Romney plays to nation's racial subconscious

Presidential politics is an increasingly exact science. Words are carefully chosen, poll-tested and fine-tuned before being used, and every catchphrase, slogan and sound bite is designed to maximize the campaign's appeal to their target audience.

This appeal takes place on two different levels- one conscious and one subconscious. While the term "subconscious" alludes to subliminal advertising, it generally only means appealing to implicit attitudes that are not consciously processed (although subliminal ads have entered presidential campaigns before). The best way to think of the distinction between the two is to consider what a candidate says as a conscious appeal, but how the candidate says it, or the choice to say it in the first place, a subconscious appeal.

Following the 1980 Republican Convention, Ronald Reagan launched his general election campaign with what have since become boilerplate GOP talking points. Here's an excerpt of what he said:

I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level And I believe that we've distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the Constitution to that federal establishment. And if I do get the job I'm looking for, I'm going to devote myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and local communities those functions which properly belong there.

On a conscious level, what Reagan said was fairly innocuous. But how did he say it? The speech was framed around Regan's "[belief] in states' rights," and was delivered in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the same place where three civil rights workers had been killed for attempting to register African-American voters.

The Reagan campaign chose the location under the advice of Strom Thurmond (who, ironically, was later found to have fathered an out-of-wedlock child with his African-American housekeeper), and used the frame and location of the speech to make an appeal to the "Dixiecrats" of the South. Jimmy Carter failed to call Reagan out for the implicit racial appeal, and Reagan went on to cream Carter, winning every Southern state which Carter had won in 1976, except for Georgia, Carter's home state.

Fast-forward to 2012.

Mitt Romney is the front-runner for the Republican nomination but has showed signs of weakness with rural voters, particularly in the South. Many Republican strategists are worried that Team Romney will not be able to generate enough enthusiasm to win crucial states such as North Carolina and Virginia. Moreover, the rhetoric necessary to generate such enthusiasm among the GOP base will likely alienate independents in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio. How has the Romney campaign attempted to confront this dilemma? With a catchy, multi-faceted slogan:

The black guy "isn't working" - get it?

As Tommy Christopher of Mediaite notes:

When I first saw the banner...the multiple meanings were clear: President Obama's policies aren't working, the Obama presidency isn't working, President Obama...isn't working, as in, doing any work. That's not a nice thing to say about any president, but like it or not, it becomes a more loaded accusation when leveled at our first black president.

Subconscious appeals are called dog-whistles for a reason: Three different people can read the above phrase and get three very different messages. "Obama Isn't Working" has economic connotations for some and racial connotations for others. For the surprisingly high amount of Americans who hold implicit racial biases, the phrase also can trigger negative subconscious associations regarding President Obama based on the color of his skin, aka racism.

Because of the slogan's multiple meanings, the Romney campaign has plausible deniability when its racial component is brought up. However, given its history, the GOP has forfeited its right to the benefit of the doubt when it comes to race. Considering the level of scrutiny placed on every word used by a presidential candidate, and the emphasis Romney is placing on this new slogan (in addition to appearing on stage, it has its own website), I find it hard to believe that the racial connotations of "Obama Isn't Working" went unnoticed before the phrase was unveiled.

Moreover, considering the benefit Team Romney gains from being able to trigger implicit racial biases without getting taken to task for it on a conscious level, it is far more likely that the creation of the slogan was a deliberate play to America's dark, but very real, subconscious biases and prejudices based on race.

Obama approves drone strikes where identity of target is "unknown"

I hate to keep harping on this, but it's unavoidable. Our testosterone-drunk nation is now (apparently) just fine, as in totally on board, with Obama using drones to kill the unknown, based only on a "signature" — a pattern of data in the intel matrix.

How is this not murder?

(This is the same way the NSA fingers your phone calls and email for permanent capture and storage, by the way — by matching the data in your call with a "signature" or profile related to word usage and other parameters.)

Here's Cenk Uygur to explain:



Here's the Washington Post story, if you want to read on.

You remember drone warfare, don't you? It's video games with a meat strike at the end. Obama seems especially fond of them.

Soon these deaths be telecast live on their very own cable network — The Coliseum Channel.

I hate to say it, but I do think Krugman is right, but for a different reason. There will be a Night of the Krell, when all of this mayhem turns against us. The dawn of that understanding will be dark indeed.

Sad days.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
 

Pelosi endorses Obama's safety net cuts (2013 alert)

It's a target-rich environment here at la maison chez nous, choosing this morning's post. Google (the company, not the tool) is hitting the radar big time, and will soon get its share of attention.

But Nancy Pelosi, our "progressive" fierce defender, has center stage this morning with her recent announcement that she (and by the way, Obama) are still on board with a Grand Bargain — you know, the one where you trade away your children's safety net so long as you keep your own.

Ryan Grimm at the Huffington Post:

Two progressive organizations have found themselves in the unusual position of being on the opposite side of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. Over the course of the past two years, the former House Speaker has been the most significant obstacle to the ongoing effort to slash entitlements and cut social spending.

But a series of recent comments, and reports that Pelosi was willing to accept draconian cuts as part of a debt-ceiling deal, have liberals worried that their most powerful and passionate defender may be buckling on the issue.

During a recent press conference, and again during an interview with Charlie Rose, [Pelosi] said that she would support what's known as the Simpson-Bowles plan, a budget proposal that was created by the co-chairs of a fiscal commission set up by President Obama (dubbed the "Catfood Commission" by progressives).

Ignore the accurate but yes-butish first paragraph, and the praise in the second. The meat is in the third paragraph.

It takes a layer to unpack that, which Grim provides a few paragraphs later:

The Simpson-Bowles plan is a mix of tax increases and spending cuts that trims four trillion dollars off the deficit in ten years. Its cuts to social spending and entitlement programs made it "simply unacceptable" to the Democrats' liberal base almost as soon as it was announced. Pelosi's rhetorical retreat from that hard-line position has progressives worried they'll have nobody left to defend the social safety net, even Medicare and Social Security.

