appropriate, but only almost: think in terms of what's wagging what.)

Which leads me to this gem from Sen. Chris Dodd:



Indeed. (And thanks to reader PietB for finding the lost link.)

We wouldn't have a crisis of leadership in this country if we had any leaders.

Those Poor Oil Companies

Seems they had to pay "thousands more" for oil leases than they'd planned. I suppose that's going to have serious impact on their billions in profits. From TPM, I found these bits wonderful:

"He's tainted the entire auction," said Kent Hoffman, deputy state director for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in Utah.

Hoffman said buyers will have 10 days to reconsider and withdraw their bids if they think they paid too much.

"Tainted" the auction? How do you taint something that's already highly suspect?

Digby had some comments on this one:

Huh? Paid TOO MUCH? If a buyer is paying millions of dollars for oil-rich land, they obviously think it's worth it. What DeChristopher did was prove that the BLM was giving away federal land, basically owned by the taxpayers, to noncompetitive interests at obscenely low rates, and that the bidders would clearly pay more if forced. I thought these capitalists believed in the free market?

One slightly misleading statement: I work it out to less than $50 per acre, plus fees. Where in the hell can you buy land for less than $50 per acre these days? Giveaway? Absolutely.

And this gives a hint about the relationship between the oil companies and BLM:

Other bidders at the auction had complained about DeChristopher as unfamiliar and bidding in an unconventional fashion, which raised suspicions. . . .

"Unfamiliar." Sounds like a nice clubby sort of thing, doesn't it?

I think the Obama administration needs to take a long hard look at oil leasing practices. I don't expect them to, but they need to.

FGB Saturday Edition: Some Thoughts on Rick Warren

How to offend everyone to the left of Attila the Hun:

Rick Warren is still all over the blogosphere -- man! are people pissed off. I'm not as furious as I was yesterday, which is maybe a good thing, and I'm sort of over it at this point: to reiterate, I've never had that much confidence in Obama because I think he's an operator, although I'm willing to entertain the idea that his heart, ultimately, is in the right place. On this one, though, I'm basically appalled.

Glenn Greenwald has an interesting take on the choice and the reasoning:

But there is one aspect of the worldview of many Obama supporters that I find genuinely difficult to understand. These supporters insist that by symbolically including and sometimes compromising with even those on the Right with whom he vigorously disagrees, Obama will be able to chip away at the partisan hostilities and resentments, and erode the cultural divisions, that have inflamed and paralyzed our politics. People on the Right may disagree with him, claim these supporters, but they won't be wallowing in rage, suspicions, and hatred towards him. Instead, they'll feel respected and accommodated. They therefore won't be distracted by petty sideshow controversies. As a result, he'll encounter less reflexive resistance to implementing the key parts of his progressive agenda. A New Politics will emerge: one of respectful and civil disagreements, but not consumed by crippling partisan and cultural hatreds.

The one question I always return to when I hear this -- and we've been hearing it a lot to explain the Warren selection -- is this: in what conceivable sense is this approach "new"? Even for those who are convinced this will work, isn't this exactly the same thing Democrats have been doing for the last two decades: namely, accommodating and compromising with the Right in the name of bipartisan harmony and a desire to avoid partisan and cultural conflicts? This harmonious approach may be many things, but the one thing it seems not to be is "new."

And let me add that not only is it not new, it's been disastrous. I, like so many other people who concern themselves with the nefarious activities of the anti-gay right, hate to sound like a broken record (remember records?), but Warren was quite clear on his willingness to compromise:

And Warren says "there is no need to change the universal, historical defintion of marriage to appease two percent of our population." As Warren puts it: "This is not a political issue -- it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about."

That was, of course, part of his comments on Prop 8, in which he also lied about its effect on freedom of religious expression and free speech.

However, Obama is a much more complex man than Bush -- we've gotten used to a nonfunctional frat boy in the White House, and there are other aspects to this that Obama's seeing but not talking about. I found this comment from this post at Mahablog illuminating:

The significance isn’t as much that Obama invited Warren, but that Warren accepted.

