A Blue View

Conservative Talkshow Host Gets Waterboarded, Says It's "absolutely torture"

From the Huff Post:

Erich "Mancow" Muller, a Chicago-based conservative radio host, recently decided to silence critics of waterboarding once and for all. He would undergo the procedure himself, and then he would be able to confidently convince others that it is not, in fact, torture. 

Or so he thought. Instead, Muller came out convinced.

"It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke," Mancow said. "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back... It was instantaneous... and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

Watch it:

One Of The GOP's Big Problems

Michael Steele, the head of the RNC, is a complete political numskull:

The problem that we have with this president is that we don’t know [Obama]. He was not vetted, folks. … He was not vetted, because the press fell in love with the black man running for the office. 'Oh gee, wouldn’t it be neat to do that? Gee, wouldn’t it make all of our liberal guilt just go away? We can continue to ride around in our limousines and feel so lucky to live in an America with a black president.' Okay that’s wonderful, great scenario, nice backdrop. But what does he stand for? What does he believe? … We just don’t know.

Obama Embraces John McCain's Son At Graduation

GOP Sees Road to Revival Starting at Gitmo

The Wall St Journal thinks that, with the Democrats cowardly assistance, the GOP might be onto something:

Republicans have been able to drive the Washington agenda for the first time in months, and dent the top two Democrats' armor, by hammering away on antiterror policy and keeping the debate squarely in the GOP comfort zone of national security.

Some Republicans see in events of the past two weeks -- the culmination of a carefully developed GOP strategy and missteps by Democrats -- the beginning of a political comeback, and they plan to keep pressing the issue. Democrats say they still hold an advantage with the public on a matter more urgent to most Americans: fixing the economy ...

The setbacks suffered by Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi this week may prove fleeting, and neither figure's power appears seriously compromised. Ms. Pelosi's support remains strong among Democrats and her hold on the speakership isn't in doubt, party officials said ...

Democratic pollster Celinda Lake said focus groups conducted this week across the country suggested the CIA issue isn't resonating with average Americans. "People are focused on [the] economy, security, health care," she said.

Congressional Republicans believe they have found a favorable issue, and don't intend to let up unless their attacks begin to seem counterproductive ...

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) concluded more than a year ago that Mr. Obama might be vulnerable on Guantanamo—and the unease voters would have over the prospect of transferring suspected terrorists to U.S. soil. Since April 20 he has delivered 17 floor speeches on the issue. Mr. McConnell beat back party dissent over his strategy, as some argued it was a losing battle when the president enjoyed such high poll numbers.

The first hint that Mr. Obama's support among Democrats might slip came May 4, when House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D., Wis.) stripped the $80 million Mr. Obama had requested to close the facility out of a war-spending bill. "When they have a plan, they're welcome to come back and talk to us," Mr. Obey said.

Three days later, Republicans at an Appropriations meeting erupted, demanding that the spending bill be amended to prohibit officials from transferring Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. "Certainly we have, as Americans, an absolute right to know if a terrorist who has sworn to kill us and kill our children is being released into this country," said Rep. John Culberson (R., Texas).

Mr. Obama has taken pains to clarify that the detainees would be incarcerated -- not released -- in the U.S., and the Republicans' tone rankled Democrats. "Let's not put up this false argument one more time and say one party has a monopoly on keeping our country safe," said Rep. Chet Edwards (D., Texas).

But GOP leaders sensed they had found a helpful issue. On May 14 they introduced the "Keep Terrorists Out of America Act," requiring that before officials transfer anyone from Guantanamo to the U.S., they had to report their justification to the relevant state's governor and to Congress.

Senate Democratic leaders initially wanted to stand behind the president and approve the $80 million to close the prison, albeit with a requirement that it could only be used after the administration presented a plan. But on Tuesday they capitulated, agreeing to remove the funding altogether as the House had.

More Cheney

 

Transparency In Government: Opening Up The Databases

From the NY Times:

On Thursday, [the Obama administration] took a big step toward its goal and started opening up vast reservoirs of federal data to the online public at a Web site called data.gov. So far, there are 47 government data bases available there that you can rummage through, with many more to come over the next months and years. The administration hopes the public will use this information to suggest ways to make the government more efficient, responsive and innovative.

For now, you can map the latest outbreaks of swine flu right along with the Centers for Disease Control, check the weekly supply estimates of crude oil, and see who is getting federal contracts.

The administration is also asking the public for ideas on how to open up the government and make the best use of the data. It has set up a three-part process: brainstorming, discussion and drafting.

The brainstorming session, which will be open until May 28, has already received 186 suggestions. One of the most popular so far asks that the immigration process be made more transparent, so that potential citizens don’t have to guess about the progress of their cases. Another calls for making it possible to see how much traffic each government Web site generates, and base budget cuts on that traffic. You can vote on the suggestions already made or add your own.

On June 3, the “most compelling” ideas (not sure if that means “most popular”) will be posted on a blog for the discussion phase. On June 15, the public will be invited to use a wiki to draft recommendations in collaborative fashion.

But for anyone expecting everything to be ship-shape on this maiden voyage, here is a reminder that getting the kinks out can take time.

Iranian Long-Range Missile

Change Continues To Come To Cuban-American Relations

From the NY Times:

The Obama administration signaled Friday a willingness to reopen a channel with Cuba that was closed under President George W. Bush by proposing high-level meetings on migration between the countries ...

The high-level meetings became a biannual fixture in the mid-1990s after Cuba and the United States signed accords aimed at stemming massive waves of Cubans who were abandoning the island by boat. But President George W. Bush ended the meetings in 2004 — and effectively shut down most avenues of regular communication with Havana — after accusing Cuba of ignoring a variety of delicate issues, including exit visas, the treatment of Cubans repatriated to the island and the surveillance of dissidents.

Two months ago, President Obama lifted restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba for Cuban-Americans with relatives on the island. Even before the administration disclosed its latest initiative, outlined in a letter delivered to Cuban officials on Friday, it was clear that the reaction at home and abroad could pose significant political challenges.

Sarah Stephens, an expert on Cuba policy, praised the move, saying, “It is a signal not just to Cuba but also to the region that we’re leaving behind our policy of isolation and moving in the direction of engagement.”

Marriage Equality By State

Explore the status of each state's efforts towards marriage equality.

Independents Take Center Stage in the Obama Era

A very interesting poll from Pew Research that claims to show that the country's ideological mix hasn't really changed, just the political labels people affix to themselves:

The proportion of independents now equals its highest level in 70 years. Owing to defections from the Republican Party, independents are more conservative on several key issues than in the past. While they like and approve of Barack Obama, as a group independents are more skittish than they were two years ago about expanding the social safety net and are reluctant backers of greater government involvement in the private sector. Yet at the same time, they continue to more closely parallel the views of Democrats rather than Republicans on the most divisive core beliefs on social values, religion and national security.

While the Democrats gained a sizable advantage in partisan affiliation during George Bush's presidency, their numbers slipped between December 2008 and April 2009, from 39% to 33%. Republican losses have been a little more modest, from 26% to 22%, but this represents the lowest level of professed affiliation with the GOP in at least a quarter century. Moreover, on nearly every dimension the Republican Party is at a low ebb--- from image, to morale, to demographic vitality.