And for good measure, there's this to worry about as well:

They are also worried by the willingness Pelosi expressed during the manufactured debt-ceiling crisis to agree to cuts much greater than Simpson-Bowles was going for, as reported by the Washington Post.

There's more in Grim's reporting, but I won't belabor the point.

The article includes many kind words for Pelosi, from Grim and from others such as CREDO — hoping I'm sure to shame her back to her former position (meaning, of course, her former words).

There's also prose and a video at the HuffPo site that explains this isn't a cave since she supported "real" Simpson-Bowles, just not the bill that made it to the House floor last time the subject raised its ugly head. Read and watch if you wish. (If you want even more on Pelosi, try this. It's not just one source.)

Since they're all being so nice, I can be direct. Here's me:

� Don't trust Nancy Pelosi. She's trying to sell out the safety net. All that verbal obfuscation simply means she's also protecting her "San Francisco liberal" brand in the process. She can't have both, but she's trying.

GP's rule for dealing with Dems:

If you want something from them, threaten what they're desperate to keep.

This usually means their jobs (primaries anyone?), but in a few cases it's their "brand" — their "unique selling point" — the persona (the mask) that allows them to fund-raise.

What does Pelosi want? To be the "liberal" face of the Pelosi-Hoyer axis. Threaten to take that away and you get her attention. (Which means, Mr. CREDO Action Arm — With all respect, confirming her liberal brand may have the opposite result of the one you want.)

Side note — How to deal with Obama in his "legacy" years? How about threatening his legacy as the next Bill Clinton? Here's a start.

� Simpson-Bowles was designed to attack the safety net. Read here for what the chairman's report wanted to do (note the new lower tax rates, offset by revenue that will never happen). Putting it more simply, Alan Simpson said:

We are going to stick to the big three [Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid].

Got that? The rest is just words, the fog. Krugman calls Simpson-Bowles a "wealth transfer" and faux-progressive Pelosi's on board.

� Obama still wants to sell you out as well. As we reported here in March (all of a month ago):

Working late into the evening, Obama asked someone to get Boehner on the phone. [Obama's] message: I’ll take your last offer. “Mr. President,” Boehner answered, “we don’t have time to reopen these negotiations.”

White House officials said this week that the offer is still on the table.

"Still on the table" means still on the table.

� Don't forget this:



As Uncle Straight Talk says, "An unfettered Obama is a dangerous Obama."

� And never forget this:



All you need to know? Our Betters are joined against us, all of them. They just need an opening to kill the New Deal and they're on it.

What can you do? Maybe rebrand Nancy Pelosi. She's acting like Steny Hoyer; let her fundraise as Steny Hoyer.

Time to fight, folks.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
 

Ed Schultz on the destruction of the U.S. Postal Service

We've written about this assault on the Post Office in our piece, "The Post Office is almost broke — on purpose" and Allison Kilkenny takes on the same subject here.

This is Ed Schultz making the same point and adding the latest news. Note that, like myself and Ms. Kilkenny, he's even-handed in his criticism of the parties involved (at 4:14 and again at 5:45).

(So view this large in a new tab, click here.)



All you need to know (3:30):

"They already have enough money to take care of retirement for the next 75 years."

I love stories like these from Ed Schultz. He's passionate, sincere, and integrity-intact. Thank you.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
 

Obama transition advisor: Obama's advisers feared "revolt" if he prosecuted Bush-era war crimes

Looks like the State knows how to stand up for itself, even against an incoming president (my emphasis everywhere):

President-Elect Obama’s advisers feared in 2008 that authorities [sic] would “revolt” and that Republicans would block his policy agenda if he prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to [UC Berkeley Law School Dean Christopher Edley, Jr.,] who served as one of Obama’s top transition advisers.

There's a old joke that goes like this:

The new president gives his inauguration speech to wild applause, then retires with his transition team to the Oval Office to begin work. Soon one of the top career CIA officials, a man who has been in office for decades, comes to his side and whispers: "Mr. President, may I have a minute? There's something I'd like to show you."

He leads the president to a small room off the main hallway, where a DVD player and television are set up.

"Have a seat, sir," he says. "This will just take a moment."

The president sits and the CIA official starts the DVD. The president watches as the Kennedy assassination is played — shot from an angle never seen in public. It's over in minutes, and the TV screen goes black.

"Any questions, sir?" asks the CIA man.

The president returns to his office to prepare for his first day of administration.

Of course that's a joke; it's been around since Clinton days. Now back to the real world, and Naked Capitalism.

This story has a lot of angles, since Edley is dean of the faculty which includes John Yoo, Bush II's notorious torture-justifying lawyer. Another angle is — hey, this story is old; the exchange reported occurred in September 2011. Where's the press coverage? So please, go read.

I'll give you just one more snippet, about the aspect covered in the headline. Keep in mind, this information came out only because an activist asked the right question during a Q&A at a 9/11 presentation at which Dean Edley spoke. The article's author says:

The story arose because Susan Harman, a California resident opposed to torture, asked Edley a question Sept. 2 at his forum and mailed his comments to me, among others. ...

Here’s Harman’s account of her actions at the Boalt Hall forum, which focused on such goals as human rights and the rule of law:

I said I was overwhelmed by the surreality of Yoo being on the law faculty . . . when he was single-handedly responsible for the three worst policies of the Bush Administration. They all burbled about academic freedom and the McCarthy era, and said it isn’t their job to prosecute him.

Duh.

Dean Chris Edley volunteered that he’d been party to very high level discussions during Obama’s transition about prosecuting the criminals. He said they decided against it. I asked why. Two reasons: 1) it was thought that the CIA, NSA, and military would revolt, and 2) it was thought the Repugnants [sic; Harman speaking] would retaliate by blocking every piece of legislation they tried to move (which, of course, they’ve done anyhow).

Harman says that she approached Edley privately after the forum closed and said she appreciated that Obama might have been in danger but felt that he “bent over backwards” to protect lawbreakers within the Bush administration. She recalled, “He shrugged and said they will never be prosecuted, and that sometimes politics trumps rule of law.”

Thus we are where we are today. Rule of Law — We of the 99% have more than our share, and the 0.01% seem to have lost theirs.