Just two years ago, Warren was getting slammed in evangelical circles for inviting Obama to take part in his church-sponsored AIDS conference, with Obama even back then being called “the anti-Christ” and inherently un-Biblical and anti-American, which in evangelical-speak is basically calling someone satanic. Warren stuck to the decision, weathered the claims that he was endorsing The Beast, and remains huge in the evangelical world today–while pushing evangelicals to move past cultural issues to focus more on world health and poverty.

The point is not to convert the diehard, right-wing, functionally theocratic evangelicals to a progressive agenda, or to win their votes for Obama in 2012. The point is to drive home the message that those folks can no longer define evangelicalism. (Right now the movement is mostly on poverty and the environment, but attitudes towards same-sex marriage and civil unions are changing also).

So, is Warren better than Dobson or Reed? Marginally, overall, but not at all on gay issues, reproductive choice, and the like. He's still a snake-oil salesman, when it comes right down to it.

(Sidebar: Chris Crain seems to have his head stuck in something, as this obvious misreading of Warren's rhetoric demonstrates:

One thing they cite is how supposedly "compared" or "equated" gay marriage to incest and polygamy in explaining his support for Prop 8 in California:

I’m not opposed to [gay marriage] as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

This is neither "comparing," nor "equating." In fact, Warren specifically draws a distinction between that which he does not oppose -- gay marriage -- and the parade of horribles he thinks opening up redefinition of marriage will lead to -- incest, pedophilia and polygamy.

Let's leave aside that polygamy has been an integral element of that "5,000-year definition," with Biblical validation; that "child bride" is not a new concept by any means; and that the marriages of Egyptian royalty were routinely incestuous (and they were not alone, and it would be interesting to hear how Warren classifies the Biblical injunction that a man marry his brother's widow); and any observations that Warren is no more constrained by factual accuracy than any of his peers. However, I think I'm justified in pointing out that Crain is doing some "editing" here. Jim Burroway provides some context:

Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Steven Waldman: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

Rick Warren: Oh I do. …

I'm not going to accuse Crain of intellectual dishonesty here. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Updated: Jeremey Hooper also noticed that little truncation.)

Back to the main thread: As I noted, I think Obama is playing a deeper game than most people are seeing, but the fact remains that most of us are taking this at the very least as indicative of the relative weight gay interests are going to carry within the Obama administration, which I'm reading as "light" to "inconsequential." Frankly, that's pretty mainstream: much as we may hate to admit it, we're not on most people's radar. On that score, Prop 8 and Rick Warren may give us a boost: if we can sustain the energy, we're going to be more visible, and if we're more visible, more people are going to be forced to realize that there's actually something going on here. It's up to us to harness that.

I've seen some objections to the furor based on the idea that this is simply a "symbolic gesture," but that slides past a very important point: we are a symbol using species. Symbols have weight and meaning, and we as a species are very sophisticated in their use. (That's one reason marriage is the issue it is right now: in addition to being a community ritual, which is a symbolic event in itself, it is a potent symbol of community acceptance.) Update: Ezra Klein addresses this issue briefly and makes an important point:

I'd endorse Matt's comments on "symbolism" here, and suggest that calling the Warren issue "symbolic" is just a method of marginalizing minority discontent. Warren is not a symbolic figure. He's a religious leader who mobilizes his flock and leverages his public influence in order to affect electoral outcomes.

I'd like to point out, thought, that this is not an either/or proposition: Warren himself is an instrumental figure; the importance of the symbolism of handing him the spotlight at the inauguration, however, can't be denied. Do read the post by Matthew Yglesias that Klein links to -- it's brief and he gets it.

So, wither Warren? Frankly, I was totally outraged, and I'm still fairly pissed off, as much at the sheer thoughtless ineptitude as the insult -- and it is an insult. Now, it's just giving me heartburn: in spite of his "passionate" words, I don't expect Obama to deliver, except maybe as a second-term kind of thing, if the climate is right.

I still have a review to finish this morning, and it has to be this morning. At this point, if you want to see differing points of view on this, it's all over the blogosphere. And frankly, I think the outrage is a good thing.