By contrast, the percentage of self-described political independents has steadily climbed, on a monthly basis, from 30% last December to 39% in April. Taking an average of surveys conducted this year, 36% say they are independents, 35% are Democrats, while 23% are Republicans. On an annual basis, the only previous year when independent identification has been this high was in 1992 when Ross Perot ran a popular independent candidacy.

As has been the case in recent years, more independents "lean" Democratic than Republican (17% vs. 12%). Yet an increasing share of independents describe their views as conservative; in surveys conducted this year, 33% of independents say they are conservatives, up from 28% in 2007 and 26% in 2005. Again, this ideological change is at least in part a consequence of former Republicans moving into the ranks of independents.

The latest values survey, conducted March 31-April 21 among 3,013 adults reached on landlines and cell phones, finds that there has been no consistent movement away from conservatism, nor a shift toward liberalism -- despite the decline in Republican identification. In fact, fewer Americans say the government has a fundamental responsibility to provide a safety net than did so two years ago, and the share supporting increased help for the needy, even if the debt increases, has declined.

Yet more broadly, the public remains conflicted about government's role. This is abundantly clear when it comes to opinions about health care: There is overwhelming agreement (86%) that the government needs to do more to make health care affordable and accessible. However, nearly half (46%) say they are concerned about the government becoming too involved in health care.

The public continues to be of two minds in its opinions about both government and business. Business generally, as well as Wall Street specifically, is viewed as playing a vital role in American society, but both are viewed as excessively concerned with amassing profits. In addition, although support for government assistance to the poor has declined, opinions about the government itself -- whether it is wasteful and inefficient, whether it is run for the benefit of all -- have moved in a positive direction.

Independents' Views Determinative

Republicans and Democrats hold increasingly divergent views about the role of government, the environment and many other issues. As the partisan divide widens, the overall course of the public's thinking is being determined by the tilt in opinions among the growing number of independents, who have a more moderate ideological point of view.

The political values of independents are mixed and run counter to orthodox liberal and conservative thinking about government. Over the past two years, both Republicans and independents have become more wary of expanding the social safety net. However, most independents join with most Democrats in saying that a free market economy needs government regulation to best serve the public interest. In effect, the public's two-mindedness about government is a product of the way that independents, not partisans, think.

But independents continue to be much closer to Democrats than to Republicans with respect to social values, religiosity and beliefs about national security. Indices measuring the relative position of Republicans, Democrats and independents in these three areas show that the views of independents and Democrats have consistently been aligned, while Republicans continue to take a substantially more conservative position. (For more on partisan divides over values and where independents fit, see Section 11 in the full report.)

Today's GOP: Smaller, Slightly More Conservative

An analysis of 2009 data finds little evidence that as the number of Republicans has decreased in recent years they have become a much more conservative group. Two-thirds of Republicans (66%) describe their political views as conservative, which is up from 60% in 2000 and three points higher than in 2004 (63%). The percentage of Republicans who are white evangelical Protestants has not increased since 2004. And in general the values held by Republicans have not grown markedly more conservative over the past few years.

What is clear is that the Republican Party is facing formidable demographic challenges. Its constituents are aging and do not reflect the growing ethnic and racial diversity of the general public. As was the case at the beginning of this decade, Republicans are predominantly non-Hispanic whites (88%). Among Democrats, the proportion of non-Hispanic whites has declined from 64% in 2000 to 56%, as Latinos and people from other racial backgrounds have joined the ranks of the Democrats. At the same time, the average age of Republicans increased from 45.5 to 48.3, while the average age of Democrats has remained fairly stable. For the first time in at least two decades, Republicans are older than Democrats on average.

Republicans continue to be disproportionately comprised of Southerners (39%) and white evangelical Protestants (35%). However, these figures are largely unchanged from 2004 and up only slightly since 2000 as the GOP has lost supporters across all regions and religious groups.

The latest values survey also finds Republicans somewhat less optimistic in these tough economic times ... Republicans also are increasingly critical of their own party. Just 24% of Republicans say their party is doing an excellent or good job of standing up for its traditional positions on such things as reducing the size of government, cutting taxes and promoting social values. In 2004, fully two-thirds (67%) give Republican Party high marks for standing up for its traditional positions. Positive evaluations of the GOP's advocacy of its traditional positions have fallen more sharply among conservative Republicans than among than among moderate and liberal Republicans.

By comparison, Democrats offer substantially higher assessments of their party's performance today than they have in recent years. Currently, 61% of Democrats say the party is doing an excellent or good job standing up for its traditional positions on such things as protecting the interests or minorities, helping the poor and needy, and representing working people. As recently as 2007, just 43% of Democrats expressed positive views about the party's advocacy of its traditional positions. (For more on the political parties, see Section 1 in the full report.)

Partisan Gap Widest Ever

 The overall gap between the two parties in opinions about political values -- which increased in 2003 -- has hit another new high, with widening differences emerging over the government's overall performance and its responsibilities to the poor. In the wake of the election, Republicans have swung to a much more critical view of government while more Democrats take a positive view than at any previous point in the 22-year history of this study.

Fully 75% of Republicans today say that government regulation of business does more harm than good, up from 57% two years ago. About the same number (74%) say when something is run by the government it is usually inefficient and wasteful, up from 61% in 2007. In both cases, Republican skepticism of government is now as great or greater than in 1994, prior to the GOP takeover of Congress. By contrast, the proportions of Democrats who are critical of government regulation of business and see the government as usually inefficient and wasteful have fallen sharply since 2007. (For more on the partisan divide, see Section 11 in the full report.)

Weekly Radio Address

Cheney Cartoons

Fear itself:

Cheney and his legacy

The Constitution has its uses:

Cheney won't go away:

Institutional Reactions To Obama & Cheney Speeches

Senate Democrats (according to The Hill):

Senate Democrats softened their position Thursday on relocating suspected terrorists to U.S. soil, saying they would consider President Obama’s call to house them at maximum-security prisons when the administration shuts down the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The president’s speech on national security thawed firm opposition from earlier in the week, when the conference voted overwhelmingly to freeze funding needed to close the military prison.

Washington Post editorial:

"WE ARE indeed at war with al-Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process, in checks and balances and accountability."

This lucid declarationby President Obama yesterday perfectly outlined the challenges facing a nation battling a violent, nonstate enemy. By framing the matter in the context of war, Mr. Obama correctly acknowledged the limitations of traditional law enforcement tools and venues to contain and bring to justice those who would harm the United States. Yet he repudiated what he called the Bush administration's "ad hoc," the-ends-justify-the-means approach and spoke eloquently about the need to craft legitimate and effective legal structures that give meaningful rights to the accused while protecting the country's national security interests.

Mr. Obama spoke in greatest detail about his plans for dealing with the 240 detainees held at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Batting aside the fear-mongering of lawmakers who this week withheld funds to close the detention center, Mr. Obama made clear that any detainees brought to the United States would be held in the highest-security prisons -- from which no inmate has ever escaped. Those who can be prosecuted in federal court, Mr. Obama said, will be tried there. Those who are accused of violating the laws of war will be tried before military commissions that Mr. Obama has vowed to revamp with extra legal protections for defendants. In perhaps the most controversial proposal -- but one that the president is right to consider -- Mr. Obama said that he would work with Congress to craft a legal regime to provide for the detention of suspects who are deemed too dangerous for release but against whom there is not enough admissible evidence to bring formal charges.