It's important to note that this "fear of revolt" is not attributed to Obama himself, but to his transition team:

Edley confirmed to me in an exclusive email interview Harman’s quotations, and provided additional information about the transition team’s concerns. Among his important points is that transition officials, not Obama, agreed that he faced the possibility of a revolt.

There you have it. Just the messenger, folks — though it does suggest that the State has its own momentum, doesn't it?

(For longer pieces on the same subject by the same author, go here or here.)

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
 

Does Jack Welch hear voices or is he just a Teabagger?

Pretty much every time former GE CEO Jack Welch is on CNBC it's strange, but his most recent visit was beyond nuts.  If one were to believe Welch, President Obama would be the most daring socialist infiltrator with dictatorship tendencies that ever lived in the US.

Like the Teabaggers, Welch seems to believe that Obama has an enemies list, and that the President is only about dividing the country. (This criticism was curiously absent during the Bush years.)

Welch continues his rant with the ever-popular (in the Teabagging world) remarks about "the peoples republic of Massachusetts" - a state Welch hates so much that he lives there. He also criticizes Romney for his "lack of authenticity," but can overlook that since he's a great leader. The two share a love for closing down factories and destroying the livelihood of middle class workers.

One day it would be a pleasant surprise to hear an extremist such as Welch show an ounce of concern for the middle class. Don't hold your breath though, because he's much too interested in hobnobbing with his friends in the 1%. This is the man who showered himself with gifts and perks while at GE, including his own retirement, as if GE never grew before or after it was graced with his presence.

Meet the Obama that doesn't exist, courtesy of Jack Welch:

“It was the insurance executives in health care. It was the bankers in the collapse. It was the oil companies as oil prices go up. It was Congress if things didn’t go the way he wanted. And recently it’s been the Supreme Court,” he said.

“He’s got an enemies list that would make Richard Nixon proud.”

Welch, who helmed GE for 21 years and founded the Jack Welch Management Institute at Strayer University, penned an op-ed article for Reuters with wife Suzy Welch this week in which he tackled the idea of Obama’s enemies list.

“Surely his supporters must think this particular tactic is effective, but there can be no denying that the country is more polarized than when Obama took office,” Welch wrote, making a case for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

More polarized than the days of "you're either with us or against us"? Hmmm.

Cenk blasts CNN for forcing Hilary Rosen to apologize—again

I've been on both sides of the Hilary Rosen affair for a very good reason — there are two sides. Last time I wrote about Rosen the not-lobbyist and all that implies.

But I don't want to leave it there. I'm appalled at the "Don't Hurt Me" Dems and their need to sell out their own, even when their own are right. And on this issue, Hilary Rosen is right.

Here's Cenk Uygur making this point, after Wolf Blitzer did the Beltway deed and broderized Hilary Rosen, on camera and to her face.

Via Crooks and Liars; watch:



As Ana Kasparian says (at 2:00):

The Republicans always paint Democrats as being weak, and this is a perfect example of that.

The run of Obama administration bus-tossings (sorry, apologies) is gathered into one cringe-making string at 1:15 in the clip. Amazing — we're ruled by a party that fights and a party that says "Don't hurt me."

Blitzer's performance starts at 5:12. "Look into the camera and talk to her [Ann Romney]" he says to Hilary Rosen. Rosen's reaction is pathetic, but Blitzer's provocation is beyond the bad word that's rolling through my mind. You have to watch to see just how *** he is.

Here's a thought — Let's fix the "Don't Hurt Me" party, shall we? As Princess Leia (might have) said, "It's our only hope."

GP

To follow on Twitter or send links: @Gaius_Publius

Does Hilary Rosen's not-lobbying firm sell White House access to corporations?

In the wake of L'Affaire Rosen (a Rorschach test for Dems, it seems), we saw a brief but powerful light shined on someone most of us have never heard of — Hilary Rosen.

So forget what Rosen said, and how many triangulated R-fearing Dems have rushed to throw her under the bus.

Who is Hilary Rosen? The fearless investigators at Republic Report have been following this part of the story (my emphasis everywhere):

[T]he entire story may set off a greater, more substantive inquiry about the nature of Rosen’s consulting firm, SKDKnickerbocker, an unregistered lobbying firm that has become one of the biggest names in the influence business by using its ties to President Obama and leaders in Congress.

By following Republican efforts to tie Rosen to the White House, Republic Report uncovered some interesting data. For example:

• Hilary Rosen visited the White House 35 times.
• David Petraeus visited 9 times.
• Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta visited 12 times.
• Joe Biden visited 6 times.
• Tim Geithner visited 40 times.

Since the reference is to "Obama White House visitor logs" I would assume this is during the entire period when that name is accurate. Still, the ratios are telling. Rosen visits less than Tim Geithner (hey, bankers need friends in high places), but quite a bit more than the others on the list. (Of course, there's the phone, but face-time is face-time.)

Lee Fang, the Republic Report writer, also discovers this at Politico:

Per a senior Dem: “It’s an open secret in the Dem consultant community that SKD has been signing up clients based on ‘perceived White House access’ tied to prior relationships and employment.”

Mr. Fang then puts two and two together:

SKDKnickerbocker is led by a team of former Democratic operatives and key White House figures. But instead of promoting a progressive agenda, or even an Obama agenda, these consultants score huge contracts by helping corporate interests lobby for policies that are not in line with the public interest. Many SKDKnickerbocker employees, including Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director, are also frequent White House visitors.

He provides an interesting list of not-lobbying clients and their causes, many of which are indeed anti-progressive and, in fact, anti-stated-Obama-objectives. Among them is this:

A proposal leaked two months ago showed that a group of political consultants, including SKDKnickerbocker’s Anita Dunn, worked up an effort to find hedge funds to pay them to kill efforts to enact the “Buffett Rule.” In the memo, Dunn clearly advertised her ties to the White House.

Buffett Rule ... I remember that. Obama says he wants it.

Look, no one's alleging wrong-doing, quite. Obama and his people can listen to whomever they want on a policy he says he advocates — and which will never pass this Congress — in a election year where his "sell" is that he's the real populist.