Later.

Who Would Have Thought

that such dry little article would lead to such an explosion:

Aretha Franklin and Dr. Rick Warren, an evangelical minister of the Saddleback Church, are among the select group of people who will participate in Barack Obama’s inaugural swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 20. . . .

Dr. Warren, author of “The Purpose Driven Life,” will deliver the invocation.

If you want to read some of the explosions, check out Box Turtle Bulletin (which provides contact e-mails for various members of the transition team and inaugural committee), Pam Spaulding (here and here), John Aravosis -- and those are just the first three blogs I checked. From Burroway:

This is the same Rick Warren who recently said that the relationships of his “many gay friends” are no different from child rape, incest or polygamy. He also jumped on the paranoia bandwagon surrounding same-sex marriage by falsely claiming that Prop 8’s failure somehow would have overturned the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and religion. (It can’t. No law or state constitution can.).

Warren himself has acknowledged that the only difference between himself and Focus On the Family’s James Dobson is just “a matter of tone.” So given President-elect Obama’s stated commitment to bringing the country together, it’s hard to fathom the reasoning behind choosing such a divisive figure.

A couple of thoughts:

Actually, Obama's pick of Warren is not that big a surprise -- we really should have seen this coming. This is, after all, the man who gave us Donnie McClurkin. His heart may be in the right place (and sorry, but I have to emphasize that "may"), but his brain shuts off when it comes to gay issues. He can pick up on the obvious ones, but then, so can HRC.

I said two years ago that I didn't trust Obama -- remember, he was one of my senators -- and I've had no reason to change that reaction. I supported him, which given the alternative was a no-brainer, but I can't say that I get all warm and fuzzy about him. And he's prone to major gaffes with the gay community, I suspect because he sees us as a useful demographic, but doesn't really care aboiut our issues.

Pam's House Blend has published the Obama team's "rationale" for the selection of Warren, which is pretty much the sort of self-congratulatory, CYA kind of blandness that comes out of press offices these days.

* This will be the most open, accessible, and inclusive Inauguration in American history.

* In keeping with the spirit of unity and common purpose this Inauguration will reflect, the President-elect and Vice President-elect have chosen some of the world's most gifted artists and people with broad appeal to participate in the inaugural ceremonies.

* Pastor Rick Warren has a long history of activism on behalf of the disadvantaged and the downtrodden. He's devoted his life to performing good works for the poor and leads the evangelical movement in addressing the global HIV/AIDS crisis. In fact, the President-elect recently addressed Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health to salute Warren's leadership in the struggle against HIV/AIDS and pledge his support to the effort in the years ahead.

* The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community. They disagree on other issues as well. But what's important is that they agree on many issues vital to the pursuit of social justice, including poverty relief and moving toward a sustainable planet; and they share a commitment to renewing America's promise by expanding opportunity at home and restoring our moral leadership abroad.

* As he's said again and again, the President-elect is committed to bringing together all sides of the faith discussion in search of common ground. That's the only way we'll be able to unite this country with the resolve and common purpose necessary to solve the challenges we face.

* The Inauguration will also involve Reverend Joseph Lowery, who will be delivering the official benediction at the Inauguration. Reverend Lowery is a giant of the civil rights movement who boasts a proudly progressive record on LGBT issues. He has been a leader in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans, gay or straight.

* And for the very first time, there will be a group representing the interests of LGBT Americans participating in the Inaugural Parade.

Wonderful -- a high-profile anti-gay bigot who worked actively to remove our rights (and still does) gets to deliver the invocation, and we get to participate in the parade. Does that tell you where the balance point is here? Who knows -- maybe Rev. Lowery can pull his ass out of the fire, but I ain't holding my breath on that one.

There's also the fact that it's not just on gay issues that Warren is a devil: he's against all the core issues of the Democratic party and, if we are to believe what we've been hearing for the past two years, of Obama himself. It's all very well and good to invite dialogue, but we're talking here about one of the group of prominent "Christian" leaders (although Warren may be more genuinely Christian than the likes of Ralph Reed or James Dobson) who admit of no compromise. From Kyle at Right Wing Watch:

As we've pointed out several times before, in 2004 Warren declared that marriage, reproductive choice, and stem cell research were "non-negotiable" issues for Christian voters and has admitted that the main difference between himself and James Dobson is a matter of tone. He criticized Obama's answers at the Faith Forum he hosted before the election and vowed to continue to pressure him to change his views on the issue of reproductive choice. He came out strongly in support of Prop 8, saying "there is no need to change the universal, historical defintion of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population ... This is not a political issue -- it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about." He's declared that those who do not believe in God should not be allowed to hold public office.

See? God has spoken. No debate allowed.

Anyway, use some of those e-mail addresses in Burroway's post and let them have it. Contrary to what you may hear from any number of sources, it is indeed the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.

Update: Here's Digby with a slightly larger take on this one:

There are those who feel this is a very savvy political move on Obama's part --- by inviting Warren to give the invocation at the most watched inauguration in history, Obama is validating the views of the Christian Right and they may very well be moved enough by that to become Democrats. But it naturally follows that in order to keep their votes, the Democrats would have to honor their agenda and views --- the evangelicals are big voting bloc and if the Democrats become the social conservative party, they could count on their votes for sure. (If they don't make substantial moves toward social conservatism, this won't work, obviously.) It doesn't leave much room for liberals, but perhaps that's a good thing. They are nothing but trouble, defending women's civil liberties, agitating for gay rights and hectoring the government about not torturing and starting wars and all that. It would be a big relief if they didn't need them.

I'm not sure she's right, but then, she usually is.

Update II: BooMan gets it about right:

I care that inviting gay-bashing preacherman Rick Warren to do the inauguration invocation is gratuitous and mean-spirited. This decision is a needless insult to every gay person in the country and to all those that support gay rights.

Donnie McClurkin writ large.

Retrograde . . . um, Amnesia?

It's now the twenty-first century and the Republicans are still working on union-busting. How would we ever have guessed? John Cole has a couple of good takes on the Republicans torpedoing the bridge loans to the Big Three, here and here. Money quote of the year, of course, comes from Morgan Johnson of the UAW:

Otherwise, Johnson said of Vitter, it would appear, “He’d rather pay a prostitute than pay auto workers.”

That's David Vitter, of diapers fame, who purports to represent a state that has subsidized -- are you ready -- foreign auto makers.

On the other hand, you do have to be crazy to be able to pretend that somehow any principles are at stake other than union busting, which, I guess, is a principle in and of itself:

An action alert circulated among Senate Republicans on Wednesday called for Republicans to “stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor.”

In doing so, analysts said, Republicans were planting the seeds for a fundraising appeal to big business—other than the Big Three, of course—as they gear up for a major political fight next year over expected legislation that would make it easier for unions to organize.

Mitch McConnell and the Republicans (a more complete list here) who all voted against this bill but for the financial bailout will all earn 160k and the best benefits package in the country, but are going to let an entire industry die because some autoworkers make more money than Bob Corker thinks they should.

That sort of says it, doesn't it? Of course, most commentators are somewhat puzzled by Republican congressional acquiescence to the bank bail-out -- which will run well over a trillion dollars, when all is said and done -- against their resistance to a measly $15 billion for the auto industry. Hint: the banks aren't unionized.

And here I though we left the thirties behind a few decades ago. (Cole's posts are the best I've seen for reducing the whole debacle to apprehendible proportions, and well worth a read.)

What amazes me is the fact that the Senate Republicans, after being trounced in the last two elections, have decided to take on a major voting bloc.

WTF?

Maddow On Lieberman

I'm not quite sure why Joe Lieberman is such a prime target for me. I mean, he's not my senator, after all. (That makes me happy.) Maybe it's just that he is the archetype of the power-hungry politician who doesn't even know what the word "integrity" means.

Here's Rachel Maddow, who has rapidly made herself my hero among commentators:



And from two of Lieberman's colleagues in New England, these comments.

'Nuff said?