Palin's priorities

Sarah Palin stunned us all yesterday with her resignation.

It was not unexpected that she would announce she is not running for re-election. But quitting with 2 more years to go? And saying she doesn't want to waste Alaskan's tax money being a lame duck governor??

The loopy logic in that is that every governor should resign midway so as not to be a lame duck. Or did she mean something else?

Several possibilities have been advanced:

1. A brilliant political tactic. The idea is that she's stuck way up there in a small state with no way to enhance her national credentials for a president run in 2012; and there are so many problems being a governor, as well as the political vendettas (she thinks) against her that are prompting all these ethics charges. So she'll just leave that all behind.

And, on the positive side, it would give her the chance to campaign for conservatives across the country and build her base -- and time to study up so she's better prepared. Bill Kristol is the foremost champion of this meme. He's been smitten with her and pushed for her nomination as VP, long before McCain picked her. Kristol is also notoriously wrong in his predictions, so I would almost take this as the most reliable indicator that this is NOT the reason.

2. She's fed up with politics. Some of her associates are saying that she has had enough, that she hates the life she is leading now and is bailing out of politics -- at least running for office. She is known to hate commuting from Wasilla to the capital (most governors move to the capital), she's lost much of her influence to get anything done and has been sidetracked defending ethics charges, and she just wants to raise her family. Plus she and her family have been the object of ridicule and criticism that must be hard to take.

This is probably all true; but quitting is not her style, especially quitting in a way that suggests she can't take the heat. She is a feisty fighter and she is ambitious.

Dan Shorr gave his take on it this morning on NPR. He thinks it has to do with what's going on in the Republican party. He mentioned the Rolling Stone article that quoted several anonymous leaders who were highly critical of her, and he thinks she's reacting to that and just deciding to call it quits. Or possibly go outside party politics and drum up grassroots support, where she remains popular.

3. There's some scandal brewing that we don't yet know about. Rumors abound, and it may be just that. The most potentially damaging one is that she and Todd are under investigation for possible criminal charges involving accepting gifts for influence in awarding contracts. Another suggests the IRS is looking into tax problems.

My guess is #3, mainly based on reading her vocal and body language in her press conference. She has handled difficult situations before -- the interviews with Charlie and Katie, the debate with Biden, the whole campaign thing. And, although I haven't studied the tapes, my impression is that, even in those difficult interviews, she kept control of her voice and maintained an even, controlled vocal line. Even when she sounded dumb in substance. Just think: "In what respect, Charlie?" It revealed her ignorance, but she kept her voice calm. She was a master at saying dumb or inane things and sounding like she, at least, thought it profound and true.

In this announcement she sounded and looked rattled. Her voice was unsteady, the rhythms and cadences of her speech were not smooth and controlled, she seemed to be groping. Some commentors have said she seemed "unhinged."

The other telling factor is that this was obviously a rushed decision and announcement. They say it had been in the works for some time. But the decision to go public was not long in planning. Even the Lt. Gov. who will take over, looked stunned and said he'd only been told the night before.

So it all adds up to something that she feels either frightened or very angry about. She's handled anger before in her controlled way of speaking. My guess is that it's fear.

And that all points to some new scandal that's big enough to result in a trial and possibly forced resignation. So she's trying to get out ahead of it.

But maybe Bill Kristol will surprise us all and be right for a change.

Ralph

Deeper questions about the CIA

As Mickey Nardo points out today at 1boringoldman.com, the CIA has asked for another two months' delay in releasing the report of the CIA's own Inspector General's investigation into the torture authorization in order to continue redacting the report of classified information. The ACLU has sued for release of the report, and a judge has ordered it.

Mickey and I agree, that the CIA should not be allowed to withhold evidence of its own wrong-doing. That is not the way we do things in a democracy.

But it goes deeper than that. It calls into question the whole matter of having a government program that operates on the margins — and sometimes beyond the rule of law. Everyone knows the CIA does things we can’t really condone.

We’ve closed our eyes to assassinations and the fomenting of coups in other countries on the grounds that sometimes “you just have to do what has to be done.” Or, as dick cheney would say, “you have to go over to the dark side.”

Do we really need/want to have such a unit operating in our name?

It’s easy to sit here at my keyboard (in the past, I would have said “in my armchair”) and say no way, it’s not moral or ethical and I don’t want us to do bad things in the name of good.

But I have not had the responsibility of trying to keep us safe in a hostile world.

On the other hand, maybe the world wouldn’t be so hostile to us if we had not time and again gone into other countries and worked to change their governments.

