A Blue View

Happy July 4th!

H/T The Daily Dish

Harry & Louise Redux

An clever post from Chris Good pointing out, yet again, that Obama is an astute politician:

As his opponents have sought to paint him as a liberal idealist, willing to spend a trillion of dollars to implement a big-government health care plan and place a big check mark on the liberal wish list, Obama has hit back on that notion hard--and he's done it, perhaps, by taking a page from the playbook of Harry and Louise.

Harry and Louise, of course, were the TV ad couple who helped torpedo the Clinton-led health reform effort in 1994, doing so with a simple message: if this reform plan goes through, your current health coverage will be taken away.

It was a powerful message, and the fear of coverage being taken away still resonates with Americans uncertain of Obama's plan today.

But what the president has done is turn that same argument around. His basic message: your health coverage will be taken away if we don't reform health care this year.

His arguments for reform have focused heavily on rising costs and the unsustainability of the current system. His public remarks on the matter are rife with figures about how much costs have risen and will rise in the future, and how soon the nation won't be able to pay them.

"In the last nine years, premiums have risen three times faster than wages. If we don nothing, they will rise even higher. In recent years, over one third of small businesses have reduced benefits and many have dropped coverage altogether since the early '90s," Obama told the audience at his town hall meeting on health care in Annandale, Virginia Wednesday.

"If we do not act, more will lose coverage and more will lose their jobs. Unless we act, within a decade, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care," Obama said.

Obama's economic rhetoric is all about how things can't remain the same. It's the same point the Harry and Louise ad made, but backward, and in Obama's version, the "naysayers" who oppose health reform are the ones who play fast and loose with the coverage Americans currently enjoy. And as polling indicates that Americans are concerned heavily with costs, the president has, in turn, stuck to telling people about the costs of not passing his plan.

In Obama's rhetorical system, there is no status quo to preserve: the fundamental truth about health care is that it's changing, rapidly and frighteningly. Leaving the current system in place is what will cause people to lose what they already have.

It's not that 46 million Americans are uninsured and that we can and must do better, as the richest nation in the world, to ensure them--an argument we heard from Democratic candidates like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign--it's that we have to do something immediately, reactively, because current coverage is being threatened.

"This isn't just about those Americans without health care. It's about every American--because if we do not act to bring down costs, everybody's health care will be in jeopardy," Obama said at Wednesday's town hall.

And so part of his rhetoric is about shaking people with fear into supporting his reforms. If Harry and Louise made people afraid of passing Clinton's reform plan, Obama is making people afraid of not passing his.

Confronting the Harry and Louise argument directly during the question-and-answer segment of the town hall in Annandale, Obama inverted it perfectly.

"Many of you may be satisfied with your health care now.  What you've got to do is project, if current trends continue, are you still going to be happy with your health care five years from now?  Will you have health care five years from now?" Obama asked.

Perhaps learning from the Clinton-led effort, Obama has made sure the "naysayers" aren't the only ones with scary arguments to win people to their side.

Palin Cartoons

The first of what I assume will be many cartoons:

 

Reactions To Palin's Resignation

Ed Rollins:

Daniel Larison:

The GOP really is in freefall. The governor most Republicans like and want to support is apparently dropping out of politics, and Mark Sanford remains in office despite scandal and disgrace. Though there is otherwise really nothing in common between them, Palin is every bit as finished politically on a national level as Sanford is ...

I keep seeing these odd Richard Nixon references in commentary on this resignation. As Alex Massie notes, Richard Nixon was already a fairly significant, well-established political figure by 1960. Just as important, he was the losing candidate in a close race in which he was the presidential candidate, and so far as I know Nixon never resigned from a major office before his term was up unless it was to take a more prestigious post. To make a Nixonian comeback, it might be helpful if Palin’s career were in any way comparable to Nixon’s.

The DNC:

Either Sarah Palin is leaving the people of Alaska high and dry to pursue her long shot national political ambitions or she simply can't handle the job now that her popularity has dimmed and oil revenues are down. Either way - her decision to abandon her post and the people of Alaska who elected her continues a pattern of bizarre behavior that more than anything else may explain the decision she made today.

Stephen Stromberg:

Sarah Palin, as you may well have heard, is resigning as governor of Alaska later this month in order, reports The Post’s Chris Cillizza, to focus on a 2012 presidential bid. And, in one stroke, she reconfirms many of the reasons she will never be president.

First, the timing: It’s not just that there’s more time between now and the next presidential election than has yet elapsed since the last one. There’s more time between now and the next midterm election than has passed since last November. Perhaps never has a presidential hopeful so poorly disguised her overambition. Sure, it’s tough to campaign and govern a state so far away from Iowa. But she could have simply decided not to run for reelection next year. This makes her look incapable of juggling multiple tasks at once.

Which points to a larger problem: judgment skills, or, rather, her questionable possession of such. From her disastrous campaign interviews to her self-aggrandized insistence that she speak on election night to her inability to decide whether or not to speak at GOP functions to her incompetence at handling the press to her gratuitous spat with David Letterman, she has demonstrated a volatile temperament and an incapability to think strategically. As John Weaver, a long-time McCainite, told The Post this afternoon: “We've seen a lot of nutty behavior from governors and Republican leaders in the last three months, but this one is at the top of that.”

All together, the picture is of a politician with obvious abilities to connect to ordinary folks -- but one who is also arrogant, unstable and unwise. Her latest move makes the image even clearer.

Josh Marshall's Meditation for the day:

John McCain and his shrewd judge of character.

Andrew Sullivan:

I think the simple truth is that, as even Alaskan Republicans told us last September, she was far from able to be governor of Alaska, let alone vice-president of the United States. Once the klieglights hit, it was only a matter of time before she imploded or exploded or some gruesome combination of the two. The librul media will be blamed for everything on her inexorable path to becoming a Fox News celebrity. Maybe a reality show? Someone hire her for The View!

In the end, I think, the one thing to say is that the Republican party is in such a total state of collapse and incoherence that it actually believed she could be a future president; and that John McCain was so reckless, so cynical and so cavalier that he was prepared to rest the national security of this country on her shoulders if he, in his seventies, were to become unable to fulfill his duties or die. In some ways, this is a moment to reflect on McCain, and his irresponsibility, not Palin and her drama.

Palin Resigns

First watch her press conference yourself:

Then read the NY Times interestingly snarky account:

Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska abruptly announced on Friday that she was quitting at the end of the month, shocking Republicans across the country and leaving both parties uncertain about whether she was leaving national politics or laying the groundwork for a presidential run.

Ms. Palin, 45, the Republican vice-presidential nominee last year, was supposed to serve through the end of 2010; she said she would cede control of the state to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell on July 26.

Speaking outside her home in Wasilla, Ms. Palin offered conflicting signals about her intentions and her motivation.

In her tone and some of her words in an often-rambling announcement, she sounded like someone who was making a permanent exit from politics after what her friends have called a rough and dispiriting year.