Mr. Obama is criticized for both sides of his equation. ... Mr. Obama's wisdom lies in accepting the reality of war but insisting that it can be fought in fidelity to U.S. values. Yesterday, he spelled out the crucial difference. "I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred," he said. "Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework."

NY Times editorial:

For seven years, President George W. Bush tried to frighten the American public — and successfully cowed Congress — with bullying and disinformation. On Thursday, President Obama told the truth. It was a moment of political courage that will make this country safer.

Mr. Obama was exactly right when he said Americans do not have to choose between security and their democratic values. By denying those values, the Bush team fed the furies of anti-Americanism, strengthened our enemies and made the nation more vulnerable.

Such clarity of thought is unlikely to end the partisan posturing. It certainly didn’t quiet former Vice President Dick Cheney, who was fear-mongering in full force on Thursday. But we hope that lawmakers who voted this week against closing the prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — starting with the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid — were listening closely.

We do not agree with every aspect of Mr. Obama’s solutions, especially his opposition to the court-ordered release of photographs of prisoner abuse and the positions he has taken on state secrets. But the course he outlined was generally based on due process and democratic governance.

Mr. Obama flatly rejected Mr. Cheney’s claims that torture saved “hundreds of thousands” of lives and reminded Americans that those abuses were ineffective, recruited more terrorists than they brought to justice, destroyed the nation’s image and will make it much harder to try some of the most dangerous terrorists.

Affirming that a detention policy has to be based on law and subject to Congressional and judicial scrutiny, Mr. Obama voiced the profound truth that eluded Mr. Bush, “In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man.”

Also see Commentator Reactions To Obama & Cheney Speeches.

Commentator Reactions To Obama & Cheney Speeches

John Dickerson:

At bottom, Cheney's argument relies on the pernicious idea that if you disagree with him over the tactics used to fight the war on al-Qaida, you are fundamentally ignorant that a war is going on. For that reductive trick to work, Obama must play into the caricature of a weak-kneed liberal who rejects the notion that America is at war. There was nothing in Obama's speech or in his approach that obviously fits this caricature. Cheney can claim that Obama doesn't think there's a war going on, but it's hard to believe his claim when Obama is using the threat of ongoing war to explain his decision on Guantanamo. "Al-Qaida terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States," said Obama "and those that we capture—like other prisoners of war—must be prevented from attacking us again."

It's also hard to claim Obama is a coddler of terrorists when his recent decisions on Afghanistan, military commissions, and release of detainee photographs all seem rather pro-military. Indeed, on the left he's being accused of having been repeatedly rolled by the military. Now, the left may be wrong. But to gain purchase in the wider public debate, Cheney's argument relies on Obama being oblivious to the threat and impervious to arguments from the military and CIA. The president is clearly not oblivious. The argument has clearly not gained purchase ...

Obama framed his speech in terms of the mess that he inherited from the Bush administration. But he is also dealing with the wrath of forces that he unleashed. The president patiently explains how complex these decisions are and complains about the "politicization of these issues," but as a candidate he benefited by obscuring the complexities. Now Obama is learning and demonstrating that governing is far more complex than campaigning. That evolution, and his effort to show people the reasoning behind his positions, may be his strongest argument against Cheney. In his speech, Cheney warned Obama to "think carefully about the course ahead." It may be the least necessary piece of advice the former vice president has ever given. Obama's speech is proof that Obama is treating these issues with painstaking care.

Michael Scherer:

Barack the Kid spoke of complexity. Each of his points had several subparts. Even the subparts had subparts. He explained three major decisions he had made. Then he addressed two big topics--the future of Guantanamo detainees, which could be divided into five categories, and his approach to security and transparency, which itself had several subparts ranging from declassification to the use of the states secret privilege in court. Obama wanted to add nuance to the debate over these issues, he said, still acting like a professor at the white board. "I will explain how each action that we are taking will help build a framework that protects both the American people and the values that we hold dear," he said.

Grandpa Vigilant had no time for frameworks with subpoints. In his mind the world was entirely binary: good/bad, effective/ineffective, successful/unsuccessful. The core of Cheney's argument was this claim to a digitized world of 0's and 1's ... It assumes, at its core, that the national security policies of George W. Bush, which the American people have largely judged a failure, are an all or nothing proposition. They cannot be improved, or criticized. They cannot be pieced apart into subgroups or frameworks. To put it simply, You are either with us or against us. Cheney has fashioned himself into the L. Ron Hubbard of foreign policy. To criticize is to reject. Skepticism is not a virtue, but an attack ...

What is important here is that Cheney declared, without any equivocation or nuance, that "in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground." It was less an argument than a declaration. It was a vivid reminder of where he stands, and how he thinks. If nothing else, it is a perfect epitaph for philosophy, and an era of American history that has, at least for the moment, been thoroughly rejected by the sitting President of the United States.

Jonathan Chait:

Here is the most revealing passage of Dick Cheney's national security speech:

Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. [emphasis added]

This is, of course, completely illogical. You can, obviously, torture a terrorist or a murderer, and nobody has suggested otherwise. But it's a form of illogic that tells you a lot about Cheney's style of thought. To object to the methods of torture used against terrorists is to declare them innocent. You're either with them or against them. The notion that terrorists may be evil but nonetheless should not be tortured is an idea too complex for his brain to process. He is a complete moral simpleton.

A Daily Dish reader:

Obama's strongest card is his basic seriousness about what he is trying to do as president.  He is really hard to caricature.  For all the ways in which he is different from what we are accustomed to, perhaps the biggest difference is his absolute refusal to play for the news cycle, to allow ephemeral political gamesmanship to alter his strategic focus.  He will be no one but himself, and the intelligence and thoughtfulness that he brings to the big questions of his time are what really expose his opponents.  I have been reading the Republicans’ highly predictable (and in the past, typically effective) attacks in response to his national security speech.  They just don’t work.  The predictable sound bites about “a 9/11 mentality”, “making the country less safe”, “a flowery campaign speech”…all of these ring hollow when the guy is so obviously more serious, more reflective, more interested in actually solving problems, and profoundly more respectful of both his audience and the country’s institutions than his opponents.

When the books are written about how this 47-year old black man with little Washington experience got elected president to lead this balkanized, still-race-conscious country, much will be said about demography, the litany of Bush failures, his speaking ability, and the skill of his campaign organization.  What I hope will also be included is the raw power of his intellectual heft, and his insistence on avoiding shallowness, on forcing depth and rigor into public debate, and the deeply rooted patriotism and principle with which he brings it.  That is the strength of his character, and it will endure far longer than the dazzling quality of his oratory or his deft political sense.  It’s how he disarms his opponents and pushes us all to rethink our entire approach to politics. 

Michael Crowley:

Just as the White House clearly sees Obama as vulnerable to demagogic charges of wasteful spending and pork when it comes to the bailouts and stimulus, it's clear that in the current debate about torture and detainees, the flank the Obama team is covering is security. It may be true that Democrats have dramatically narrowed their longstanding national security gap with Republicans. But they clearly remain deeply insecure about the issue. (See the behavior of congressional Democrats over Gitmo this week.) Obama is trying to walk a fine line, pushing the political envelope by conceding that some detainees will end up on U.S. soil, but doing his damndest to make clear he doesn't take security lightly.  A key question now is how much Democrats on the Hill will continue to make trouble on his right.