Think Iran in 1953 and Chile in 1973. In both cases, the CIA was instrumental in helping overthrow democratically elected leaders that we didn't like because they were socialists. And the result was that they were replaced by repressive dictators: the theocrats in Iran and the military dictator Pinochet in Chile. And those are only two examples of our nefarious interference in other governments.

The fact that they both brought into power dictators that made things worse is beside the main point: should we interfere in this way in another sovereign nation, even to install a better form of government -- as McCain and the conservatives want us to do in Iran? Are we not doing so because of Obama's ideology or because we don't think we could make it happen?

We almost had a debate about that with the question of going into Iraq. And the "no" answer would probably have prevailed -- except that bush/cheney justified it by fabricating a story that Iran was an imminent threat to our security.

Whoever was the genius who thought up the slogan "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" deserves an award for most effective phrase used for an evil purpose. I honestly wonder if we would have gone to war without those fear-mongering words.

Personally, I do not want our nation dealing "on the dark side."

Ralph

Democracy is best?

Winston Churchill famously told the House of Commons in 1947:

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

I was reminded of this, given the enormous difficulty we're having getting the will of the people carried out in the current debate over health care reform and climate change legislation. In both, there are powerful forces (translated, money) opposing progressive change because of the special interests of corporate profits. Business v. the people -- with government going to the highest bidder.

In contrast, it's much easier to get some of these things done in a dictatorship or an oligarchy -- if you have benevolent rulers and if they make decisions based on what's best for the country. Both very huge IF's in this world.

Nevertheless, look at what's just happening in China on alternate energy. Just months after being publicized as the greatest looming threat to pollution of the atmosphere because of its vast demands for new energy, today's New York Times has a story about China's great leap ahead of us, "Green Power Takes Root in the Chinese Desert:"

As the United States takes its first steps toward mandating that power companies generate more electricity from renewable sources, China already has a similar requirement and is investing billions to remake itself into a green energy superpower. . . .

While the House of Representatives approved a requirement last week that American utilities generate more of their power from renewable sources of energy, and the Senate will consider similar proposals over the summer, China imposed such a requirement almost two years ago.

This year China is on track to pass the United States as the world’s largest market for wind turbines -- after doubling wind power capacity in each of the last four years. State-owned power companies are competing to see which can build solar plants fastest, though these projects are much smaller than the wind projects. And other green energy projects, like burning farm waste to generate electricity, are sprouting up.

There's something to be said for the efficiency of a government that doesn't have to contend with profit-driven obstructions to progress, that can simply act for the good of all and implement changes without prolonged wrangling debate.

On the other hand . . . with only a small shift in the priorities of a few leaders, it could go completely the other way. So I'll stick with our system.

But it would be better if we could get rid of the undue influence of corporate money and truly have a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

Something to ponder this weekend as we celebrate our independence. Just how independent are we? Is being ruled indirectly by corporate greed better than being ruled by inherited royalty or by ideology? Whose ideology? How do you balance the need to limit money influence and the rights of free speech? Does money given to lawmakers really come under the rubric of protected free speech? That's the legal argument of those who oppose campaign finance reforms.

Churchill was right. It's a mess. But so far we've found nothing better.

Ralph

Neo-cons to the rescue

John Bolton is rattling Israel's sabers, all but calling for them to make a military strike against Iran.

In a Washington Post op-ed in today's paper, he begins:

With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel's decision of whether to use military force against Tehran's nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever.

Saying that the hope for a regime change as a result of their election seems lost now, for at least as long as it will take them to develop a nuclear weapons capability, he says:

Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.

The remainder of the article is dismissive of Obama's policy of diplomacy and the hinted possibility of ultimately accepting an Iranian "peaceful civil nuclear power program while publicly renouncing the objective of nuclear weapons."

Bolton, in his usual bull-in-the-china-shop bluster knows all the answers and scorns Obama for being naive and fooled by the lying Iranians.

It's still scary, even in retrospect, to think that this man once represented the U.S. at the U.N. He was george bush's perfect point man in a completely wrong-headed approach to diplomacy and international relations.

It's good that he is now confined to right-wing think tanks and op-ed pages.

Ralph

Thanks, Bernie Sanders

Senator Bernie Sanders (Vt-Independent) arguable the most progressive senator, is calling for the Democrats to commit themselves to defeating any Republican attempt to filibuster the health care bill.

This is the kind of strong leadership we need. Maybe it's Obama's strategy to let the most progressive voice come from elsewhere instead of the White House, but I'm afraid he's waiting too long and demanding too little.

Sanders says even Democrats who plan to vote against it should vote to allow the vote to take place, which will take all of the Democrats plus Independents to get to 60 votes. Here's Sanders:

"I think the idea of going to conservative Republicans, who are essentially representing the insurance companies and the drug companies, and watering down this bill substantially, rather than demanding we get 60 votes to stop the filibuster, I think that is a very wrong political strategy," Sanders added. . . .