But her remarks, delivered in a voice that often seemed rushed and jittery, sounded at times like those of a candidate with continued national aspirations, as when she suggested she could “fight for all our children’s future from outside the governor’s office.”

Ms. Palin said that she had decided not to seek re-election when her term expires at the end of next year and that, given that, she did not think it was fair to her constituents to continue in office ...

The news conference came at the end of a week in which a Vanity Fair article about Ms. Palin brought renewed focus on many of the criticisms of her as a candidate for vice president under Senator John McCain of Arizona and set off a new round of recriminations among Mr. McCain’s advisers about her competence.

But while Ms. Palin has been derided by much of the Republican elite, she remains extremely popular with many grass-roots members, especially social and religious conservatives.

Ms. Palin’s announcement was another unusual marker in what has been a tumultuous year for this first-term governor since Mr. McCain turned her into a national figure overnight by surprising his own party and naming her his running mate. It also underscored the instability in the Republican Party as it tries to find a strategy and voice in the wake of losses in 2008.

Ms. Palin made the announcement standing with her family. At one point she described how her children had voted in favor of her doing this — “Four yeses and one ‘Hell, yeah!’ ” she said — suggesting that the family had had enough of the scrutiny that had made them tabloid staples.

But at another point she invoked a military quotation, misattributing it to Gen. Douglas MacArthur, in what seemed to be an effort to wave aside any suggestion that she was abandoning the fight. “He said, ‘We’re not retreating; we are advancing in another direction,’ ” she said. (The remark was actually said by Maj. Gen. Oliver Prince Smith.)...

Quitting midterm, however, is highly unusual. It set off speculation about what led her to leave so abruptly. One interpretation among Republicans was that she had simply underscored how erratic she is as a politician.

“Good point guards don’t quit and walk off the floor if the going gets tough,” said John Weaver, a former senior strategist for Mr. McCain. “Today’s move falls further into the weirdness category; people don’t like a quitter.”

But some of her supporters argued that this could actually provide Ms. Palin an opportunity to recover from what has been a damaging year for her, and prepare herself for the 2012 race. She has been enmeshed in continuing battles with members of both parties in her Legislature.

The way Ms. Palin presented her decision seemed to leave open the possibility that she had been motivated by any one of a number of reasons, including being sick of politics and wanting to get out or taking pre-emptive action in anticipation of some embarrassing disclosure.

“It caught everybody by surprise,” said a former Alaska House majority leader, Ralph Samuels, a Republican who is contemplating a run for governor in 2010. “I’ve had a million calls today from friends, all political junkies, and everyone is asking the same questions: Is it national ambition, or does she want time to write the book, or is she just tired of it? Don’t have a clue.”

Colbert Word: Stonewalling

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Stonewalling
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Jeff Goldblum

The New Normal In The Economy

From Steven Pearlstein:

Certainly the economy and the financial system are in much better shape than almost any of us would have predicted as the year began. At the same time, the midterm outlook is nowhere near as rosy as suggested by the consensus forecasts from Washington or the second-quarter rally on Wall Street.

Given the size of the credit bubble, the amount of overcapacity that was allowed to develop and the staggering amount of wealth that has been lost, it would be foolhardy to expect the recession to be so shallow or the recovery so robust.

Government policies, certainly, have helped to moderate the pace of the adjustment and prevented it from spinning out of control. But the process of de-leveraging balance sheets and getting spending in line with incomes is nowhere near complete. Until they are, unemployment will continue to rise, businesses will continue to fail, and the economy will alternate between growing slowly and not growing at all.

We got a hint of all of this yesterday when the government reported the loss of 467,000 more jobs, bringing the number of jobs down to where it was back in March 2000. Stock markets here and around the world fell sharply on the news. And with tax revenue evaporating, some of the biggest states are being forced to curtail basic services and pay their bills with IOUs.

That's not to say there aren't some positive signs.

Monthly job losses have slowed, households have cut back on their debt, and some businesses have been able to float new issues of stocks and bonds.

Housing prices have begun to bottom out in some of the hardest-hit markets, and consumer confidence has recently improved. There are signs that manufacturing activity has begun to pick up, and even auto companies are suggesting their sales have bottomed out.

Most significantly, stock prices -- long viewed as a leading indicator -- rebounded nearly 40 percent from their lows of early March before giving back some of gains in the past two weeks.

One way to look at these developments is that they foretell a strong and sustainable recovery after an equally sharp recessionary decline.

A more likely explanation, however, is that the economy has merely pulled out of a free fall, and that for the next several years it will oscillate between sluggish growth and modest decline until the necessary adjustments and rebalancing are completed.

In this more realistic view, consumers who over the winter put off just about any purchase have decided that it's now safe to do a little shopping -- even as they continue to pare back their overall consumption.

Factories and stores that for the past six months have been living off unsold inventories have now reached the point of needing to replenish their shelves -- but without any expectation that sales will return to pre-recession levels anytime soon.

Today's Iranian Political Cartoons (#iranelection)

 

The Wheels Of Justice Roll For The Interrogators?

Maybe. From the NY Times:

Current and former top Central Intelligence Agency officers have appeared before a federal grand jury in Virginia as part of an 18-month investigation into the agency’s destruction of 92 videotapes depicting the brutal interrogations of two Qaeda detainees.

The witnesses recently called by the special prosecutor, former government officials said, include the agency’s top officer in London and Porter J. Goss, who was C.I.A. director when the tapes were destroyed in November 2005.

The grand jury testimony of C.I.A. officers is further evidence that, despite President Obama’s pledge not to punish agency operatives for their role in the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects, the shadow of the controversial program still looms over the agency’s daily operations.

The court appearances are tied to a criminal investigation led by John L. Durham, whom the Justice Department appointed in January 2008 to investigate the destruction of the tapes. The tapes had shown C.I.A. officers using harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding, on two detainees, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

Mr. Durham has shrouded his investigation in a level of secrecy rare even by the normally tight-lipped standards of special prosecutors, and after 18 months it is still difficult to assess either the direction or the targets of his investigation.

Current and former intelligence officials say the tapes were ordered destroyed by Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., then the head of the C.I.A.’s clandestine branch. Mr. Rodriguez had worried that the tapes might be leaked and put undercover operatives in legal and physical jeopardy.

Colbert Tip/Wag: Rep Cynthia Davis & Fox News

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Tip/Wag - Cynthia Davis & Fox News
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Jeff Goldblum

Change Comes To Immigration Enforcement

From the NY Times:

Immigration authorities had bad news this week for American Apparel, the T-shirt maker based in downtown Los Angeles: About 1,800 of its employees appeared to be illegal immigrants not authorized to work in the United States.

But in contrast to the high-profile raids that marked the enforcement approach of the Bush administration, no federal agents with criminal warrants stormed the company’s factories and rounded up employees. Instead, the federal immigration agency sent American Apparel a written notice that it faced civil fines and would have to fire any workers confirmed to be unauthorized.