David Brooks:

Cheney and Obama might pretend otherwise, but it wasn’t the Obama administration that halted the practice of waterboarding. It was a succession of C.I.A. directors starting in March 2003, even before a devastating report by the C.I.A. inspector general in 2004.

When Cheney lambastes the change in security policy, he’s not really attacking the Obama administration. He’s attacking the Bush administration. In his speech on Thursday, he repeated in public a lot of the same arguments he had been making within the Bush White House as the policy decisions went more and more the other way ...

What Obama gets, and what President Bush never got, is that other people’s opinions matter. Goldsmith puts it well: “The main difference between the Obama and Bush administrations concerns not the substance of terrorism policy, but rather its packaging. The Bush administration shot itself in the foot time and time again, to the detriment of the legitimacy and efficacy of its policies, by indifference to process and presentation. The Obama administration, by contrast, is intensely focused on these issues.”

Obama has taken many of the same policies Bush ended up with, and he has made them credible to the country and the world. In his speech, Obama explained his decisions in a subtle and coherent way. He admitted that some problems are tough and allow no easy solution. He treated Americans as adults, and will have won their respect.

Do I wish he had been more gracious with and honest about the Bush administration officials whose policies he is benefiting from? Yes. But the bottom line is that Obama has taken a series of moderate and time-tested policy compromises. He has preserved and reformed them intelligently. He has fit them into a persuasive framework. By doing that, he has not made us less safe. He has made us more secure.

Jeffrey Goldberg posting about his conversation with John McCain:

I asked [McCain] about Dick Cheney and his defense of Bush Administration torture policies. He told me of his fundamental disagreement with Cheney: "When you have a majority of Americans, seventy-something percent, saying we shouldn't torture, then I'm not sure it helps for the Vice President to go out and continue to espouse that position," he said. "But look, he's free to talk. He's a former Vice President of the United States. I just don't see where it helps."

And then he got acerbic: Cheney, he says, "believes that waterboarding doesn't fall under the Geneva Conventions and that it's not a form of torture. But you know, it goes back to the Spanish Inquisition."

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Cheney's speech (watch it):

I do have to congratulate you, Sir. No man living or dead could have passed the buck more often than you did in 35 minutes this morning. It's not your fault we water-boarded people, you said. It isn't torture, you said, even though it is based on 111 years of American military prosecutions. It was in the Constitution that you could do it, even if our laws told you, you could not. It was in the language of the 2001 military authorization you force-fed the Congress that you could do it, even if our international treaties told you, you could not.

It produced invaluable information, you said, even though the first-hand witnesses, the interrogators of these beasts, said the information preceded the torture and ended when it began. It was authorized, you said, by careful legal opinion, even though the legal opinions were dictated by you and your cronies, and, oh by the way, the torture began before the legal opinions were even written. It was authorized, you said, and you imply even if it really wasn't, it was done to "only detainees of the highest intelligence value."

It was more necessary, you said, because of the revelation of another program by the real villains, the New York Times, even though that revelation was possible because the program was detailed on the front page of the website of a defense department sub-contractor. It was all the fault of your predecessors, you said, who tried to treat terror as a "law enforcement problem," before you came to office and rode to the rescue... after you totally ignored terrorism for the first 20 percent of your first term and the worst attack on this nation in its history unfolded on your  watch.

"9/11 caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for awhile," you said today, "and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated." Gee, thanks for being motivated, by the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans, to go so far as to "take a serious second look." And thank you, Sir, for admitting, obviously inadvertently, that you did not take a serious first look in the seven months and 23 days between your inauguration and 9/11.

Also see Institutional Reactions To Obama & Cheney Speeches.

Obama Gitmo Cartoons

President Obama: Complete Speech on National Security and Torture

First, a NY Times analysis of Obama's difficult position:

As President Obama defends his national security strategy, he faces a daunting challenge. He must convince the country that it is in safe hands despite warnings to the contrary from the right, and at the same time persuade the skeptical left that it is enough to amend his predecessor’s approach rather than abandon it.

Arguably on the defensive over policy for the first time since taking office, Mr. Obama is gambling that his oratorical powers can reassure the public that bringing terrorism suspects to prisons on American soil will not put the public in danger.

At the same time, he must explain and win support for a nuanced set of positions that fall somewhere between George W. Bush and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Rather than an easily labeled program, Mr. Obama is picking seemingly disparate elements from across the policy continuum — banning torture and other harsh interrogation techniques but embracing the endless detention of certain terror suspects without trial, closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, but retaining the military commissions held there.

“A surgical approach,” the president called it in his address on Thursday at the National Archives. But surgical approaches are rarely satisfying to those on either end of the political spectrum who tend to dominate political dialogue in Washington, particularly when it comes to an issue as fraught with emotional resonance and moral implications as the struggle against terrorists.

In the reductionist debate in Washington, either any sacrifice must be made to win a pitiless war against radicals, or terrorism does not justify any compromise with cherished American values.

“Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right,” Mr. Obama said. “The American people are not absolutist, and they don’t elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty and care and a dose of common sense” ...

James Jay Carafano, a national security expert at the Heritage Foundation, said Mr. Obama risked being left with no supporters on either side for his program ... Sarah Mendelson, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who led a commission study that urged the closing of Guantánamo, said the fusion of Bush and anti-Bush policies was untenable. “They’re literally trying to combine these paradigms,” Ms. Mendelson said. “And that means nobody will be happy.”

Then a Keith Olbermann highlight reel:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And finally, the complete speech. Part I:

Part II:

Part III:

Part IV:

Part V:

"Landmark" Cap & Trade Clears Key Congressional Committee

From the Wall St Journal:

A landmark proposal to curb U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions cleared a key congressional panel, bolstering prospects that the government will put a price on carbon for the first time and portending a major shift in how the U.S. uses energy ...

The U.S. proposal -- which aims to cut emissions roughly 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and roughly 80% by midcentury -- won approval from the House Energy and Commerce Committee on a vote of 33-25 that fell largely along partisan lines. It followed weeks of negotiations between liberal and moderate Democrats over how to soften the measure's impact on consumers and various sectors of the economy. If enacted, it could transform the way the U.S. manufactures a range of products, heats offices and builds homes ...

The measure, sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) and Edward Markey (D., Mass.), still faces significant hurdles, particularly in the Senate, where a similar proposal failed last year. But the committee's action gives the measure a major boost in both chambers of Congress, because the panel is among the largest and most ideologically and geographically diverse in Congress, with members from Rust Belt, oil patch, farm and coastal states.

The bill proposes a cap-and-trade system, in which the government would set caps on emissions, issue permits allowing companies to pollute consistent with those limits, and let companies trade the permits among themselves. Initially, 85% of permits would be given away free, with the bulk of them going to utilities, auto makers, oil refiners, and trade-sensitive industries. The rest would be auctioned off, at a minimum initial price of $10 per ton of emissions.

The measure also contains a mechanism aimed at holding down the maximum price of permits, by allowing the government to issue a limited number of additional permits once the price hits $28 in the first year of the program.