"I think that politically that is something everybody can handle. You say, 'Look, I think there should be a vote. I'm gonna vote against it for A, B and C reasons. But I think the process has to move forward and it's unacceptable that Republicans keep trying to stop everything. . . .

"I think it would be great if we could have 100 senators voting for this, but what is important is the product that you get, not bipartisanship. So we should ask Republicans to support it. If they choose not to they do so at their own political risk. The focus should be on a strong bill trying to get Republican support rather than a weak bipartisan bill."

Amen. And an Independent shall lead the way.

Unfortunately, because Sanders is sometimes identified as a Socialist, the Repubs will probably pounce on this and redouble their shrill cry of "socialized medicine !!" I wish someone had the courage to push back and just say, as Dick Cheney responded when reminded that public opinion was against his position, "So?"

Ralph

Leave it to the comedian

It's not the first time that Jon Stewart -- a real newsman masquerading as a comedian -- has been the only one in the media to render a smack-down where it's needed.

Last week, Dick Cheney made his snide comments undermining the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraqi cities, saying he hopes that "all the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point" won't be wasted. Thanks a bunch, Mr. X-VP. That's a real help for troop morale.

Why are the news people afraid to call him on his darkness and deceit?

It was only Jon Stewart, as far as I know, who pointed out that this timetable was an agreement between the Iraqi government and the bush administration. Remember, Mr. X-VP, that's the one where YOU pulled the strings that directed the puppet's actions?

Of course, the X-VP's influence had waned a bit by that time. Maybe that's what's got his dander up. Maybe he didn't approve the timeline.

Ralph

Obama's flaw?

If Obama has a flaw as president -- and I'm not yet quite ready to say he does -- it will probably turn out to be his over-valuing of compromise and accommodation to his opponents. Sometimes you just have to declare that we won, we have a majority, and therefore we have the right to call the shots.

But Obama doesn't seem to see it that way in the case of fulfilling his promises to the gay community.

Monday, he held a historic meeting with gay leaders in the White House to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Stonewall -- the spark that coalesced the gay rights movement.

But, as Kieth Olbermann said, Obama is stonewalling on his promises.

He promised to get rid of the odious Defense of Marriage Act. Of course, only Congress can do that, and it's a fight that he wants to postpone so as not to be a distraction from more urgent issues. I agree with that.

But he allowed the Department of Justice to enter a brief in a court case that went far beyond their claim that they were required to defend the law of the land. First, it's not clear that they do have that obligation; they could simply remain silent and let the court act. Second, it was definitely not necessary to use language that sounded like the religious right.

But what he could do immediately is stop enforcing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That, too, is up to Congress to repeal as a law. But his own Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, has chosen to publicly say she will not enforce the "widow's penality" (deporting spouses of immigrants who die), while working with Congress to repeal it.

Why could Obama not do the same thing and simply call for a moritorium on enforcement of DADT? Does Napolitano have powers he does not have?

His apologetic "we will get it done, but there are generation gaps that have to be dealt with," just is not convincing. When 75% of the people are ready, when 78 members of Congress have sent him a letter urging action, when some top generals have supported ending it, and when the young enlisted men and women who will be most affected don't seem to think it's a big deal -- who are the ones he is having to placate?

The latest publicized discharge is of West Point graduate, Iraq veteran Lt. Dan Choi, a gay National Guard officer who is an Arabic linguist -- a much needed specialty. If his discharge is upheld by the review process, he will be the 266th service person discharged under DADT since Obama took office.

Granted, there will be some opposition among the older military. But Obama is their Commander in Chief. If he gives the order, military discipline will require that they obey. Even with some covert undermining, it should be nothing compared to what Truman faced in ending racial segregation in the military in the 1940's.

The only excuse I can make for Obama's foot-dragging on this issue is that he just has so much else to deal with, and he doesn't want this to become distraction.

But it's past time to stop telling the gay community to be patient.

Ralph

Krugman calls it treason

Nobel Prize winning economist, Princeton professor of economics, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is seen by some as an alarmist. On this issue, I don't think one can be too much of an alarmist. We're in a five-alarm fire situation.

Yes, the House did pass climate-change legislation; but as Krugman points out 212 voted against it. And passage of a meaningful bill in the Senate is far from sure.

Some Krugman excerpts:

So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.

But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.

The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course. . . .

But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.

Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.

Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause.

Every issue that Obama is tackling, the ones that george bush left either untouched or in a mess -- Iraq, the economy, global warming, health care reform, immigration, politicization of justice, world poverty -- each seems a major, almost insurmountable challenge.

All are equally important, yet the sustainability of our life on this planet has got to be the "most equal" of them all. Who's the opposite of Chicken Little? That's our Paul Broun.

Ralph

No, this was NOT a rebuke to Sotomayor

The Supreme Court has issued its long-awaited ruling on the "reverse discrimination" case, in which Judge Sotomayor voted in the Appeals Court ruling to uphold the dismissing of a promotions test because it seemed unfair to minorities.

The conservative Washington Times had tried to spin the decision even before it was handed down, saying: "It would be an extraordinary rebuke were a current nominee to be overruled on such a controversial case by the very justices she is slated to join."

That is a pathetic effort to smear Judge Sotomayor. The Supreme Court's decision was 5-4, meaning that four of the sitting justices agree with her, while five disagree. That's an extraordinary rebuke??? I don't think so.

Further, the Supreme Court routinely overturns about 2/3 of the decisions from appeals courts; and both recently appointed justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, were reversed, during or after the nomination process, on decisions they had participated in as Appeals Court judges -- and by bigger margins than this.

So, Repubs, stop scraping the bottom of the barrel for dirt to throw. There just isn't much there. Be honest and say that you don't like her or her judicial thinking; trying to say she is not a good judge just isn't holding up.

Ralph

Bi-partisan, schmi-partisan

Personally, I think it's time for Obama to give up on his quest for bipartisanship. The Repubs just ain't gonna let it happen, no matter what.

According to David Axelrod on tv this morning, they're going to call the health care reform bill bipartisan because they have accepted over 80 amendments from Republicans, even if none of them vote for the final bill. (Yea, just like they did on the stimulus bill.)

Senator Grassley shoots that down and says those were not substantive amendments but technicalities, so no way are Repubicans going to call this bipartisan.

I understand the wish for enough Repub support to call it bipartisan, especially this issue which will cost tons of money and probably have a wobbly time getting implemented -- so it's "share the blame" thinking, as well as needing their votes.

But Obama seems too quick to compromise -- sometimes signalling what he's willling to give up even ahead of negotiations.

Senator Jay Rockfeller said it best:

"But do you want to be non-partisan and get nothing? Or do you want to be partisan and end up with a good health- care plan? That is the choice."

To me, it's a crystal clear choice. We need a good, workable plan -- and that has to, it must, include at the very least a government-sponsored plan to compete with private insurance

Ralph

Iran

Government crackdowns have effectively shut down the street demonstrations, and the rumored national strike did not occur. Mousavi has agreed to seek a permit for future demonstrations one week in advance, and his web site has been shut down. So they have almost silenced him as well.

However, it may not be over yet. The U.K.'s Guardian reports:

The power struggle inside Iran appears to be moving from the streets into the heart of the regime itself this weekend amid reports that Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani is plotting to undermine the power of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Rafsanjani's manoeuvres against Khamenei come as tensions between the speaker of the parliament, Ali Larijani, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also appeared to be coming to a head.

Mass demonstrations on the streets against the election results have been effectively crushed by a massive police and basiij militia presence that has seen several dozen deaths and the arrests of hundreds of supporters of defeated candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. But the splits within Iran's political elite are deepening. . . .

In a move with even greater potential significance, according to several reports Rafsanjani has been lobbying fellow members of the powerful 86-strong Assembly of Experts, which he chairs, to replace Khamenei as the supreme leader with a small committee of senior ayatollahs, of which Khamenei would be a member. If Rafsanjani were successful, the constitutional change would mean a profound shift in the balance of power within Iran's theocratic regime. . . .

Rafsanjani has long been a proponent of weakening the power of the supreme leader. He is understood to be arguing in favour of replacing Khamenei with a leadership council of three or more senior clerics.

The splits in the Assembly of Experts - the least visible aspect of the present crisis - will be critically important to its eventual outcome. . . .

The complexity of the present political manoeuvres has meant Iran's elites have been made to take sides, reflected in the decision by almost half the members of the parliamentary assembly to boycott the celebration dinner called by Ahmadinejad to mark his "re-election".

The largely behind the scenes moves have come as Iranians opposed to the regime have been forced to go underground with their protests, despite the threats of Khamenei and the brutal attacks of the Revolutionary Guards and basiij militia.

The article goes on to describe the ways people are continuing to express their protests: the 10 pm crying out from the rooftops of "Allah-o-Akbar" (God is great) has only increased since Khatami's warning, people have switched from wearing green to black for mourning, and others drive with their car lights on to express defiance.

One question for Rush Limbaugh and the republican clowns in congress: if this movement fails and you blame Obama for not speaking out like the bellicose blind bush would have done, are you willing, if it does succeed, to give Obama credit for not meddling and making us the focus if it?

Ralph