The treatment of American Apparel, which has more than 5,600 factory employees in Los Angeles alone, is the most prominent demonstration of a new strategy by the Obama administration to curb the employment of illegal immigrants by focusing on employers who hire them — and doing so in a less confrontational manner than in years past.

Unlike the approach of the Bush administration, which brought criminal charges in its final two years against many illegal immigrant workers, the new effort makes broader use of fines and other civil sanctions, federal officials said Thursday.

Federal agents will concentrate on businesses employing large numbers of workers suspected of being illegal immigrants, the officials said, and will reserve tough criminal charges mostly for employers who serially hire illegal immigrants and engage in wage and labor violations.

Harry Reid On Flexing His New Muscle

Senate Health Committee Unveils Lower Cost Plan

From the NY Times:

To warm words from President Obama, the Democratic leaders of the Senate health committee unveiled a revised plan Thursday to provide health coverage to nearly all Americans. The plan would require most employers to offer benefits to their workers or pay fees to the government and would create a public competitor to insurance companies.

The proposal clears the way for the committee to vote on a package next week as the House and the Senate hustle to pass separate health bills this month before Congress leaves on its August break. But a second Senate panel, the Finance Committee, is still struggling to reach consensus.

The health committee’s blueprint builds on an incomplete version that was much criticized two weeks ago when the Congressional Budget Office reported that it would cost more than $1 trillion over 10 years and still leave up to 37 million Americans uninsured. That budget report was widely considered a setback for a health care overhaul ...

Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the health committee chairman, and Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut subsequently filled in details of the plan and scaled back subsidies that would help low-income people buy insurance.

Attached to the revised outline they presented Thursday was a new budget office analysis projecting that the plan would cost $611 billion over a decade and, together with expected changes from the Finance Committee, cover 97 percent of Americans.

The Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over Medicaid, is expected to propose expansions to that government health program for the poor that would add several hundred billion dollars more to the legislation’s cost, depending on how it is designed.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats who control Congress are seeking to hold the upfront costs of overhauling the health care system to roughly $1 trillion over a decade ... Their main idea for controlling insurance costs is the proposal for a public option. Along with private insurers’ offerings, it would be part of a new insurance exchange from which consumers without employer-provided coverage could choose ...

Under the Kennedy-Dodd proposal, employers with 25 or more workers would have to provide coverage or pay the government an annual fee of $750 for each full-time worker and $375 for each part-timer. The government would pay the start-up costs for the public insurance option as a loan to be repaid, and premiums would be set up so that the option was ultimately self-sufficient.

Republican Daily Affirmation

Sarah Palin Is Not Going Away

Three disparate snippets to whet your appetite for this long piece in Vanity Fair:

Despite her disastrous performance in the 2008 election, Sarah Palin is still the sexiest brand in Republican politics, with a lucrative book contract for her story. But what Alaska’s charismatic governor wants the public to know about herself doesn’t always jibe with reality. As John McCain’s top campaign officials talk more candidly than ever before about the meltdown of his vice-presidential pick, the author tracks the signs—political and personal—that Palin was big trouble, and checks the forecast for her future.

The pattern is inescapable: she takes disagreements personally, and swiftly deals vengeance on enemies, real or perceived.

Palin is at once the sexiest and the riskiest brand in the Republican Party. Her appeal to people in the party (and in the country) who share her convictions and resentments is profound. The fascination is viral, and global. Bill McAllister, until recently Palin’s statehouse spokesman, says that he has fielded (and declined) interview requests from France, England, Italy, Switzerland, Israel, Germany, Bulgaria, “and probably other countries I’ve forgotten about.” (Palin, keeping her distance from most domestic media as well, also declined to talk to V.F.). Whatever her political future, the emergence of Sarah Palin raises questions that will not soon go away. What does it say about the nature of modern American politics that a public official who often seems proud of what she does not know is not only accepted but applauded? What does her prominence say about the importance of having (or lacking) a record of achievement in public life? Why did so many skilled veterans of the Republican Party—long regarded as the more adroit team in presidential politics—keep loyally working for her election even after they privately realized she was casual about the truth and totally unfit for the vice-presidency? Perhaps most painful, how could John McCain, one of the cagiest survivors in contemporary politics—with a fine appreciation of life’s injustices and absurdities, a love for the sweep of history, and an overdeveloped sense of his own integrity and honor—ever have picked a person whose utter shortage of qualification for her proposed job all but disqualified him for his?

Soon To Be Ex-Governor Sanford

   

SEC Staffer Warned of Madoff; Called Off By Boss Who Later Married Into Madoff's Family

From the Wash Post:

An investigator at the Securities and Exchange Commission warned superiors as far back as 2004 about irregularities at Bernard L. Madoff's financial management firm, but she was told to focus on an unrelated matter, according to agency documents and sources familiar with the investigation.

Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot, a lawyer in the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, sent e-mails to a supervisor, saying information provided by Madoff during her review didn't add up and suggesting a set of questions to ask his firm, documents show. Several of these questions directly challenged Madoff activities that much later turned out to be elements of his massive fraud.

But with the agency under pressure to look for wrongdoing in the mutual fund industry, she wasn't able to continue pursuing Madoff, according to documents and two people familiar with the investigation, and her team soon concluded its work on the probe.

Walker-Lightfoot's supervisors on the case were Mark Donohue, then a branch chief in her department, and his boss, Eric Swanson, an assistant director of the department, said two people familiar with the investigation. Swanson later married Madoff's niece, and their relationship is now under review by the agency's inspector general, who is examining the SEC's handling of the Madoff case. <Continue reading.>

Bernie Sanders Increases The Pressure On The Democratic Caucus

He was quoted in this earlier post saying,

“The American people are going to say, ‘Look, we have given you the authority to make changes on health care, go ahead and do it,’ ” said Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent aligned with the Democrats. “No more excuses.” ...

and he continues to increase the pressure in this clip by making a very reasonable argument to the Democrats: regardless of where you stand on a public option, you owe it to the American people to allow an up and down vote on health care reform:

Democrats "are not a monolithic caucus”

This NY Times report on the impact of Al Franken's ascendancy elaborates on the first point I made in yesterday's Franken Wont Prevent Filibusters But Will Move Things A Bit To The Left. Too bad for Times readers ;) the Times missed my second, far more important observation.

Senate Democrats are about to reach the magical threshold of 60 votes, allowing them in theory to sweep aside Republican delaying tactics. But the arrival of that 60th vote, in the person of Al Franken of Minnesota, is not likely to make the party’s very real difficulties in advancing contentious legislation disappear.

The persistent absences of two veteran Democratic senators because of serious illness, the varied ideological makeup of the Democratic caucus and the willingness of individual senators to break with the party if they do not get their legislative way make the new mathematical might of the Democrats a bit illusory ...

Indeed, becoming the first party in 30 years to reach the fabled plateau of 60 could create as many political problems as it solves, raising expectations sky high and potentially causing a backlash should Democrats falter on energy or health care.