Don't Ask Don't Tell Under Review - Slowly

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

A Quick Characterization Of Each Parties Fundamental Problem

Today's political landscape has handed Democrats & Republicans each a major problem ... nicely summarized by these two graphics.

For the Dems, it's their constant fear of being perceived as weak on defense. This helps explains their capitulation yesterday (chart from Cowardly Senate Dems Buckle Under Ridiculous GOP Pressure On Gitmo Closing):

The GOP, on the other hand, have a more fundamental, existential problem:

 

To provide just one 'for instance', see RNC Passes "Socialist" Resolution

RNC Passes "Socialist" Resolution

From Chris Cillizza:

Twenty-four hours after Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele sought to turn the page on five months of infighting and bad press for the GOP, the organization passed a resolution condemning the Democratic party's "march toward socialism".

"Resolved, that we the members of the Republican National Committee recognize that the Democratic Party is dedicated to restructuring American society along socialist ideals,"  reads the resolution.

The vote, which has no practical impact, was cast as a victory by allies of Steele who insisted that catastrophe had been averted when an agreement was reached not to bring forward a resolution that would have re-nicknamed the Democratic party as the "Democrat Socialist Party." Steele had voiced his opposition to the resolution -- telling "Meet the Press" moderator David Gregory last Sunday that he didn't "think that that is an appropriate way to, to express our views on the issues of the day."

Of today's vote, Steele pronounced himself "pleased that the committee adopted a resolution that focuses on the Democrats' policies and their destructive effects on America's economic engine, rather than attempting to rename our opponents."

The longer-term problem for Steele -- and for establishment Republicans across the country -- presented by the "Democrat Socialist Party" debate is that the 168 committee members represent the most conservative element of the party and have almost no concern for how passing a resolution like that would play (and be played by Democrats) to the average independent or moderate voter.

Put simply: these committeemen and committeewomen identify far more with the Dick Cheney/Rush Limbaugh wing of the party than they do with the Charlie Crist/Colin Powell side.

Steele was able to sidestep a public relations nightmare today. But, given the reality of the ideological makeup of the RNC committee members, it almost certainly will not be the last fire will have to put out.

Fire, Aim, Ready

Americans Strongly Support Obama's "Industrial Policy" For Autos

Sorry GOP. I don't think your charge that increasing automobile's fuel efficiency is industrial policy is resonating. From Gallup:

A recent Gallup Poll reveals solid majority support for higher fuel efficiency standards such as those President Obama announced Tuesday. In March, 80% of Americans said they favored higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles.

... While Democrats show more widespread support for higher fuel efficiency standards, 72% of Republicans also say they are in favor -- highlighting the opportunity for bipartisan collaboration on this issue.

An examination of support among demographic subcategories also finds strong majority support for higher fuel efficiency standards -- generally above 70% -- across the board. Support varies slightly by region: 77% in the West, 79% in the South, 82% in the Midwest, and 83% in the East ...

Underscoring Obama's likely confidence in moving forward with his decision, 68% of Americans last July said they would be more rather than less likely to vote for a candidate who supported raising fuel mileage standards on vehicles.

Gallup finds strong and consistent majority support for higher fuel efficiency standards, as it typically does for proposals designed to help the environment. It has also recorded similar support in the last few years for higher emissions standards. However, it important to note that Americans' support for specific environmental policies or actions is often somewhat lower (but still usually above the majority level) when respondents are reminded of the costs they may have to bear personally.

In the past, Gallup has found somewhat fewer Americans willing to buy a hybrid car when the higher costs of hybrids are mentioned than when they are not mentioned, and lower support for steps to curb air pollution, depending on how much the costs of the products they buy would increase. To this end, Obama was smart to describe how an additional higher upfront cost is likely to be offset by spending less on gas in the future. To maintain the high levels of support with which the government begins this endeavor, both the administration and the auto industry would be well-served to ensure that the benefits to consumers ultimately do outweigh the costs.

Vatican Disagrees With Conservative American Catholics: Obama Is Not The Devil

From Amy Sullivan:

First L'Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, ran an article giving Obama's first 100 days a tentative thumbs-up. Then, as conservative Catholics in the U.S. were wringing their hands about the horror of Barack Obama's scheduled appearance at Notre Dame, the newspaper--and the Vatican in general--was conspicuously silent. Then, when the paper did report on Obama's speech, its calm, fairly positive take was in stark contrast to the furious reaction of many conservative Catholics here. 

But this takes the cake. In an interview with an Italian newspaper the day after Obama's speech, Giavonni Maria Vian, editor-in-chief of L'Osservatore Romano, seemed to forcefully push back against the view that Obama is a threat to Catholic values and religious freedom. “Obama has not upset the world,” said Vian. “His speech at Notre Dame has been respectful toward every position. He tried to engage the debate stepping out from every ideological position and outside every ‘confrontational mentality.' To this extent his speech is to be appreciated.”

After reaffirming that the Vatican newspaper shares the American bishops' staunch opposition to abortion, Vian went further. "What I want to stress is that yesterday, on this precise and very delicate issue, the President said that the approval of the new law on abortion is not a priority of his administration. The fact that he said that is very reassuring to me. It also underlines my own clear belief: Obama is not a pro-abortion president."

Uh, oh. It sounds like the Vatican newspaper "doesn't understand what it means to be Catholic."

Jesse Ventura On "Fox & Friends"

More clear speaking as Jesse takes on the Faux News crew:

Obama Will Try To "regain the initiative" In Today's Speech On Detainees

From the Wash Post:

President Obama will attempt today to answer critics of his dismantling of Bush-era policies on detention and interrogation, in a speech reminding Americans that strong national security and adherence to laws and national values are not mutually exclusive.

Beyond this lofty reassurance, senior administration officials said, Obama will also repeat the case he made on his third day in office that the Bush administration's system of dealing with "enemy combatants" -- resulting in three prosecutions in seven years and challenged by U.S. courts and allies -- was not sustainable.

Four months ago, Obama announced his intention to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; release, transfer abroad or try all its remaining inmates; and outlaw the harsh interrogation techniques he defined as torture. But the implementation of those executive orders has proved far more complicated than he expected.

To the frustration of a White House that claims the moral high ground, virtually every detainee-related decision Obama has made since then -- including making public classified Bush administration descriptions of how to waterboard terrorism suspects and refusing to support the release of photographs depicting detainee abuse -- has provoked criticism from some or all of those who initially approved his policies.

Congressional dissatisfaction peaked yesterday when the Senate joined the House in overwhelmingly rejecting, 90 to 6, Obama's request for funds to shutter the Guantanamo facility until he explains what he plans to do with its 240 occupants. Lawmakers of both parties spoke out against imprisoning or releasing any of the detainees in the United States.

Glenn Beck On The View

Part I, where Whoopi & Barbara confront Glenn, and he admits he lied:

Part II on his crying and views on Sarah Palin:

Having Daughters Rather Than Sons Makes You More Liberal

Andrew Gelman, posting about Andrew J. Oswald's and Nattavudh Powdthavee's research:

In remarkable research, the sociologist Rebecca Warner and the economist Ebonya Washington have shown that the gender of a person's children seems to influence the attitudes and actions of the parent.