If Obama wants to open the White House door to Hilary Rosen, that's his right.

And if Rosen wants to sell that open door, that's her right. Rather cozy, that, but not illegal. Not Blagojevich–illegal.

And given the lax laws governing lobbyists, SKD can sell Rosen the same way Howard Dean is sold — as a wise and friendly "strategic adviser." You know, like Grandpa, but with his hand out.

The business of doing anything for money is a fine little business indeed, a sure-fire money-maker. As Groucho once said, "Clip me off a piece of that."

UPDATE: Tweaked some phrasing for accuracy.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
 

Criticism mounts over Obama punt on gay Exec Order. NYT calls it "cynical hedge"

It didn't have to be like this.

The White House could have done the right thing and issued the LGBT non-discrimination executive order for federal contractors. But, somehow, the geniuses that run the place decided against it. Not sure why, but no doubt, it was another inane political calculation on their part. Now, it's a big story.

Today, an editorial in the NYT takes the President to task:

Many federal contractors already have antidiscrimination policies. With Congress gridlocked over the issue, Mr. Obama had the chance to immediately extend protections against anti-gay employment bias to the rest of the employees of federal contractors without imposing a significant new burden on business. Yet the White House said no such executive order “will be issued at this time.”

It is unclear why Mr. Obama declined to do the right thing here. He has taken actions against discrimination, like repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy against openly gay service members. And he has voiced opposition to proposed state constitutional amendments in North Carolina and Minnesota to bar same-sex marriage. His hesitation to ban gay bias by government contractors, like his continued failure to actually endorse the freedom to marry, feels like a cynical hedge. It’s hard to see the political sense in it, and it is certainly unhelpful to the cause of full gay equality under the law.

I think this White House makes political calculations based on what their opponents will do (see, for example, this NYT article on how FOX News sets the agenda for the FDA.) The President's political strategists don't factor in what their allies will do in response to negative news. That's because most progressives just sit back and take it. We don't. You'd think they'd know that by now.

John linked to Peter Wallsten's article in today's Washington Post. The first two paragraphs are an indicator of what's to come:

Gay rights activists vowed Thursday to step up political pressure on the White House over President Obama’s refusal to sign a nondiscrimination executive order, with some decrying the decision as an attempt to avoid controversy before the November election.

One prominent liberal donor said he would spend $100,000 to fund a “We Can’t Wait” campaign targeting Obama, a takeoff on the president’s own slogan for his efforts to use administrative actions as end runs around what he has termed an obstructionist Congress. The donor’s money will be used to fly victims of discrimination at federal contractors to Washington to confront Obama and his aides and gin up public attention.

It shouldn't have to be like this. But, it is.

Also, today, at the Washington Post, a column by Joe Davidson, titled: Why Did Obama Refuse Executive Order?

Why indeed?

And, anyone buying the White House "we want to pass ENDA" line needs to read, White House Whopper on ENDA Executive Order, by Jillian Weiss. In response to Jay Carney's claim that the White House is "aggressively pursuing passage of ENDA." Jillian wrote:

What?! Someone's pants are on fire, and they're not mine.

Here's why she wrote that:

On ENDA, the White House never weighed in, despite the fact that there only a few votes needed to pass it, and, in fact, declared they wouldn't, as it wasn't their place to do so.

This is a shell game -- watch the pea under the shell and see if you can figure out where it is this time. The Democrats have successfully played a shell game with LGBT rights for quite a long time.

In my 2010 meeting with Melody Barnes, the Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, this is what happened:

She also noted he has mentioned ENDA, and that he believes it should be integrated into the agenda. He has articulated his support and will continue to. "We are not a barrier," she said. But, she continued, "we look to the Senate leadership; they know what we support and if the President were to push issues it would be a long list. It's up to them."

The White House doesn't have a valid policy reason for why they're not doing this executive order, which means politics is at play. And, it means they're more worried about the reaction from the professional homophobe community than what the LGBT community thinks. Disturbing to think that's how these decisions are made by the Obama team.

Obama targets journalists

Now that the 2012 presidential election is decided and Romney is the Republican nominee (in the sense that he's the only one left), it's OK to talk about what the current resident is up to, right?

After all, he's going to be the unfettered future resident, as he and I both see it.



So let's start at the beginning, with the government's War on Government Whistleblowers (my emphasis and reparagraphing):

For two years I have been writing about the criminalization of whistleblowing, or as Glenn Greenwald has put it more aptly, the “war on whistleblowers.” I’m an attorney with the Government Accountability Project, the nation’s leading whistleblower organization.

How did I get into this line of work? Because I myself was a whistleblower when I worked as a Legal Advisor at the Justice Department and blew the whistle when my advice not to interrogate “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh without an attorney (and, parenthetically, not to torture him) was ignored and then “disappeared” from the file in contravention of a federal court discovery order.

After I blew the whistle, the Justice Department retaliated against me by, among other things, placing me under criminal investigation, referring me to the state bars in which I’m licensed as a lawyer based on a secret report to which I did not have access, and putting me on the “No-Fly” List.

I hope you noticed that use of the No-Fly List. It's not there for nothing; it's for the State to beat you with, any time it wants.

So what's Obama doing?

While the Bush administration treated whistleblowers unmercifully, the Obama administration has been far worse. It is actually prosecuting them, and doing so under the Espionage Act — one of the most serious charges that can be leveled against an American.

And why is he doing this, according to the writer?

At first I thought Obama’s war on whistleblowers was meant to appease the intelligence establishment, which saw him as weak.

I soon recognized this assault as a devious way to create bad precedent for going after journalists. All the Espionage Act cases involve allegations that the government employee “leaked” information (or retained information for the purpose of leaking it) to journalists.

[For example, the] government’s spectacularly failed case against NSA whistleblower Tom Drake claimed that he allegedly retained allegedly classified information for the purpose of leaking it to Siobhan Gorman, then with the Baltimore Sun. It turned out that he disclosed unclassified information about a failed and wasteful (multi-billion dollar) NSA spy program that compromised Americans’ privacy.