“The American people are going to say, ‘Look, we have given you the authority to make changes on health care, go ahead and do it,’ ” said Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent aligned with the Democrats. “No more excuses.” ...

Top Democrats say that the illnesses of those two senior statesmen [Kennedy & Byrd] are problematic, but that at vital moments on major issues the men would most likely be able to come to the Senate and cast their votes. But their absences leave Democrats with a working majority of 58, allowing Republicans an opening to raise procedural hurdles regularly.

The two senators’ health is just one concern for Senate Democrats, who are at the moment divided on how to approach health care and energy. Keeping occasional mavericks like Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana in the fold could prove vexing. At the same time, senators at the more liberal end of the spectrum have been known to balk when they feel legislation has been too heavily tailored to appeal to more moderate and conservative Democrats ...

That Democratic dynamic means the party will have to continue to try to appeal to at least a handful of Republicans on major issues to compensate for potential defectors. “One or two could peel off on any issue,” said Mr. Reid, who has seen the ranks of his party swell by 15 in the past two elections.

The 60-seat majority will also increase the pressure from the left on wayward Democrats in an effort to hold them in line. That development has already begun as liberal interest groups have registered discontent with Democrats who have expressed reservations about elements of the emerging health plan ...

“Sixty is an important threshold, but we shouldn’t overstate it,” said Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “Al Franken is going to put the wind at our back. But we are not a monolithic caucus.”

ChrisTheTruckDriver Debates Michael Steele On The Myth of Doctor-Patient Control of Medicine

New Delhi’s Highest Court Decriminalizes Homosexuality

From the NY Times:

In a landmark ruling Thursday that could usher in an era of greater freedom for gays and lesbians in India, New Delhi’s highest court decriminalized homosexuality.

“Discrimination is antithesis of equality,” Delhi High Court judges wrote in a 105-page decision that is the first in India to directly guarantee rights for gays and lesbians. “It is the recognition of equality which will foster dignity of every individual,” the decision said.

Homosexuality has been illegal in India since 1861, when British rulers codified a law prohibiting “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.” The law, known as Section 377, has long been viewed as an archaic holdover from colonialism by its detractors. Gay men and women have rarely been prosecuted in modern times, but it has been used to harass, blackmail and jail marchers and participants in gatherings.

The ruling applies only to India’s capital city but it will force the national government to either appeal the decision to the Supreme Court or repeal the law nationwide, lawyers said ...

The repeal comes after a broad campaign organized by gay rights activists, authors and celebrities, lawyers and AIDS awareness groups.

This July 4th Might Be Different

Franken Wont Prevent Filibusters But Will Move Things A Bit To The Left

Al Franken finally being awarded Minnesota's Senate seat yesterday (NY Times, Wash Post, Wall St Journal) got me thinking about the impact this might have on the Senate and getting Obama's initiatives passed. I realized that contrary to the knee jerk, superficial analysis of cable blowhards, the impact will have little to do with preventing filibusters or giving Obama & the Dems a blank check to easily get whatever they want passed (contrary to the cartoon to the right). Instead I believe, Franken's seating will strengthen the progressive position in the Senate and consequently move all legislation a bit to the left.

To understand why, we have to go back in time to this 19 February 2009 post:

I've written extensively in A Blue View about how the GOP has been reduced to a rigidly conservative, ideologically pure rump of its former self (samples here, here, here and here). The flip side of this contraction of course is that the Democratic party has expanded its ideological basis to encompass many of the liberal to moderate Republicans turned off by the GOP's far right bent (exhibit A: the conservative Blue Dog Dems in Congress).

So if you were to diagram this out, you'd have a wide range of views--from liberal to conservative--within the Democratic party and a very narrow range of views--from very conservative to nut case conservative--within the GOP. And there wouldn't be much overlap between the two:

 

I then elaborated on this meme in a 29 April 2009 post about Senator Spector switching to the Democratic Party:

The range of political ideology in the Senate (and the country) did not change yesterday, nor did the "depth" (e.g., the popularity of any position along that spectrum). All that happened was that a Senator on the center right part of the spectrum changed his colors from red to blue. The Democratic Party now encompasses an even wider ideological range and so Obama's legislative strategy will now involve more inter-party than intra-party negotiating.

In fact, as I pointed out in the same post, Senator Spector is a perfect, symbolic example of my argument:

Obama is now going to have to convince Democratic Senator Specter to support a bill instead of Republican Senator Specter (true, he'll have a few more buttons to push but Specter's ideological positions--nor those of the overall Senate--will not be fundamentally changed by Spector's switch).

While Spector's political label changed to Democrat, his ideological positions generally did not. Over the last few election cycles, the Democratic curve has broadened a bit to cover more of the right end of the political spectrum while the Republican curve has contracted.

The expansive ideological range now within the Democratic Party essentially guarantees much inter-party negotiating and fighting over the tough issues making the filibuster proof argument irrelevant (the fact that Franken is the 60th vote just means the bulk of the GOP can be ignored).  All the action now will focus on the Democrats (and few Republicans) in the middle. And as in any negotiation, the strength of each side matters so that Franken's ascendancy, as a reliable progressive vote, strengthens and increases the progressive side's leverage during the inevitable negotiations over climate change, health care, etc.

One concrete example of this: the odds of the final health care reform bill including a public option just went up.

The GOP Before Time

How Smart They Are Makes Me Feel Better About Health Care Reform

John Dickerson has been having a running Q&A in Slate with Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, on the issue of health care. The breadth of knowledge and depth of detail exhibited in this Orszag answer really struck me and made me feel a lot better about the health care reform they're devising:

Q. As a fan and student of behavioral economics, what's the most exciting, or perhaps the coolest, thing you've learned about the quirky way people interact with the health care system? And how's that running program going?

A. I've become more and more persuaded that the lessons I was taught in "Econ 101" are insufficient to analyze public policy. Study after study has shown that we are not the hyper-rational calculating machines that economic theory assumes—and that we ignore at our own peril the crucial role of expectations, beliefs, and social norms in influencing behavior.

This is just as true in medical science and health policy as in other fields. The placebo effect is a compelling example here: Medicine tends to dismiss it as a statistical annoyance rather than examine it in and of itself, even though placebos are often more potent empirically than actual medical intervention. (One of the more fascinating studies I've come across in this vein was done by two Harvard psychologists who studied hotel cleaning staff and the effect of "perceived" exercise. At the outset, they found that most hotel workers didn't believe their work was exercise—two-thirds reported that they didn't exercise regularly, and more than one-third reported not exercising at all. But when the researchers informed a group of these workers that their eight-hour-a-day activity of cleaning rooms counted as "exercise," the effects were similar to an increase in actual exercise. The workers lost weight and lowered their blood pressure, apparently just by thinking that the same activity they were already doing was exercise! That's just one example that shows the power of human psychology.)