Warner (1991) and Warner and Steel (1999) study American and Canadian mothers and fathers. The authors' key finding is that support for policies designed to address gender equity is greater among parents with daughters. This result emerges particularly strongly for fathers. Because parents invest a significant amount of themselves in their children, the authors argue, the anticipated and actual struggles that offspring face, and the public policies that tackle those, matter to those parents. . . The authors demonstrate that people who parent only daughters are more likely to hold feminist views (for example, to favor affirmative action).

By collecting data on the voting records of US congressmen, Washington (2004) is able to go beyond this. She provides persuasive evidence that congressmen with female children tend to vote liberally on reproductive rights issues such as teen access to contraceptives. In a revision, Washington (2008) argues for a wider result, namely, that the congressmen vote more liberally on a range of issues such as working families flexibility and tax-free education.

Our [Oswald and Powdthavee's] aim in this paper is to argue, with nationally representative random samples of men and women, that these results generalize to voting for entire political parties. We document evidence that having daughters leads people to be more sympathetic to left-wing parties. Giving birth to sons, by contrast, seems to make people more likely to vote for a right-wing party.

Wrong Again Michael Steele, Marriage Equality Is Good For The Economy

First Keith Olbermann pokes fun at Steele's latest stupid argument against marriage equality:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Then he & Howard Finemann review yesterday's RNC speech:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

If Micheal Steele really wanted to help the GOP, he should stop his noise making and silly headline grabbing and think and strategize about the daunting political reality his party faces.

Obama's National Security Strength

While I haven't much liked Obama's swing right on torture, tribunals & photos, the American public definitely likes Obama's overall approach to national security, according to Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg:

Nearly two-thirds of likely voters – 64 percent – approve of the job Obama is doing on national security. That is 6 points higher than his already strong overall job approval rating (at 58 percent, the highest we have yet recorded). On other aspects of national security – from Iraq, to Afghanistan, to terrorism, to the president’s foreign diplomacy – the same is true: higher job approval ratings than on the President’s overall job approval.

Given their approval of the president’s performance on foreign affairs, voters flatly reject the claims from former Vice President Cheney and other Republicans that Obama’s policies put America at risk. By nearly a 2 to 1 margin, Americans say that President Obama is doing better, not worse, than his predecessor, George W. Bush, when it comes to national security.

This survey signals a possible generational shift in attitudes that could have broad electoral consequences, depriving Republicans of one of their last remaining advantages just when their image has dropped to an all-time low relative to the Democrats.

Joe Klein reacts to the poll:

We should not underestimate the significance here: Obama is trying to do something far more complicated and sophisticated than Bush--comprehensive diplomacy takes time and great skill. It doesn't have the immediate satisfactions of a bang-bang, three-week rush to Baghdad (although the successfully kinetic anti-pirate operation may have something to do with this level of approval).

It is not insignificant that the public seems willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on such potentially difficult issues as sending more US troops to Afghanistan and trying to start negotiations with Iran. It will be interesting to see if the public remains patience with these policies, which will take years to develop--especially when things go wrong, as they inevitably do. But, for the moment, the American people seem content with a more nuanced foreign policy, which is very good news, indeed.

I'm Becoming A Jesse Ventura Fan

Yesterday, the View, today Hannity. Watch him ably take the nut on:

Cowardly Senate Dems Buckle Under Ridiculous GOP Pressure On Gitmo Closing

Did you watch the videos in GOP Wing Nuts At It Again?  Apparently the Democrats in Congress haven't or they wouldn't be caving in, and worse, echoing, the assinine GOP fear mongering charge (that supermax American prisons cannot securely hold terrorists). From the NY Times:

 In an abrupt shift, Senate Democratic leaders said they would not provide the $80 million that President Obama requested to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba ...

In recent days, Mr. Obama has faced growing demands from both parties, but particularly Republicans, to lay out a more detailed road map for closing the Guantánamo prison and to provide assurances that detainees would not end up on American soil, even in maximum security prisons.

The move by Senate Democrats to strip the $80 million from a war-spending bill and the decision to bar, for now, transfer of detainees to the United States, raised the possibility that Mr. Obama’s order to close the camp by Jan. 22, 2010, might have to be changed or delayed ...

[Mr. Reid] said. “We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.”

How in the world is putting them in a supermax prison "releasing" them Harry? I know sloganeering is powerful in Washington but doesn't rational thinking hold any sway?

The Electronic Age

Rewriting History

Inept Dems In Congress Allow GOP To "Outmaneuver" Them: Guns Will Be Allowed In Parks

From the NY Times:

To the frustration and discouragement of many Democrats, House and Senate lawmakers and aides say it now appears likely that President Obama will this week sign into law a provision allowing visitors to national parks and refuges to carry loaded and concealed weapons.

The White House is lukewarm at best on the gun provision, which was added to a popular measure imposing new rules on credit card companies. But the Democrats who now control both Congress and the White House appear ready to allow it to survive rather than derail a consumer-friendly credit card measure that Mr. Obama is eager to sign as Congress heads off for a Memorial Day recess.

“Timing is everything in politics,” said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma and the champion of the gun proposal.

A majority of Democrats in the House and Senate still typically come down on the side of gun control. But the fact that they have been outmaneuvered by Republicans on gun issues is rooted in the fact that recently swollen Democratic ranks include senators and House members who represent Western states and more rural areas where gun ownership is popular and deemed sacrosanct.

When those Democrats team up with Republicans, they constitute a clear majority in the House and Senate.

“It is a shame,” said Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California. “But you have to come to a realization around here that at this point in time, the N.R.A. gets the votes,” she said referring to the National Rifle Association.

“Either you are going to bring down the whole Senate and never do anything or you or going to swallow hard and say, ‘I will just vote my conscience on those amendments and speak out until people get a hold of their senses,’ ” Mrs. Boxer said ...

Mr. Coburn and his allies in both parties say the provision is less about guns than it is states’ rights. Under the proposal, people who are otherwise authorized under state law to have firearms would be entitled to have them in national parks and wildlife refuges unless a state law prohibited it. Currently, firearms must be unloaded and secured on those national lands, creating what backers of the bill say is a situation where someone passing through a park with a firearm can be charged with a violation ...

Gun control and conservation groups have urged the administration to insist on a credit card bill without the gun proposal. They have also joined top House Democrats in lamenting the inability of Senate Democrats to prevent Republicans from adding such politically charged proposals to unrelated legislation. A gun measure has also tied up a bill granting the District of Columbia full voting representation in the House, and Republicans are readying other gun rights initiatives for future consideration ...

For their part, backers of the gun provision were relishing their looming victory. “After using every legislative trick in the book to prevent a vote on gun rights, Democrat leaders are finally crying uncle and clearing the way for Congress to reinstate the Bush policy,” said Representative Doc Hastings of Washington, senior Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee.

Jesse Ventura Speaks The Truth About Torture

One of the best, most easily accessible refutations of the right wing's defense of torture and attacks on Pelosi (mouthed by Elisabeth Hasselback) I've heard recently:

"The single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions”

After a week or so of having uncharateristic mixed feelings about Obama (squelching of the torture photos, resuming modified tribunals, etc.), this piece from the NY Times reminded me of why I've been such a strong Obama supporter: his capacity to bring about profound, progressive change:

President Obama will announce tough new nationwide rules for automobile emissions and mileage standards on Tuesday, embracing standards that California has sought to enact for years over the objections of the auto industry and the Bush administration.