And there are plenty more examples, including this:

In the most extreme proof yet that the war on whistleblowers is also a war on journalists, Glenn Greenwald’s explosive piece last night detailed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) repeatedly detaining and interrogating Oscar- and Emmy-nominated documentarian Laura Poitras, who has filmed three of my NSA clients for the third installment of her War on Terror trilogy.

Not surprisingly, her latest film will be about the government’s ever-expanding secret domestic surveillance, NSA treating our nation like a foreign country for spying purposes, and the war on whistleblowers.

The Greenwald piece she refers to is here. A taste:

One of the more extreme government abuses of the post-9/11 era targets U.S. citizens re-entering their own country, and it has received far too little attention.

With no oversight or legal framework whatsoever, the Department of Homeland Security routinely singles out individuals who are suspected of no crimes, detains them and questions them at the airport, often for hours, when they return to the U.S. after an international trip, and then copies and even seizes their electronic devices (laptops, cameras, cellphones) and other papers (notebooks, journals, credit card receipts), forever storing their contents in government files.

No search warrant is needed for any of this. No oversight exists And there are no apparent constraints on what the U.S. Government can do with regard to whom it decides to target or why.

In an age of international travel — where large numbers of citizens, especially those involved in sensitive journalism and activism, frequently travel outside the country — this power renders the protections of the Fourth Amendment entirely illusory.

This is the State in action. Bush grew the State to a certain humongous size. Obama is growing it larger. And I'm not talking budget; I'm talking reach and will-to-power.

Welcome to your Unfettered Obama. Which way do you think he'll turn, come 2013?

The writer, by the way, is Jesselyn Raddack. She's the author of the book TRAITOR: The Whistleblower and the American Taliban.

GP

To follow on Twitter or send links: @Gaius_Publius

Carney gets pummeled over LGBT Executive Order at WH briefing

Rarely do LGBT-related issues get this much time at a White House briefing, but the White House decision yesterday to punt on issuing an executive order establishing LGBT non-discrimination for federal contractors is garnering a lot of attention. We cross-posted this at AMERICAblog Gay and also wrote about the decision, which The Washington Post called a "stinging setback," here and here.

Whoever made the decision to say no to the executive order made a bad decision. During today's press briefing, Sam Stein tweeted:

some sharp questions for carney on why obama will sign other executive orders but not one outlawing LGBT discrimination for fed contracters

And, there were many sharp questions. Watch the video courtesy of Igor Volsky:

If the White House thought they had contained this issue, they were wrong. It's not going away. And, that excuse about wanting to pass ENDA instead, well, it's just not credible.

And, just to confirm that it's not going to go away, we got this via press release;

Within hours of the White House announcement, the “We Can’t Wait!” campaign received a $100,000 cash infusion from liberal donor Jonathan Lewis, the son of major Democratic philanthropist Peter Lewis.

Quotes from Jonathan Lewis:

“This isn't a broken promise President Obama can blame on Congress. He has not been able to provide a single valid reason for why he is now refusing to sign the executive order protecting LGBT workers. It has become increasingly clear that this decision is based on cowardice rather than principled leadership."

“Over the past several years the LGBT advocacy groups have jumped through hoops for this administration, conducting extensive research and polling -- more than has been done for any similar executive order -- and now the only impediment is President Obama."

“This is nothing short of craven election-year politics, a game Obama told us he would not play.”

Jonathan Lewis and his father, Peter, are major contributors to progressive causes. And, by major, I mean they give millions.

How is it that Team Obama has made another bad political calculation when it comes to the LGBT community? Have they learned nothing? This was another serious miscalculation.

Although, some are happy about the White House decision:

The loudest voices against nondiscrimination laws such as these have been from social conservatives. Ashley Horne of CitizenLink, an affiliate of Focus on the Family, welcomed the White House decision.

"We see this decision as one that recognizes that sexual orientation nondiscrimination policies are not necessary," she said in a statement. "Rather, they are often used to silence free speech, particularly the speech of people of faith."

I'm sure Focus on the Family will rally behind Obama's reelection now. Surely, that crowd will be hosting fundraisers, doing Get-out-the-vote and supporting Obama. Surely.

BTW, the White House did send a press release today titled, "We Can’t Wait: Protecting Taxpayer Dollars from Wasteful Payment Errors and Fraud." So wasteful payments can't wait, but non-discrimination can.

Howard Dean has been lobbying without disclosure for 3 years—and recommends buying both sides

Howard Dean via Shutterstock

First, I want to say why I'm writing this post. It's because I hate this stuff.

Money buys the world, both the Dem side and the other. In fact, I've said far too many times — the goal of Money is to enable Republicans and neuter the Dems. It's why the rachet works.

And by Money I mean the big boys (Our Betters) who own both sides of every bet. Money is why progressives never win, even when Democrats do.

Case in point, Howard Dean. Lee Fang, writing at Naked Capitalism (my emphasis and some reparagraphing*):

One of the biggest problems with lobbying in Washington D.C. is the extent to which so many influence peddlers work behind closed doors, refusing to disclose their clients or register their work with the ethics office. Newt Gingrich became the poster boy for this phenomenon[.] ...

But Gingrich isn’t the only politician working as an unregistered lobbyist. I have uncovered video that shows liberal icon Howard Dean discussing his government affairs work for corporate interests.

Dean has been lobbying without disclosure for about three years. In 2009 after his stint as chairman of the Democratic Party, Dean joined the law/lobbying firm McKenna, Long & Aldridge as a non-attorney “Strategic Advisor.” The firm’s lobbying practice has a wide range of clients, from health care, to insurance, to even Keystone XL beneficiary TransCanada.

The firm website says Dean “focuses on health care and energy issues, as well as providing expertise derived from his extensive experience in public office.” The firm seems to advertise Dean as a lobbyist, despite the fact Dean has not registered as a lobbyist.

Howard Dean's not alone in this. The same charge has been levied against Tom Daschle — another (ahem) Democrat — one who also "not-lobbies" the health care industry.

But back to Dean. During his not-lobbying talks, Mr. Princple advises his not-clients to support both sides of the health care world, if they must support someone. Fang again:

I clipped a portion of a video posted online by McKenna, Long & Aldridge that features Dean discussing the post Citizens United campaign finance world along with former Republican Party chief, Michael Steele. Dean candidly disclosed that he works primarily with health care corporations, and that he advises that if they do contribute, they should contribute to both Republicans and Democrats[.]

You really do need to read this, and watch that embedded video (it's only two minutes, and fascinating).

Let me be clear — Howard Dean is not evil. The advice he gives in the video is very good, the kind of thing a pro should say. He's worth his money, seriously.

But his progressive values do not trump his careerism; they don't even trump his party loyalty (which progressives should not have, in my view). He's therefore not, and will likely never be, the Great Progressive Hope — except in a fooled-you ad campaign selling rhymes-with-soap.

And he's also not fairly characterized in his media appearances, according to Fang:

What’s more troubling ... is how Dean uses his powerful platform as a pundit and political leader without disclosing his work as an influence peddler.

Did I mention I hate this stuff?

Which brings up the obvious twin questions:

• What does a real Progressive Coalition look like?
• If we're going to try to win — really take a shot — where's the best leverage?

But that's for later. For now, thank you, Mr. Fang, for this kind service. Better to know than not.

GP

*Why I sometimes reparagraph quotes. Typography is all about situation. If a page uses wide margins and lots of leading (inter-linear spacing), paragraphs can be long without being formidable (example here). But if a page has narrower columns and tighter spacing, paragraphs must be shorter, or the reader will encounter the "wall of type" problem, at which point the eyes glaze over. Neither layout is bad or good, as long as paragraph length adapts. For example, that first blockquote above was just two paragraphs in the original, and I cut some of it out. Another example — this paragraph here; most of you likely didn't read it all. Proof enough? (Yes, I did that on purpose. This should have been broken at least in thirds.)

Obama JOBS Act (now signed) appears "specifically written to encourage fraud in stock markets"

Matt Taibbi totally fails to put too fine a point on it. Read:

Boy, do I feel like an idiot. I've been out there on radio and TV in the last few months saying that I thought there was a chance Barack Obama was listening to the popular anger against Wall Street that drove the Occupy movement, that decisions like putting a for-real law enforcement guy like New York AG Eric Schneiderman in charge of a mortgage fraud task force meant he was at least willing to pay lip service to public outrage against the banks.

Then the JOBS Act happened.

The "Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act" (in addition to being a viciously stupid and dishonest law, the Act has an annoying, redundant title) will very nearly legalize fraud in the stock market.

Actually, that's not putting things in strong enough language. In fact, one could say this law is not just a sweeping piece of deregulation that will have an increase in securities fraud as an accidental, ancillary consequence. No, this law actually appears to have been specifically written to encourage fraud in the stock markets.

As Taibbi notes, the law:

� Exempts start-ups from "independent accounting requirements for up to five years after they first begin selling shares"

(Pause; reread; consider, that's five years without independent accounting for start-ups; now go on.)

� Reverses rules that "prevent bank analysts from talking up a stock just to win business"

� Will let start-up executives give "pre-prospectus" presentations — yep, you read that right — for which "they will not be held liable for misrepresentations"

And contains other atrocities. Please, do read. Then weep. Then tell your children never to give good money to the stock market.

Why is this happening? you ask. Guess:



And in case you don't recognize yourself, sir, this is addressed to you, our Signer-in-Chief. I don't see Boehner's hand around that pen.

Side note — Voice-in-the-wilderness here, but what fool disabled embedding for all YouTube versions of the original Liza Minelli–Joel Grey performance? That film was made in 1972; what are you protecting? (Just thought I'd ask.)

GP

To follow on Twitter or to send links, click here: @Gaius_Publius
 

Chris Hayes: "The only hope on climate change is civil disobedience"—and the clock is ticking

This is a great watch, and Hayes does a terrific job. (My alternate title, by the way, is Hayes' great line midway: "The earth's atmosphere does not care about the filibuster.")

Our backgrounder on this BLM (Bureau of Land Management) practice is here. Do read if you can; it covers a lot.

But for the basics, keep this in mind:

• Homesteaders after 1916 never owned the mineral rights (including water rights) under their own land. The federal government does. This is called "split estate."


• These BLM "auctions" are where oil and natural gas (i.e. "fracking") companies buy and lease the mineral rights under land already owned by others (as well as on or near federal land).


• Let that sink in. If you own a farm or ranch in the west, the BLM can (and will) lease your land's mineral rights to Exxon (etc.) and force you to accept their wells on your property. Aerial views of "fracking" (natural gas) lands show these "small footprint" wells are everywhere. See below; also the google.


• You also get their fracking fluid in your water and air. Probably forever.


• Fracking destroys. Money talks. Is the government corrupt and complicit? (Do the math; you'll get there.)

Now Mr. Hayes. Please do watch if you can. This is too low on people's radar, and too important. This is the State in action (h/t Digby).

(To play this large in a separate tab, click here.)



Just one comment. Shouting "rule of law" when there is no "rule of law" for barons and their retainers is laughable, beyond hypocrisy.

There's more of this coming. Occupy was peaceful protest. This is peaceful protest. As Mario Savio said:

"One thousand people sitting down can stop any machine, including this machine."

But this time people are starving and broke, not just war-weary and draft-eligible. As the rich and the right (including our whistleblower-hating current resident) crack down harder and harder, it will be harder and harder to keep violence away from the movement that's growing.

I do not want to see that day.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
 

Maddow: Bush-era torture "probably a war crime," Obama "legally obligated to prosecute"

The good folks at The Political Carnival have brought this to our attention — Rachel Maddow discussing the fact that Bush-era torture was illegal, "probably a war crime," and our government has a responsibility to prosecute it.

Let that sink in. (1) It is a fact. (2) Maddow really said what I attributed to her. On the always O-friendly, forward-leaning MSNBC, no less.

If I'm going to give out an Eleven-Dimensional Chess award, it goes to Maddow. This one is up there with her non-outing outing of Rick Perry.

She cleverly works this information into a segment about the nature of today's Republican party.

▪ She starts with four-minute intro about how these Republicans aren't even in sync with their 2008 incarnation.

▪ Then she talks about the Zelikow memo (a high-level Bush-administration opinion that raised objections to white-washing torture as legal), and how the recent release of that memo places responsibility for prosecuting Bush-torture on the U.S. government (the current executive branch, whoever is running it).

▪ She closes with a question, again about Republicans — now that Obama is vulnerable to the same charge as Bush (not prosecuting torturers), are Republicans too far gone to pass up this golden attack opportunity?

See how clever? I've trimmed off the introduction in order to highlight what she clearly says about Obama and his administration. Watch; I'll add a few comments afterward.



So the Bush administration tried to destroy all copies of Zelikow's memo to "disappear" evidence they were told internally that torture was illegal (2:32 in my clip).

The Obama part of the discussion starts at 3:32. The "war crime" comment comes at 3:50, followed by Obama being "obligated to prosecute." Notice, though — she cleverly says "we" are obligated ... meaning the government ... meaning the sitting president ... meaning Obama (but not by name, exactly). See how that works?

This is not disappearing the facts; this is telling the truth while keeping your high profile job. Maddow is a very clever woman, an Alekhine come to judgement.

For more, go to the Political Carnival post where I saw this clip. They have further information and a great many torture links, including and especially the continuing abuse of Gitmo prisoner Fayiz al-Kandari, an educated charity worker sold by Afghan bounty hunters to the Americans — who paid them. Fayiz is a prisoner to this day, under very harsh conditions.

Why didn't Obama pursue Bush-era torture prosecutions? Perhaps this is the reason (h/t my Twitter friend Les Zuazo). Makes one pause, does it not?

This stuff really does have to stop. Someone really will end up in The Hague. Even Obama could find himself on a No-Fly-Abroad list.

If you wish to follow on Twitter and send links, I'm more than happy to have them. Just click here: @Gaius_Publius. Thanks.

GP

Pink Slime hamburger-maker BPI quadrupled lobbying since NYT article

You've been reading a lot about Pink Slime lately (my capitals; our backgrounder here).

Ground zero, I think, for Pink Slime awareness is this 2009 New York Times article "Safety of Beef Processing Method Is Questioned":

Eight years ago, federal officials were struggling to remove potentially deadly E. coli from hamburgers when an entrepreneurial company from South Dakota came up with a novel idea: injecting beef with ammonia.

The company, Beef Products Inc., had been looking to expand into the hamburger business with a product made from beef that included fatty trimmings the industry once relegated to pet food and cooking oil.

Here's a pic of the vats this is done in. Pink Slime has elsewhere been described as (get ready):

the rejected fat, sinew, bloody effluvia, and occasional bits of meat cut from carcasses in the slaughterhouse were a low-value waste product called 'trimmings'.

"Trimmings." Like ... "parts." Maybe BPI stands for "Beef Parts Inc." Ya think?

That Times article is the reason most people even know this ammoniated tripe exists (oops, "sludge"; I don't want to defame tripe). In fact, that Times article caused a problem, a corporate profits problem for BPI:

[G]rocery stores pulled beef containing the filler off the shelves and BPI closed three of its four plants for lack of demand[.]

And we all know the solution to a corporate-profits problem, don't we? You got it — a big-money lobbying & PR campaign.

Which brings us to investigative reporter Lee Fang at Republic Report. Here's Fang's latest on Pink Slime and its small army of well-paid friends (my emphasis):

At the core of the controversy over “pink slime” is a story about corporate corruption. ... Why doesn’t the USDA require school lunches, grocery stores, or restaurants to disclose which food products contain this mystery meat? And if it’s perfectly safe, why have pink slime companies lobbied against bills that would allow industry whistleblowers to speak up?

The answer, again, relates to the influence of money in politics. Beef Products Inc., the top producer of pink slime, has ramped up its lobbying spending since the New York Times helped blow the lid off the controversy in 2009: [chart here] ...

Beef Products Inc. retains a team of lobbyists from the firm Olsson, Frank & Weeda. One lobbyist employed by the firm is Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, a former congresswoman from South Dakota and leader of the “Blue Dog Caucus” of pro-corporate Democrats.

Sandlin recently circulated a letter among congressional insiders to defend her client and warn against efforts to bring greater scrutiny to pink slime:

“Dear colleagues, letters have started to circulate on the Hill which perpetuate serious, misleading [sic] information attacking BPI and its product [...] I respectfully request that the senator/representative not sign such letters and also urge their colleagues to get more complete information beyond what recent sensationalized ‘news’ stories have provided.”

... With a regulatory battle looming over disclosure of pink slime in our meat...

One can only hope.

There's more at the Republic Report, including information on indirect lobbying as well, and the frighteningly named "Meat Institute." Do read. There's more on the politics of Pink Slime in this from John and Chris as well.

I think this story isn't going away. It's not drone warfare and dead babies, but it's a perfect emblem of so much that's so wrong — and it has all the elements, a really nasty name (Pink Slime, eww) and the perfect poisonous household cleaner (deadly ammonia) as a key ingredient.

If persistent progressives can't ride this horse to victory, I'm not sure what they can do. After all, even Obama has already half-folded. Let's get the other half.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)

"Benton Harbor has not had local democracy since last year" (or Running against the State, pt 2)

This is what a constitutional coup looks like, when an organized cadre takes over the mechanism of the State (in this case, the small "c" state of Michigan) and uses it for its own purposes.

If the cadre can't be ousted and the rule-changes can't be reversed, we're beyond politics. The hammer we're dealing with is the machine called the State.

Maddow (at about 2:50):

[Quoting the "emergency town manager"]: "We [in effect, the State] believe [the radio station] is going to be so much more useful in [the school district's] hands than ours."

More useful? More useful than what? Well, what was it used for before? In addition to news and music, [the station] was used for dissent. For expressing dissent ... about the town being stripped of its democrat rights, for instance.

Watch (to open large in a new tab, click here):



Three points:

(1) The next Republican president will have Michigan and Wisconsin and Florida as a template. Say "Nader-Nader" (whatever that means) all you want; it's just a fact, and smart people have to factor that into their voting decision. (Or not. The good news: the 2012 election is over, as I see it. Time to plan for 2013.)

(2) This is an instance of a coup at a state-wide (small "s") level. The coup at the national level (in my humble opinion) has already occurred; more soon on that.

(3) You really do want to read about Hungary. This is how "Michigan" is done at the level of a nation.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
 

What's at stake if SCOTUS cuts back the Commerce Clause?

Via Sam Seder and the Majority Report, we're pointed to this excellent commentary by Chris Hayes on his new Up With Chris show.

It's short, tight, and puts this momentous decision in good historical context. Watch:



Ah yes, the social contract; something we've been on about as well.

Seder also points us to this comment by Jeffrey Toobin in the New Yorker. Very smart. According to Toobin, there's 70 years of settled law at stake (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

Consider, then, this question, posed to Verrilli by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy:

“Assume for the moment that this”—the mandate—“is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce. If that is so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?”

Every premise of that question was a misperception. The involvement of the federal government in the health-care market is not unprecedented; it dates back nearly fifty years, to the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. ...

Kennedy’s last point, about the “heavy burden” on the government to defend the law, was correct—in 1935. That was when the Supreme Court, in deciding Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States—a case involving the regulation of the sale of sick chickens—struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act [which established the NRA], a principal domestic priority of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, on the ground that it violated the Commerce Clause.

Two years later, however, the Court executed its famous “switch in time that saved the Nine” and began upholding the reforms of the New Deal. The Justices came to recognize that national economic problems require national solutions, and they deferred to Congress, usually unanimously, to provide those solutions, under the Commerce Clause.

This isn't just about the ACA or getting a second crack at the Public Option; it's about settled law and the Commerce Clause. Untimately it's about the New Deal government that we've all been living under and benefiting from — the one we assume is bullet-proof, here forever.

Not so, says Toobin (and Hayes in the clip above). Toobin again:

In the more than seven decades since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has avoided this sort of line-by-line parsing[.] ... Now, instead, the Supreme Court acts as a sort of supra-legislature, dismissing laws that conflict with its own political agenda.

It's own "political agenda"? Would that be one more voice saying this? He continues:

[This] decision is a great deal more important than its immediate political aftermath. It’s about what the government can do, not just who runs it. If the Court acts in line with the sentiments expressed by the conservatives last week, it could curtail the policymaking options of Congress for a generation. ... It is simply not the Supreme Court’s business to be making these kinds of judgments.

Maybe. On the other hand though, if you totally love power, and totally can't be removed by any agency on earth — why not just use it?

After all, it's not like you haven't had practice swinging some pipe; you totally gave us this guy:

Nearly a century of settled law won't repeal itself, you know, and time's totally wasting.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
 

Obama calls GOP deficit reduction plan a "Trojan horse" for "radical... social darwinism"

I think he did well with "radical." "Social Darwinism," however, might be a bit too Harvard for the average American to get their head around. I suspect the President means to say that the GOP budget leaves families to fend for themselves, "survival of the fittest" style. He should have said that more clearly, but I'm working off an embargoed excerpt of the speech, so hopefully he clarifies the jab.

Below is an unusually partisan excerpt from the President's speech today at the Associated Press Luncheon. Just as interesting as the partisan jab is the fact that this is what the White House chose to leak before the luncheon - the President jabbing in a partisan manner.  Yes, yes, it's all for the election.  But so what.  I want the man to fight back, he is fighting back (finally).  Let's hope that he's learned his lesson about the Republicans.

“This Congressional Republican budget, however, is something different altogether. It’s a Trojan Horse. Disguised as deficit reduction plan, it’s really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It’s nothing but thinly-veiled Social Darwinism. It’s antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everyone who’s willing to work for it – a place where prosperity doesn’t trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class. And by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that’s built to last – education and training; research and development – it’s a prescription for decline.”

"Natural gas" means "Fracking"

Let's call this a Quick Hits.

I want to add to your list of replacement phrases — substitution words that make right-wing statements make sense. For example, when a right-wing politician says something he wants is going to increase "jobs" he really means "profits" — try it yourself; works every time.

Your new replacement phrase — "natural gas" means "fracking". Thus:

• "We need more natural gas" = "We need more fracking"
• "I favor natural gas production" = "I favor fracking"
• "I'm a natural gas company"= "I'm a fracking company"

See how simple? Every word a true one.

I'm seeing a glut of "natural gas" commercials, an absolute flood. "Natural gas is clean" they say. Yes, true of the gas as it burns, relative to other carbon-based products. But what about its production? (Remember your replacement phrase, which hides the truth.)

In the U.S. today, much new natural gas comes from western states where homesteading farmers were prevented by the government (per the Stockraising Homestead Act of 1916) from owning the mineral rights to their own property. This is the meaning of the term "split estate." Western homesteaders after 1916 owned only the surface.

In the east, you own your mineral rights (unless you or your ancestors had sold them). In the west, you don't — the government did and does.

This is what those BLM auctions, by the way, the ones that Tim DeChristopher disrupted and publicized, are all about — natural gas (fracking) leases.

To produce new natural gas from anywhere in the country almost always requires fracking. The perniciousness of western fracking is that the government can give away (sorry, lease) the fracking rights to fracking companies (see, substitution at work) without the landowner's consent.

Do you want to see how widespread fracking is in the U.S.? Click here for the map (it opens in a new tab).

And for a definition of all these terms — fracking, fracking fluid, and so on — go here, a great, bookmarkable resource.

So two points:

� "Natural gas" means "fracking" and "Increasing natural gas production" means "Increasing fracking."

This is the carefully hidden fact behind all those music-sweetened, "jobs"-dangling, mixed-race–friendly commercials that some highly professional PR firm has created to confuse you. (Stay in school, soulless right-wing kids; you too can be paid for such work.)

� Watch this trailer for the excellent film Split Estate. A great entry point into this little pocket of evil in the world.



For more on the film, go here.

And remember, the more we "succeed" at carbon production, the more we fail, since everything we "produce" goes into the air. A time-bomb of our own making, and why you should care.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)