More broadly, behavioral economists have emphasized that people's choices are highly sensitive to factors ignored by rational, "Econ 101" models—things like simplicity and inertia, which can sometimes be far more important determinants of choice than monetary incentives. For example, behavioral economists have demonstrated the impact from making enrollment automatic in retirement plans—participation has been shown nearly to double after introducing automatic enrollment, and nearly to triple among lower-income workers, despite the fact that workers could opt out at any time. Defaults matter in health plans, too: Most people don't switch their health plans during "open enrollment season," even if doing so would be beneficial to them. The point is that health reform will fall short if it doesn't reflect how people actually go about making decisions in their day-to-day lives.

Olbermann: 'The President is God Damned Wrong on This'

Change Comes To Foreign Affairs: Not Just In The Mideast, But Latin America Too

And it seems to already be having a successful impact. From the NY Times:

From the moment the coup in Honduras unfolded over the weekend, President Hugo Chávez had his playbook ready. He said Washington’s hands may have been all over the ouster, claiming that it financed President Manuel Zelaya’s opponents and insinuating that the C.I.A. may have led a campaign to bolster the putschists.

But President Obama firmly condemned the coup, defusing Mr. Chávez’s charges. Instead of engaging in tit-for-tat accusations, Mr. Obama calmly described the coup as “illegal” and called for Mr. Zelaya’s return to office. While Mr. Chávez continued to portray Washington as the coup’s possible orchestrator, others in Latin America failed to see it that way.

“Obama Leads the Reaction to the Coup in Honduras,” read the front-page headline on Tuesday in Estado de São Paulo, one of the most influential newspapers in Brazil, whose ties to Washington are warm.

In recent years, Mr. Chávez has often seemed to outmaneuver Washington on such issues. He exploited the Bush administration’s low standing after the Iraq war and its tacit approval for the brief coup that toppled him in 2002, and blamed the United States for ills in Venezuela and across the region.

Now such tactics may get less traction, as the Obama administration presses for a multilateral solution to the crisis in Honduras by turning to the Organization of American States. In doing so, Mr. Obama is moving away from policies that had isolated the United States in parts of the hemisphere.

“With Honduras, the Obama administration has taken the mainstream road that is more in sync with other countries in the region,” said Peter DeShazo, director of the Americas program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The New Haven Fire Fighter Case: Pro & Con

 

Don't Ask How Sausage Is Made Either

The NY Times goes through all the deal making required--some completed just moments before the vote on the floor--to get the cap & trade / energy bill passed by the House:

As the most ambitious energy and climate-change legislation ever introduced in Congress made its way to a floor vote last Friday, it grew fat with compromises, carve-outs, concessions and out-and-out gifts intended to win the votes of wavering lawmakers and the support of powerful industries.

The deal making continued right up until the final minutes, with the bill’s co-author Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, doling out billions of dollars in promises on the House floor to secure the final votes needed for passage.

The bill was freighted with hundreds of pages of special-interest favors, even as environmentalists lamented that its greenhouse-gas reduction targets had been whittled down.

Some of the prizes were relatively small, like the $50 million hurricane research center for a freshman lawmaker from Florida.

Others were huge and threatened to undermine the environmental goals of the bill, like a series of compromises reached with rural and farm-state members that would funnel billions of dollars in payments to agriculture and forestry interests ...

Representative Joe Barton, a Texas Republican staunchly opposed to the bill, marveled at the deal-cutting on Friday.

“It is unprecedented,” Mr. Barton said, “but at least it’s transparent.”

Mr. Waxman defended the deal making as necessary to address a problem that affected every region and every industry.

“We worked hard to craft compromises that addressed the legitimate concerns of industry without undermining the environmental integrity of the legislation,” Mr. Waxman said. “Tackling hard issues that have been ignored for years is never easy.” ...

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff and a former Democratic leader in the House, said the president did not believe that the compromises had done it fatal harm.

“He loves this bill and lobbied hard for it,” Mr. Emanuel said, “including the great, the good and the not-so-great provisions.”

4th Of July Economy

Think Globablly, Act Locally

Did you know that switching 10 typical incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescent bulbs prevents as much CO2 from being released into the atmosphere as switching from a typical sedan to a Prius?

Think about it, 10 CFL's = 1 Prius.

President Obama is aware of the power of "simple" acts to have potentially large global consequences, as reported by the NY Times:

President Obama announced Monday that he is setting new standards for fluorescent and incandescent lighting as part of a series of steps to promote energy efficiency across the country.

“I know light bulbs may not seem sexy,’’ Mr. Obama said during a brief appearance at the White House. “But this simple action holds enormous promise, because 7 percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and our businesses.’’

Mr. Obama has made energy efficiency a centerpiece of his domestic policy agenda, with the goal of increasing gas mileage for cars and decreasing the emission of greenhouse gases that scientists say are warming the planet. He hailed the House bill, which passed narrowly and must still gain approval in the Senate, where prospects are uncertain, as “an extraordinary piece of legislation that will finally open the door to decreasing dependence on foreign oil.’’

Mr. Obama estimated that between 2012 and 2042, the new standards on light bulb efficiency would save consumers up to $4 billion a year, reducing emissions of greenhouses gases “equal to the amount produced by 166 million cars each year.’’ The president said he is also speeding the release of $346 million under his economic recovery act to expand the use of energy-efficient technologies in residential and commercial buildings.

One of those residential buildings is the White House. On the theory that energy efficiency begins at home, Mr. Obama said that Energy Secretary Steven Chu is already taking a look at the light bulbs in the executive mansion’s more than 130 rooms, “and we’re going to see what we need to replace them with energy-efficient light bulbs.’’

Energy & Climate Change Legislation

  

Will Carbon Trading Work?

Bradford Plumer says we can benefit from the lessons learned in Europe. First his summary:

The EU cap-and-trade system suffered a slew of early mishaps, but the United States has been watching and learning, and we should be able to avoid most of those fumbles. What's more, now that the problems have been ironed out, Europe's cap genuinely appears to be working, spurring companies to become more energy-efficient and making meaningful cuts in emissions. That said, the China factor is still huge: Europe obviously can't stop global warming all by itself, and there's no substitute for an international treaty.

Then he lays out his case:

It's helpful to divide the ETS into phases. In Phase I (2005-2007), the cap only covered about 45 percent of EU emissions, including electric utilities, mining, and the steel and chemical industries. Crucially, according to a 2007 Lehman Brothers analysis, the European Commission had no good data on EU emissions, so they initially relied on industry estimates. As a result, member states gave out way more permits than there was actual pollution—meaning, in effect, the cap was set way too high at first. The price of carbon crashed to nearly zero, and emissions increased in some countries. Oops.

In another early stumble, the EU gave away nearly all of the pollution permits for free, rather than auctioning them off. Policymakers hoped that if electric utilities didn't have to pay for their carbon allowances, they would pass the savings on to ratepayers and consumers. But utilities didn't do that. Instead, they jacked up electricity prices and simply kept the value of the permits for themselves, earning windfall profits.

Happily, the United States should be able to avoid many of these blunders. For one, the Energy Information Administration has much more comprehensive data on U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions than Europe did in 2005. And, while the House climate bill only auctions off 15 percent of its allowances, it does give a hefty number to heavily regulated electricity distributors, which are required by law to pass on savings to ratepayers. Some watchdog groups like Public Citizen are worried that these distributors will wriggle free of oversight, and that's a real concern, but in theory, there's a mechanism to avoid windfall utility profits.

Moving on, in Phase II, the EU tightened its caps and started auctioning off a greater chunk of the pollution permits. According to Lehman, once the initial kinks were hammered out, the system "succeeded, and fairly quickly, in imposing a price on carbon." Emissions have now fallen for four straight years. According to the European Environment Agency (EEA), the EU-15 has slashed emissions 5 percent below 1990 levels, and is on pace for a 11.3 percent cut by 2012—easily exceeding the 8 percent goal required by the Kyoto Protocol ...

There's also anecdotal evidence that Europe's carbon cap is having an effect. The U.K.-based consulting firm GHK recently studied more than a dozen companies in Europe and found that the cap-and-trade system was driving real changes in business behavior:

An Illusory Effect?

Obama Moves Out Of Wash DC For Health Care Support

From the NY Times:

With Democrats deeply divided over health legislation, President Obama is trying to enlist the nation’s governors and his own army of grass-roots supporters in a bid to increase pressure on lawmakers without getting himself mired in the messy battle playing out on Capitol Hill.

In a meeting last week with five governors — including Republicans who may be more sympathetic to health legislation than those on Capitol Hill — Mr. Obama privately urged them to serve as his emissaries to Congress. He even coached them on the language they should use with lawmakers, two of the governors said, advising them to avoid terms like “rationing” and “managed care,” which evoke bitter memories of the Clintons’ ill-fated health initiative.

The hourlong session in the Roosevelt Room was part of an intensifying but potentially risky White House strategy to shift the health care debate away from Washington and to the states. On Wednesday, Mr. Obama will travel to Virginia to hold a town-hall-style meeting on health care — his second in two weeks — that will include questions from online communities like Facebook and Twitter.

With members of Congress back in their districts for the Fourth of July recess, Mr. Obama’s political group, Organizing for America, has recruited thousands of supporters to participate in blood drives, raise money for medical research and volunteer at community health clinics this week, all with the intent of sending reminders to lawmakers that the public wants action on health care ...

While this outside-the-Beltway strategy lets Mr. Obama stay out of Democrats’ internal fights — for now at least — there are risks. If Mr. Obama waits too long to exert his presidential muscle to forge consensus on Capitol Hill, his moment of opportunity could pass. He could also lose control of the final outcome if lawmakers cut backroom deals he dislikes, for example, by deciding to pay for the expansion by taxing employee health benefits, a move that worries Mr. Obama’s political advisers because it could cause the president to break a campaign promise.

Some Democrats are privately pushing the president to do more to bring his party in line. When Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, went to Capitol Hill last week, the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, pressed for the president to intervene more directly to settle Democrats’ disputes over Mr. Obama’s call for a government-run insurance plan to compete with the private sector, two people familiar with the session said.

Mr. Emanuel, in an e-mail message, acknowledged that some Democrats “wanted more direct and specific involvement,” but said others were happy with the president’s level of engagement, adding, “We received a lot of advice.” ...

Fareed Zakaria's GPS: The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Have Committed A Coup d'Etat (#iranelection)

Iranian Political Cartoons (#iranelection)

Pres Obama & First Lady Hold LGBT Reception Commemorating Stonewall Riots 40 Years Ago

The whole event:

MSNBC's report, including an interview with Lt. Col. Fehrenbach (who is about to be discharged from the military under DADT) who talks about what he discussed with Obama at the event:

See related story.

Obama To Gay Supporters: "by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about" us

From the Wash Post (See related videos):

President Obama opened the doors of the White House to hundreds of gay and lesbian leaders yesterday, continuing his cautious outreach to a constituency that has loudly criticized his efforts on its behalf.

In an event in the East Room marking the 40th anniversary of the riots surrounding New York's Stonewall Inn, where gay patrons rose up against a police raid in Greenwich Village, Obama sought to reassure guests that he had not abandoned the issues important to them. He also drew a parallel between the progress gays and lesbians have made in recent decades and the struggles of black Americans to win equality.

"The truth is, when these folks protested at Stonewall 40 years ago, no one could have imagined that you or, for that matter, I would be standing here today," Obama said, promising to continue to push to overturn several laws that are anathema to gay activists.

His comments were received enthusiastically by some attendees ... Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist, said Obama gave "people confidence that he understood their movement, understood their struggle, and had a plan to do something about it."

But the excitement among many of the several hundred guests invited to the White House was tempered by frustration among some who say they think the president has moved too slowly to make good on his campaign promises.

"I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps," the president said to sustained applause. "We've been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."

The administration has been attempting to tread cautiously with the gay community. While it says it intends to follow through on Obama's campaign pledges, it is also eager to avoid the appearance that the president is giving in to any one group's demands ...

On the Internet, activists, bloggers and others have been criticizing him for not moving faster to unwind what they consider to be years of government inattention or active opposition.

In an open letter dated June 15, Joe Solmonese of Human Rights Campaign skewered the administration's legal brief filed in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, a step the White House said it is obligated to take when a law is challenged in court

"As an American, a civil rights advocate, and a human being, I hold this administration to a higher standard than this brief," he wrote. "We call on you to put your principles into action and send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress."

Yesterday, Solmonese sounded far more optimistic that the Obama he initially thought would lead from the White House will emerge.

"He reminded us to continue to hold him accountable," he said after the event. "There certainly was the appropriate and inspiring acknowledgment that he made of what this community has been through."

Solmonese said the event helped reassure gays and lesbians "that the work continues, that the commitment is still there," adding: "It's important for people to be reassured by the president."

But other invitees left with a continuing belief that the change under Obama will not be as rapid as they might have hoped.

"We are a movement that's been waiting a very, very long time," said one gay rights activist who attended the White House event. "The last time we thought we saw some hope for our issues was [President Bill] Clinton, and we wound up with 'don't ask, don't tell.' "

The Long Goodbye

Iraqis Celebrate Handover

Iraqi's celebrate as American armed forces pull out of their cities:

Read a related Wash Post story.

Forget The GOP, It's The "Centrist" Dems Who Water Legislation Down

From the Wall St Journal:

As Congress tackles President Barack Obama's top two domestic priorities -- climate change and health care -- he faces some of his most serious challenges from fellow Democrats.

The narrow passage Friday of an environment bill came with nearly one in five Democrats defecting, and only after supporters from coal-producing and agriculture districts won concessions that eased the impact on business and aggravated some environmentalists. Prospects for the measure remain uncertain in the Senate, even though Democrats hold a 59-40 voting majority.

Some Democratic defections were to be expected. Republicans' argument that the cap-and-trade program would effectively impose a national energy tax on consumers and businesses was a message likely to resonate in conservative congressional districts won by moderate Democrats in the past two elections.

The friction is emerging despite the fact that Democrats hold the White House and overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate. But Mr. Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are pressing an unusually ambitious agenda, and most of the Democrats' recent gains came from capturing seats in conservative areas, whose representatives are less likely to go along with his more far-reaching plans.

The question is whether the self-identified centrist Democrats will end up thwarting Mr. Obama's key priorities, or mainly act as an influence in scaling them back.

While lawmakers in both chambers craft health-care bills for votes later this summer, some Senate Democrats are whittling down provisions considered sacrosanct by liberal advocates, reducing proposed subsidies for the uninsured and opposing the creation of a government-run plan to compete with private insurers.

Democratic moderates' influence has been felt across an array of issues. Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) helped force a reduction in the price tag of Mr. Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill. Other Democrats forced changes to address business concerns about an initiative that would make it easier for homeowners to shed mortgage debt in bankruptcy court. Southern Democratic opposition has hurt the prospects of a law making it easier for unions to organize ...

The intraparty tensions are frustrating some Democratic leaders and activists, who believe they have an opportunity to enact a broad liberal agenda. MoveOn.org announced Friday that it is running ads criticizing Sen. Kay Hagan, a newly elected Democrat from North Carolina, for opposition to a publicly run plan as part of a health overhaul.

"Our 115,000 members in North Carolina, many of whom volunteered for or donated to her campaign last year, believe the public option is the heart of true health-care reform," said Justin Ruben, the group's executive director ...

The divisions inside the Democratic Party were on full display in the days and weeks of horse-trading leading to Friday's climate-change vote.

Right Wing "Oath Keepers," A Scary Group Of Active/Retired Military & Law Officers

Are you worried about what's going on with the military?  First, there was the Evangelical Christianity In The American Military video. Now this extols the "Oath Keepers" in the military and police and the orders they will not obey:

Obama's Appproach To Israel Seems To Be Working; Neocons Dead Wrong Again

The Neocon's are really unhappy. Their approach to the world is being discredited. Again.

Today's NY Times reports Israel May Shift on Settlements Freeze Amid Broader Effort indicating "that American pressure is having some effect" on removing a key roadblock to resuscitating Mid East peace negotiations.

Last week, the Obama Administration announced it was sending a U.S. Ambassador back to Syria (Syria, Iran & Obama's Smart Move) as part of a larger plan of engagement that also is bearing fruit ... much to the Neocon's dismay, as Glenn Greenwald ably points out:

Last night, I noted the sudden and obviously hypocritical concern about detainee abuse emerging from The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb now that the transfer of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit by the Palestinians to Egypt appears imminent and it's time to exploit his detention.  In service of that same mission, Goldfarb also tries to attributethis deal for Shalit's release to the heroism of Benjamin Netanyahu, excitedly claiming that, if it happens, it will cause the Israeli Prime Minister's "approval numbers [to] skyrocket, further undermining Obama's leverage over him" (i.e., Israel will be able to continue to expand settlements on land that isn't theirs).

But as Omooex points out in comments, the Haaretz articlewhich Goldfarb himself cited makes clear that it was not Netanyahu, but numerous other parties -- Jimmy Carter, Egypt, Syria and the Obama administration -- who engineered the agreement to transfer Shalit from Gaza to Egypt (followed eventually by his release to Israel, pending the release by Israel of Palestinian prisoners):

The move is part of a new United States initiative that includes Egyptian and Syrian pressure on Hamas. . . The idea to transfer Shalit to Egypt in exchange for the release of Palestinian women, teens, cabinet ministers and parliamentarians being held in Israeli prisons was raised about a year ago during a visit by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter to Damascus, Jerusalem and Gaza. . . . Carter raised it againon his visit earlier this month, during which he met Noam Shalit, Gilad's father. . . . The European source said Shalit's transfer to Egypt was the first stage of the Egyptian-brokered agreement hammered out between Fatah, Hamas and other Palestinian factions, in coordination with the U.S. and with Syria's support.

In other words, the deal for Shalit's release was secured by some of the neocon's most despised enemies (Jimmy Carter and Syria), with the help of a President they insist hates Israel (Barack Obama), relying on tactics they have long scorned (diplomacy, negotiating with Terrorists, including Hamas).  Of course, Jimmy Carter -- who neocons endlessly smear as being Israel-hating and even anti-Semitic -- did more to advance the interests of Israeli security than every neoconservative keyboard-tough-guy combined (indeed, more than virtually any single individual on the planet) when he engineered the 1979 Camp David peace accordbetween Israel and Egypt, which -- even 30 years later -- continues to pay dividends for Israel in the form of this apparent agreement for Shalit's release.  Identically, the Shalit deal is possible only because, as Haaretznotes, Hamas knows that there is now an American administration willing to negotiate with hostile parties, rather than trying to feel "tough" by ignoring and/or threatening them:

Hamas, which controls Gaza, has increasingly tried to reach out to the Obama administration in recent weeks.

This is but one of the numerous inanities of neoconservatives:  as destructive for the U.S. as their obsession with Israel and mindless belligerence are, those fixations also do nothing for Isarel but jeopardize it further.  Years of neocon rule and moronic chest-beating in Washington did nothing to help Shalit.  But a deal is struck for his release -- long a top priority of Israelis -- only months into a new administration committed to engagement with Syria and other ostensible Enemies, as well as an emphatic rejection of neoconservative ideology at least when it comes to dealing with some Muslim states.  But even those clear and obvious facts -- whereby this apparent success is possible only with them out of power, their ideology repudiated and their Enemies engaged -- won't stop them from claiming that this somehow vindicates their tawdry mindset ...

Notably, Goldfarb seems to think that Obama's leverage over Israel is dependent upon the domestic approval ratings of Netanyahu.  Actually, that leverage is grounded in the tens of billions of American dollars in aid to Israel, the supplying of American weapons for Israel's various wars, and the multiple forms of diplomatic protection the U.S. extends to Israel.  At least preliminarily and from all appearances, the Obama administration has been using that leverage for U.S. interests by demanding that Israeli actions that harm the U.S. cease.  Ironically, despite all the right-wing rage about that (in both Israel and the U.S.), the refusal to cater to neoconservatives when it comes to  U.S. policy towards Israel just so happens -- as demonstrated by this Shalit episode -- to be benefiting Israel as well.

Uninsured Father Takes On Insurance Industry

Gitmo Detainees To Be Tried By Military Commissions In The U.S. To Have Some Constitutional Rights

From the Wall St Journal:

The Justice Department has determined that detainees tried by military commissions in the U.S. can claim at least some constitutional rights, particularly protection against the use of statements taken through coercive interrogations, officials said.

The conclusion, explained in a confidential memorandum whose contents were shared with The Wall Street Journal, could alter significantly the way the commissions operate -- and has created new divisions among the agencies responsible for overseeing the commissions.

Defense Department officials warn that the Justice Department position could reduce the chance of convicting some defendants. Military prosecutors have said involuntary statements comprise the lion's share of their evidence against dozens of Guantanamo prisoners who could be tried.

The Obama Justice Department's view is a sharp turn from that of the Bush administration, which argued detainees have no constitutional rights. It isn't clear how the Obama administration will act, but the Justice Department's legal counsel's office traditionally has the last word on constitutional interpretation in the executive branch. The White House declined to comment.

The dispute over what rights military commission defendants can claim has intensified as President Barack Obama tries to implement his decision to close the Guantanamo prison by January.

The offshore Cuban prison has about 230 inmates, officials say. More than 50 have been cleared for release, while an additional 50 or 60 may be tried by military commissions, conceived by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, officials say. The remaining 100 or more could be held indefinitely without trial. Mr. Obama has said such detention is necessary because the government lacks evidence to charge them with past crimes but fears they could commit terrorist acts.

Since 2004, several aspects of the commissions and their related detention system have been invalidated by the Supreme Court. A Justice Department task force has been seeking ways to try prisoners by military commission that would be more likely to survive further constitutional challenge. The task force is scheduled to complete its work by July 21.

The task force asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel which constitutional rights, if any, would apply if the president held military commission trials in the U.S., officials said.

In a memorandum issued May 4, David Barron, acting assistant attorney general, said the office believes there is a "serious risk" that federal courts "would adopt a constitutional due process approach" when evaluating military commission trials, people familiar with the memo say.

Mr. Barron advised that federal courts were unlikely to require strict adherence to Bill of Rights provisions spelling out specific procedures, such as the Sixth Amendment speedy trial right, or the Miranda warning, which the Supreme Court imposed in 1966 to ensure compliance with the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney.

But Mr. Barron advised that courts were likely to view the use of coerced statements to convict and punish defendants as violating any definition of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which courts have cited in establishing a baseline of fundamental rights. As a result, some officials believe a legislative fix to the Military Commissions Act should include additional rights for defendants in order to lower the chances courts would strike it down.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D., Mich.) said Friday he has included language in a pending defense authorization bill to make commissions more closely resemble courts-martial. A 2006 Supreme Court opinion suggested military commissions could be lawful if their deviations from "court-martial practice" were justified by "practical need." The text is expected to be released this week.

“I don’t see a thing wrong with having a loaded gun in" church

From the I-live-on-a-different-planet department at A Blue View:

Here's the NY Times report:

Some of those seated in the pews of New Bethel Church here Saturday night, their firearms tucked to their sides, saw themselves as modern-day pioneers.

“This country started by people gathering together in churches and complaining about taxation and about their current government, King George III, taking armaments that they had,” said Chesley Kemp, 61, a family doctor with his Kimber .45 Auto at his side.

Dr. Kemp said he had driven two hours from Bowling Green to attend a gun celebration at the church, which event organizers said appeared to be the first of its kind, at least in modern times.

The pioneer spirit suffused a 90-minute program staged by Ken Pagano, the pastor of the Assembly of God church, for whom God, guns and America are a package deal.

“But for a deep-seated belief in God and firearms, this country would not be here today,” Mr. Pagano declared from the church’s pulpit.

Amens rolled forward from the congregation of about 180 people who were celebrating their ability to bear their arms almost anywhere in Kentucky, including in church.

Mr. Pagano said the event Saturday was not a worship service. But at one point he could not resist, raising both hands above his head, blessing his heat-packing flock and saying a prayer ...

Doug Hawkins, a Louisville Metro Council member who represents the south end of the city, where the Assembly of God church is located, leapt from his pew to address the other congregants.

“I am glad to be among American patriots,” Mr. Hawkins said. “Thank God for you all being here and standing up for your rights.”

Many in the audience said they were not members of the church. But they seemed united in their belief that their rights as gun owners were under threat and they had to prepare for the day when their firearms might be confiscated.

As Mr. Hawkins said later in an interview, “Our country was founded on our ability to defend ourselves and may very well some time in the future depend on our ability to defend ourselves.”

Dawnrene Bullock, 43, a former nurse, seated in a pew with her husband, Dwight, 47, a truck driver, agreed.

“There’s a time coming when we may need to protect ourselves from bad things in the world,” she said. “We’ve been hearing the rumors about restricting ammunition so that it all expires, so people won’t have the right to protect themselves.”

Her husband noted that there could come a day “when we’ll need to protect ourselves in church” ...

Likewise, Tommy Hillerich, 68, a retired truck driver, and Maya, 58, his wife, a former auto upholstery worker, did not bring their firearms inside but firmly believe in their right to do so.

“I don’t see a thing wrong with having a loaded gun in there,” Mr. Hillerich said. “If the pastor’s in there and he’s got a concealed weapon and somebody comes in and starts shooting people, he can take him out. That’s his right.”

He added: “I think everybody should carry a gun.”

Don't Go Outside

Sunday Afternoon Relaxation

Target Women: Feeding Your Family

Target Women: Disney Princesses

Letterman: Top 10 Surprising Facts About Gov. Sandford

A Question Of Priorities

Ezra Klein helps put the cost of health care reform in perspective (related, earlier post) and makes the important point that it all comes down to a question of priorities ... and morality:

The Senate is toiling to cut the health care reform bill from $1.6 trillion to $1 trillion over 10 years. Health economist Uwe Reinhardt puts those numbers into context:

A price tag of $1.6 trillion seems immense if one contemplates the figure in the abstract. It is, however, only about 4 percent of the total cumulative health spending of $40 trillion, the amount government actuaries now project for the decade from 2010 to 2020. That is also less than the 6 to 7 percent that total national health spending has increased each year in the past decade.

And $1.6 trillion is only about 1 percent of the amount of G.D.P. that America can reasonably be expected to produce in the next decade (about $150 trillion to $170 trillion).

That 1 percent would not be lost to G.D.P., of course, because health spending is part of G.D.P. Rather, it would be a diversion of G.D.P. — away from other uses, and toward providing the otherwise uninsured with the peace of mind that comes with health insurance and access to timely health care. It would represent merely a change in the composition of G.D.P.

That last is an important point. The president has declared that health reform will be paid-for. The relevant committee chairmen have agreed. This isn't a question between borrowing $1 trillion or $1.6 trillion. It's a question of spending priorities. The president, for instance, has proposed limiting the itemized deduction rate to 28 percent for taxpayers making more than $250,000 (the rate for most of us is between 10 and 15 percent). This would raise more than $300 billion over 10 years.

But the Senate has been unimpressed by the proposal. A world, however, in which we cut coverage to bring costs under $1 trillion but leave the itemized deduction, is a world in which we have explicitly decided that we would prefer to spend that $300 billion helping wealthy Americans lower their tax bills rather than helping low-income Americans afford health insurance.