The rules, which will begin to take effect in 2012, will put in place a federal standard for fuel efficiency that is as tough as the California program, while imposing the first-ever limits on climate-altering gases from cars and trucks.

The effect will be a single new national standard that will create a car and light truck fleet in the United States that is almost 40 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016 than it is today, with an average of 35.5 miles per gallon.

Environmental advocates and industry officials welcomed the new program, but for different reasons. Environmentalists called it a long-overdue tightening of emissions and fuel economy standards after decades of government delay and industry opposition. Auto industry officials said it would provide the single national efficiency standard they have long desired, a reasonable timetable to meet it and the certainty they need to proceed with product development plans.

Yet the industry position represents an abrupt about-face after years of battling tougher mileage standards in the courts and in Congress, reflecting the change in the political climate and the automakers’ shaky financial condition. The decision comes as General Motors and Chrysler are receiving billions of dollars in federal help, closing hundreds of dealerships and trying to design the products and business strategy they will need to survive ...

In announcing the new program at the White House, Mr. Obama will be accompanied by Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, along with auto industry executives and environmental leaders.

The administration’s decision resolves a question over California’s application for a waiver from federal clean air laws to impose its own, tougher vehicle emissions standards. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have said they plan to adopt the California program.

The new national fleet mileage rule for cars and light trucks of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 roughly corresponds to the California requirement, which will be shelved as a result. The current national standard is slightly more than 25 miles per gallon.

The California plan, first proposed in 2002, had been stalled by industry lawsuits and the Bush administration’s refusal to grant a waiver from less stringent federal rules, although California has been given dozens of such exemptions over the last 40 years ...

“This is a very big deal,” said Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, who has pushed for tougher mileage and emissions standards for two decades with the goal of curbing the gases that have been linked to global warming. “This is the single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions” ...

One ranking industry official said that the administration wanted to get the new mileage rules in place before General Motors made a decision on a bankruptcy filing, which could happen by the end of this month. The new rules also provide some certainty for Chrysler, which is already under bankruptcy protection, so that it can plan its future models.

Why Does Obama Make Us Think?

The great ending to this revue of Obama's Notre Dame appearance:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Fetalmania
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

becomes a segue into this "investigative" report on whether Barack Obama is actually Cliff Huxtable:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Barack Obama Is Cliff Huxtable
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

GOP Losses Span Nearly All Demographic Groups

Keep it up Cheney, Limbaugh & Steele; you're really helping your party. From Gallup:

The decline in Republican Party affiliation among Americans in recent years is well documented, but a Gallup analysis now shows that this movement away from the GOP has occurred among nearly every major demographic subgroup. Since the first year of George W. Bush's presidency in 2001, the Republican Party has maintained its support only among frequent churchgoers, with conservatives and senior citizens showing minimal decline.

So far in 2009, aggregated Gallup Poll data show the divide on leaned party identification is 53% Democratic and 39% Republican -- a marked change from 2001, when the parties were evenly matched, according to an average of all of that year's Gallup Polls. That represents a loss of five points for the Republicans and a gain of eight points for the Democrats.

... As was shown earlier, the GOP's loss in leaned support over this time is evident among nearly every subgroup. The losses are substantial among college graduates, which have shown a decline in GOP support of 10 points. (The losses are even greater -- 13 points -- among the subset of college graduates with postgraduate educations.) This may reflect in part Barack Obama's strong appeal to educated voters, a major component of his winning coalitions in both the Democratic primaries and the general election.

Aside from education, for which the parties were basically at even strength in 2001, the Republicans' losses tend to be greater among groups that were not strong GOP supporters to begin with. These include self-identified liberals and moderates, church non-attenders, and lower-income and young adults. Thus, a big factor in the GOP's overall decline is the Democratic Party's consolidating its support among normally Democratically leaning groups.

In turn, the GOP has generally avoided significant losses among only its most loyal groups, including frequent churchgoers and self-identified conservatives. The Republican Party maintains majority support among these two groups.

Two exceptions to this general pattern are senior citizens, and racial and ethnic minorities. Republican support among blacks and the larger group of nonwhites has not changed much in the past eight years, but these groups have shown only very limited support for the Republican Party. And while Obama's candidacy seemed to attract young voters to the Democratic Party during the 2008 presidential campaign, it did not have the same effect on older voters. As a result, the share of older voters aligned with the Republican Party has generally held steady.

The Republican Party clearly has lost a lot of support since 2001, the first year of George W. Bush's administration. Most of the loss in support actually occurred beginning in 2005, after Hurricane Katrina and Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court -- both of which created major public relations problems for the administration -- and amid declining support for the Iraq war. By the end of 2008, the party had its worst positioning against the Democrats in nearly two decades.

The GOP may have stemmed those losses for now, as it does not appear to have lost any more support since Obama took office. But as the analysis presented here shows, the losses the GOP has suffered have come among nearly all demographic groups apart from some of the most ardent Republican subgroups.

Anderson Cooper: Obama's Promises to Gay Community - Is Time Running Out?

Chief Justice John Roberts' Impact

Jeffrey Toobin summarizing the impact of Bush-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., on the Supreme Court:

Roberts’s hard-edged performance at oral argument offers more than just a rhetorical contrast to the rendering of himself that he presented at his confirmation hearing. “Judges are like umpires,” Roberts said at the time. “Umpires don’t make the rules. They apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.” His jurisprudence as Chief Justice, Roberts said, would be characterized by “modesty and humility.”

After four years on the Court, however, Roberts’s record is not that of a humble moderate but, rather, that of a doctrinaire conservative. The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party ...

 At this low moment in the historical reputation of George W. Bush, his nominee for Chief Justice stands in signal contrast to what appears today to be a failed and fading tenure as President. Roberts’s service on the Court, which is, of course, likely to continue for decades, offers an enduring and faithful reflection of the Bush Presidency.

Fox News Is Not News

Details Of New Detainee Tribunal System Emerge

From the NY Times:

Senior administration officials said they planned to ask Congress for additional reforms of the military commission system, calling the proposed changes the president announced a starting point ... The officials said that the changes the president described were those that could be made without legislation. 

In a filing to military judges obtained by The New York Times that has not been publicly released, military prosecutors described several of the administration’s planned changes.

The filing did not describe the legislation the administration is to propose to Congress, but it said the revisions would involve the rules for the treatment of classified evidence, one of the most contentious issues at the prison at the naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

But the filing did provide details of several changes Mr. Obama outlined on Friday. He said, for example, that “the accused will have greater latitude in selecting their counsel.”

The statement drew wide notice. The Bush administration’s military commission system was often criticized because detainees were required to be represented by military defense lawyers appointed by the Pentagon and assigned to a special office of military defense lawyers for Guantánamo. Some detainees have refused to work with the lawyers, saying they are uniformed representatives of their enemies.

The filing showed that the Obama administration had not made a substantial change in the restriction. It said that a detainee would be permitted a lawyer “of the accused’s own choosing.” But it added that the requested lawyer must be assigned to the Pentagon’s office of military defense lawyers for Guantánamo.

Maj. David J. R. Frakt of the Air Force, another defense lawyer for a Guantánamo detainee who is facing charges, said that change indicated that several of the Obama administration’s alterations to the Bush administration’s system were what he called “minor cosmetic changes.”

