June 14 news roundup and analysis

Obama the neolib?

At TPM Café, Jim Sleeper does an EXCELLENT job of explaining how Obama really is a neoliberal in many ways. Many at TPM didn’t like the idea.

Saudis claim will pump more oil

Color me among the skeptics. And, I’m not alone.

DOE has 10-cent hybrid bone, for U.S. companies only

As Wired notes, just $30 million in Department of Energy money for plug-in hybrids is a pittance. Second, as I note on my blog post, could this type of grant be a WTO violation?

Nutbar love for Barr?

Ron Paul seems to be getting more comfy with Libertarian prez candidate Bob Barr. I already blogged recently, Obama can win without taking Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida. Barr could well put Virginian, Nevada and maybe Arizona into play.

Passive Pelosi, Denny the Impeacher and Miss Cindy

With Speaker Pelosi getting pretty passive on the idea of impeachment, is she trying to protect 2002 prowar Democrats from Bush subpoenas before House Judiciary on Iraq war impeachment articles? Or protecting herself from similar testimony on warrantless spying articles?

And, with that, I remind you that Cindy Sheehan is still running for Pelosi’s seat.

Reminder two: There’s a petition to remove Pelosi from the Speakership.

A Godless campaign?

Timothy Egan gets a gold star among MSM pundits for this simple suggestion.

$2 a pop for pop

No more free sodas on U.S. Airways — it’s $2 a pop for pop now.

Further comment and analysis on all these at my blog.

There's more: "June 14 news roundup and analysis" >>

Will they stand firm this time, or cave yet again?

The current occupant of the oval office will succeed in running out the clock on his failed Iraq fiasco, and dump it in the lap of the next president. That’s a given. The casualties mean nothing to him, he has no skin in the game, and neither do any of the “people” who comprise the jackasses’ base.

He wanted just under $200 billion to continue the mission of completely wrecking Iraq and ushering about a thousand Americans a year to an early grave. Heckuva job, that.

On Thursday the House Democrats said he should hold the phone.

[keep reading]

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that the congress would give him $50 billion to continue operations for about four months, and that there would be strings attached, including a mandate that the (still undefined) mission be restricted. If the Resident vetoes it, she said she would not send him another bill this year. “This is not a blank check fir the president. This is providing funding for the troops limited to a particular purpose, for a short time frame.”

Bush’s fetid, soulless mouthpiece Tony Fratto got his knickers in quite a twist and said that any bill containing “artificial timelines” for withdrawal would be vetoed. “We should be supporting our troops as they are succeeding, not finding ways to undercut their mission,” he whined.

(Let’s put that “success” in perspective, shall we? As of the end of May, more air strikes had been used than in all of 2006. And 2007 is already the deadliest year for Americans in Iraq – with over a month and a half to go. Then there is the fact that the ethnic cleansing has been largely successful, and that has lead to a decrease in sectarian violence in that beleaguered nation.)

Congressional Democrats are in a tight spot – you might say they are between Iraq and a hard place. They were returned to the majority in the 2006 elections by a public that is sick to death of the Deserter in Chief’s vanity war. But, being Democrats, they are split on how to proceed. Some say the war must be funded while troops are in harms way, and they fear that the craven, soulless fuck “president” would simply abandon troops in the field and leave them stranded. He is just about that petty and pathetic, so those fears are not entirely unjustified.

Several of the anti-war liberals in the House said on Thursday that they were tentatively willing to get behind Pelosi this time – provided the Speaker will not cave as she has in the past, and send him the money he wants anyway if he vetoes the spending bill. “What I don’t want to do is get on this merry-go-round where we try to end this war and negotiate it down to a blank check. It’s time to play hardball,” said Democratic Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts.

And if they can't manage that...then We, the People need some new, authentic, fire-breathin' DEMOCRATS. They have a short period of time to show us something,then screw 'em. Primary challenges it is!

There's more: "Will they stand firm this time, or cave yet again?" >>

It's Mother's Day - let's play the analogy game...

It’s Mother’s Day, so I’ll work in a gratuitous anecdote about childrearing. I raised three, and my husband’s commitment to the USAF meant that a great deal of that time I was essentially a single parent.

I had neither the time nor the inclination to brook foolishness. When they held their breath, I let them. The middle one actually passed out once – and promptly started breathing again. Every time the Useless Tool™ threatens a veto of the funding supplemental, I think about my daughter trying to throw a hissy-fit at the queen of the fit-throwers, and ending up passed out in the kitchen and getting stepped over as I continued to make dinner.

There is another oldie-but-goodie from my childrearing days: Whenever a kid was having a terrible, horrible, no-good, very-bad day, stomping around with a little black rain cloud overhead and generally being a pain, I would pull that kid aside and remind them that if you have a problem with everyone, and everyone has a problem with you, the chances are overwhelming that you (being the only common denominator) are the problem. (That one really rings true when we are talking about the Resident, doesn’t it?)

Today’s Washington Post has a comprehensive article on the status of the interactions between the White House and the real Deciders in Congress. This bit, from an unnamed Republican jumped out at me (especially in light of last weeks trip to the Oval by a disgruntled group of GOP congresscritters with a nervous eye cast toward ’08.)

The trouble for the White House is that increasingly, the mistrust may not be not limited to Democrats. As evidenced by a contentious Bush meeting last week with House moderates complaining about Iraq policy, Republican lawmakers are increasingly leery of a president whose war policies many believe are leading the party to ruin in the 2008 elections. The result is that the president finds himself in an uphill struggle not only to win a few domestic victories on his way out of the Oval Office but also to maintain necessary GOP support for continuing the war in Iraq. (emphasis added)

Joshua Bolton, the Resident’s Chief of Staff predictably downplayed the discord. "I could have seen a scenario in which Republicans would be blaming the president for being in the minority status and trying to distance themselves aggressively from the president, and I don't see it happening," he said.

Methinks Mr. Bolton might be spinning it just a tad – (okay, he's spinning it hard enough to make cotton candy.)

From the same article:

But one conservative House Republican with close ties to the leadership said the concerns expressed by the congressmen in the meeting were widely shared across ideologies. "That wasn't the Tuesday Group speaking," he said, referring to an organization of moderate GOP legislators. "No, that's the Republican sentiment."

It isn’t just the RINO’s that are bristling. The reality of November 7 is sinking in to quite a few of our legislators.

And hopefully that awakening is reaching the executive branch as well…

White House officials acknowledge that they are trying to make up for lost time with Democrats and are looking for any angle, however unconventional. When Rep. John P. Murtha Jr. (D-Pa.), among the most prominent and outspoken Democratic war critics, showed up at a recent meeting with national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, Cheney stopped by. The two men had worked closely during the Persian Gulf War, when Cheney was secretary of defense and Murtha was the top House Democrat on defense spending issues. Cheney seemed to want to question Murtha on what the Democrats were planning with the then-upcoming vote on war funding.

"I just told them where I was, what I was going to try to do, how I felt about the war -- that I didn't think we could win it," Murtha said in an interview, adding that he told Cheney that House Democrats would pass a tough spending bill with benchmarks and conditions on the war. "I don't think he believed we were going to pass the legislation."

But pass it they did, and when the Useless Tool™ vetoed it, they came back like there was a Mother in charge and passed a more restrictive bill for funding. (I’ve said it before, and I will say it again – he should have to ask my mother for the money he wants.)

After the Veto, another invitation was extended to congressional leaders for a meeting, and the operative thinking was that they would begin negotiations on the next bill. They assumed wrong, and the Resident was taken aback, left slack-jawed and dumb-founded (although to be fair, that is not much of a stretch.)

But according to several sources familiar with the meeting, Pelosi made it clear that House leaders would not engage in serious negotiations with the White House until after another bill passed and moved to a conference committee with the Senate.

Sounds to me like someone get sent to their room with no dessert and no tv, and now has to think about what they have done.

Too bad that approach is being tried half a freakin’ century too late.

There's more: "It's Mother's Day - let's play the analogy game..." >>

So who is going to blink first?

.

As they seek to reconcile two versions of the spending resolution to fund Bush’s not-so-excellent adventure, Senate Democrats are looking at making timelines and benchmarks “advisory” rather than binding.

They are also considering giving Bush the authority to waive troop readiness standards.

Sounds to me like they are folding like a bunch of cheap suits. Their compromise will cost them dearly with the staunchly anti-war members of the party, but will likely pick up some Republican support.

Bush claims he will veto any legislation that isn’t 100% to his liking, and insists he will never compromise. Timelines, to his way of – ahem – thinking – ahem – are a “date to surrender” you see. (Never mind that American forces are viewed as occupiers, and are caught in the crossfire.)

The haggling between congressional Democrats came as their leaders met at the White House with Bush to try to hash out their dispute. Both sides termed it a polite, productive meeting in which they restated their positions but emerged without an agreement. Democrats promised to send Bush their bill next week.

"We believe he must search his soul, his conscience, and decide what is best for the American people," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters on the White House driveway. "I believe signing the bill is that."

White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said later that Bush has not changed his mind. But she expressed optimism that after a veto, Democrats would pass legislation without conditions to provide $100 billion to continue operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "It was clear that ultimately there will be a bill that can fund the troops, that the troops will get the funds they need," Perino said.

It is, of course, brinksmanship, pure and simple. This is all positioning for the post veto phase of the process. One Democrat was reported to have said that Congress might pass a 60-day spending bill, without conditions and continue the debate on the supplemental. . Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) said Democrats are treating June 1 as the final deadline for passage of a war-funding bill that would not be vetoed.

Bush offered platitudes, assuring the congressional leaders that he believes in benchmarks and has been pressing Iraqi leaders to meet them, he just doesn’t want them to be binding or anything he has to live up to. Democrats want to make the benchmarks binding.

Democrats were quick to cite Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who told reporters traveling with him in the Middle East yesterday that demands for withdrawal have been constructive. "The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact . . . in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment," Gates said.

When the House convenes tomorrow, Speaker Pelosi will have quite a task on her hands keeping the Democratic caucus together.

[Cross posted to Blue Girl, Red State].

There's more: "So who is going to blink first?" >>

The First 100 Days of the 110th Congress

Friday marked the close of the first 100 days of the 110^th Congress. But lets be honest – when we look at the first hundred days, the focus is on Nancy Pelosi, the first woman to hold the position of Speaker of the House of Representatives.

It turns out that Speaker Pelosi disappointed some, surprised others, and confirmed the faith that the rest of us had in her abilities and acumen from the outset. Liberals who expected camaraderie and solidarity have been disappointed that a steamroller-agenda hasn’t been unleashed on the Republican Party, and they say she's a poor listener. Conservatives who expected her to be non-receptive to their concerns say listening is one of her better skills.

The defining issue, of course has been that of funding the war. And there is where the natural politician shone through. Democrats are a diverse party. It has always been infinitely more difficult to keep a consensus among a Democratic caucus than a Republican caucus. Democrats by definition are less dogmatic and doctrinaire, and far more prone to exerting their independence on any given issue.

A case in point to highlight the Speakers ability to form and hold together a caucus would be convincing Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat from Portland Oregon who opposed the war and had never, prior to the recent vote, cast a single yea on any legislation that supported the Iraq war.

"She convinced me," said Blumenauer, whose vote helped give Pelosi her most important legislative victory. "For me, there was no attempt at pressure. I was able to convey my concerns. She was there. She was listening."

Pelosi's performance on the war spending bill highlighted what has become her signature: an aggressive leadership style that seeks to put Congress on par with the White House and prove that her notoriously fractious party can indeed govern.

A lot of people “misunderestimated” the speaker as a “San Francisco Liberal.” They forget that her father was Mayor of Baltimore and a U.S. Congressman representing the city. She grew up reading the Congressional Record and Roll Call. Machine Politics went on around her kitchen table. Make no mistake – she keeps a totebook of political favors – but she remembers birthdays, anniversaries, Bar Mitzvahs and christenings, too.

As minority leader, she kept a diverse and disparate party together. Without her steady hand, last November might not have turned out quite so well for the Democrats. But as Speaker, she appears to be in the role she was born to fill.

"She has elevated her game, which is exactly what you have to do," said Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, a leader of the moderate New Democrats. "She is a lot better leader as speaker than she ever has been."

The woman was a stay-at-home mother of five – and she runs the chamber the way successful moms run households. She doesn’t reward tantrums, she knocks the wind out of the sails of those who get “too big for their britches,” she makes small concessions to get the whiners to shut up, and she not only assigns chores, she follows up on the brats she assigns them to.

The Republicans have, for the most part, been reduced to criticizing her through non-issues. Issues like the flap over her military plane for trips back to the district. She didn’t request it, the Sergeant of Arms for the House did. And she is required to have that access as the second in line to the presidency.

Then there was the determination by many to smear her recent trip to Syria and Saudi Arabia. Everyone piled on, from the big-three networks to the editorial page of the Washington Post. Dick Cheney dropped the drive-by slander that we “don’t need 535 Secretaries of State.” (No Dick, but we sure as hell could do with one. Got anyone in mind? The position has been vacant since General Powell retired.)

Speaker Pelosi has weathered that storm as well, and looking a hell of a lot better when her trip is stacked up side-by-side with that stunt contrived by the McCain-Graham-Pence clown college field-trip to the Shorja market. At least 21 people were not rounded up and executed after she completed her visit.

There's more: "The First 100 Days of the 110th Congress" >>

Boehner Explains It All

Or…it’s only okay if you are a Republican.

Diplomacy is breaking out all over the place as congressional delegations from both parties are beating a path to the Middle East and Syrian President Basher al-Assad. Even the Republicans are being a bit gruff in their characterizations of the Bush policies toward Syria.

Commenting on Bush’s criticism, California Republican Darrell Issa said the president had failed to promote the necessary dialogue to resolve disagreements between the U.S. and Syria.

“President Bush, is the head of state, but he hasn’t encouraged dialogue. That’s an important message to realize: We have tensions, but we have two functioning embassies,” Issa told reporters after separate meetings with Assad and his foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem.

After these comments by Issa, House Minority Leader John Beohner tried to put an anti-Pelosi spin on the outbreak of dialogue and diplomacy -

Boehner declined to criticize [fellow Republican Rep. David Hobson] for joining Pelosi, saying her stature gave the visit an imprimatur it didn’t deserve.

“It’s one thing for other members to go,” Boehner said, “but you have to ask yourself, ‘Why is Pelosi going?’ She’s going for one reason and that is to embarrass the president. She is the speaker of the House. She’s giving (the Syrian) government more credit than they deserve. They sponsor terrorism. They have not been at all helpful. I wish she wasn’t there.”

As to support for terrorism, perhaps Boehner missed yesterdays revelation from ABC News that the United States is supporting Jundullah, an offshoot of al Qaeda that operates in the Baluchistan region that straddles the border between Iran and Pakistan, and commits acts of terrorism against both countries.

Speaker Pelosi's bipartisan trip has set off a furor in the White House - they have tried to paint her as a usurper who is seeking to set up a shadow presidency. This is patently absurd, of course. The Speaker's itinerary has not deviated far, if at all, from the norm for a congressional juggernaut to a foreign nation.

What is different is the political climate in a deeply divided America.

"Arguably for the first time since World War II, the U.S. is as polarized on foreign policy as it is on domestic policy, and that makes it all the more significant when a member of the opposition is engaged in direct contact with foreign governments," said Charles Kupchan, professor of international affairs at Georgetown University. "This is the Democrats throwing down the gauntlet and saying, 'The American public lost confidence. It behooves the new Congress to chart a new course.' "

There's more: "Boehner Explains It All" >>