Hate-filled Rally Protesting Hate Crimes Bill - WWJD?

Operation Save America:

Carbon Pollution: Who Benefited & Who Will Pay The Price

From Ezra Klein:

Last week, the British medical journal The Lancet released the product of a year-long partnership with the University College London that attempted to assess the impact of global warming on global health. "Climate change," they concluded, "is the biggest global health threat of the 21 century." But crucially, it's a terribly unequal threat. The graphic below -- click for full size -- presents two distorted maps. The first shows the world in terms of carbon emissions. America, for instance, is huge. So is China. And Europe. Africa is hardly visible. The second map shows the world in terms of increased mortality -- that is to say, deaths -- from climate change. Suddenly, America virtually disappears. So does Europe. Africa, however, is grotesquely distended. South Asia inflates.

"Loss of healthy life years as a result of global environmental change (including climate change) is predicted to be 500 times greater in poor African populations than in European populations," predicts the report. Which presents a particularly tricky political problem. The developed countries that benefit most from fossil fuels will suffer least. The countries with the maximum incentive to prevent climate change have no power to do it.

Is A Truth And Reconciliation Commission Gaining Ground?

Glenn Thrush thinks this might be more likely now. Which as I've written (What To Do With Bush's Torture: Truth and Reconciliation Not Prosecution) is the best way out of this legal, moral and political mess:

Is the truth commission - dismissed by President Obama and seemingly DOA a few weeks ago -- gaining traction again?

Three different stories out today make it clear that the idea of a truth commission is far from dead in the minds of many Democrats. And Republicans may now want their whack at the truth if they believe it will implicate Speaker Nancy Pelosi in any way.

First off, Jeffrey Rosen in the May 20 New Republic makes an argument that an empowered commission is the only way to find out what really happened:

But the fact that an independent commission would be politically distracting isn't a good argument for resisting it. The Bush torture policies are the most serious violation of American values since the World War II internment of Japanese-Americans. A closed Senate intelligence committee investigation would be inconsistent with the transparency Obama demanded when he released the memos in the first place.

Second, as The Hillreports this morning, Republicans like Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and Newt Gingrich now want Pelosi investigated: "If nothing else, Pelosi's hard-to-prove assertion that the CIA lied to her in a briefing has renewed interest among Republicans and Democrats in what the Bush administration was doing with detainees six years ago and what it told Congress and other officials," Mike Soraghan writes.

And finally, there's this quote from Pelosi herself to Daily Beast founder Tina Brown in the May 25 Newsweek column out this week:

"The president has been very clear. He wants to move forward. Me and the Congress want to be told the truth. The more things get released, the more we want a full commission. He wants to give immunity. I want to be more selective. He says go with immunity and maybe you will learn more. It's very hard."

Does all this add up to a full-blown "commission" with subpoena powers like the 9/11 commission? Hard to say at this point, but the idea seems to be back on the table.

Hell

What The President's Notre Dame Visit Tells Us About Obama's Approach To Politics

From Chris Crillizza:

President Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame University on Sunday served as a microcosm of his entire approach to governance: engage your enemies on difficult issues, find an area(s) of common agreement and urge compromise.

Obama arrived in South Bend, Ind. amid controversy as pro-life activists protested the idea of a president who supports abortion rights speaking at one of the nation's most prominent Catholic universities.

Rather than ignore those who opposed his presence on campus, Obama chose instead to directly engage his critics -- telling a story from his 2004 Senate bid in which a pro-life doctor had written to him asking that he tone down the the rhetoric on his campaign Web site that condemned "right wing ideologues" seeking to take away a woman's right to choose. Obama read the language himself and ordered it changed.

That experience taught him that "when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground."

On abortion, the common ground Obama proposed was a joint effort by both sides of the issue to reduce the number of abortions in the country, cut the number of unwanted pregnancies and make adoption more available.

Obama's approach, as highlighted in the speech at Notre Dame, has been on display any number of times both on the campaign trail last year and during his short stint so far in the White House.

Though he was attacked for his proposal to engage our enemies -- even leaders of rogue nations -- Obama stuck by his guns. When the controversy around Rev. Jeremiah Wright arose, Obama delivered a speech on race that sought to use his own experience as a child of biracial background to point out the common hopes and struggles shared by white and black America. And, even in his early interactions with Republicans in Congress, Obama sought to use cocktail parties and sports -- common ground in Washington if ever there was any -- to court his rivals.

Obama's governing style provides a sharp contrast to the two men who preceded him. President Bill Clinton spent much of his time in office triangulating -- playing himself off of members of his own party to accomplish his goals. And, President George W. Bush campaigned on his record of bipartisan accomplishments but wound up defined by a sort of cowboy diplomacy that shrugged off doubts and concerns by insisting on the rightness of his positions.

"The Obama leadership paradigm is all the more striking because it is the polar opposite of what we have seen during the Bush years," said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane.

The Electronic Age

Obama To Visit Africa, Possibly Cape Coast Castle

From the NY Times:

When President Obama visits Africa this summer, it promises to be a moment of enormous historic and symbolic resonance for his country and the continent of his father’s family. But it will not exactly be a homecoming, since his ancestral homeland was deemed too troubled to visit.

The White House passed over Kenya, where Mr. Obama’s late father was from, in favor of the small nation of Ghana as the site of his first presidential visit to sub-Saharan Africa. A year after Kenya exploded in political violence, it remains a tense and unsettled place. Ghana, by contrast, is an outpost of democracy and civil society in a volatile region ...

Mr. Obama will travel to Accra, the capital of Ghana, on July 10 for an overnight stop at the end of a trip that will first take him to Moscow to meet with Russian leaders and then Sardinia for the annual summit of the Group of Eight powers. Not counting Egypt, where he will travel next month, it will be Mr. Obama’s first trip to Africa as the first African-American president. And while a quick one-night, one-stop visit might not produce the spectacle of a longer journey across the continent, it will surely generate global attention.

Among other things, Mr. Obama may visit Cape Coast Castle, the headquarters of the British slave trade on Africa’s Gold Coast. Captured Africans would pass through the castle’s “door of no return” as they were carted off to ships. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush visited African slave posts during their presidencies, but the imagery of an African American president visiting one promises to be far more profound ...

As they surveyed the possibilities, Kenya was ruled out. Although Mr. Obama went there three years ago, it has since descended into political turmoil. After a disputed election last year, ethnic violence erupted, leaving more than 1,000 people dead and hundreds of thousands fleeing their homes.

A coalition government formed with the opposition stopped the upheaval but has not resolved the underlying tensions. A United Nations investigation recently reported that more than 500 people had been killed by police death squads.

In choosing Ghana instead, the Obama team picked a bipartisan American favorite. President George W. Bush visited Accra last year and Ghana named a major new highway after him. Mr. Bush reciprocated with a rare State Dinner at the White House for Ghana’s then-president, John Kufuor. John Atta Mill succeeded Mr. Kufuor this year in the second peaceful handover of power in a region where coups are more common.

President Obama's Notre Dame Commencement Speech

The AP's highlights:

Read complete transcript. A pulll quote:

Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually. It has both moral and spiritual dimension. So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions. Let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. Let’s make adoption more available. Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term.

The complete speech ... Part I:

Part II:

Part III:

Part IV: