Recently in Politics (2009-2010) Category

"Interrogators were instructed to start pouring water right after a detainee exhaled, to ensure he inhaled water, not air, in his next breath. They could use their hands to "dam the runoff" and prevent water from spilling out of a detainee's mouth...[T]o keep detainees alive even if they inhaled their own vomit during a session - a not-uncommon side effect of waterboarding - the prisoners were kept on a liquid diet. The agency recommended Ensure Plus."

But it's not torture or anything: Recently-released CIA documents explain exactly how we went about waterboarding suspects during the Dubya era. "'It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water,' Nance wrote in the New York Daily News. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning."

Update: Oh, by the way, Karl Rove is "proud" of these despicable acts.

"'This is the earliest that the Center has ever offered an estimate,' Krumholz said. 'As election observers across the political spectrum work to assess the impact of Citizens United, this prediction offers a solid baseline to compare new spending levels against.'" Before even taking the torrents of campaign cash expected in the wake of the Citizens United decision into consideration, the Center of Responsive Politics estimates that the 2010 midterms will cost over $3.7 billion. (FWIW, the year 2006 clocked in at $2.85 billion.) Sigh...fasten your seat belts -- It's going to be a bumpy ride.

As gripping in its own way as a cloak-and-dagger thriller or John Grisham procedural, Daniel Ellsberg: The Most Dangerous Man in America, by co-directors Judith Erlich and Rick Goldsmith and about the famous Rand analyst turned Pentagon Papers whistleblower, is a smart, tautly-made conjuring of recent American history that's well worth the trip. And, fortunately for me, it's also a perfect movie to contemplate and write about this President's Day.

On one hand, the film makes for an interesting moral counterpoint to The Fog of War: Ellsberg's actions put the lie to a lot of McNamara's convenient post-hoc rationalizing therein -- clearly, SecDef could've done more at the time to end the war in Vietnam.) On the other, Ellsberg also works as a prequel of sorts to All the President's Men -- to say nothing of a generation of seventies paranoia epics like The Parallax View and Three Days of the Condor. But in the end, The Most Dangerous Man in America probably works best as an eloquent testament to the words of the late Howard Zinn (who appears here as an old friend of Ellsberg): "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

Like Man on Wire, Ellsberg starts here in media res, and at the scene of the history-making crime. Furtive eyes scan back and forth as an old-school Xerox copier whirrs in the dark, its green light illuminating maps of Southeast Asia and the ominous words "Top Secret" from below. With no zip drives or electronic files to speak of, analyst Daniel Ellsberg is forced to copy the 7000 pages of the Pentagon Papers page by painstaking page. It'll take months (and eventually he enlists the aid of his kids.) As the Xerox churns, we get up-to-date on the ramifications of the document being processed -- bombs fall from the sky over North Vietnam and Cambodia, weary troops patrol the hot, fetid jungle, and Nixon and Kissinger obsess over the leaks in their war machine (with Kissinger giving Ellsberg his moniker: "the most dangerous man in America.")

Cut back to several years earlier, when the future leaker of the Pentagon Papers seemed quite a different man indeed. A fresh-faced young ex-Marine with a crisp, no-nonsense Kennedy era haircut, Ellsberg began his tenure in government as one of the Best and the Brightest, with an enthusiasm for his 80-hour workweek matched only by his hawkishness. As one of McNamara's boys, Ellsberg concedes to helping massage the data to create a casus belli for the war. His first day on the job is the Gulf of Tonkin incident that wasn't, and he spends subsequent weeks trying to dredge up some, any, horrible atrocities in the region that might involve Americans.

But, over time, the scales fall away from Ellsberg's eyes. In part because he makes the acquaintance of a luminous lefty-leaning journalist named Patricia, who eventually becomes his fiancee...twice. (Ellsberg has a great line about a guy he meets at a peace rally who's a Trotskyist. He asks this fellow how in Hell he ever became a Trotskyist. The answer: "The same way anybody becomes anything. I met a girl.") And in part because, driven with an analyst's overriding compulsion to find the right answer, he starts going to Vietnam himself to lead recon missions on the side and get a better sense of the situation on the ground. Simply put, the Ground Game is not going well.

The rest, as they say, is history. Moved to throw a shoe into the gears of the war machine he had helped nurture into existence, Ellsberg goes rogue and decides to publish the top-secret history of the war. But, even if you feel like you know the story of the Pentagon Papers pretty well, and I thought I did, there are some fresh and intriguing insights here. For example, I'm not really one for Freudianism or overthinking coincidences, but it turns out Ellsberg suffered a tragedy at the age of 15 that made him uniquely primed to play the role in history he ended up playing. (His father fell asleep at the wheel during a road trip, prompting a crash that sheared the car in two and killed Ellsberg's mother and sister. In other words, watch the authority figures at the wheel verrry carefully.)

And then there's the man himself, who's an engaging presence throughout (if perhaps with a touch of monomania -- I could see him being a hard guy to get along with.) If The Most Dangerous Man in America has a flaw, it's that the movie is quite one-sided in the end -- Ellsberg even narrates much of the story, and you get the sense at various points there may well be some whitewash being applied. (Ellsberg has an ex-wife, and kids, that aren't even mentioned for the first 45 minutes or so.) Still, I'm inclined to give Ellsberg -- and Ellsberg -- the benefit of the doubt (and not just because the man loves his movies.) Ever since George and the cherry tree, we've been smoothing the edges of our patriotic tales. And, whatever his misdeeds as a man, Daniel Ellsberg, the film makes clear, is a patriot, through and through.

I use this Cornel West quote rather often, but that doesn't make it any less true: "To understand your country, you must love it. To love it, you must, in a sense, accept it. To accept it as how it is, however is to betray it. To accept your country without betraying it, you must love it for that in it which shows what it might become. America - this monument to the genius of ordinary men and women, this place where hope becomes capacity, this long, halting turn of the no into the yes, needs citizens who love it enough to reimagine and remake it."

Daniel Ellsberg is one of those citizens. He saw an obvious crime being perpetrated by our government across multiple presidencies, and he did his part to help put a stop to it. In many ways, the story told in The Most Dangerous Man in America seems quaint: Johnson actually asked Congress for authority to bomb Vietnam? The press wasn't rolling over like a lapdog in the wake of obvious propagandistic lies? (In fact, the media types who show up late in Ellsberg clearly possess some of the narcisstic sense of self-entitlement that has been our undoing of late. Ellsberg the civilian sweats blood and tears to get this 7,000-page document out in public, and the press poobahs act like they're both the knowing gatekeepers and the heroes of the story.)

But just because Ellsberg's brand of patriotism has fallen out of fashion in the era of Judith Miller and the chattering class doesn't make this story any less relevant. It makes it more relevant. If we're going to keep our young republic through its third century, we need more men and women of Ellsberg's stripe. Men and women who will buck the trend, risk the ridicule and wrath of their well-connected peers, and stand up against injustice done under our collective name when they are party to it.

Presidents will get their due on this and every subsequent Presidents Day to come. But, now and again, it's good to honor those patriots who, through non-violent principle and sheer, dogged determination, help to keep our leaders in check when the separation of powers fails -- ordinary folks like you, me, and Daniel and Patricia Elllsberg.

Via Speaker Pelosi's official website, some much-needed perspective on the jobs situation under Dubya and Obama respectively (so far). Next time anyone of the (Keynesian-challenged) Republican persuasion starts to rant and rave about the stimulus, this might be a good graph to keep in your back pocket.

Of course, this is not to say we're anywhere near the clear on the jobs front. Not only is there some frightening new data around about the length of unemployment in this downturn, The Atlantic's Don Peck makes a compelling case about how this new jobless era will transform America: "The unemployment rate hit 10 percent in October, and there are good reasons to believe that by 2011, 2012, even 2014, it will have declined only a little...The worst effects of pervasive joblessness--on family, politics, society--take time to incubate, and they show themselves only slowly. But ultimately, they leave deep marks that endure long after boom times have returned."

"[L]ong before Hollywood discovered the Texan, he cut a wide swath through the House, always playing the roguish ladies' man and macho militarist...[His] frequent, much more sober-styled partner was Democratic Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania powerhouse who chaired the defense subcommittee so important to CIA funding for the Afghan cause. And the fact that both have died now within days of each other punctuates the end of a major chapter for the House left behind."

Charlie Wilson, 1933-2010, and John Murtha, 1932-2010.

"The troubled and expensive Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space will be gone, along with money for its bigger brother, the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed to take humans back to the moon. There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all." As expected (and feared) earlier this year, the Obama administration's proposed NASA budget for the next five years cancels any and all plans to go to the moon anytime soon. "'We certainly don't need to go back to the moon,' said one administration official."

Sigh.

Ok, first off, the administration official who uttered the last sentence should be filed away next to Mr. Left of the Left and Ms. Pajamas as people who should no longer speak for the White House in any capacity whatsoever. Full stop, end of story. Putting my speechwriter cap on for a second: In most any political situation, ridiculing the dreams of an entire generation does not make for particularly good messaging.

Anyway, anonymous WH official aside, NASA administrator Charles Bolden sounded a better note about all this: "We're not abandoning anything. We're probably on a new course but human space flight is in our DNA. We are not abandoning human space flight by any stretch of the imagination. We have companies telling us they're excited to get humans off this planet and into orbit. I think we're going to get there and perhaps quicker than we would have done before."

And, to be clear, the administration's NASA budget increases the agency's funding by $6 billion over the next five years. The new budget ups research and development spending into cheaper heavy launch mechanisms, emphasizes more robotic exploration missions and observational experiments into climate change, extends the life of the ISS (although, with only five more shuttle missions remaining, other nations will have to help service it), and works to promote the various commercial space enterprises moving along right now.

All of this is well and good, but it would be nice to see some recognition of the civic importance of manned space flight by this administration. In their words, NASA is scrapping Constellation on account of it being "over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies." And, given that we still had a lot of the expenditures before us, I suppose now was as good a time as any to kill the program if it's not the right direction to go in.

That being said, how many more times are we going to do this? We keep stopping and starting and stopping and starting our post-Shuttle plans for space, so that now, after five final shuttle missions this coming year, we will longer have the capability anymore as a nation to send men and women into orbit. "If implemented, the NASA a few years from now would be fundamentally different from NASA today. The space agency would no longer operate its own spacecraft, but essentially buy tickets for its astronauts." Forty-one years after we first reached the moon, that's just plain sad.

Ultimately, the central finding of the Augustine commission's final report, released this past October after extensive study of NASA's current situation, is a sound one: "The U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources." In other words, we've been trying to talk the talk without walking the walk. If we're going to get serious about manned space flight, we need to stop piecemealing NASA and start making manned exploration a funding priority.

In total, the agency is slated to get $100 billion over the next five years. To put that number in perspective, that's less than a fifth of our defense budget for 2011 alone, and that's going by the most conservative numbers around -- NASA's five-year budget could be closer to a tenth of next year's defense spending. (For its part, the Augustine commission set a price tag of $3 billion a year to get serious about manned exploration.)

If we had put anywhere near that kind of money into exploration and R&D over the years, would we now be in this position, where we face the Hobson's choice of replicating expensive 50-year-old launch tech or being completely grounded as a nation? The lack of thinking about our long-term priorities sometimes is staggering to me. I've said this before, but I still believe it holds true: Short of possibly genomic research and advances in AI, nothing we do right now will matter more centuries or millennia hence than establishing a presence off-world...if we even have that long. Not to get all Jor-El up in here, but we really have to start getting serious about this.

"When the Chief Judge joined in the argument about the continuing vitality of the corruption rationale for campaign finance restraints, he flatly accused Kolker of evading the Citizens United ruling. "I'm not hearing you address Citizens United," Sentelle said. And Judge Thomas B. Griffith chimed in: "You're trying to avoid Citizens United. This is a new world: corruption means a lot less than it did before.'"

Hey, you said it, Judge. According to the good folks at SCOTUSblog, the doors to unfettered campaign cash are open in a big way in the minds of the DC District Court after Citizens United: "From the opening moment of the 65-minute hearing, most of the nine judges on the en banc Court treated the Supreme Court's ruling...as the beginning, not the end, of expansion of those freedoms. When an FEC lawyer tried to bring up, and rely on, older precedents, he was reminded repeatedly that those came before Citizens United."

President Obama's stern words about the decision in his State of the Union address may have induced Justice Alito to expose himself as a partisan hack, but it seems, alas, that the Justice and his four conservative contemporaries will have the last laugh.

"The Chamber spent much of its money in 2009 on campaigns that worked -- it scared the Senate away from considering a version of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation, and an argument can be made that its cutting ads on health care (with money taken from some insurance companies) helped to undercut support for the legislation." You think? In a shape-of-things-to-come moment even before Citizens United goes into effect, the Chamber of Commerce outspent both political parties in 2009.

"According to The Center for Responsive Politics, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its national subsidiaries spent $144.5 million in 2009, far more than the RNC and more than double the expenditures by the DNC." But corporate spending isn't a problem or anything.

"In a new national poll, 65 percent of Americans say they disagree with the 5-to-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to spend without limits on ads in political campaigns." And yet hope remains while the company is true: A new poll finds Americans across the board are unhappy with the court's ruling in Citizens United.

"The Reid poll found little difference in partisan attitudes...Sixty-six percent of Democrats either "moderately" or "strongly" disagreed with the ruling, but so did 63 percent of Republicans. A whopping 72 percent of Independents disagreed with the Supremes' decision." One wonders how those numbers might've moved if we started using Citizen United's full name to discuss this case...

You stay classy, GOP. And folks thought "teabagger" was ugly.

"I know that we haven't agreed on every issue thus far, and there are surely times in the future when we will part ways. But I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done. That is the foundation on which the American people expect us to build common ground."

They do? I thought they expected change we can believe in. But worn-out nods to an elusive, ephemeral, and, given the current GOP, often undesirable bipartisanship does not constitute such. In any event, so concluded the President's State of the Union address last Thursday. This is old news at this point, so I'll keep it brief. Suffice to say, while it got better as it went along, I thought the speech was merely ok, and often troubling. Throughout the evening, the president's remarks had that excessively-poll-tested, small-bore feel that conjured up grim odors of 1995 and 1996. Throw on a flannel and fire up the Pulp Fiction soundtrack, y'all: One year into the Obama era, are we already back to V-chips and school uniforms?

Part of the president's problem is that the Senate is looking like the elephant's graveyard of progressive-minded legislation right now. The president called for an energy reform bill. The House went out on a limb to pass one last June. The president called for a financial reform bill. The House passed one in December. The president called for a new jobs bill. The House also passed one in December. All of these bills, and many, many others, are languishing in the Senate right now, as Sen. Reid and others try to figure out how to somehow get something -- anything! -- passed with a larger majority than Dubya ever enjoyed.

The Senate issue aside, there were other problems in the President's speech, including far too many nods and feints in the direction of ridiculous deficit peacocks like Judd Gregg and Evan Bayh. First off, at the risk of sounding like Dick Cheney, I tend to think that deficits are troubling, but, even in the best of times, they shouldn't really be the foremost driving concern of our government policy. If we run a deficit to invest in education now, we'll save money down the road and improve Americans' quality-of-life to boot. (Put in somewhat ugly fashion, it's invest in schools now or prisons later.)

And that being said, right now is emphatically not the best of times. We know exactly what happens when you cut spending too quickly after a virulent recession -- It was called the 1937 Roosevelt recession, and it would be flagrantly idiotic to repeat it. Just because the GOP doesn't seem to understand basic Keynesian economics doesn't mean we should follow them down the rabbit hole of flat-earth thinking, just so we can look bipartisan.

No, the problem with deficits isn't necessarily the running of a deficit. It's the running-up of massive deficits for patently stupid reasons -- like, say, prosecuting a war of choice in Iraq, or doling out excessive tax breaks to multi-millionaires. And that's why some of the President's nods in that direction were so irritating last Thursday. Calling for a spending freeze on discretionary spending, without touching the exorbitant "security-related" budget (cute euphemism, that), is kabuki theater at best. And at worst, you're balancing the books at the expense of our most vulnerable citizens. (I tend to agree with Candidate Obama on this issue anyway.)

Similarly, this deficit commission which the president plans to foist on Congress by executive order after the Senate killed it, is, again, at best kabuki theater and at worst trouble. It's clear to everyone involved that the entire point of this commission is CYA: i.e, to create political cover for raids on entitlement spending, while once again ignoring the grotesquely swollen defense budget. (Altho', to be fair, Secretary Gates has at least tried to rein in growth in this sector.) In other words, this commission will basically just be a chance for deficit peacocks to pretend they're Serious People and "make tough decisions," while in fact the one really tough idea that actually needs to be tackled -- reining in defense spending -- will be completely avoided.

In any event, all this discussion of the deficit ignores the larger problem. Obviously, one of the president's biggest charges coming into office was to restore economic sanity after eight years of Dubyaite excess. That being said, people were not looking to President Obama for this sort of deficit tsk-tsking and small-bore, fiddling around the margins. You'd think we Dems would have learned this by now. But curling up into a fetal position and mouthing moderate GOP-lite bromides will not stop the Republicans from kicking us, ever.

We have a Democratic president, an 18-seat majority in the Senate, and a 79-seat majority in the House. In short, we Dems need to keep thinking big or we will pay dearly at the polls this November. Perhaps the dysfunction of the Senate is the central problem Obama faces right now, but his speech nonetheless suggests that we're getting dangerously close to Eisenhower Republican territory now, and not even in the good "the military-industrial complex is completely frakked" kinda way. Without vision, the people perish. So too will our party, if we keep up with this thin gruel, triangulation schtick. At the advice of the careerist DLC-types over the years, we have tried this path several times over -- Put simply, it does not work.

"The whole thing basically went like that: Republican asks obnoxious question rooted in Glenn Beck-ian talking points; Obama swats it away, makes the questioner look silly, and then smiles at the end. It got so bad, in fact, that Fox News cut away from the event before it was over."

My issues with the SotU notwithstanding, the president's sallying back-and-forth with House Republicans on Friday clearly indicate that, whatever our problems are within the party, the GOP are just not ready for prime-time right now. (I also get the sense that this will mark the definitive end of the Republican's goofy "teleprompter" meme.) [Full transcript.]

To his credit, the president made his political opponents seem like the blatantly hypocritical ideologues they in fact are. Which begs the "common ground" question once again: Why should we try to meet the "Party of No" halfway, particularly when we know that they move the goalposts every single time you try to take them seriously?

"Debate on the question of money and politics has been percolating within the ACLU for years, long before the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Citizens United. 'It is difficult to think of an issue that has generated more internal controversy,' an internal ACLU memo states."

To its credit and as a result of the Citizens United decision (which the organization has previously lawyered and lobbied for), the ACLU convenes a weekend summit to discuss its campaign finance reform position. "'The ACLU's version of democracy is from the ground-up,' one civil rights lawyer, David Gans, told the ACLU's board, which was assembled downtown at One New York Plaza. 'Now Exxon Mobil can spend 2% of its money and blow that all up.'"

Here's hoping the reformers win the day -- or walk out CIO-style if they don't. Imho, the stance that unlimited corporate funding of our elections is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment has always been the Achilles' heel of an otherwise superb organization. I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell, their reasoning relies on two unfortunate bugs in the legal code -- corporate personhood and the conflation of money with speech -- that they too often deem fundamental First Amendment principles. I would argue they're not.

For why the former -- corporate personhood -- has obvious problems, just read Justice Stevens' dissent from Thursday:

"The basic premise underlying the Court's ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker's identity, including its 'identity; as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law....

Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."

For the latter -- the ruinous conflation of money and speech in Buckley v. Valeo -- check out Stevens' concurrence in Nixon v. Shrink Government Pact (2000), where he says how he'd come down if Buckley were reopened:

"In response to [Justice Kennedy's] call for a new beginning, therefore, I make one simple point. Money is property; it is not speech.

Speech has the power to inspire volunteers to perform a multitude of tasks on a campaign trail, on a battleground, or even on a football field. Money, meanwhile, has the power to pay hired laborers to perform the same tasks. It does not follow, however, that the First Amendment provides the same measure of protection to the use of money to accomplish such goals as it provides to the use of ideas to achieve the same results...

Telling a grandmother that she may not use her own property to provide shelter to a grandchild -- or to hire mercenaries to work in that grandchild's campaign for public office -- raises important constitutional concerns that are unrelated to the First Amendment."

But somewhere along the line and for whatever reason, the ACLU latched on to both of these unwise shibboleths, and have since been arguing that corporate personhood and the idea of money as speech are both enshrined in the First Amendment. Uh...really?

To see what kind of damage these two bogus ideas have wrought, one need only to go over to Salon and read through Glenn Greenwald's ugly meltdown on Citzens United the past few days. As anyone who visits GitM regularly knows, I link to Greenwald pretty much constantly. On a host of issues, from Obama's terrible record on civil liberties to the broken-down state of our journalism, he's been remarkably on point, and one of my favorite columnists to read. I used to wonder if there was anything I disagreed with him on. Well, it turns out, there is. And, apparently, I'm a "partisan hack" for thinking different.

For the Cliff Notes version of this whole conversation, I wrote up a snarky summation of it here yesterday, well after things had gone south. But, basically, Glenn -- on "homework assignment" -- argued on Friday that, all the negative consequences that will ensue aside, the Majority in Citizen's United decided the case correctly, that this was a victory for the first amendment, and that people who disagree with their decision are practicing "outcome-based law." (He also made the dubious and unprovable assertion that things can't get any worse anyway. Really? We'll see.)

Well, this assessment did not sit right with a lot of people. Some questioned his reading of the case. Others pointed out that law is always outcome-based, even the Majority's ruling in Citizens. (The concerned outcome for Justice Kennedy here is that blogs might get banned someday, somehow, if this ruling isn't made. I'll take my chances.) And, others, such as myself, questioned these two principles -- corporations are people, money is speech -- that the ruling was based on.

Well, suffice to say, Greenwald did not take criticism well. He adamantly refused to engage either notion -- money isn't speech, corporations aren't people -- as having any merit whatsoever, eventually trying to write off both with some dubious 1L hypotheticals. (All were answered to his disadvantage, several times over.) He went on to ridicule the folks who disagreed with him in a "check out the Big Brain on me" kinda way. (He argued his lawyerly creds just means he knows better.) He ignored Stevens' actual dissent throughout. And he accused folks of being just like Dubya on torture for deigning to disagree with him on the decision.

This embarrassing conceit -- those with disagree with me are Dubyaites, end of story -- formed the extraordinarily condescending introduction of Greenwald's follow-up to his first post. Still ignoring the legitimate criticisms people were making of the two assertions above -- money=speech and corporations=people, Glenn instead pulled one line from Justice Stevens' ninety pages of dissent to argue that all nine Justices agreed with both of these propositions. (This even though both Ginsburg and Sotomayor questioned the corporate personhood idea in oral arguments, and that Stevens explicitly said he did not agree with the money=speech proposition in Nixon v. Shrink, an argument Glenn would not touch.) As it turns out, the one line Glenn pulled from Stevens' dissent proved neither assertion. Nonetheless, he returned to his shell, refusing to even consider the notion that "money=speech" or "corporations=people" might be lousy interpretations or legal accidents, or that they aren't necessarily covered by the First Amendment.

When I shared the above ACLU story this morning, Greenwald blew another gasket:

The ACLU has a long history of standing up to and defying people [like] you: those who pretend to believe in the Constitution and civil liberties only when it can be used as a weapon to advance your partisan and political agenda.

If they didn't reverse themselves on the First Amendment rights of Nazis in the wake of huge numbers of people like you (those who only believe in the Constitution when it suits them) cutting off funding and leaving the organization, I highly doubt they will do so now....

But what has made the ACLU such an important and unique organization is that they have stood their ground on principle and resisted the efforts of people like you to turn it into a partisan tool rather than an organization devoted to the Constitution."

I guess he figured I'd forget what "people like me" means from paragraph to paragraph. And, yes, y'all, I've been writing on politics and progressivism here for ten years because I've always wanted to subvert the Constitution to my own ends. And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for that nasty Greenwald!

Anyway, when I then reminded Greenwald that people of principle can disagree on these issues, and that it may even be possible that the ACLU reformers might even be the right ones in this story, that's when I got called an Orwellian partisan hack once more. (FWIW, here's my kissoff. I particularly like "paddock of principle and certitude.")

Throughout this whole back-and-forth, there was not even the remotest possibility that any other interpretation on these two questions had merit for Greenwald: Corporations have first amendment rights. Money is speech. Both are obviously enshrined in the First Amendment. And arguing anything else is ridiculous and deserving of scorn (even if Supreme Court justices have argued differently in the past, including as recently as Thursday.) So let it be written, so let it be done.

Uh...really? Who knows...perhaps it's a lawyer thing. Nonetheless, this myopic, bullish way of thinking -- I hold the only correct possible interpretation of the law, and you're either with me or you're with the Dubyaites -- isn't very satisfying on either personal or argumentative grounds. And Greenwald's constant doubling down on his original argument, even as more and more holes were poked in it by various responders, makes me question not only his temperament but his writing in general. He usually provides a valuable public service, no doubt, but he seems to have bought into his own hype as an Incorruptible Defender of Liberty. If you can't think outside of yourself once in awhile, or find some way to weigh arguments you may not necessarily agree with without deeming them unprincipled, you're really not much use to anyone.

Update: Looks like Greenwald addressed this topic one more time this morning. Here's what he said:

"'Money is not speech' is an idiot bumper sticker slogan, not a meaningful argument which resolves anything. 'Corporations have no constitutional rights' is such an extreme and dangerous position (it endorses the constitutionality of the FBI's searching whatever corporate offices they want and seizing all corporate documents with no search warrants or probable cause, or the Congress' imposing $10 million fines on corporations every time they criticize the government, among other things) that it's frivolous in the extreme. Despite that, I spent substantial time all weekend addressing and responding to those frivolous bumper sticker slogans."

So there you have it. An "idiot bumper sticker slogan"...repeated verbatim by Justice Stevens in 2000. (And, for what it's worth, Greenwald referred to civil rights lawyer David Kairys' piece on these two questions, linked several times above, as "stupid and ill-informed.") Class act, Glenn.

"The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law...The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution."

Well, it was a nice republic while it lasted. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court finally hands down its Citzens United verdict, and it is ugly. [Full Text] Basically, the distinction between corporations and individuals has been erased, and, by the already dubious proposition that money is speech, unlimited corporate expenditures in campaigns is now just good, old-fashioned government. Welcome to the new Lochner era, y'all.

By the way, this is a much, much bigger deal than Scott Brown or the effing Edwards baby. Not that you'd know that from watching the news right now.

Update: More reactions:

Fred Wertheimer, Democracy 21: "Today's Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case is a disaster for the American people and a dark day for the Supreme Court...With a stroke of the pen, five Justices wiped out a century of American history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy."

Bob Edgar, Common Cause: "The Roberts Court today made a bad situation worse. This decision allows Wall Street to tap its vast corporate profits to drown out the voice of the public in our democracy. The path from here is clear: Congress must free itself from Wall Street's grip so Main Street can finally get a fair shake."

Robert Weissman, Public Citizen: "Shed a tear for our democracy...Money from Exxon, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer and the rest of the Fortune 500 is already corroding the policy making process in Washington, state capitals and city halls. Today, the Supreme Court tells these corporate giants that they have a constitutional right to trample our democracy."

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI): "[T]his decision was a terrible mistake. Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was 'firmly embedded in our law.' Yet this Court has just upended that prohibition, and a century's worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government. The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections."

President Obama: "With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less."

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick: "Even former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist once warned that treating corporate spending as the First Amendment equivalent of individual free speech is 'to confuse metaphor with reality.' Today that metaphor won a very real victory at the Supreme Court. And as a consequence some very real corporations are feeling very, very good."

"The FBI illegally collected more than 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records, according to internal bureau memos and interviews. FBI officials issued approvals after the fact to justify their actions."

The WP's John Solomon and Carrie Johnson report on widespread phone record abuse at the FBI. What's particularly galling here, if I'm reading this right, is that the law they were breaking seems to be a loophole-ridden statute in the Patriot Act included mainly as a fig leaf, but even that weak tea was too much for them to abide by. For shame.

So, slow news evening, eh?

Well, first off, thanks, Massachusetts! To my many friends from the Bay State, I say this: Speaking as a son of South Carolina, I never, ever want to get the "you-hicks-are-keeping-us-back" routine from y'all again, thanks much.

So, yes, Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. And thus, in a truly bitter irony, a man who spent his life trying to achieve health care reform for all Americans has now been replaced by a guy sworn to kill the health care bill and armed with the 41st vote(?) that could potentially make it happen. (Yes, Virginia, it's true. In our system, 41 > 59.) Well, in Brown's defense, he has a nice truck.

Why did this happen? Well, everybody has a theory. Here's mine, which boils down to two reasons.

1. Martha Coakley. I didn't watch enough of the MA race to determine if she was a lousy candidate through-and-through, although I have my suspicions. Nonetheless, Ms. Coakley was undeniably a gaffe-prone standard-bearer. From calling Curt Schilling a Yankee to misspelling the name of the state in a political ad to, weirdly, insulting the very idea of glad-handing in public, Coakley was an out-and-out gaffe machine. Couple that with a lackadaisical campaign and the inexplicable decision to take an extended vacation in the heat of the race, and you have a recipe for disaster. There's a reason we've been telling the story of the Tortoise and the Hare for a couple thousand years now.

2. Change. In fending off Rahm Emanuel's charge that she's at fault for this fiasco, pollster Celinda Lake aptly summed up the main problem here: ""If Scott Brown wins tonight he'll win because he became the change-oriented candidate. Voters are still voting for the change they voted for in 2008, but they want to see it." Put another way: All across the country, the current occupants of the White House tapped into a deep and strongly-felt yearning for a transformative presidency in 2008...and then spent pretty much the entirety of their first-year in office playing the same old tired in-the-Beltway reindeer games that made people ill in the first place. This is not change voters believed in, and it has made voters angry, or depressed, or both.

Equally demoralizing is the neverending spectacle of a stalled-out health care bill. If I'd hazard a guess, most voters aren't really delving into the ins and outs of this all-consuming debate, particularly by Month Eight or whatever it is. But they can see just from casually following along that the Democrats are really struggling to get this done, that the White House has been letting the bill get bogged down and eviscerated in the Senate -- first in August, and again in November/December -- and that, from the Big Pharma deal to the disappearing public option to all of the Lieberman/Stupak/Nelson/Snowe shenanigans on display, the usual Washington rules are in full effect right now. Once again, this is not change people can believe in. With each passing month that the bill has languished, we Dems have looked weaker and weaker. And if you continually force voters to choose between venal and incompetent, they'll tend to gravitate toward the former.

Now, the good news:

1. First, and this cannot be stressed enough, we have an 18-seat majority in the Senate. It's 59-41 people...most presidents can only dream of having that kind of majority, Dubya included. So there's really no good reason -- none, zip, zero -- that we shouldn't see more progressive accomplishments from this administration in the year to come. It just takes an act of will. I don't remember the Republicans getting all kerfuffled about operating with 51 votes. Nor did Hubert Humphrey and the Johnson Senate have any problem with blithely ignoring the Senate parliamentarian when it got in the way of legislation.

2. It's January of 2010, i.e. almost a full year before the "real" election day. In other words, this Brown victory is really just a shot across the bow. And if the administration course-corrects now, we may even end up gaining a year in time -- and several seats we might well have lost -- had this lazy centrist drift continued on until next November.

Of course, that's only good news if the administration and the Democratic Party draw the right lessons from yesterday's defeat. Suffice to say, this afternoon, it does not look good: Enabled, as usual, by the Serious People™ who comprise the broken-down wreck we once called beltway journalism, all the usual suspects are currently blaming Coakley's loss on "the Left," or more specifically the hippie-liberal cast of Obama's administration thus far. Uh, say what now?

It's hard to answer this ridiculous charge any better than did the estimable Glenn Greenwald this afternoon: "'In what universe must someone be living to believe that the Democratic Party is controlled by 'the Left,' let alone 'the furthest left elements" of the Party? As Ezra Klein says, the Left 'ha[s] gotten exactly nothing they wanted in recent months'....The very idea that an administration run by Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel and staffed with centrists, Wall Street mavens, and former Bush officials -- and a Congress beholden to Blue Dogs and Lieberdems -- has been captive 'to the Left' is so patently false that everyone should be too embarrassed to utter it."

Truer words and all that. If we want to stop seeing these sorts of Brownian upsets in the future, the answer is emphatically not to curl up within the usual GOP-lite protective camouflage and hope the flak dies down. People see through that malarkey immediately. (As Harry Truman is rumored to have said, "In an election between a Republican and a Republican, the Republican wins every time.") No, the answer is to move forward from this point with the courage of our convictions, and to start delivering to American families the real and fundamental change they were promised a year ago. It's just that simple, folks.

"Mr. Ford spoke about his childhood in Memphis, describing a grandmother who used the extension cords from living room lamps to discipline him and his brother. 'I am always amazed when I meet parents who say they can't get their kids to go to church, 'cause I didn't know kids had options like that...Later, he returned to the subject: 'We as a nation need to be disciplined. If there were ever a day in which an electric cord ought to be used on all of us to remind us of what's good, what's bad, what's right and what's wrong, it's on the King holiday.'"

Speaking of exactly the direction Dems don't need to go after yesterday's' Massachusetts thumping, consider Harold Ford, who (with some not-insubstantial Wall Street prodding) has up and decided he wants to be the Senator from New York, and who, among his many, many other faults, cannot seem to wrap his mind around either the basic fundamentals of capitalism or Dr. King's doctrine of non-violence.

As I said on Twitter the other day, Harold Ford may not represent *everything* that's wrong with the Dems, because we've got lots of problems right now. But he's darn close.

"'This is probably the best example of violation of the separation of church and state in this country,' said Weinstein. 'It's literally pushing fundamentalist Christianity at the point of a gun against the people that we're fighting. We're emboldening an enemy.'"

I like Saving Private Ryan as much as the next guy, but this, in a word, is ridicky-goddamn-diculous. Apparently, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are routinely outfitted with sniper rifles etched with New Testament verse. "Trijicon confirmed to ABCNews.com that it adds the biblical codes to the sights sold to the U.S. military. Tom Munson, director of sales and marketing for Trijicon...said the inscriptions 'have always been there' and said there was nothing wrong or illegal with adding them. Munson said the issue was being raised by a group that is 'not Christian.'"

Newsflash: Given that we're currently engaged in multiple wars and are strongly trying to avoid any appearance of being involved in any sort of anti-Muslim Crusade, arming our soldiers with "Jesus rifles" and crafting bible-thumping war reports for the Commander-in-Chief isn't just catastrophically stupid. It's basically writing the Al Qaeda recruiting posters for them.

Update: Also, "They started it!" is not an appropriate response to this dismal revelation.

Update 2: Trijicon stands down -- Jesus rifles are hereby discontinued, most likely because of quotes like these: "General David Petraeus also addressed the scopes this morning, calling the matter 'disturbing and a serious concern for me.'"

"As news of the deaths emerged the following day, the camp quickly went into lockdown. The authorities ordered nearly all the reporters at Guantánamo to leave and those en route to turn back. The commander at Guantánamo, Rear Admiral Harry Harris, then declared the deaths 'suicides.' In an unusual move, he also used the announcement to attack the dead men. "I believe this was not an act of desperation," he said, 'but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us.'"

In Gitmo, no one can here you scream. After chatting with four members of a military intelligence unit on the premises, Harper's writer Scott Horton makes a compelling case that three Gitmo suicides in 2006 were in fact covered-up murders, occurring as a result of the Dubya-era torture regime. "All four soldiers say they were ordered by their commanding officer not to speak out, and all four soldiers provide evidence that authorities initiated a cover-up within hours of the prisoners' deaths."

Update: Slate's Dahlia Lithwick calls out the press for its deafening silence. "The fact that three Guantanamo prisoners--none of whom had any links to terrorism and two of whom had already been cleared for release--may have been killed there and the deaths covered up, should be front-page news. That brand-new evidence of this possible atrocity from military guards was given only the most cursory investigation by the Obama administration should warrant some kind of blowback. But changing what we allow ourselves to believe about torture would change the way we have reconciled ourselves to torture. Nobody in this country is prepared to do that. So we have opted to ignore it."

"Parliament has collapsed. The tax office has collapsed. Schools have collapsed. Hospitals have collapsed." Haiti reels after a devastating 7.3 earthquake that may well have claimed thousands of lives. What a horrible nightmare...and it kinda puts the past week of idiotic Beltway yammering about Harry Reid's vernacular and the Edwards' bad behavior in perspective, doesn't it? Real news please. [How to help.][How not to help.]

"When the U.S. Senate was created, the most populous state, Virginia, had 10 times as many people as the least populous, Delaware...Now the most populous state, California, has 69 times as many people as the least populous, Wyoming, yet they have the same two votes in the Senate. A similarly inflexible business organization would still have a major Whale Oil Division; a military unit would be mainly fusiliers and cavalry. No one would propose such a system in a constitution written today, but without a revolution, it's unchangeable.

Similarly, since it takes 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster on controversial legislation, 41 votes is in effect a blocking minority. States that together hold about 12 percent of the U.S. population can provide that many Senate votes. This converts the Senate from the 'saucer' George Washington called it, in which scalding ideas from the more temperamental House might 'cool,' into a deep freeze and a dead weight."

In a worthwhile cover story for The Atlantic on the long history of American declension and jeremiads, James Fallows -- recently returned from China -- make his case for the biggest problem facing our nation right now."That is the American tragedy of the early 21st century: a vital and self-renewing culture that attracts the world's talent, and a governing system that increasingly looks like a joke. One thing I've never heard in my time overseas is 'I wish we had a Senate like yours.'"

"It's one thing to recognize capitalism for the powerful economic tool it is and to acknowledge that, for better or for worse, we're stuck with it and, hey, thank God we have it. There's not a lot else that can produce mass wealth with the dexterity that capitalism can. But to mistake it for a social framework is an incredible intellectual corruption and it's one that the West has accepted as a given since 1980--since Reagan...People paid a much higher tax rate when Eisenhower was president, a much higher tax rate for the benefit of society, and all of us had more of a sense that we were included."

By way of DYFL, Vice Magazine publishes an extended interview with David Simon on The Wire Treme, writing, political economy, health care reform, and other important matters. "Of course it's socialism. These ignorant motherf**kers. What do they think group insurance is, other than socialism? Just the idea of buying group insurance! If socialism is a taint that you cannot abide by, then, goddamn it, you shouldn't be in any group insurance policy."

"I don't honestly know what this president believes. But I believe if he doesn't figure it out soon, start enunciating it, and start fighting for it, he's not only going to give American families hungry for security a series of half-loaves where they could have had full ones, but he's going to set back the Democratic Party and the progressive movement by decades, because the average American is coming to believe that what they're seeing right now is 'liberalism,' and they don't like what they see. I don't, either. What's they're seeing is weakness, waffling, and wandering through the wilderness without an ideological compass. That's a recipe for going nowhere fast -- but getting there by November."

I already said my piece about this last week, and was going to let it drop for now. But this long essay by Drew Westen on the problems with Obama's leadership so far is right on the nose and well worth-reading. "[W]hat Democrats just can't seem to understand is that the politics of the lowest common denominator is always a losing politics. It sends a meta-message that you're weak -- nothing more, nothing less -- and that's the cross the Democrats have had to bear since they 'lost China' 60 years ago. And in fact, it is weak."

"Obama supporters are eager to depict the White House as nothing more than a helpless victim in all of this -- the President so deeply wanted a more progressive bill but was sadly thwarted in his noble efforts by those inhumane, corrupt Congressional 'centrists.' Right. The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives. The administration is getting the bill which they, more or less, wanted from the start -- the one that is a huge boon to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry."

A day after Senate Democrats kill Byron Dorgan's non-importation amendment in order to preserve the administration's back-door deal with Big Pharma, the indispensable Glenn Greenwald takes the Obama administration to task for the final Senate product on health care, which, suffice to say, is looking pretty far afield from the House bill. (And all the while, the bought and paid for Joe Lieberman grins like the Cheshire Cat.)

I was going to wait until year-in-review post week to put this up, but now's as good a time as any: From civil liberties to this Senate health care fiasco, it's hard to think of any arena where this administration's first year hasn't been a tremendous disappointment. (Regarding the former: I didn't mention this here earlier, but the brazen audacity of this passage from the president's war-is-peace Nobel Prize speech made me blanch: "We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard." Uh, your Justice Department is not upholding them, remember? Is the president even aware of his own civil liberties record?)

Anyway, I keep being reminded of this line from my Obama endorsement of January 2008: "There's a possibility -- maybe even a strong possibility -- that he'll end up a Tommy Carcetti-like president: a well-meaning reformer outmatched and buffeted to and fro by the entrenched forces arrayed against him." Well, welcome to the Carcetti presidency, y'all. The only surprise so far for many of us is in how little he's actually even tried to enact meaningful reforms. But I guess once the president surrounded himself with the exact same GOP-lite people we'd spent months trying to defeat in the Democratic primary, the writing should have been on the wall. This will not be change we can believe in. A New Day is not dawning. And the president is not really with us -- We're going to have to do the heavy lifting for reform next year without him.

"First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency.

And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al-Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al-Qaeda and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies."

This is a bit late by now, but regardless: As you all know, President Obama made the case last week for sending 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan. At this point -- and like Fred Kaplan -- I'm conflicted about our continued involvement there...but I'm leaning toward withdrawal. Everything I've heard about the war lately has had that "Vietnam in '66" sense to it: A corrupt government as our ally; trouble winning "hearts and minds"; The US stepping half-blindly into a conflict that's been simmering for centuries (in Southeast Asia, it was the endless Vietnamese war against interlopers; here it's long-simmering ethnic rivalries between the Pashtuns and everyone else.) And now, our new progressive-minded president tells us: If we just commit X more troops (where, now X=30,000), we can win, close up shop, and go home. Uh, really? I think I've already seen this movie a few times.

Obama's shout-out above to basically token international support doesn't assuage my fears. And, as far as the threat posed by Vietnam: True, Tonkin never happened, but obviously policymakers of that era were less sanguine about a Communist victory in South Vietnam than we are today -- The threat of the Enemy can always gets unduly amplified in the heat of the moment. (Speaking of said Reds, it should sober us to acknowledge that all we've done so far in Afghanistan is basically manage to re-create the Soviet experience in the region. Iirc, that didn't end so well.)

Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan, yes, and if we could weed them out and destroy their capacity to attack again, all the better. (And always remember: If Dubya, Rummy et al had just finished the job properly in 2002 rather than salivating over Iraq, we would be in a lot better position right now.) But Al Qaeda is also in Somalia, Tajikstan, Yemen, the Philippines, Kosovo...all over the place. We don't have the resources to play whack-a-mole in all these nations anymore, particularly when every whack usually just works to create new moles. (You'd think we learn that the Hydra sprouts two more heads every time you cut off the wrong one.)

The biggest argument in favor of increasing our military position in Afghanistan would be the continued stability of neighboring Pakistan. (There's Vietnam again -- it's another variation of the Domino Theory.) But, there's a good amount of evidence to suggest that more troop increases by us will only inflame the situation and further destabilize Pakistan. In which case, I'm not sure what we're doing over there, and what we could possibly accomplish in 18 months that we haven't gotten done the last seven years.

In short, it seems to me like we had our shot in Afghanistan, and Dubya blew it. I could be wrong, of course. But, to my mind, now feels like a good time to recognize that fact and stop chasing good money after bad.

"Obama needed to regain control quickly, and he started by jettisoning liberal positions he had been prepared to accept -- and had even okayed -- just weeks earlier." TIME's Massimo Calabresi and Michael Weisskopf examine the recent ousting of Greg Craig, a slow death by leaking, as a telling indicator of how the Obama administration has fallen so far astray on civil liberties. "[Obama] quietly shifted responsibility for the legal framework for counterterrorism from Craig to political advisers overseen by [Rahm] Emanuel, who was more inclined to strike a balance between left and right." Uh, what? As Nick Baumann points out in Mother Jones, what business do the politicos have in overseeing legal matters? That's rather Rovian, isn't it?

On target as usual, Salon's Glenn Greenwald puts this Craig story and the KSM trial into broader perspective: "As even Time now recognizes, many of the policies once widely declared by Democrats to be a grave threat to the Constitution are now explicitly adopted by the Obama administration. And it's flatly inconsistent to invoke 'the rule of law' to defend Obama's decision to give trials to a few Guantanamo detainees without pointing out that he's violating that very same precept by denying trials to so many." (Pic via the MJ article linked above.)

"I will tell you the more I just stayed awake last night thinking about this thing, the more I think of it, I don't know what in the hell it looks to me like we're getting into another Korea [...] I don't think it's worth fighting for and I don't think we can get out. And it's just the biggest damned mess that I ever saw." Also via Greenwald today and in light of Obama's upcoming decision on Afghanistan, former LBJ aide Bill Moyers painstakingly pieces together how his old boss made the decision to escalate in Vietnam. "We will never know what would have happened if Lyndon Johnson had said no to more war. We know what happened because he said yes."

"The 'death panel' episode shows how the news media, after aiding and abetting falsehood, were unable to perform their traditional role of reporting the facts. By lavishing uncritical attention on the most exaggerated claims and extreme behavior, they unleashed something that the truth could not dispel." In the NYT, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) reviews the sad, sordid tale of Death Panel fear-mongering by the GOP this past summer.

In very related news, it seems the Republican National Committee's health insurance plan, contra all their rhetoric on Stupak, has not only covered abortion services for the past eighteen years -- it includes end-of-life counseling, a.k.a. the "Death Panels" of Sarah Palin's nightmares. These folks really have no shame.

"In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident. Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world's largest biotechnology companies."

As a speechwriter in the House, I'm sort of a rare bird...but perhaps I shouldn't be: An estimated 42 Members -- 20 Dems and 22 GOP -- get caught lifting industry talking points for the health care debate. Suggested TP's make the rounds all the time, of course, but they're usually meant to be guidelines, not taken word-for-word. Oops.

"Farmer's verdict: 'History should record that whether through unprecedented administrative incompetence or orchestrated mendacity, the American people were misled about the nation's response to the 9/11 attacks.'" To paraphrase Mark Twain, a lie gets halfway 'round the world before the truth can put its boots on...or any plane can get off the ground. In his new book The Ground Truth, 9/11 Commission Senior Counsel John Farmer points out yet more lies from Cheney and the Dubya administration, this time about their behavior during that fateful morning.

To wit, waist-deep in My Pet Goat at the time, they didn't know their ass from their elbow when the attacks were happening: "Yet both Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney, Farmer says, provided palpably false versions that touted the military's readiness to shoot down United 93 before it could hit Washington. Planes were never in place to intercept it. By the time the Northeast Air Defense Sector had been informed of the hijacking, United 93 had already crashed." Well, they've lied about just about everything else -- can't say this is much of a surprise.

"[L]ives are what's at stake in this debate, and moments like this are why they sent us here -- to finally meet the challenges that Washington has put off for decades; to make their lives better and this nation stronger; to move America forward. That's what the House did last night when it brought us closer than we have ever been to comprehensive health insurance reform in America."

After many months of work and a long Saturday of debate (not to mention quite a few flagrant and ridiculous GOP lies along the way), the Houses passes the Affordable Health Care for America Act 220-215. (Joining 219 Dems was one solitary Republican, Anh Joseph Cao of William Jefferson's old seat, and he voted after the bill had already crossed the 218 threshold.) And, much thanks to the people who have fought for it all this time, H.R. 3962 passed the House with the public option bloodied but still intact.

Alas, the skeleton at the feast was a successful gambit by the heretofore unknown pro-lifer Rep. Bart Stupak to use the necessity of health care reform to fundamentally alter the status quo on abortion. (Best tweet of the day, btw: "'Stupak' sounds like a political action committee for morons.")

Stupak forces like to say they're just upholding existing law with this amendment, which already states that federal funds will not be used to pay for abortions. But, in fact, this amendment goes further -- it prohibits not only the public option but private insurance companies who operate in the exchange from offering abortion services to people who receive subsidies. Or, in other words, low-income women are going to be S.O.L. for starters, with mission creep ultimately denying more and more women reproductive choice and/or necessary medical procedures. (Stupak to women -- don't miscarry.)

On one hand, the good news is that Stupak's gambit is pretty much dead in the water in the Senate -- even the GOP isn't warming to it. (And, while maintaining the usual "above-the-fray approach"for now -- big surprise, I know -- Obama has telegraphed he's not a supporter of the idea.)

On the other, the Stupak situation shows one of the problems we now have as the majority party. Here we have a scion of the "Family" on C-Street playing shenanigans with critical Democratic legislation at the eleventh hour...and he was joined by 63 other Dems in getting the amendment passed. In fact, many of these look to be CYA votes by ostensible pro-choicers to shore up their moderate bona fides.

Even more troubling, 21 of the final 39 Democratic votes against health care reform voted for Stupak -- i.e., they voted to screw up a bill they had absolutely no intention of supporting in the end. (Conversely, twenty Dems in GOP-leaning districts did the right thing -- they voted against Stupak and for passage. They are listed here.) Simply put, these 21 are why primary challenges were invented.

Until congressional Democrats learn that bucking their left is just as -- if not more -- dangerous than prostrating themselves before the right, they're going to continue to play these reindeer games. (To be clear, in almost all cases, it's not like these holdouts' issues with the bill came from the left.) And until these often craven middle-of-the-roaders feel the wrath of the stick as well as the carrot, we are going to remain locked in this dismal feedback loop where important bills are in danger of being endlessly watered down into "moderate" mush. (See also: no Single Payer, no Medicare +5.) And that's just not change we can believe in.

Aside from the Recovery Act, the House hasn't held as important a vote all year. And, if certain Dems can't find a way to support critical Democratic legislation -- legislation tempered to meet their approval, in fact -- when the time comes, then don't expect the progressive base to have their back just because they have a D by their name. The time to suffer such fools has passed.

In any event, Round 1 completed. Round 2, the Senate...

"In short, it's no time to be despondent about the fate of the public insurance option. For sure, pegging rates to Medicare and obligating Medicare providers to accept these rates would be far preferable, and a public plan with negotiated rates may do less to keep the insurers honest and drive down costs. But it's still immensely valuable to give Americans an out -- another choice -- to let the insurers feel the heat of not being the only game in town. The fierce and continuing opposition of the insurance industry suggests that they think that a public option will prove a serious counterweight in an increasingly consolidated private market."

In TNR, Jacob Hacker and Diane Archer make the case anew for a public option, specifically the one that made it into H.R. 3962. If all goes well, the House bill -- recently endorsed by the AARP and the AMA -- will get a vote tomorrow. (Yep, it's a work day.) Update: Or later. Here's the hold-up.

"That Rove and so much of the Punditburo refuse to acknowledge this reality and instead forward this fantastical story about today's elections being a pro-Republican 'bellweather' is to be expected. More and more of the political prognostication industry has been taken over by biased shills who are wielding a partisan axe. But the objective truth is clear: Democrats certainly have some weaknesses and problems, but the fact that Democrats are even competing in these supposedly "key" races suggests Republicans have their own - and arguably far bigger - weaknesses and problems as well."

Happy Election Day everyone, particularly those of you in Virginia (Deeds), New Jersey (Corzine), NY-23 (Owens), and Maine (No on 1.) Looks like we Dems will have a bad night of it, all in all, but as Open Left's David Sirota notes above, let's keep things in perspective. Given the still-woeful state of the economy and particularly the job markets, it's an anti-incumbent mood out there right now, and sitting GOP governors like Schwarzenegger or Charlie Crist would be in a world of hurt if they were on the ballot today as well.

Plus, as Frank Rich pointed out over the weekend, the weird wild fight in NY-23, which saw the GOP candidate drop out and endorse the Dem, signifies a party in full self-immolation mode: "The battle for upstate New York confirms just how swiftly the right has devolved into a wacky, paranoid cult that is as eager to eat its own as it is to destroy Obama...Who exactly is the third-party maverick arousing such ardor? Hoffman doesn't even live in the district." Burn, baby, burn.

Update: "All worried that ACORN was going to show up in the district, or even at the Biden event -- a paranoia that led to some minor awkwardness when an African-American Hoffman worker walked by. 'This guy's with ACORN,' said Dewitt. 'Definitely, not from around here,' said businessman Erik Dunk." The Washington Independent's Dave Weigel reports in from the ground on NY-23.

"'We've spent countless hours over the last few days in consultation with senators who've shown a genuine desire to reform the health-care system,' Reid said. 'And I believe there's a strong consensus to move forward in this direction.'" Yer damn skippy. The Senate health care reform bill will include an opt-out public option, mainly because Senate progressives demanded it. "Reid and the leadership faced this basic math: There is only one Snowe and there are 60 members of the Democratic caucus. If just a few Democrats abandoned the bill, it would fall short even with Snowe's support."

Also worth reading, Nate Silver's concise ten-point summation of why a public option made the Senate bill. Note #1: "The tireless, and occasionally tiresome, advocacy on behalf of liberal bloggers and interest groups for the public option. Whatever you think of their tactics -- I haven't always agreed with them -- the sheer amount of focus and energy expended on their behalf has been very important, keeping the issue alive in the public debate." Keep up the good fight, y'all. This ain't over yet.

Update: To wit, Senator Lieberman is up to his old antics: "I told Senator Reid that...if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage. Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill." Let's remember. Lieberman -- who played this same game back in 1994 -- was allowed to keep his chair last November mainly on the pretense that he wouldn't hold up important Democratic legislation. One would think this counts.

"The Obama administration has clung for so long to the Bush administration's expansive claims of national security and executive power that it is in danger of turning President George W. Bush's cover-up of abuses committed in the name of fighting terrorism into President Barack Obama's cover-up." In an editorial applauded by Salon's Glenn Greenwald, the NYT calls out the Obama administration for their appalling and Dubyaesque record on civil liberties.

As Greenwald well notes: "All of this vividly underscores a vital point. There is simply no way that a person with even the most minimal levels of intellectual integrity could have objected to these actions during the Bush years yet defend them now that Obama is doing them, or even refrain from objecting just as loudly."

See also Sen. Feingold's recent and angry post on dKos this month (coupled with this statement on the Senate Judiciary committee) on the hamstringing of his attempts to revise the Patriot Act. Far too many ostensible civil libertarians in the Democratic Party have been rolling over for this administration since January -- The time for giving the benefit of the doubt has passed. On this -- and other crucial issues before us -- it's time to put this admin's feet to the fire and hold the president to his word.

"Guantanamo may be Dick Cheney's idea of America, but it's not mine,' Morello said in a statement announcing the effort. 'The fact that music I helped create was used in crimes against humanity sickens me.'" A group of musicians including Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, R.E.M., Billy Bragg, Pearl Jam, the Roots, Rosanne Cash, and David Byrne demand that Gitmo close, and that their music stop being used for torture. "If there are any legal options that can be realistically taken they will be aggressively pursued," Reznor promised."

"From the California Nurses Assoc., the largest nurses union in the country: 'Our legislators should respond to this bullying and stop coddling a useless industry whose sole function is to make enormous profits from the pain and suffering of patients while providing little in return.' From the AARP: The AHIP report is not 'worth the paper it's written on.'"

Wow, who saw this coming? The insurance industry turns against health care reform -- even the middling Senate Finance Committee version put forth by Max Baucus -- by publishing an obviously bogus report that prophesies of impending rate-increase doomsday should reform pass. Hmm, well. I'm just gonna throw this out here, but I think it can be reasonably assumed from the start that any industry making money hand-over-fist from a broken system would eventually turn against meaningful reform of that system. So, maybe next time we shouldn't give away the store to keep these swine at the negotiating table? Just a thought.

Anyway, the insurance industry isnt the only strange bedfellow (inadvertently) making the case for the public option of late. Both Bill O'Reilly and FOX's Shepard Smith have made impassioned pleas for the public option recently. And -- though they've been backpedaling like mad ever since -- both Bill Frist and Bob Dole have called out their party for desperate and heedless obstructionism in recent days. So, even though we've taken the long way to get here for no particularly good reason, I feel confident right now that the public option is very much back in play.

Hey all. As we approach the decade mark next month, the readership around here at GitM continues to dwindle, which is primarily my fault for not updating as much as I'd like. Nonetheless, if and when it gets quiet 'round here, I encourage you to also check out my Twitter feed, which is easier to update in the midst of more frantic weeks like last one. (Memo to myself: Columbus Day, and three-day-weekends in general, will mean a lot of speechifyin' in Congress' home districts.)

Yeah, I was skeptical about Twitter earlier in the year, but I'm definitely coming around. Within an hour of news of President Obama's Nobel prize win, for example, (which I'm neither here nor there about -- it seems goofy, yeah, but I was already down on Nobel anyway), there were dozens of wry and amusing quips going around the twitterverse. My favorite two were variations on "Obama, I'mma let you finish but Bono has been working his ass off for this!" and "Uh...did the Nobel committee just miss the fact that Obama bombed the f**king moon?!"

Another good example: the Baucus committee tanking the public option in late September brought on a similar flurry of bon mots: "Senators should be required to make the little cash register 'ka-ching!" noise when they vote." "Well the insurance Industry is looking forward to its Baucanalian Orgy." "75% of Americans support #publicoption, but only 35% of the Senate Finance Cmittee support it." "Health care industry must pay capital gains on Senate Finance Committee members this year as investment is cashed out." Etc., etc.

Its immediate posting benefits aside, Twitter has definitely grown on me as a fertile hothouse environment for exactly this sort of choice, top-shelf snark.

"The response from Net Neutrality opponents has been fast and furious -- but short on facts. The arguments and rhetoric being pushed by the phone and cable industry mostly consist of long-discredited arguments and myths...this policy debate must be bound by facts and reality, not by misdirection and discredited falsehoods." The Free Press's S. Derek Turner refutes ten lousy arguments against Net Neutrality (PDF).

"'Europe has been very good to Ireland,; says Daly, the wine-store owner, who says he'll vote yes for a second time this week...'People may be unhappy with the government, but to punish them in the Lisbon vote would be the wrong thing to do. Being a member of the euro [currency zone] is what's got us through the crisis so far. I can't see Ireland surviving alone.'"

This Friday, Ireland votes on EU's Lisbon Treaty for the second time. "Support for the treaty has been hovering around 50% for months. In the latest national poll, conducted by the Irish Times last week, 48% of respondents said they supported the agreement, compared to 33% who said they were against it. But a full fifth of the population hasn't made up their minds, giving the no camp the belief that it can sway enough voters in the final days to make the tally close."

"The two primary groups -- Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks -- actually grew out of the 2003 breakup of an outfit called Citizens for a Sound Economy that had been integral in the fight against Hillarycare. Indeed, the same 'Tobacco Strategy' memo in which Philip Morris boasts of shaping McCaughey's writings also reveals that the tobacco giant paid Citizens for a Sound Economy to engineer a "grassroots" revolt against health care reform by staging demonstrations in the home districts of key congressmen."

In Rolling Stone, Tim Dickinson follows the money to expose the Republicans' recent astro-turfing campaign against health care reform. In short, it's the "Brooks Brothers Riot" all over again. In fact, "Americans for Prosperity, which has taken the lead in the current fight against reform, is a front group for oil billionaires David and Charles Koch, co-owners of the world's largest private oil and gas conglomerate...Matt Schlapp, one of the original 'Brooks Brothers rioters'...now serves as director of federal affairs for Koch Industries, orchestrating the firm's political efforts in Washington."

"'We must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded,' he said at the time. 'They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone.'" The Obama administration backs away from the new preventive detention law they've been floating in recent months. This is a clear victory for civil liberties advocates, but, as The Prospect's Adam Serwer makes plain, only a partial one: "'It may be one of the better results we could hope for, but in reality indefinite detention continues,' said Michael W. Macleod-Ball, Chief Legislative and Policy Council for the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office. 'That's antithetical to the American justice system.'"

Indeed, the administration's fallback position is one long held by Dubya -- that the authority for preventive detention already exists in the post-Sept. 11 blank check written by Congress. That's not change we can believe in. See also Glenn Greenwald today on this and recent developments on the state secrets front: "[T]he Obama administration has proven rather conclusively that tiny and cosmetic adjustments are the most it is willing to do. They love announcing new policies that cast the appearance of change but which have no effect whatsoever on presidential powers."

In the NY Review of Books, meanwhile, Garry Wills takes the long view of all this: "[T]he momentum of accumulating powers in the executive is not easily reversed, checked, or even slowed. It was not created by the Bush administration. The whole history of America since World War II caused an inertial transfer of power toward the executive branch...Sixty-eight straight years of war emergency powers (1941-2009) have made the abnormal normal, and constitutional diminishment the settled order."

Wills concludes his essay on a worthy, if fatalistic, grace note that holds for a lot of ideals in this troubled age: "Nonetheless, some of us entertain a fondness for the quaint old Constitution. It may be too late to return to its ideals, but the effort should be made. As Cyrano said, 'One doesn't fight in the hope of winning' (Mais on ne se bat pas dans l'espoir du succès)."

"Anything that doesn't taste like tobacco, other than menthol, is out. If you thought you could get around the ban by rolling your own cigs with flavored paper, sorry, that's banned too." The FDA ban on clove cigarettes goes into effect today. [Official statement.] Somewhere amid the stoops, corridors, and crannies of Adams House, the Djarum-stained ghost of my college self is now that much more disaffected.

"The congressional legislation intended to defund ACORN, passed with broad bipartisan support, is written so broadly that it applies to 'any organization' that has been charged with breaking federal or state election laws, lobbying disclosure laws, campaign finance laws or filing fraudulent paperwork with any federal or state agency. It also applies to any of the employees, contractors or other folks affiliated with a group charged with any of those things. In other words, the bill could plausibly defund the entire military-industrial complex. Whoops."

D'oh! As it turns out, the GOP's ridiculous act of political gamesmanship last week may well cause some severe blowback for government-as-usual in Washington. "Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) picked up on the legislative overreach and asked the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) to sift through its database to find which contractors might be caught in the ACORN net. Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman both popped up quickly, with 20 fraud cases between them, and the longer list is a Who's Who of weapons manufacturers and defense contractors."

What this probably means is that the ACORN ban will be found unconstitutional sooner rather than later. After all, the spice must flow.

"During the discussion, Clinton told his vice president that he was disappointed that Gore had not used him in the last ten days of the 2000 campaign in strategically significant states -- Arkansas, Tennessee, New Hampshire, and Missouri...Clinton insisted to Gore that he hadn't cared about how Gore had referred to Clinton -- and his personal scandal -- during the campaign. Paraphasing this portion of the conversation, Branch writes that Clinton told Gore, 'To gain votes, he would let Gore cut off his ear and mail it to reporter Michael Isikoff of Newsweek, the Monica Lewinsky expert.'"

In Mother Jones, David Corn previews some of the interesting tales disclosed in historian Taylor Branch's forthcoming The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President. "In 1997, after New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote an acerbic column about Clinton and golfer Tiger Woods -- maintaining that the the two green-eyed hucksters deserved each other -- Clinton told Branch, 'She must live in mortal fear that there's somebody in the world living a healthy and productive life.'"

"Attorney General [Eric] Holder's decision to re-open the criminal investigation creates an atmosphere of continuous jeopardy for those whose cases the Department of Justice had previously declined to prosecute." An "atmosphere of continuous jeopardy?" Well, boo frickin' hoo: Seven former CIA heads try to bigfoot President Obama (and not AG Holder, where jurisdiction resides) into stopping the -- already purposefully hamstrung -- investigations into Dubya-era CIA torture.

As usual, Salon's irreplaceable Glenn Greenwald is already on top of it: "Do leaders of organizations in general ever believe that their organizations and its members should be criminally investigated and possibly prosecuted for acts carried out on behalf of that organization?...What these CIA Directors are urging would be completely improper. In fact, one could plausibly argue that where (as here) the DOJ determines that serious crimes might have been committed and an investigation needed, it would constitute obstruction of justice for the President to intervene by quashing any possibility of prosecution."

"The criminal investigation centers on the Interior Department's 2006 decision to award three lucrative oil shale leases on federal land in Colorado to a Shell subsidiary. Over the years it would take to extract the oil, according to calculations from Shell and a Rand Corp. expert, the deal could net the company hundreds of billions of dollars."

Paging Albert Fall: Former Dubya Interior Secretary Gale Norton, whose office was heavily implicated in the Abramoff scandals, is now facing a Justice Department inquiry into a sweetheart deal with Big Oil. "The investigation's main focus is whether Norton violated a law that prohibits federal employees from discussing employment with a company if they are involved in dealings with the government that could benefit the firm, law enforcement and Interior officials said."

"'The First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, protects the right of individual citizens to spend unlimited amounts to express their views about policy issues and candidates for office,' Kavanaugh wrote." (And they're about to do it again.) With Emily's List v. FEC, a federal appeals court strikes down "soft money" regulations. [Opinion.] Sigh. This is all going to end very badly.

"'Our health-care system is simply unsustainable,' the Montana Democrat said during a news conference today at which he appeared without any other lawmaker. 'It's time to act.'" Well, at least we agree on that much. After frittering away a month trying to appease obvious GOP irreconcilables, Sen. Max Baucus finally releases the Senate Finance health reform bill. [Here it is.] Key components include co-ops, a tax on "cadillac" insurance plans (which still doesn't make much sense to me), cheapo catastrophic insurance for people under 25, and, of course, no public option.

Suffice to say, it's not up to snuff, and many important folks aren't particularly happy. "On the House side, the Baucus proposal falls very, very short...Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) was disappointed by the Baucus bill, calling it 'health care reform in name only.'" Said Rep. Anthony Weiner of the failed attempts at bipartisanship: "The Senate and the president to some extent have been like a child looking for a unicorn. I don't see it." Nor is HCAN amused.

Update: Whatever you think of the Baucus bill, one thing is clear: Despite what they're saying now, the Republicans got what they wanted...just ask Kent Conrad.

"Unfortunately, there are some in the financial industry who are misreading this moment. Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crisis from which we are still recovering, they are choosing to ignore them. They do so not just at their own peril, but at our nation's. So I want them to hear my words: We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses. Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall."

In the bowels of Wall Street and one year after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, President Obama outlines his vision for financial regulatory reform, including a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency and stronger accountability and oversight in the existing regulatory regime. [Transcript.]

But -- see also health care -- some wonder if the President is going far enough: "The problem with concentrating on the banking system is that it allows the administration to present an overly optimistic assessment of its actions...Taking credit for stabilizing the financial system after feeding it with massive amounts of federal money is like a teacher bragging about turning around the academic performance of a failing student after handing them all the answers to the big tests."

Continues economist Nomi Prins, in an analysis that dovetails quite tellingly with the health-care situation:"A strong CFPA is a sensible plan...This proposal has drawn the most ire from the banking community, so you know it's good...But Obama's reforms do not strike deeply enough. The banking crisis has been subdued, not fixed, because of enormous amounts of government assistance. Ignoring that fact, and failing to overhaul the sector, leaves us open to another crisis. And the next round will be worse, because there is now so much more federal money invested in the banks."

"With this history, you can rest assured that the insurance industry is up to the same dirty tricks, using the same devious PR practices it has used for many years, to kill reform this year, or even better, to shape it so that it benefits insurance companies and their Wall Street investors far more than average Americans." Former head of corporate communications at CIGNA, Wendell Potter, the health insurance industry equivalent of Russell Crowe in The Insider, explains in Salon what his former employers are up to, and why our republic appears to be in a spot of trouble:

"During my 20 years in corporate communications and public affairs, I participated in the steady growth and influence of largely invisible persuasion -- and at a time when newsrooms are shrinking and investigative journalism seems to be vanishing. The number of PR people long ago surpassed the number of working journalists in this country...The clear winners as this shift occurs are big, rich corporations and other special interests. The losers are average Americans, most of whom are completely unaware how their thoughts and actions are being manipulated to achieve corporate goals on Capitol Hill."

"That large-heartedness - that concern and regard for the plight of others - is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character. Our ability to stand in other people's shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together; that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise."

As I'm sure you know, President Obama delivered his health care reform address to Congress last night. [Transcript.] My thoughts on it are mixed.

On one hand, speaking in terms of rhetoric, style, and delivery, this was an amazing speech, his best since the campaign days. While it's an open question how long its effects will linger, the address clearly and decisively helped move the reform ball forward. And the emotional closer, featuring Ted Kennedy's heartfelt final words to the President, was incredibly moving. In sum, it's the exemplary address we knew Obama had in him on this issue, and he brought it home perfectly.

But, all that being said, I can't shake the nagging feeling that [a] the policy being outlined last night didn't quite jibe with the wonderful speech, and, as all too common of late, [b] the president far too readily threw his left flank -- the very people who sweat blood and tears to get him elected -- under the bus.

To take the second part first, Obama early on indulged in an irritating and textbook case of Beltway false equivalence by setting himself up as the sensible middle between those cuh-rrrrazy single-payer types on the left and the free market fundies on the right. ("There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's...") Uh, yes, and not so long ago, Mr. President, you were among them. I feel like I've said this several times recently, but painting the left as dingbats to shore up one's centrist bona fides is a pretty tired parlor trick at this point, and it never gets any less insulting.

As an aside, on the way into work yesterday, I -- and everyone else around the Metro -- was accosted by guys in Grim Reaper costumes and bullhorns, telling us all, basically, that violence will erupt and we will all die if this health care bill passes. Y'know, there's a term for telling people they'll be killed if a political event happens -- We call it terrorism. (As it turns out, there's a term for wearing a hood while telling people they'll be killed too.) Well, imagine my surprise to hear -- from the president I've vocally supported for two years now -- that me and my fellow clowns on the left are just as part of the health care problem as these jokers are on the right. I have to admit, it kinda tempers the enthusiasm.

And then there was the discussion of the public option. Yes, the President did make a case for the public option in last night's remarks: "[A]n additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange...It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better." In addition, the President correctly pointed out, "It's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight."

But what the President giveth, the President also taketh away. The public option was clearly brought up in the speech after the non-negotiable section. ("While there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined.")

Indeed, in case we missed the point, President Obama later made it clear: "To my progressive friends, I would remind you that...[t]he public option is only a means to [an] end - and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal."

He then went on to float two "compromise" ideas that, for all intent and purposes, are public option killers: (1) a trigger and (2) co-ops. ("For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan.")

The trigger notion -- the idea that if the insurance companies don't fix the problem themselves, a public option would then be "triggered" into existence -- is in effect, as one progressive well put it, a threat made with an unloaded gun. It's kabuki theater, pure and simple, because everyone knows that Congress never pulls the trigger in question. (See also the cost of prescription drugs in Medicare Part D.) As Slate's Tim Noah recently ably pointed out, triggers are used all the time as "compromise" fodder, and what they really mean is we're going to pretend to have addressed the problem and let things go on as they have. And, really, how much worse would insurance companies have to fail before this trigger kicked in? We're talking about health care reform right now because the system is already broken.

As for co-ops, there's a good reason they are the compromise that the insurance industry tends to favor. Most likely, they'll be too small, weak, and scattered to bring real competition to the market.

So, granted, we don't have a final bill yet, and there are many strong advocates of a public option in the House who will continue to fight for it. But, if the public option is as expendable to the administration as it seemed last night, then we may have some problems.

To wit, if a health care reform bill passes that has an individual mandate (i.e. everyone has to buy insurance), limited subsidies (to keep costs down), and no public option, than what's basically happening is this: People are being forced to buy insurance they likely still can't afford from the very private companies that are making vast amounts of coin from the current, broken system. If this sounds like a huge boon for private insurance companies, it is. (One might even start to think they had a hand in writing the legislation.) Yes, a larger risk pool should make health insurance cheaper -- but without a public option keeping rates honest, what guarantee do we have that these savings would be passed on to the consumer?

Along those lines, President Obama also made the case last night for a tax on premium plans to help pay for reform. ("This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money - an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts.") But, again, without a robust public option holding the private industry's feet to the fire, what will stop said insurance companies from just passing these costs down the line, in the form of higher premiums across the board?

(I'll confess to being confused about this element of the plan anyway. The article I just linked on this premium plan tax says: "The hope is that employers would buy cheaper, less generous coverage for employees, thereby reducing the overuse of medical services." Uh...cheaper, less generous coverage for employees? That's a good thing? And I'm by no means an expert on these matters -- far from it -- but is "the overuse of medical services" really the main problem afflicting our health care system? It sounds a bit to me like "too many notes.")

All of which is to say that I really hope the substance of the final plan matches the beauty of last night's rhetoric. Now, I understand the counter-arguments: As Paul Begala recently reminded us, the Social Security Act of 1935 had serious problems too, and look how that turned out. The great is the enemy of the good. Politics is the art of the possible, etc. etc.

I don't disagree with any of that. But I also believe that leadership is the art of expanding the horizons of the possible. (Cue RFK: "Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not.") We always knew that the President is a master of oratory, and that he would move us all with his eloquence when the time came. But, in setting their sights so low on this bill, the administration, in my view, have come close to squandering both the historical moment and the president's once-in-a-generation gift.

A historical puzzle lingers over the entire health care reform enterprise at the moment: How is it, with a Democratic House, a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate, and a Democratic president, that the proposal for health care reform on the table basically remains to the right of Richard Nixon? (See also: The Family Assistance Plan.)

Well, the short answer, imho, is lack of meaningful campaign finance and lobbying restrictions. (A key problem that's about to get a whole lot worse.) But I would also argue in favor of another cause. For decades now, Democrats have tried to find that safe happy moderate middle, while Republicans -- flaks, representatives and presidents alike -- have willfully and consistently pushed that center to the right. The president's address, however magnificent and even moving at times, felt like another step in the same old vicious cycle. And at this crucial historical moment, I strongly believe it would be a better demonstration of "our American character" if we Dems -- and this administration -- showed the courage of our convictions in words and deed.

"If Republicans were wondering how their 2012 presidential candidate is going to compete against President Obama's $600 million fundraising juggernaut, the Supreme Court seems poised to provide an answer: unlimited corporate spending supporting the Republican candidate, or attacking Obama." With Justice Sotomayor aboard, the Supreme Court holds a special session today to re-hear arguments in Citizens United v. F.E.C.

And, as Slate's Richard Hasen explains, the projected outcome does not look good for McCain-Feingold or advocates of campaign finance reform. "If Roberts or Alito were ready to go the narrow route again in Citizens United, however, there would have been no reason to set the case for reargument explicitly asking the parties to brief the constitutional question, and certainly no reason to rush the case to September so it can be decided before the 2010 election season goes into full swing...Expect the floodgates to open, and the money to flow freely, as early as next year."

I was going to let this most recent colossal idiocy by the GOP pass without comment, mainly because it's so infuriatingly stupid that it speaks for itself. But, so was Swift Boat, I guess.

So, with that in mind: Yes, Virginia, it is ok for the President of the United States to talk to schoolchildren. In fact, it should probably be considered part of the job. Ask Ronald Reagan. Or George Bush Sr. Or just consider the picture above, taken eight years ago next week.

"'We have been saying all along that the most important part of this debate is not the public option, but rather ensuring choice and competition,' an aide said. 'There are lots of different ways to get there.'" Granted it's in Politico, which always needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but Team Obama is apparently floating another no-public-option trial balloon. "On health care, Obama's willingness to forgo the public option is sure to anger his party's liberal base. But some administration officials welcome a showdown with liberal lawmakers if they argue they would rather have no health care law than an incremental one. The confrontation would allow Obama to show he is willing to stare down his own party to get things done."

Hmmm. "Getting tough" with the Left (while having Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress) to impress people on the Right who can't stand you and want you to fail.That doesn't sound like change we can believe in either, and it's going to turn off the people who got this president elected in droves. I fear the Third Way/DLC careerist cadre in and around the administration are blowing a historic opportunity here.

Update: "'It's so important to get a deal,' a White House official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to be candid about strategy. 'He will do almost anything it takes to get one.'" Sigh...I know I'm not a master tactician or anything, but, as with dropping single-payer right away, I would think telegraphing "we're really really desperate" before coming to the table is not a very good negotiating strategy.

More recent signs of the freefall of journalistic integrity in the Beltway:

* Marc Ambinder, a thoroughly lousy blogging "journalist" in the Atlantic stable, chalks up prescient criticism of the Bush administration's gaming of security alerts as solely the result of liberal fringe-hippy "gut hatred." Says Ambinder in a burst of CYA blather: "Information asymmetry is always going to exist, and, living as we do in a Democratic system, most journalists are going to give the government the benefit of some doubt, even having learned lessons about giving the government that benefit." Way to speak truth to power, Marc. In other words, suck-up, spit-down, and let's not let the facts -- or god forbid, any attempted acts of daily journalism -- get in the way of our obsequious administration boot-licking.

FWIW, after getting roundly slammed for this ridiculous understanding of what constitutes journalism, Ambinder walked back his comments...some. (It hasn't caused him to deviate from his usual m.o., however, which is acting as stenographer to people in power and parsing the day's news to find that exact comfortable midpoint where the CW resides. And sadly,he's not even the worst blogger over at the Atlantic -- that would be the former Jane Galt, Megan McArdle.)

* TIME's Joe Klein has been on a bit of a losing streak lately. Ostensibly a "liberal" -- at least the Village's town crier, Howard Kurtz, considers him one -- Klein is, like Ambinder and so many other of his ostensibly lefty pundit colleagues -- really just an establishmentarian. He rolls over for the powerful and spends most of his copy and television appearances simply honing his "I'm a lefty, but I'm one of the sane ones" schtick. Take any given issue, look over Klein's output, and you'll usually find him, a la Howard Fineman, staking out that comfortable middle where roadkill dies and TV pundits thrive. (Most recent case in point: health care reform, where's he's for...something...but lately could really take or leave that goofy public option.)

Anyway, Klein recently made the mistake of mouthing off about those crazy lefties, and particularly Glenn Greenwald -- whom he weirdly deems a "civil liberties absolutist" -- in front of a very able blogger (and in a bit of grand historical irony, the granddaughter of I.F. Stone), who cut him short in hilarious fashion. Klein then took his anti-Greenwald crusade to Journolist, where his angry screeds and troubles with facts didn't seem particularly well-received either.

So, now Klein has taken to ranting on Swampland about his recent troubles. Arguing that Greenwald indulges in "intemperate attacks in which he questions the character of -- no, it's worse than that: he slimes -- anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him," Klein also deems Aimai, the aforementioned partygoer/blogger, a "rather pathetic woman acolyte of Greenwald" -- a bit intemperate, don'tcha think? As for Greenwald himself, Klein considers him "thoroughly dishonorable," as well as -- I kid you not -- insufficiently pro-military. "I have never seen him write a positive sentence about the US military," Klein declaims, a paragraph or so before he admits that "I am not a religious reader of Greenwald."

Now, putting aside whether Klein's blatant and bizarre Cheneyism is true -- it isn't -- as well as Klein's self-evident buffoonery here, how would penning enthusiastic copy about the US armed forces be in any way a reasonable evaluator of journalistic integrity? It's like these pundits have so talked themselves into ignoring the grotesquely under-reported Pentagon pundit scandal that they're starting to believe their own talking points. Screaming "You don't love the troops!!" is a naked and craven attempt at ad hominem obfuscation pretty much every time a politician engages in it. But coming from the pen of a journalist, and a purported "lefty" one at that, it's just plain ridiculous.

(By the way, Greenwald's own thoughts on this are here, although the Swampland commenters do just as solid a job of eviscerating Klein for this disastrous posting. As does Aimai the Acolyte, who in her response gets in this certifiable zinger: "He's not a public intellectual -- he's a f**king wind sock. And he knows it.")

* Moving to another purported lefty of the establishment press, calling out the WP's Richard Cohen for dim reasoning and faulty logic these days is like calling the sky blue -- it's just the way it is. Nevertheless, his piece on torture today was particularly vile, and it's a textbook case of two standard operating Beltway-pundit presumptions, also witnessed in the cases of Ambinder and Klein: [1] Establishment journalists are exceedingly special people, and [2] the height of wisdom is always to be found in the exact middle-of-the-road.

To take point one first, Cohen frets about Attorney General Holder's new weaksauce-as-intended inquiry into CIA torture because of the outrageous and despicable violations of civil liberties committed upon...Judith Miller. He writes: "Special prosecutors are often themselves like interrogators -- they don't know when to stop. They go on and on because, well, they can go on and on. One of them managed to put Judith Miller of The New York Times in jail -- a wee bit of torture right there." Uh, no.

A few years after getting absolutely played by the powers-that-be and reporting lies about the existence of WMD in Iraq in the paper of record, NYT reporter Judith Miller spent three months in a comparatively nice prison cell because she refused to testify in the Plame investigation about one of those very same powerful people, Scooter Libby. Now, however you feel about what happened with Ms. Miller, she was not tortured. She was not waterboarded dozens or hundreds of times. She was not tortured for refusing to assert a false positive. She was never given the Room 101 treatment. And she did not die in our custody. So that truly bizarre analogy breaks down pretty quickly.

Even more irritating, however, is the hemming-and-hawing, "pox on both your houses" attempt at moderation Cohen tries to employ through the rest of this piece. "This business of what constitutes torture is a complicated matter. It is further complicated by questions about its efficacy: Does it sometimes work? Does it never work? Is it always immoral? What about torture that saves lives? What if it saves many lives? What if one of those lives is your child's?" Cohen asks these questions as if they're unanswerable profundities...or as if all of the considerable data showing torture is completely ineffective does not exist.

Then he plays the 24 game: "Ah yes, the interrogator must build rapport with the captured terrorist. That might work, but it would take time. It could take a lot of time." Again, Cohen ignores the fact that the ticking-time-bomb scenario is a comic book fantasy with absolutely no application to the real world.

And he saves his worst for last: Torture, Cohen writes, "cannot be the subject of an ideological tug of war, both sides taking extreme and illogical positions -- torture never works, torture always works, torture is always immoral, torture is moral if it saves lives. Torture always is ugly. So, though, is the hole in the ground where the World Trade Center once stood. " Did you catch that? Before Cohen took us to commercial with a resounding chorus of 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, he deemed that "torture never works" and "torture is always immoral" are now "extreme and illogical positions," right on a par with "torture always works." Say what?

It is exactly these types of false equivalencies, usually fostered by columnists these days to CYA and prostrate before power, that is killing what's left of journalistic integrity in the Beltway. For some reason or another -- most likely so as not to lose their privileged place of influence in the hive -- "journalists" like Ambinder, Klein, and Cohen seem to think it's their job finding, and then reporting from, the safe, non-threatening and perfectly vanilla midpoint between opposing political sides. The whole "holding up claims to independent, verifiable facts" aspect of journalism is a completely lost art among far too many of today's pundit class. It gets in the way of their lazy sense of entitlement, I guess, and I'm sure it really cuts back on the talking out of one's ass on TV for a living.

Put another way, it's Paul Begala's "Neil Armstrong principle all over again: "If John McCain and Sarah Palin were to say the moon was made of green cheese, we can be certain that Barack Obama and Joe Biden would pounce on it, and point out it's actually made of rock. And you just know the headline in the paper the next day would read: 'CANDIDATES CLASH ON LUNAR LANDSCAPE.'"

For all of Ambinder, Klein, and Cohen's many faults, the problem with establishment journalism today is bigger than any of them -- they're just useful case studies in a diseased system. The values ostensibly undergirding the punditocracy -- speak truth to power; check your sources, resort to facts; have some clue what you're talking about -- have been corrupted, and the whole rotten enterprise is now in an advanced state of decay. (For yet another example, see MSNBC's Chuck Todd, who -- as soon as he moved up a few pegs in the Beltway regime -- started laughing off torture investigations as cable news "catnip.")

This long post may just read like sarcastic score-settling, but this is no small matter. The desiccated values and m.o. of today's Beltway pundit class are helping to kill off health care reform. They're helping Dubya-era criminals get away with torture. And they're going to derail any meaningful attempts at systemic political reform in the future...unless we start holding their feet to the fire. A republic needs no courtiers -- it damn well needs good journalists.

The story of our journalistic establishment over the past thirty years is basically Bob Woodward, writ large: Beltway journalists and pundits used to challenge the politicians in power and serve as the public's vital and necessary watchdogs. Now, like any old mutt, far too many just want to sit next to the masters, bark at those who would deign to threaten them, and try to get rewarded for their servility with an occasional scratch behind the ears. This will not do.

"Holder has fallen prey to the sort of magical legal thinking that seeps through the whole CIA report: the presumption that if there's a legal memo, it must be legal...In other words, we are now protecting the good-faith torturers. That isn't just wrong, it's outrageous. It ratifies the most toxic aspect of the whole legal war on terror: that anything becomes permissible if it's served up with a side of memo. Paper your misconduct with footnotes and justifications--even after the fact--and you can do as you please."

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick explains the fundamental problem with the Justice Department's new inquiry into Dubya-era torture: "Pretending we are investigating and curtailing a torture program isn't all that different from pretending we didn't torture in the first place."

Meanwhile -- hold on to your hats, people -- Slate's Tim Noah discovers that Dick Cheney hasn't been entirely truthful about what's in the theoretically exculpatory CIA memos. "Portions have been redacted, so perhaps the evidence Cheney claims that enhanced interrogation saved American lives has been blacked out. But judging from what's visible to the naked eye, the documents do not provide anything like the vindication that Cheney claims." (Of course, even if they did provide said vindication, the question of whether or not torture is effective -- 24 notwithstanding, we're pretty sure it isn't -- is a completely separate question from whether or not torture is legal -- it isn't.)

"Yes, we are all Americans. This is what we do. We reach the moon. We scale the heights. I know it. I've seen it. I've lived it. And we can do it again. There is a new wave of change all around us, and if we set our compass true, we will reach our destination -- not merely victory for our Party, but renewal for our nation." -- one year ago today.

Senator Ted Kennedy, 1932-2009. From the Immigration Act of 1965 to the health care reform battles of 2009, few Senators in our history have had the influence and reach of Sen. Kennedy. He was the brother that lived, and -- say what you will about his personal foibles (and the assholes on the right no doubt will revel in them) -- he spent a lifetime engaged in the struggle to make America a kinder, fairer, stronger, and wiser place. The Senate has lost one of its last, great liberals, and we are all the poorer for it.

That being said, "[f]or all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

"The narrative is simple: Insurance company plans have failed to care for our people. They profit from denying care. Americans care about one another. An American plan is both the moral and practical alternative to provide care for our people."

Cognitive scientist George Lakoff discusses how the administration should best promote health reform (and the American Plan, nee "public option"), and offers a choice critique of "policy speak" -- the old progressive standby of "enlightening public opinion" -- that would make Walter Lippmann very happy: "To many liberals, Policy Speak sounds like the high road: a rational, public discussion in the best tradition of liberal democracy. Convince the populace rationally on the objective policy merits. Give the facts and figures. Assume self-interest as the motivator of rational choice. Convince people by the logic of the policymakers that the policy is in their interest. But to a cognitive scientist or neuroscientist, this sounds nuts. The view of human reason and language behind Policy Speak is just false. "

Lakoff aside, the good folks at Media Matters have compiled a useful list of "Myths and Falsehoods about Health Care Reform," and how best to refute them. And, next time somebody starts ranting at you about how Big Guv'mint never does anything right, send 'em here with a smile.

"Instead, constructivists would posit that the zombie problem is what we make of it. That is to say, there are a number of possible emergent norms in response to zombies. Sure, there's the Hobbesian 'kill or be killed' end game that does seem to be quite popular in the movies. But there could be a Kantian "pluralistic anti-Zombie" community that bands together and breaks down nationalist divides in an effort to establish a world state."

Following up on this recent mathematical modeling study confirming the dire global ramifications of a zombie outbreak (naturally, the talk-radio right remains unconvinced), Daniel Drezner ponders the responses of various IR schools to World War Z. "Now, some would dispute whether neoconservatism is a systemic argument, but let's posit that it's a coherent IR theory...clearly, neoconservatives would argue, zombies hate us for our freedom not to eat other humans' brains."

Following in the footsteps of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Press Secretary Scott McClellan, former Department of Homeland Security head Tom Ridge becomes the latest ex-Bushie to pen a troubling tell-all: The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege...and How We Can Be Safe Again.

According to US News: "Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was 'blindsided' by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over." Good of you to bring this all up years down the pike, Gov. Ridge -- truly a profile in courage.

"'There are only two possibilities here,' Mr. Webb said in introducing his bill, noting that America imprisons so many more people than other countries. 'Either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States, or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice.'"

In his latest column, the NYT's Nicholas Kristof makes the case anew for comprehensive criminal justice reform. "[O]ver all, in a time of limited resources, we're overinvesting in prisons and underinvesting in schools. Indeed, education spending may reduce the need for incarceration...Above all, it's time for a rethink of our drug policy." (Via Sententiae.)

"'I don't understand why the left of the left has decided that this is their Waterloo,' said a senior White House adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 'We've gotten to this point where health care on the left is determined by the breadth of the public option. I don't understand how that has become the measure of whether what we achieve is health-care reform.'" In one of the dumbest unsourced administration quotes since "the reality-based community," an unnamed White House official indulges his/her pique with progressives by marginalizing the public option.

Uh, what? First off, this is your plan, White House folks, and not really the type of thing you want to characterize as "left of the left." Second, the "left of the left", as most people know, would actually prefer a single-payer system, and in fact find the public option to be pretty weak tea -- the type of compromise between comprehensive reform and the status quo that we should have ended up with at the close of negotiations, not used as the opening salvo of our health care strategy. Third, the quote demonstrates a troubling arrogance toward, and an idiotic contempt for, both the administration's natural allies in this fight and the very people who put them in office. Spitting in the eye of progressives in order to seem moderate to folks who will never, ever agree with you is not only counter-productive, but pointless and insulting.

Bad messaging, bad politics...This is an amateur move, and no mistake. One hopes Mr./Mrs. Anon. at the very least caught an earful about it this morning. And that there are some people in and around the inner circle who think a little more highly of this same public option that the administration has pushing for months. And that the archetypal DLC/Third Way contempt for progressives evinced in the quote is nipped in the bud, like, yesterday. These type of "let's scoff at the lefty fringe" insults, like the self-aggrandizing "centrist" careerists who make them, are not part of change we can believe in. In fact, they sound entirely too much like more of the same.

TLDR version: Trying to marginalize the lefties who are behind you in order to appease the righties who hate you is not a winning strategy, in health care or anything else. Nor is it at all what we voted for. Get it together.

"Having fought the war on drugs, we know that ending the drug war is the right thing to do -- for all of us, especially taxpayers." In the WP, two longtime Baltimore cops once again lay out the case for drug decriminalization. "Legalization would not create a drug free-for-all. In fact, regulation reins in the mess we already have. If prohibition decreased drug use and drug arrests acted as a deterrent, America would not lead the world in illegal drug use and incarceration for drug crimes." See also: Prohibition.

"So the birthers, the anti-tax tea-partiers, the town hall hecklers -- these are 'either' the genuine grass roots or evil conspirators staging scenes for YouTube?...They are both. If you don't understand that any moment of genuine political change always produces both, you can't understand America, where the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy, and where elites exploit the crazy for their own narrow interests."

In the WP, historian Rick Perlstein puts the latest incarnation of the stark raving right-wing in historical perspective. The difference this time? The media is completely failing at its job. "The tree of crazy is an ever-present aspect of America's flora. Only now, it's being watered by misguided he-said-she-said reporting and taking over the forest. Latest word is that the enlightened and mild provision in the draft legislation to help elderly people who want living wills -- the one hysterics turned into the 'death panel' canard -- is losing favor, according to the Wall Street Journal, because of 'complaints over the provision.' Good thing our leaders weren't so cowardly in 1964, or we would never have passed a civil rights bill -- because of complaints over the provisions in it that would enslave whites."

"Eventually, the agency's network would encompass at least eight detention centers, including one in the Middle East, one each in Iraq and Afghanistan and a maximum-security long-term site at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that was dubbed Strawberry Fields, officials said. (It was named after a Beatles song after C.I.A. officials joked that the detainees would be held there, as the lyric put it, 'forever.')"

Charming. The NYT gets a window into the CIA's top-secret "black sites" program courtesy of former #3 man Dusty Foggo, who -- irony alert -- is currently serving a three-year term in a Kentucky jail on fraud charges associated with Duke Cunningham. (I presume Kentucky's finest have yet to break out the "enhanced interrogation techniques" on this joker. Speaking of which, "[n]othing exotic was required for the infamous waterboards -- they were built on the spot from locally available materials...The cells were constructed with special features to prevent injury to the prisoners during interrogations: nonslip floors and flexible, plywood-covered walls to soften the impact of being slammed into the wall.")

The woeful state of American political journalism, in a nutshell (and in two parts):

1. CNN and WP media poobah Howard Kurtz, on Twitter today: "Booking hell: All pundits are in the Hamptons or Vineyard. Intelligent discourse apparently ceasing."

2. CNBC to Teabaggers today: Can you guys please stage us a really violent rally? "We have a media request for an event this week that will have lots of energy and lots of anger. This is for CNBC."

So. Broken.

"'Under the Bush regime, honest and well-performing US Attorneys were fired for petty patronage, political horse trading and, in the most egregious case of political abuse of the US Attorney corps -- that of US Attorney Iglesias -- because he refused to use his office to help Republicans win elections,' Conyers said. 'When Mr. Iglesias said his firing was a 'political fragging,' he was right.'" The House Judiciary Committee releases the information they've collected on the US Attorney scandal, and -- hold on to your hats, people -- it looks like Karl Rove has been less than truthful with Congress about his role in the illegal firings. A huge surprise, I know.

So...are political firings and lying to Congress still against the law these days, or is the plan to treat these particular criminal offenses like we do torture? In the meantime, I'd expect Rove is on the phone right this very moment, imploring his good friends at FreedomWorks and the like to dial up the crazies for the next few news cycles.

Update: More comes to light on Harriet Miers' involvement as well.

"The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems."

You know the GOP has gone too far when they start ticking off the business columnists: The WP's Steve Pearlstein reads Republicans the riot act for their shameless lying on health care reform. (See also USA Today's attempt to set the record straight this morning, and Politifact's evisceration of Sarah Palin's bizarre "death panel" claim.)

I'm not going to get into all the current Democratic in-fighting over health insurance reform here (although I will say that I'm none too happy about this Billy Tauzin deal.) But, notwithstanding the Republicans' recent penchant for astroturf (see also the 2000 Brooks Brothers riot and last April's teabaggery), we already watched them road-test this reprehensible strategy -- riling up scared, angry, and occasionally nutty people to alarm with hatred and patent untruths -- last October. This is just more of the same, and I have every expectation it will backfire massively as it did then -- hopefully before any serious violence breaks out.

"'An investigation that focuses only on low-ranking operators would be, I think, worse than doing nothing at all,' said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch." Per both the WP's recommendation and an earlier trial balloon of a few weeks ago, Attorney General Eric Holder announces he's considering a ridiculously abbreviated investigation into the Dubya era torture regime, one that will focus only on "'whether people went beyond the techniques that were authorized' in Bush administration memos that liberally interpreted anti-torture laws."

In other words, Attorney General Holder's big plan appears to be snag a Jack Lint (re: Lynndie England) or two, while retroactively legitimizing the real criminals who set these thoroughly un-American torture policies in motion, and then call it a day. This is not justice, nor is it change we can believe in.

Civil libertarians across the board are livid at today's news, and for good reason. Worse, this is just the most recent chapter in the Obama administration's blatantly terrible record on civil liberties issues over these past six months. The President's nudge, nudge, wink wink stance on all this last April -- these aren't "really" our policies" -- looks ever more mealymouthed and insulting with each new revelation. That dog won't hunt anymore.

Whatever happens with health insurance reform, and let's hope it passes with real teeth, the president's civil liberties record thus far counts as a real moral failure for this administration. Their enthusiastic continuation of Dubya-era policies on this front does violence not only to the reasons why many of us voted for Obama in the first place, but to the founding principles of our increasingly aggrieved republic. For shame.

"We all make mistakes. We know we make mistakes. I don't know any military commander, who is honest, who would say he has not made a mistake. There's a wonderful phrase: 'the fog of war.' What "the fog of war" means is: war is so complex it's beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables. Our judgment, our understanding, are not adequate. And we kill people unnecessarily." -- Robert McNamara, 1916-2009

"What do I regret? Well, I regret that in our attempt to establish some standards, we didn't make them stick. We couldn't find a way to pass them on to another generation." -- Walter Cronkite, 1916-2009.

"Let me go back to a comfortable analogy for me - sports... basketball. I use it because you're naïve if you don't see the national full-court press picking away right now: A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket...and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can WIN. And I'm doing that - keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities - smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it's time to pass the ball - for victory."

Sarah says that she wants to know, why she's given half her life to people she hates now... Or, in other words, members of the press, you won't have a certain maverick to kick around anymore...or will you? With a rambling farewell speech that probably won't be remembered as a model of the form, former veep nominee Sarah Palin resigns the governorship of Alaska. Whether this is due to 2012 calculation or impending scandal is yet to be determined, although the hurriedness of the preparations would seem to suggest the latter.

"That's happened with increasing frequency at the FEC lately. Election-law experts, supporters of campaign-finance regulations, and even some members of the commission itself are expressing growing concern about a string of cases in which the three Republicans on the commission -- led by Tom DeLay's former ethics lawyer -- have voted as a block against enforcement, preventing the commission from carrying out its basic regulatory function." Pete Martin and Zachary Roth of TPM Muckraker delve into how Republicans antithetical to campaign finance reform have effectively sabotaged the FEC. "The FEC, he said, has been made 'ineffective' -- and not by accident. 'This is what McConnell had in mind.'"

"Of course, the one person who could do the most to get the commission back on track is President Obama...Most experts believe that the White House supports stronger campaign-finance laws as a goal, but, with a host of other issues on its plate, is reluctant to pick a fight with the GOP Senate leader. 'They're picking their priorities, and they don't want to take on Mitch McConnell right now,' said Hasen. 'I consider that unfortunate.'" Anyone else sensing a pattern?

"One of the bill's co-sponsors, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), said: 'The American people wanted change in our energy and climate policy. And this is the change that the people are overwhelmingly asking for.' He called it 'the most important energy and environment bill in the history of our country.'" After much wrangling and a half-hearted GOP attempt at filibuster (which is only a prerogative of the Senate), the House passes the Waxman-Markey climate bill, 219-212. (Eight Republicans voted for it, 44 Dems opposed.) The "cap-and-trade" bill "would establish national limits on greenhouse gases, create a complex trading system for emission permits and provide incentives to alter how individuals and corporations use energy." [Key provisions.]

There is some concern that the bill has been watered down too much out of political necessity: "While the bill's targets may seem dramatic, they are in fact less than what the science tells us is required to avoid catastrophic warming. The 2020 target in particular is far too weak and quite easy and cheap for the country to meet with efficiency, conservation, renewables and fuel-switching from coal to natural gas."

Still, environmentalists remain hopeful. "It is worth noting that the original Clean Air Act -- first passed in 1963 -- also didn't do enough and was subsequently strengthened many times." And, while the bill -- which (sigh) gives away 85% of the new emission allowances (the heart of the "cap-and-trade" market hopefully soon to emerge) to interested parties -- looks to "set off a lobbying feeding frenzy," groups like the NRDC seem to agree that "[t]his is the best bill that can actually get through committee."

Of course, now the bill has to get through the Senate, where the usual lions lie in wait. ""Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma said 'It doesn't matter,' he declared flatly, 'because we'll kill it in the Senate anyway.'" And even some Dems are fatalistic about its prospects. "Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor (D) voted against the measure that he says will die in the Senate. 'A lot of people walked the plank on a bill that will never become law,' Taylor told The Hill after the gavel came down." Looks like Sen. Reid has his work cut out for him.

"The cultural climate is far different today, besides. Now, roughly 75 percent of Americans support an end to Don't Ask, and gay issues are no longer a third rail in American politics. Gay civil rights history is moving faster in the country, including on the once-theoretical front of same-sex marriage, than it is in Washington. If the country needs any Defense of Marriage Act at this point, it would be to defend heterosexual marriage from the right-wing 'family values' trinity of Sanford, Ensign and Vitter."

The NYT's Frank Rich reflects on the gay rights movement on the 40th anniversary of Stonewall. "No president possesses that magic wand, but Obama's inaction on gay civil rights is striking. So is his utterly uncharacteristic inarticulateness...It's a press cliché that 'gay supporters' are disappointed with Obama, but we should all be."

"When 22 senators started working over the first health care overhaul bill on June 17, the news cameras were pointed at them -- except for NPR's photographer, who turned his lens on the lobbyists. Whatever bill emerges from Congress will affect one-sixth of the economy, and stakeholders have mobilized. We've begun to identify some of the faces in the hearing room, and we want to keep the process going." Clever, clever: Also on the health care front, an NPR photographer initiates a game of find-the-health-care-lobbyist. "Know someone in these photos? Let us know who that someone is."

So, the big political story of the week: the strange disappearance and eventual mea culpa of my home state governor. As I said here, I try to avoid posting on sex scandals as much as possible -- In a perfect world, all of this private behavior would be off the table for both parties. Still, regarding this imbroglio, my feeling about his press conference yesterday was very akin to Gary Kamiya's at Salon: "[T]his was not another blow-dried, prefab confession. It was unscripted. It was so intimate it was almost unwatchable."

Now, I disagree with Gov. Sanford quite a bit politically, obviously. I was impressed by his op-ed on Obama during the SC primary last year, but he lost a lot of goodwill with me with his grandstanding on stimulus funds a few months ago. Regardless, whatever the moral hypocrisy and dereliction of duty involved in this case, it's just sad to see a guy so obviously lost in the wilderness of amour fou. For whatever reason, he didn't have the usual politician's armor on at all yesterday, and it was painful to watch somebody writhing on the horns of a dilemma of the heart so publicly. He screwed up, big time, and his behavior is indefensible on several levels. Still, I have to admit, I sorta feel for the guy. (And, while I think John Dickerson's recent hectoring in Slate was a bit much -- particularly since he usually revels in the manufactured controversies and studied glibness that characterize so much useless political coverage these days -- to my mind nobody deserves the godawful nightmare of having one's mash notes published for all to see. That's just a special kind of Hell.)

"The games are fluid. There's a good energy on the court. People talk on defense. When Salazar finally gets in, it's obvious he is actually pretty athletic, and he has a lot of hustle. He's not easy to cover. Someone yells, 'Who's got Secretary?'" By way of a college friend, ESPN looks at Pres. Obama's "Power Game," and the ensuing newfound popularity of hoops in DC. (Apparently, in the Big Game, they don't call fouls, but rather chalk them up as "enhanced defensive techniques necessary to Keep Our Lane Safe." [Rimshot] Thanks, I'll be here all week, be sure to tip your waiters.)

Anyway, the last time I lived in DC it was generally pretty easy to find a court on a weekend -- We usually set up shop on either end of Adams-Morgan (or later, after I moved to VA, right down by the King Street metro), and the other folks playing/waiting to play were locals of some variety, not just aspiring politicos. I did occasionally play in one "power game" of sorts back then, which involved a number of folks from a liberal-minded journal of some repute. It was probably the most Type-A athletic endeavor I've ever been involved in, and that's coming from a guy who played high school sports in the South and spent four years among Ivy League rowers. With all due respect, I prefer the random pick-up games, I think.

"While one can certainly use zombies to express all kinds of ideas, I would argue that at heart, the genre is a progressive one...Surviving the tide of zombies requires community and mutual responsibility. What could be more progressive than that?" In The American Prospect, Paul Waldman ruminates on the political economy of zombie flicks. It is true, we on the Left tend to be more interested in braaaains... (Via FmH.)

"That's why this Froomkin firing is so revealing. The fact that one of the very few people to practice real adversarial journalism in the Bush era was decreed not to be a real 'journalist' -- and has now been fired by the Post -- is one of the most illustrative episodes of the past several years regarding what the real function of the establishment media is." Glenn Greenwald, Paul Krugman, Steve Benen, and Andrew Sullivan, among others, respond with justifiable outrage to the WP's recent firing of Dan Froomkin.

What they said. So, let me get this straight: Froomkin -- a guy who's spoken-truth-to-power during both the Bush and Obama administrations, and who's been one of the few "killer apps" in the WP's dwindling journalistic arsenal -- is shown the door while paleolithic dinosaurs like Charles Krauthammer are still on the payroll? Riiiight. Particularly in light of the death spiral of academia, it's just plain depressing to watch the establishment media burn away its last vestiges of integrity these days. It's just not a good time for people of the writerly persuasion, no matter how you cut it.

Update: "When I look back on the Bush years, I think of the lies. There were so many." Froomkin signs off.

"How absurd is that? Let us count the ways. First, even when the most establishment 'journalists' such as Rosen get caught engaging in patently irresponsible behavior, they still find a way to blame blogs rather than themselves (I thought I was just blogging, and reckless gossip is what bloggers do.) It wasn't blogs that "reported" Saddam Hussein's acquisition of scary aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons or that Iraq was behind the anthrax attacks; it wasn't blogs that glorified Jessica Lynch's nonexistent heroic firefight with Iraqi goons; it wasn't blogs that turned John Edwards into The Breck Girl and John Kerry into a "French-looking" weakling; and it wasn't blogs that presented retired military generals who were participating in a Pentagon propaganda program and saddled with countless undisclosed conflicts as 'independent analysts.'"

Call it the State of Play fallacy: After TNR's Jeffrey Rosen blames "blogging" for the obviously poor quality of his recent Sotomayor hit piece -- and vows never to blog again -- Salon's inimitable Glenn Greenwald sets the record straight about what can and can't be pinned on bloggers. "Despite his efforts to blame 'blogging' for what he did, Rosen didn't use journalistically reckless methods to smear Sotomayor's intellect because of some inherent attribute of the medium. Instead, he did that because...that's how the establishment media typically functions: 'background reporting from people with various axes to grind, i.e. standard Washington reporting.'" (And, for what it's worth, Rosen's original article was hardly what you'd call blogging anyway -- it was just a lengthy piece that ran online.)

"If there is part of him that secretly covets Obama's job, he is burying it inside. 'I like my life now,' he said. 'I loved being president and it's a good thing we had a constitutional limit or I'd have made the people take me out in a pine box, probably. But we had a constitutional limit and I knew that in the beginning. And so when I left, I had to go out and create another life. And I did it, and I love doing it.'"

In a wide-ranging piece in the NYT Magazine, Peter Baker checks in on the post-presidency of William Jefferson Clinton. Among the topics discussed: Election 2008 fallout -- Obama is forgiven, Kennedy and Richardson are not -- and Clinton's retrospective view of his own administration's economic policy in light of the "Great Recession." "He added: 'If you ask me to write the indictment, I'd say: "I wish Bill Clinton had said more about derivatives. The Republicans probably would have stopped him from doing it, but at least he should have sounded the alarm bell."'"

"Likewise, conservatives are more likely than liberals to sense contamination or perceive disgust. People who would be disgusted to find that they had accidentally sipped from an acquaintance's drink are more likely to identify as conservatives." The NYT's Nicholas Kristof examines the hardwired psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. "The larger point is that liberals and conservatives often form judgments through flash intuitions that aren't a result of a deliberative process. The crucial part of the brain for these judgments is the medial prefrontal cortex, which has more to do with moralizing than with rationality ...For liberals, morality derives mostly from fairness and prevention of harm. For conservatives, morality also involves upholding authority and loyalty -- and revulsion at disgust."

"I chose to be a lawyer and ultimately a judge because I find endless challenge in the complexities of the law. I firmly believe in the rule of law as the foundation for all of our basic rights...Mr. President, I greatly appreciate the honor you are giving me, and I look forward to working with the Senate in the confirmation process." Hearkening back to the pragmatists once again -- "For as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, the life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience" -- President Obama chooses Judge Sonia Sotomayor as Souter's replacement on the Court. [Wiki]

Naturally, conservatives are getting their opposition ducks in a row (with some help from Jeffrey Rosen's recent dubious hit piece in TNR.) "But some Senate GOP officials privately conceded that, barring a major stumble, the judge will probably be confirmed with relative ease. 'You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that we need to tread very carefully,' said John Weaver, a Republican political consultant who advised Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for years. 'The only way we'll find ourselves in a political predicament is if we don't treat her with the same respect that other nominees received.'" Yeah, good luck with that.

In any case, early word on Judge Sotomayor is that she is very far from the liberal activist of right-wing nightmare, but rather a "highly capable technocrat," and exactly the sort of hypercompetent and moderate -- perhaps to a fault -- pick one would expect from this president. "'She's a lawyer's lawyer,' said Paul Smith, a partner at Jenner & Block who participated in the call...She's a cautious lawyer...who was a corporate lawyer herself...She reads statutes narrowly."

"Some of the 13 manipulated the federal bureaucracy and the legal process to 'preauthorize' torture in the days after 9/11. Others helped implement torture, and still others helped write the memos that provided the Bush administration with a legal fig leaf after torture had already begun...Between 9/11 and the end of 2002, the Torture 13 decided to torture, then reverse-engineered the techniques, and then crafted the legal cover. Here's who they are and what they did."

Triskaidecaphobics, beware: From the bookmarks and in her debut for Salon, blogger Marcy Wheeler lists the thirteen officials most responsible for the Dubya-era torture regime. A baker's dozen of orange jumpsuits, please.

"Any legitimate terror suspect, she said, would almost certainly be held in remote, high-security 'supermax' federal prisons, which are already home to convicted terrorists like British shoe bomber Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged 20th hijacker of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. That's what these prisons are designed for." The WP's Dan Froomkin surveys the most recent idiocy being spouted by Republicans -- as well as FBI director Robert Mueller and far too many Senate Democrats: that moving detainees from Gitmo into maximum security prisons would represent a clear and present danger to the republic. (As always, see also Glenn Greenwald on this ridiculous subject.)

I'm unclear as to what the GOP thinks will happen if we move these detainees into our regular prison system (other than that it'll probably be harder to waterboard them.) What kind of fantasyland do these yokels reside in? These detainees aren't Lex Luthor or the Joker. They have no vast army of misguided goons waiting to help them in the Big House. (In fact, I think they'll find they don't have much in common with your run-of-the-mill hard time lifer.) Nor have they concocted any diabolical master plans to escape from these extremely secure institutions. Newsflash: Those supercriminal types you read about in comics don't actually exist. (And, while we're debunking conservative fantasies, forget what you saw Jack Bauer do: "ticking time bomb" scenarios don't in fact happen either, and, even if they did, torture is in no way effective as a means of obtaining the information you'd need. Not that its efficacy matters anyway, because it's a war crime regardless.)

Absurd. Blatantly absurd. And altogether irritating that, once again, too many Democrats in Congress are not only taking these inchoate lunacies seriously, but grimly echoing them as if there's even a modicum of sound reasoning going on here. Can these conservatives and their Dem enablers distinguish between the Real World and their bizarre, half-baked realm of nightmares anymore? At this point, I half-expect Chuck Grassley and Harry Reid to tell me they're imprisoning Zubadayah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al in a pane of glass and shooting them into the far reaches of space. I mean, it worked for General Zod in Superman II, right?

"The Federal Reserve was supposed to do this, but they were asleep at the switch." In light of recent shenanigans, the Obama administration contemplates creating a new regulatory commission for the financial services industry. "Responsibility for regulation of consumer financial products is currently distributed among a patchwork of federal agencies. Some of these regulators regard consumer protection as a low priority. And some financial products are not regulated at all. The proposal could centralize enforcement of existing laws and create a vehicle for imposing tougher rules." Sounds alright by me.

"'This is landmark legislation that is going to make the credit card marketplace more transparent and more fair for millions of consumers,' said Travis B. Plunkett, legislative director for the Consumer Federation of America. 'In particular, it's going to prevent credit card companies from suddenly and unjustly increasing interest rates which is pushing many consumers with credit card debt into bankruptcy.'" The Senate passes legislation aimed at reining in the more blatant and arbitrary instances of credit card usury by a vote of 90-5, with a bill expected on President Obama's desk by Memorial Day.

This sounds like a clear step in the right direction...but funny how times change, isn't it? It doesn't seem like all that long ago that many of these same Senators passed the 2005 bankruptcy bill, which dug the financial hole deeper for millions of Americans in the name of an easy buck for the credit card industry. Better late than never, I suppose.

"To paraphrase Al Pacino in 'Godfather III,' just when we thought we were out, the Bush mob keeps pulling us back in. And will keep doing so. No matter how hard President Obama tries to turn the page on the previous administration, he can't. Until there is true transparency and true accountability, revelations of that unresolved eight-year nightmare will keep raining down drip by drip, disrupting the new administration's high ambitions." In today's NYT, Frank Rich makes the case for a full investigation into Dubya-era crimes (as, in a switch, does Maureen Dowd -- with some unattributed help from TPM's Josh Marshall.)

Also linked in Rich's piece is a damning profile of Donald Rumsfeld's tenure at Defense by GQ's Robert Draper, which happens to include these bizarre and, diplomatically speaking, blatantly idiotic Christian-minded cover sheets created especially for Dubya's briefings. "This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine...At least one Muslim analyst in the building had been greatly offended; others privately worried that if these covers were leaked during a war conducted in an Islamic nation, the fallout--as one Pentagon staffer would later say -- 'would be as bad as Abu Ghraib.' But the Pentagon's top officials were apparently unconcerned about the effect such a disclosure might have on the conduct of the war or on Bush's public standing...Rumsfeld likely saw the Scriptures as a way of making a personal connection with a president who frequently quoted the Bible."

As most everyone keeping up on current events these days knows, the people around the president, as well as the president himself, spend a good bit of time emphasizing the pragmatic nature of this administration. One senior administration official recently deemed the president a "devout nonideologue", and Obama himself has argued several times that he aims to tackle the myriad problems before us with a "ruthless pragmatism." Now, we've seen nothing to indicate that Obama's pragmatic nature is an act. If anything, from installing Sen. Clinton as his Secretary of State to keeping Sec. Gates at Defense, it's clear that pragmatism, accommodation, and inclusiveness are his temperamental instincts as a politician. Nevertheless, it's also clear that comparisons to Franklin Roosevelt, and the "bold, persistent experimentation" Roosevelt promised in 1932 -- and subsequently followed through on over the course of the decade -- aren't entirely undesired by the White House.

Well, I've been traveling over the past few days, and thus haven't been following the news as closely as usual. Still, even given President Obama's health care announcement on Monday (highly reminiscent of the NRA in that it purports to let the big players in the health care industry help write the codes, so to speak) and the welcome declaration on Wednesday that the administration would soon seek a new regulatory apparatus for derivatives markets, Franklin Roosevelt was not the first president that came to mind as a point of reference for Obama this week.

No, that would be Gerald Ford, who, most historians agree, was an honorable man thrust into a thorny dilemma by the crimes of his predecessor, and who grievously hamstrung his own brief administration by deciding to pardon Richard Nixon. And now, it seems, history gets dangerously close to repeating itself. For, it's moved beyond obvious that the Dubya administration not only willfully engaged in torture -- clearly, bad enough -- but did so to compel false confessions of an Iraq-9/11 connection that they knew never existed. And yet, we've already witnessed the ungainly sight of President Obama equivocating on the question of prosecutions in the name of some dubious "time for reflection, not retribution." (Never mind that, as President Obama reminds us on other matters, wounds, like corruption, fester in the dark.)

This week, President Obama has compounded his recent error -- twice. In the first of two eleventh-hour reversals, Obama -- who has promised us "an unprecedented level of openness in government" many times over -- instead chose to side with the publicists of the Pentagon and block the court-ordered release of new photographs detailing detainee abuse: "'The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals,' Obama said yesterday. 'In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in danger.'" (How bad are they? If Sy Hersh is correct, and there's no reason to think he isn't, they could be very, very bad.)

Then, today, the Obama administration announced they will continue using extra-legal military tribunals, not federal courts or military courts martial, for Gitmo suspects. "'Military commissions have a long tradition in the United States,' said Obama in a statement. 'They are appropriate for trying enemies who violate the laws of war, provided that they are properly structured and administered.'" (The key line of the WP story: "In recent weeks, however, the administration appears to have bowed to fears articulated by the Pentagon that bringing some detainees before regular courts presented enormous legal hurdles and could risk acquittals.)"

Obama's statements aside, the arguments -- re: excuses -- in favor of blocking the release of these no-doubt-horrifying photos and maintaining extralegal tribunals -- now with 33% less illegality! -- are the thin gruel you might expect. The WP's Dan Froomkin already eviscerated the former quite devastatingly, while Salon's Glenn Greenwald, laudable as usual, has taken point on the idiocy of the latter: "[W]e'll give due process as long as we're sure we can win, and if we can't, we'll give you something less." In both cases, the principle animating the advice given to President Obama seems mainly to be the usual self-serving, CYA behavior of Dubya holdovers at the Pentagon.

But that doesn't absolve President Obama of his failures here. For whatever reason -- perhaps he's trying to smooth things over in these areas so he can focus on the considerable domestic problems on his plate -- Obama is increasingly making the exact same mistake as Gerald Ford. As other commentators have pointed out, by shoving the rampant illegalities of the GWoT under the rug -- or worse, perpetuating them -- Obama is dangerously close to making his administration retroactively complicit in the crimes of the previous administration.

Now, I'd like to move on to fixing the economy and universal health care -- not to mention voting, lobbying, and campaign finance reform -- as much as the next guy., But sidestepping the tough choices on torture and the imperial presidency, as Paul Krugman (whom I've had issues with but am in complete lockstep with here) noted a few weeks ago, is simply not an option, if we are to maintain anything resembling our national soul after this egregious wallowing in torture and illegality.

Speaking of which, a quick comment on the emerging question of what and when Speaker Pelosi knew about torture (which the Republicans have shamelessly latched onto like a life raft -- see in particular Karl Rove frantically pointing at her to save his own skin the other day. You can almost smell the desperate flop sweat exuding from his every pore.) Well, let's look into it. Commissions, investigations, prosecutions -- let's quit screwing around and start getting to the bottom of this fiasco. I can't believe I have to keep writing this like it's even a bone of contention, but look: If we can't get it together enough to collectively agree that torture is both immoral and illegal, and that those who designed and orchestrated these war crimes during the Dubya administration be subject to investigation, prosecution, and punishment, then we might as well call this whole "rule of law" thing off. As ethicist David Luban noted yesterday in congressional testimony, the relevant case law here is not oblique. Either the laws apply to those at the very top, or they don't -- in which case, it's hard to see why anyone else should feel bound to respect them either.

Which brings me back to pragmatism. Hey, in general, I'm all for it, particularly when you consider all the many imbecilities thrust upon the world by the blind ideological purity of the neocons of late. But, let's remember, the limits of pragmatism as a guiding national philosophy were exposed before all the world before Obama, or even FDR, ever took office. When, after several years of trying to stay well out of the whole mess, Woodrow Wilson entered America into World War I in 1917, the very fathers of Pragmatism, most notably philosopher of education John Dewey, convinced themselves war was now the correct call and exhorted their fellow progressives, usually in the pages of The New Republic, to get behind it. (Many did, but others -- such as Jane Addams and Nation editor Oswald Villard -- did not.) War went from being a moral abomination to a great and necessary opportunity for national renewal. Given it was a done deal, the pragmatic thing to do now was to go with the flow.

Aghast at this 180-degree shift in the thinking of people he greatly admired, a young writer named Randolph Bourne called shenanigans on this "pragmatic" turnaround, and excoriated his former mentors for their lapse into war fervor. "It must never be forgotten that in every community it was the least liberal and least democratic elements among whom the preparedness and later the war sentiment was found," Bourne wrote. "The intellectuals, in other words, have identified themselves with the least democratic forces in American life. They have assumed the leadership for war of those very classes whom the American democracy had been immemorially fighting. Only in a world where irony was dead could an intellectual class enter war at the head of such illiberal cohorts in the avowed cause of world-liberalism and world-democracy."

Now, you'd be hard-pressed to find a bigger cheerleader for the progressives than I. But the fact remains that Bourne, who perished soon thereafter in the 1918 influenza epidemic, was prescient in a way that many of the leading progressive thinkers were not. The emotions unleashed by the Great War and its aftermath (as well as the sight of the accompanying Russian Revolution) soon fractured completely the progressive movement in America, and proved exceedingly fertile soil for the reascendancy of the most reactionary elements around. (Back then "Bolshevik" and "anarchist" were preferred as the favorite epithets of the "One Hundred Percent American" right-wing, although "socialist," then as now, was also in vogue. At least then they had real socialists around, tho'.) And the pragmatic writers and thinkers of TNR, who thought they could ride the mad tiger through a "war to end all wars," instead found their hopes and dreams chewed up and mangled beyond recognition. They wanted a "world made safe for democracy" and they ended up with the Red Scare, Warren Harding, and an interstitial peace at Versailles that lasted less than a generation.

The point being: however laudable a virtue in most circumstances, pragmatism for pragmatism's sake can lead one into serious trouble. And, as a guiding light of national moral principle, it occasionally reeks. As Dewey and his TNR compatriots discovered to their everlasting chagrin, you can talk yourself into pretty much anything and deem it "pragmatic," when it's in fact just the path of least resistance. And, when your guiding philosophy of leadership is to always view intense opposing sides as Scylla and Charybdis, and then to steer through them by finding the calm, healthy middle, you can bet dollars-to-donuts that the conservative freaks of the industry will always be pushing that "center" as far right as possible, regardless of the issues involved. And, eventually, without a guiding moral imperative at work -- like, I dunno, torture is illegal, immoral, and criminal, or the rule of law applies to everyone -- you may discover that that middle channel is no longer in the middle at all, but has diverted strongly to the right. In which case, welcome to Gerald Ford territory.

Nobody wants that, of course. We -- on the left, at least -- all want to remember the Obama administration not as a well-meaning dupe notable mainly for its unfortunate rubberstamping of Dubya-era atrocities, but as a transformational presidency akin to those of Lincoln and the two Roosevelts. To accomplish this goal, it would behoove the White House to remember that Lincoln, pragmatic that he was, came to abolition gradually, but come to abolition he did. Or consider that Franklin Roosevelt, pragmatic that he was, eventually chose his side as well. "I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match," FDR said in his renomination speech of 1936. "I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master."

I should like to have it said of President Obama's administration as well. The alternative -- Obama's sad, "pragmatic" capitulation to Dubya-era criminals -- is too depressing to contemplate. But the picture below (found here) gives you a pretty good sense of what it'll mean for America if we don't get to the bottom of this, and soon.

"At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court, but he has made clear to friends for some time now that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and return to his native New Hampshire." Is Justice Souter retiring after this Supreme Court term? NPR seems to think so. I'd prefer it was Scalia's time to go, of course...but oh well. "Souter, though appointed by the first President Bush, generally votes with the more liberal members of the court, a group of four that is in a rather consistent minority." And two of those -- Stevens and Ginsberg -- are good bets to retire soon as well.

"But while many stakeholders made sacrifices, some did not. In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds that hoped to hold out for a taxpayer-funded bailout. I don't stand with them. I stand with Chrysler's employees, management and suppliers. I don't with stand with those who held out when everybody else made sacrifices." President Obama announces that Chrysler will file for bankruptcy, and lays the blame squarely at the feet of hedge funds who rejected an 11th-hour deal to save the company, apparently in the hopes of garnering more bailout cash.

The hedge funds in question have fired back, of course. Apparently, they're all for the "rule of law" and upholding our "world-leading bankruptcy code." I'd probably be more inclined to take them seriously on these matters if they weren't also trying to spike regulation of their industry that is long overdue. At it is, i'm thinking profit is more of a motivator here than principled civil disobedience.

At any rate, I think Salon's Andrew Leonard is exactly right about where public opinion will come down on this one. Says one observer (cited by Leonard) of what happened today: "The banksters are eagerly, shamelessly, and openly harvesting their pound of flesh from financially stressed average taxpayers, and setting off a chain reaction in the auto industry which has the very real risk of creating even larger scale unemployment than the economy already faces. It's reckless, utterly irresponsible, over-the-top greed." From my admittedly limited vantage, that sounds like a plausible reading.

"'We know that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay,' Foxx said during debate. 'The bill was named for him, the hate-crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.'" Ladies and gentlemen, today's rump Republican party in action: During House debate, North Carolina Congresswoman Virginia Foxx deems the anti-gay murder of Matthew Shepherd in 1998 a "hoax." Classy. So, I guess Shepherd was really tied to a ranchpost and tortured to death because he wanted to draw attention to the gay agenda, right? These people make me sick.

"I actually think that the state secret doctrine should be modified. I think right how it's over-broad. But keep in mind what happens is, we come into office, we're in for a week -- and suddenly we've got a court filing that's coming up. And so we don't have the time to effectively think through what, exactly, should a overarching reform of that doctrine take. We've got to respond to the immediate case in front of us."

In case you missed it last night -- I'll concede, I'd forgotten about the presser and was watching the NBA playoffs -- President Obama was finally asked about his troubling continuation of Dubya's state secrets policy during his "100 Days" press conference last night. [Full transcript.] And his answer -- basically, the justice department turns like a battleship, but we're on the case -- is somewhat heartening, I guess, in that the president seems to concede anew that the privilege has been abused of late, even under his own administration. But, as Salon's Glenn Greenwald reminds us today, the Obama/Holder JD has done a good bit more than just "stay the course" on states' secrets since coming into office, and last night's excuse -- well, despite our actions over 100 days, this isn't *really* our policy -- isn't going to hold water for much longer.

Also last night, while sort of pressed into it by ABC News' Jake Tapper, President Obama said in no uncertain terms both that waterboarding is torture (correct) and that, as we all know, his predecessor's administration sanctioned it: "I believe that waterboarding was torture. And I think that the -- whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake." Now, it isn't the president's call to move forward on an investigation and possible prosecutions at this point -- that task falls to Attorney General Holder. Still, if what the president said last night is true, and it obviously is, then AG Holder has only one choice moving forward. It's time to get to the bottom of this.

"Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans." In today's big news, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania announces he's becoming a Democrat. [Statement.] (Note the construction there. The voters switch over, and suddenly Specter reevaluates his political philosophy. A true statesman.)

Well, welcome to the new Big Tent, Senator. On one hand, this is clearly a PR coup for we Democrats. The country didn't really need another reminder that the Grand Old Party has degenerated badly in recent years, but this can't help but make the point crystal-clear once again. When even a guy like Specter wants nothing to do with you, that's saying something. Here's hoping Sens. Snowe and Collins of Maine follow his lead soon.

That being said, I wouldn't really call Specter a great pick-up for us. Sure, I'm glad that he'll feel the need to bend to the left politically rather than to the right from now on (where he was basically dead in the water -- hence today's decision.) But as far as politicans go, "Spineless Specter" has been more craven than most over the past few years. He folded badly on the illegal NSA wiretaps and was all too happy to push gaybaiting legislation through the Judiciary committee when it suited his GOP masters.

Plus, consider the timing here. Unlike Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who forced a Senate reorganization in 2001 (and subsequently paid a price for it once the GOP reassumed control in 2003), Specter's switch doesn't really change the balance of power all that much. Sure, he's the 60th vote for cloture...if he does in fact vote with the Dems. But a Liebermanesque "independence" is probably more likely from him. And did we really need another Joe Lieberman? Surely the Keystone State could've provided us with a sounder Democrat to get behind in 2010.

Over in the NY Review of Books, Specter has recently suggested that he wants to help roll back the expansion of executive power, which he deems increasingly out-of-control since 9/11. Again, bully for him, I'm all for it. But he did a less than stellar job on this front during the warrantless wiretaps and censure resolution episodes, so it's hard to take him seriously as an exemplar of civil liberties at this late date.

So now Specter's playing for the home team, as it were. Well, ok, I much prefer D's to R's. But if the party label is going to mean anything, Sen. Specter really needs to start living up to it.

As many readers here well know, I've spent a good bit of time over the past decade studying US history. (In fact, over the past few years, I've occasionally helped my advisor keep a textbook up to date that recently drew the ire of right-wing blowhard Bill O'Reilly. Apparently, those damn pesky facts were somehow mitigating O'Reilly's ability to spew forth the usual idiotic blather.)

Anyway, over that period of time, I believe I have in fact learned me a few things. So, as a public service of sorts, and because, after this morning's revelations, I've reached the limit of craven and/or patently stupid falsehoods that I can feasibly ingest over so short a time, some "U.S. History for Dummies." I expect most everyone who comes by this site with any frequency knows all this, but ya never know. Apologies for the didacticism in advance -- if this were this a Coors Light commercial, this would be where i vent. (And thanks to Lia for the timely visual tax lesson, above.)

The Tea Party: As you no doubt know, the Boston Tea Party of 1773 was recently appropriated by FOX News and the conservative group Freedomworks to simulate a widespread popular uprising against high taxes. (In other words, it was an "astroturf," rather than a grass-roots, movement.) And, yes, the inconvenient fact that President Obama and the Democratic Congress actually lowered income taxes for 95% of Americans earlier this year didn't seem to dissuade them from trying to jury-rig some rather dubious anti-tax ramparts and gin up enough disgruntled FOX-watchers to man them.

At any rate, as most people remember from high school, the original 1773 Tea Party was not a protest against high taxes or high prices at all. (In fact, legally imported tea -- i.e. that of the East India Company, which was both suffering serious setbacks over in India and losing market share to smuggled Dutch tea at the time -- was actually cheaper in the colonies after the Tea Act, since it was now exempt from the usual obligations.)

In small part a reaction of the East India's commercial rivals to this sweetheart deal, the Boston Tea Party was mainly held to uphold the principle of No taxation without representation. Which I don't think I need to explain. So, with the minor exception of DC-area conservatives who attended the tea gathering in Washington (without crossing over from Virginia or Maryland), the, uh, "teabaggers" don't really have a leg to stand on here. This is particularly true after you consider that both ruthless gerrymandering and the vagaries of the Electoral College (I'm looking at you, Wyoming) actually tend to lead to over-representation of conservative Republicans in our halls of governance, even despite heavy losses for the "Grand Old Party" in 2006 and 2008.

The "Right" of Secession: Apparently, Rick Perry, the right-wing governor of Texas, really wants to keep his job. As such, he's scared stiff of the forthcoming primary challenge by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who happens to be much more popular than he is among Texas Republicans. So, to sow up his "activist" (re: freak show) bona fides, this desperate fellow has been doing anything and everything he possibly can to prostrate himself before the paranoid ultra-right, including appearing before the current poobahs of the GOP's lunatic fringe, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage. As you no doubt know, this recently culminated in Gov. Perry's upholding Texas' right to secede before a crowd of rabid teabaggers. Said the Governor: ""We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that..."

Well, in fact, no state in the Union has any legal right to secede. (Not even Texas.) The existence of such a right was posited and debated quite often in the early years of the republic: by Jefferson and Madison in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, by the members of the Hartford Convention, by South Carolina's philosopher-politician John C. Calhoun, and countless others.

But the illegality of secession was eventually confirmed -- in blood -- when eleven states attempted to pull out of the Union in 1861, due mainly to differing opinions on the institution of slavery and its expansion into the western territories. As a result of this insurrection by the southern states, a violent conflict broke out, which we call the Civil War. It lasted four years, and it was kind of a big deal.

Prior to the war, the states of the Confederacy believed secession to be their natural right, while those remaining in the Union believed it to be tantamount to an act of treason. With the Union victory in that conflict, and the subsequent readmittance of southern states in such a manner that reaffirmed that no right of secession exists, the question was settled. So it remains to this day.

Waterboarding, Torture, and "Just Following Orders": In the wake of recent revelations, there's been a renewed push among certain conservatives to laugh off waterboarding as not being constitutive of torture. (See also Rush Limbaugh's fratboy defense of Abu Ghraib a few years ago.) But (as even John McCain concedes), in the years after World War II, there was no question among Americans that waterboarding is torture. In fact, Japanese soldiers were tried and convicted of war crimes for waterboarding American GIs and Filipino prisoners. When you think about it, it's not really a tough call.

Another argument we've heard lately -- today Sen. McCain made it with his usual comrades-in-arms, Sens. Lieberman and Graham, while trying to protect Dubya's lawyers -- is that the CIA officials who actually conducted these recent acts of torture should be exempt from prosecution, because they were following the legal dictates of those higher-up in the administration. (To follow the reasoning around the circle, the torturers should be exempt because they were listening to the lawyers, and the lawyers should be exempt because they didn't do the actual torturing. Cute.)

Anyway, whatever you think of the merits of this argument, this is usually referred to as the Nuremberg defense, and it is in fact no defense at all. Argues Principle IV of the Nuremberg Principles, devised by the Allies after WWII to determine what constituted a war crime: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." Insert "CIA interrogator" for person in that last sentence and you can pretty much see the problem.

Is America a Christian Nation?: At the end of his recent European tour, President Obama told an audience in Turkey the following: "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." This statement -- well the "not a Christian nation" part of it, at least -- prompted no small amount of consternation from the porcine-moralist wing of the GOP -- James Dobson, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, and sundry other freaks of the industry -- all of whom fell over themselves to proclaim to the Heavens and preach to the FOX News choir that, yes, Virginia, America is a glorious Christian nation.

America is not a Christian nation. This will be patently obvious to anyone who's ever heard the phrase "separation of church and state." Unlike, say, England, America does not have and has never had an official, established church. This is very much by design. For proof of this not-very-radical claim, see the very first clause of the very first amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

If that doesn't do it for you, see George Washington's famous 1790 letter to the Jewish residents of Newport, Rhode Island. "May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."

Or consider that Thomas Jefferson skipped his presidency on his tombstone to make room for his authorship of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." (We could also make mention of the Jefferson Bible, but let's start slow.)

Is the reasoning here too circuitous for Rove, Gingrich, et al to follow? Ok, then, here's the cheat sheet: the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, passed by a Congress of our Founders without declaim and signed into law by President John Adams. It begins: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." Did y'all catch it this time? Good, let's move on.

A Smile for Chávez: Our new president also attended the Summit of the Americas recently, at which he was photographed smiling and shaking hands with Venezuelan autocrat Hugo Chávez, a particular bête noire of the right who has said all manner of unpleasant things about America over the past few years.

After the picture was taken, conservatives went predictably livid, with Matt Drudge headlining the offending photograph with the usual red text, Dick Cheney deeming Obama "a weak president" on FOX News, and Gingrich arguing that it made Obama look "weak like Carter." "We didn't rush over, smile and greet Russian dictators," said Newt, and he wasn't the only potential 2012'er aghast at Obama's behavior. Sen. John Ensign of Nevada called the president "irresponsible" and the consistently shameless Mitt Romney painted Obama a "timid advocate for freedom".

Um, ok. Well, let's see here...

I could go on. With regards to that last one -- Reagan yukking it up with Mikhail Gorbachev, then of "the evil Empire" -- it didn't take long before (surprise) Newt was caught in a contradiction. Apparently, Gingrich had previously argued on his website that Ronald Reagan's good humor with Gorby was a sign of strength, not weakness.

Speaking of which, as Lawrence O'Donnell noted on MSNBC the other day, saintly old Ronald Reagan didn't just smile and shake hands with America's enemies. His administration sold them weapons under the table. So, please, assorted puddin'-heads of the GOP talkocracy, spare me your warmed-over tripe about poor diplomacy and weak leadership. As with everything else above, I've swallowed enough of your swill over the past few weeks to last me a lifetime.

Hard to believe, but, this morning, the recent grisly revelations of Dubya-era torture practices became even more horrifying. As we've gleaned more info over the past few days, certain obvious and troubling questions kept popping up. Why, as indicated here, would higher-ups insist on additional waterboarding sessions for Zubadayah, even after the CIA agents at hand thought the suspect "had given up all the information he had"? Also: Mind you, even one session of torture is reprehensible -- and illegal -- enough. But what more did the powers-that-be think they were going to get out of these suspects after ten waterboardings? Twenty? One hundred?

Well, now we know. Not only did Dubya apparachiks conceive a torture regime well before it was approved (and before they had any prisoners on hand -- see also the new and unredacted Armed Services Committee report), but they tortured their suspects into the ground because they were trying to prove a false positive, i.e. that there was some serious operational link between Iraq and Al Qaeda that could be used to sell the second Gulf War. (See also the forged Habbush letter.)

"'There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used,' the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity. 'The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there.'"

So, in short, it would seem the suspects held by the CIA were tortured over and over again because they would not concede that two plus two equals five.

Really, how much lower can these assholes sink? What could they possibly do that would cause more violence to our ideals, or that would make our cherished role as a beacon of freedom seem any more ridiculous in the eyes of the world, than what they've already done?

Once again, I'm reminded of Lincoln's famous remark to the Indiana 14th: "'Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.'" At the very least, somebody, or somebodies, better go to jail for a loooong time for this. Anything less is simply unacceptable.

"'Taxpayers are subsidizing a legislative agenda that is inimical to their interests and offensive to what the whole TARP program is about,; said William Patterson, executive director of CtW Investment Group, an activist group affiliated with a coalition of labor unions. 'It's business as usual with taxpayers picking up the bill." Sigh. The WP's Dan Eggen reports on GM and a host of financial firms using bailout money to lobby for the status quo. "Major recipients of federal bailout money spent more than $10 million to lobby lawmakers in the first three months of 2009, including arguing against pay limits for corporate executives, according to newly filed disclosure records."

"'It's the deepest kind of corruption,' said a recently retired longtime national security official who was closely involved in the AIPAC investigation, 'which was years in the making. It's a story about the corruption of government -- not legal corruption necessarily, but ethical corruption." In a fascinating (and depressing) must-read, Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein lays bare a byzantine corruption scandal involving AIPAC, the Dubya WH, and Jane Harman, former Democratic chair of the House Intelligence Committee and, some grumbling aside, basically a "team player" for Dubya during the illegal and warrantless wiretaps episode. (Irony of ironies, it appears Harman's misdeeds were caught on -- a court-approved -- wiretap.)

Talking Points Memo offers a handy timeline of the case here. Basically, on one level it's your basic political quid-pro-quo. Harman told an unnamed suspected Israeli agent that she would "waddle into" a federal espionage case then extant against two members of AIPAC and gum up the works somehow. In return, "the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi...to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections." (It didn't take: Pelosi instead chose Silvestre Reyes.) "Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, 'This conversation doesn't exist.'"

Sordid enough. But what's a mid-oughts scandal without the Dubya angle? After she had been caught on said wiretap, a federal investigation into Harman was approved...for awhile. But it seems Attorney General Alberto Gonzales now knew he had Harman in his pocket, and took advantage accordingly. "According to two officials privy to the events, Gonzales said he 'needed Jane' to help support the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times. Harman, he told [CIA Director Porter] Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program. He was right. On Dec. 21, 2005, in the midst of a firestorm of criticism about the wiretaps, Harman issued a statement defending the operation and slamming the Times, saying, 'I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.'"

Not that I need to remind anyone here, but Dubya's use of illegal and warrantless wiretaps would, in more cases, be recognized as an impeachable offense. As it was, the Senate GOP (then in the catbird seat) held firm against hearings, and many of our congressional Dems -- Feingold, Leahy, and a few other lonely souls notwithstanding -- folded like a house of cards. Now, at least in the case of Harman, we know why.

Update: The NYT weighs in with their side, and it's TLDR'ed by TPM. And Salon's Glenn Greenwald has a good bit of snarky fun with Harman's recent "road to Damascus" moment regarding wiretaps.

"The Times article, based on information from former intelligence officers who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Abu Zubaydah had revealed a great deal of information before harsh methods were used and after his captors stripped him of clothes, kept him in a cold cell and kept him awake at night. The article said interrogators at the secret prison in Thailand believed he had given up all the information he had, but officials at headquarters ordered them to use waterboarding." Perusing last week's sordid torture memos, eagle-eyed blogger Marcy Wheeler discovered an unsettling statistic: two suspects -- Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed -- were waterboarded by the CIA 266 times. Zubaydah "revealed no new information after being waterboarded, the article said, a conclusion that appears to be supported by a footnote to a 2005 Justice Department memo saying the use of the harshest methods appeared to have been 'unnecessary' in his case."

Meanwhile, as right-wing stooges like former CIA director Michael Hayden and Mike Allen's anonymous friend excoriate the president for breaking tradition and revealing the illegalities of the Dubya era, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel ventured onto the Sunday shows to tamp down talk of any prosecutions, even for the higher-ups. "[P]eople in good faith were operating with the guidance they were provided. They shouldn't be prosecuted...those who devised policy, he [Obama] believes that they were -- should not be prosecuted either, and that's not the place that we go -- as he said in that letter."

Wrong answer, Rahm. And, unless President Obama were to grant full pardons to the architects of Dubya-era torture, it's not even his call whether or not they should be prosecuted. In fact, choosing not to prosecute them would constitute a violation of international law.

Update: The White House doesn't necessarily agree with Rahm. "[A]dministration officials said Monday that Mr. Emanuel had meant the officials who ordered the policies carried out, not the lawyers who provided the legal rationale. Three Bush administration lawyers who signed memos, John C. Yoo, Jay S. Bybee and Steven G. Bradbury, are the subjects of a coming report by the Justice Department's ethics office that officials say is sharply critical of their work. The ethics office has the power to recommend disbarment or other professional penalties or, less likely, to refer cases for criminal prosecution."

Update 2: "With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that." President Obama opens the door further for prosecution.

"In a remarkable illustration of the power of lobbying in Washington, a study released last week found that a single tax break in 2004 earned companies $220 for every dollar they spent on the issue -- a 22,000 percent rate of return on their investment." A new study by three University of Kansas profs tries to quantify exactly the amount of lucre generated by the lobbyists and influence-peddlers aswarm in Washington for their employers. And the answer? A whole lot. "The paper...examined the impact of a one-time tax break approved by Congress in 2004 that allowed multinational corporations to 'repatriate' profits earned overseas, effectively reducing their tax rate on the money from 35 percent to 5.25 percent. More than 800 companies took advantage of the legislation, saving an estimated $100 billion in the process." [Hattip: Tim C. and Marginal Revolution.]

"Even for the hardest-core Obama loyalists, it's rather difficult to attribute these increasingly harsh condemnations of Obama's civil liberties, secrecy and executive power abuses to bad motives or ignorance when they're coming from the likes of Russ Feingold, Talking Points Memo, the Center for American Progress, Nancy Pelosi, EFF, the ACLU, The New York Times Editorial Board, Keith Olbermann, Jonathan Turley, The American Prospect, Bruce Fein, Digby, along with some of the most enthusiastic Obama supporters and a bevvy of liberal law professors and international law experts -- those who were most venerated by progressives during the Bush era on questions of the Constitution and executive power."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald surveys the growing progressive consensus that something is rotten at Holder's DOJ with regard to state secrets and the continuation of Bush-era policies antithetical to, if not downright contemptuous of, civil liberties. (In case you missed it here or here, I'm not happy either.) "That the Obama DOJ has repeatedly embraced the very legal theories responsible for much of the intense progressive rage towards the Bush/Cheney regime is now beyond dispute. The question of motive -- of why Obama is doing this -- is far less clear."

Now, obviously, the president has a lot on his plate these days, and a finite amount of political capital with which to achieve an enormous number of objectives. Still, it's well past time that the administration explain what's going on on the civil liberties front from start to finish, akin to Obama's economic overview speech at Georgetown this morning. These are not piddling matters.

We are its leaders. We are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's give a trillion. "Mr. Brown, who organized the meeting in a hangarlike conference center in London, said: 'This is the day the world came together to fight against the global recession. Our message today is clear and certain: we believe that global problems require global solutions.'"

In the meantime, Slate's Fred Kaplan applauds the return of real, honest-to-goodness American statecraft in London. "Vast multinational conferences, like the G20 summit...are useful mainly for the 'bilaterals' -- the one-on-one side-room conversations -- and, in these forums, President Barack Obama is living up to high expectations. Which is to say, the United States seems to be returning to diplomatic basics -- a development that in the wake of the last eight years is practically revolutionary."

At the very least, the president's diplomatic mojo seemed to work on Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. "'Yesterday I spoke about this with my new comrade President Barack Obama,' Medvedev told reporters travelling with him to the London summit...'I liked the talks. It is easy to talk to him. He can listen. The start of this relationship is good,' he said, adding: 'Today it's a totally different situation (compared to Bush).'"

"Mr. Holder said in a statement that 'I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial.'" Hmmm. Why does Clay Davis come to mind? After discovering that agents at Justice and the FBI tried to frame a guilty man, as it were, Attorney General Eric Holder drops the prosecution of 85-year-old former Senator Ted Stevens. "The collapse of the Stevens case was a profound embarrassment for the Justice Department, and it raised troubling issues about the integrity of the actions of prosecutors who wield enormous power over people they investigate." Uh, ok...but why aren't we seeing this judicious, otherwise laudable commitment to fair play when it comes to state secrets and victims of extraordinary rendition?

At any rate, as official Washington rushes to embrace Stevens once more, let's keep the big picture in mind: "[E]ven leaving criminal wrongdoing aside, no one disputes that Stevens accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of home renovations and gifts (remember that massage chair?) from a supporter who had a slew of business interests that Stevens was in a position to affect as a powerful federal lawmaker and appropriator. That's what we call 'corrupt'. As Melanie Sloan of Citiziens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington put it, according to The Hill's paraphrase: 'Holder's decision in no way should be viewed as a vindication of Stevens but rather as an indictment of the Justice Department's inability to do one of its most important jobs.'" True, that.

"The most preventable tragedy was the deterioration of quality. Downsized local publications were all but forced to rely on more national content, but that content didn't have to become so vapid...But that's what happened. Rather than investing in the valuable steel and concrete of hard reporting, national news outlets began printing the most worthless kind of commercial paper -- rumors, personality profiles and other such speculative derivatives that consumers could find elsewhere."

Don't cry for the end of the newspaper, says Salon's David Sirota (who also seems to be feeling a bit Howard Beale-ish right about now.) They brought it on themselves. "'In place of comprehensive, complex and idiosyncratic coverage, readers of even the most serious newspapers were offered celebrity and scandal, humor and light provocation,' says journalist-turned-director David Simon, whose HBO series 'The Wire' examined this trend." (Simon has more to say on the subject here.)

As Jack Shafer reminds us, newspapers were scurrilous, scandal-ridden, partisan rags long before they were bastions of citizenship and good journalism. Still, now that the broadsheets have mostly followed their television brethren down the road of endless horse-race-type political coverage and surface-skimming trivialities, what's their purpose, really? We can get bad, rushed, smart-alecky journalism from TV and the web.

"'The commission could be the most ambitious attempt to re-examine and reform the criminal justice system since the 1960s,' said Mark Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, a nonprofit group that supports reducing incarceration rates. 'It is a huge undertaking,' he said." As he promised a few months ago, Sen. Jim Webb begins the push for a bipartisan commission on prison reform. (Webb's effort drew particular kudos from Salon's Glenn Greenwald this morning.)

Speaking of which, count me among the many (like Greenwald) who found Obama's glib answer on drug decriminalization during the online town hall the other day to be too smug and snickering by half. People are spending their lives in prison for basically harmless behavior that he -- and countless other tsk-tsking political elites -- engaged in. That's not really something to chuckle about.

That being said, it's obvious that, with everything else going on, Obama has nowhere near the political capital he would need to deal with this sort of thing right now, even if he does possess the inclination. But, Webb's proposed commission might be exactly the sort of body that could grant Obama the cover he needs to get serious about drug and prison reform. In fact, other than punting on a popular issue like social security, which prison reform emphatically isn't, that's pretty much the sole purpose of a bipartisan commission.

Update: In very related news, NY Gov. David Paterson announces a deal has been struck to soften NY's draconian Rockefeller drug laws and get rid of many mandatory minimums. "'Since 1973, New York has had the harshest drug laws in the country, and they have simply not worked,' Paterson said Friday in a radio interview."

"It's a debate that the Bush administration never seriously had in the seven years following the post-9/11 invasion. Now, by contrast, in the wake of three major strategic reviews, Obama is extending and deepening the discussion of Afghanistan, because the outcome of this debate may set the course of American foreign policy for the remainder of his presidency." Counter-terrorism (CT) or counter-insurgency (COIN)? In Slate, Fred Kaplan discusses the major decision on Afghanistan before Obama this week.

Update: "'We have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future,' Obama said. 'That is the goal that must be achieved.'" The president announces our new Af-Pak strategy. Sounds like the COINS won out. Update 2: Or did they? Call it CT-plus.

"'Any way you look at it, it's pretty remarkable,' said Jon B. Eisenberg, an attorney for al-Haramain. 'This is an executive branch threat to exercise control over a judicial branch function.'" Rather than Chuck Todd and Ed Henry falling over each other with illl-thought-out, gotcha garbage that conforms to GOP talking points, here's a question I'd like to have heard the president answer last night: What the hell is going on at the Obama Justice Department, vis a vis the state-secrets privilege? "Civil liberties advocates are accusing the Obama administration of forsaking campaign rhetoric and adopting the same expansive arguments that his predecessor used to cloak some of the most sensitive intelligence-gathering programs of the Bush White House." That is not at all what we voted for, and it's nigh time we got a good explanation of why Holder et al are continuing to play by the Dubya playbook.

"Officials said the proposal would seek a broad new role for the Federal Reserve to oversee large companies, including major hedge funds, whose problems could pose risks to the entire financial system." With the AIG bonuses setting the table, the Obama administration prepares to unveil an overhaul of the nation's financial regulatory apparatus. "It will propose that many kinds of derivatives and other exotic financial instruments that contributed to the crisis be traded on exchanges or through clearinghouses so they are more transparent and can be more tightly regulated. And to protect consumers, it will call for federal standards for mortgage lenders beyond what the Federal Reserve adopted last year, as well as more aggressive enforcement of the mortgage rules."

Whatever malarkey you hear from the GOP about "creeping socialism" over the next few weeks, keep in mind that no less a Republican than Teddy Roosevelt deemed this sort of solution -- accountability, transparency, tighter oversight of the financial sector by the federal government -- the "New Nationalism" a century ago. In this arena, at least, President Obama clearly seems to be living up to his Progressive promise.

Update: "'Our system failed in basic fundamental ways,' Geithner told the committee. 'Compensation practices rewarded short-term profits over long-term returns. Pervasive failures in consumer protection left many Americans with obligations they did not understand and could not sustain. The huge apparent returns to financial activity attracted fraud on a dramatic scale..,To address this will require comprehensive reform. Not modest repairs at the margin, but new rules of the game. And the new rules must be simpler and more effectively enforced.'" Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner unveils the new regulatory package. [Highlights.] "He said financial products and institutions should be regulated according to their economic function and the risks they pose, not their legal form. 'We can't allow institutions to cherry-pick among competing regulators and shift risk to where it faces the lowest standards and weakest constraints,' he told the committee."

"We have begun the essential work of keeping the American Dream alive in our time. Now, I don't want to pretend that today marks the end of our economic problems. Nor does it constitute all of what we're going to have to do to turn our economy around. But today does mark the beginning of the end...The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that I will sign today -- a plan that meets the principles I laid out in January -- is the most sweeping economic recovery package in our history." Back in Denver for the day, President Obama signs the ARRA economic stimulus bill into law. [Remarks.] "'We have done more in 30 days to advance the cause of health-care reform than this country has done in an entire decade,' Obama said, prompting a standing ovation."

As with the initial versions, the final bill passed without a single GOP vote in the House and only three Republicans -- Snowe, Collins, Specter -- in the Senate. Y'know, it's bad enough that these situationally-ethical jokers stand in the way of what obviously needs to be done to get our economy moving again. (I don't remember any calls for spending restraint, or any worries about pork, in the flush times when Boss DeLay was running the show, or when both Reagan and Dubya were ratcheting up the deficit to all hell.) But, it offends the senses to have to listen to the aggressively stupid talking points Republicans tend to trot out these days. For example, the party's new leader, Michael Steele: "Not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job." (The armed services notwithstanding, who does he think the runs the government? Elves? Hey, Mr. Steele, look down -- we call those roads.) Or consider South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint: "This is not a stimulus bill. It's just a spending bill." Econ 101: A stimulus bill is a spending bill. (They do in fact teach this in SC -- I can attest to it.)

Worse still, the national newsmedia has been failing miserably in their coverage of the stimulus battle, by continually enabling these Republicans to spout their inanities without comment. It reminds me of Paul Begala's "Neil Armstrong Principle," which I heard him break down on Charlie Rose a few months back: "If John McCain and Sarah Palin were to say the moon was made of green cheese, we can be certain that Barack Obama and Joe Biden would pounce on it, and point out it's actually made of rock. And you just know the headline in the paper the next day would read: 'CANDIDATES CLASH ON LUNAR LANDSCAPE.'" Too true.

Well, at least the durned thing passed. I'm sure the bill has its problems, not the least that it was transformed and watered down in an attempt to placate a bunch of Republicans who were never in a million years going to vote for it anyway. Perhaps, when we move forward now, we can focus on writing good policy that will get this economy and our country moving again, rather than catering to the whims of the naysayers, political opportunists, and/or flat-earth morons that comprise today's GOP.

"Marijuana is California's largest cash crop. It's valued at $14 billion annually, or nearly twice the value of the state's grape and vegetable crops combined, according to government statistics...But the state doesn't receive any revenue from its cash cow. Instead, it spends billions of dollars enforcing laws pegged at shutting down the industry and inhibiting marijuana's adherents." Also in Slate: In the wake of California's money troubles, Daniel Gross makes the economic case for marijuana decriminalization.

"So what are the numbers? A national legalization effort would save nearly $13 billion annually in enforcement costs and bring in $7 billion in yearly tax revenues, according to a study by Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron...That doesn't include any indirect revenues as, for example, rural farming communities grow or marijuana tourism, which has been lucrative for the Netherlands, takes off."

The obvious economic benefits aside, it's well nigh time to establish a sane drug policy in this country. And weed in particular is an easy call. We haven't had a drug-free American president since 1992 (at best), and yet we still pretend that a goofball like Michael Phelps ripping bong hits is some sort of egregious sin? Time to grow up, people.

"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country." Happy 200th, Mr. President.

"Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened." Judiciary Committee chairman Senator Patrick Leahy calls for a "truth commission" to investigate Dubya-era abuses. "'We need to be able to read the page before we turn the page,' Leahy said. 'We need to come to a shared understanding of the failures of the recent past." Ok, sounds grand...but perhaps we should stop perpetuating those abuses while we're at it.

"Eric Holder's Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same." Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? The Obama administration and Holder Justice Dept. uphold Dubya's dubious use of a "state secrets" privilege to put the kibosh on a lawsuit put forward by five men "extraordinarily rendered" by the CIA.

See also a livid Glenn Greenwald for the details: "The entire claim of 'state secrets' in this case is based on two sworn Declarations from CIA Director Michael Hayden -- one public and one filed secretly with the court. In them, Hayden argues that courts cannot adjudicate this case because to do so would be to disclose and thus degrade key CIA programs of rendition and interrogation -- the very policies which Obama, in his first week in office, ordered shall no longer exist. How, then, could continuation of this case possibly jeopardize national security when the rendition and interrogation practices which gave rise to these lawsuits are the very ones that the U.S. Government, under the new administration, claims to have banned?"

Update: Sensing the likely blowback, one presumes, the Justice Dept. announces it'll be reviewing Dubya's "state secrets" claims in due course. "It's vital that we protect information that if released could jeopardize national security, but the Justice Department will ensure the privilege is not invoked to hide from the American people information about their government's actions that they have a right to know." So apparently, the ugly details of our now-defunct(?) extraordinary rendition policy aren't among the actions we should have any clue about. Ugh...this one definitely goes in the Carcetti file.

Here's one to grow on: If you're looking to represent the little people by taking on a cabinet position in our nation's government, please deign to pay the taxes you owe on your chauffeurs, nannies, sinecures, and assorted other luxuries. Thanks much.

Also, for what it's worth, I guess it's possible that Tom Daschle was really God's Gift to Health Care Reform, as he was recently made out to be when his nomination tanked. (His ideas seem solid, but, his book aside, we didn't see that much of that side of him when he was Harry Reid 1.0 for years and years.) But I think it's just as likely that his strong lobbyist ties would've made him ineffectual in the post, and the Daschle-friendly administration -- a lot of candidate Obama's core people were Daschle hand-me-downs -- wouldn't ever have been able to cut him loose. So, all the recent teeth-gnashing aside, this might very well have been a blessing in disguise.

Here's another very good reason why it's time to stop catering to conservatives in Washington: As anticipated by Dubya's approval rating circa 2005, America -- notwithstanding Mormon country -- seems to have given up completely on the GOP. "The results, depicted in the map above, show that only five states have a statistically significant majority of voters who identify themselves as Republicans." Five states...the Federalists and the Whigs had a better showing than that.

"'There will be people in districts all over the country that will wonder why, when there's a good bill to get the economy moving again, we still seem to be playing political gotcha,' White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in an interview." Well, so much for the post-partisan era. Despite several attempts at across-the-aisle diplomacy by the new administration, the House passes President Obama's stimulus bill 244-188 without a single Republican vote. Sigh.

Perhaps a little history lesson is in order. Journey with me, if you will, back to 1993, the last time a new Democratic president tried to work with this same crew of jokers on a new, recession-busting economic plan. As you may remember, Clinton's 1993 budget also passed the House and Senate without a single GOP vote. Let's see what the Republicans had to say back then (courtesy of some old, off-line research of mine):

Dick Armey (who, btw, made an embarrassment of himself on national television last night): "This bill would grow the Government...shrink the economy" and "will mean fewer jobs for ordinary Americans." [Congressional Record, 8/5/93]

Newt Gingrich: The bill will "kill jobs and lead to a recession" that would "force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." [Houston Chronicle, 8/7/93, 1993; AJC, 8/6/93]

Bob Dole: The bill "would take America in the wrong direction." [WP, 8/4/93]

Ronald Reagan (yes, they wheeled him out with talking points): The bill will "only cause the deficit to increase and will likely wreck any hopes for economic recovery." [“Just Say No to Clinton’s Package,” NYT op-ed, 8/3/93]

Rush Limbaugh: True to form, the GOP's poster boy bet the DNC $1 million on the air that three of the following five things would happen by 1996: 1. The deficit would grow. 2. Unemployment would rise. 3. Inflation would swell. 4. Interest rates would surge. 5. The President's approval rating would fall below 45 percent. [ James McTague, “Off to the Races,” Barron’s, 3/18/96]

Well, I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the untold economic devastation that was the remainder of the Clinton years. (If you're keeping score, Rush went 0-for-5, and never paid up.) As it turns out, just as with Boehner this time around, the GOP had decided beforehand they weren't going to vote for any Clinton bill. As Bob Woodward notes in The Agenda (p. 109), Dole told Clinton this three weeks before the bill was even proposed.

Then as now, the modern Republican party doesn't seem to understand the first thing about basic economics (their right-wing dogma precludes any grasp of Keynesianism, I guess.) They don't seem to "get" rudimentary American history. (I've seen so many dumb things written about Herbert Hoover and the 1937 "Roosevelt recession" -- which was caused by spending cuts and fiscal retrenchment by the FDR admininstration, not "over-regulation" -- by right-wingers of late that it's hard to even know where to begin.)They don't seem to understand basic politics. (The American people have obviously voted for action, and a path away from Dubyanomics. Getting in the way of this bill won't "reboot" their party in any way, shape, or form.) At this point, it's an open question whether they can distinguish their asses from their elbows.

So...can we please stop spoon-feeding these guys now? The GOP has proven yet again that they're not looking to play ball. If they want to be on the wrong side of the problem as usual, let them. It's useless to spend any more time bending over backwards to accommodate their lousy, discredited ideas and inchoate, faith-based economic beliefs. It's time to move on.

Ron Howard's version of Peter Morgan's Frost/Nixon, the first of many 2008 prestige films I caught over this past weekend, is a solid two hours of decently diverting edutainment. It's not an earth-shattering, must-see film or anything, and Morgan (and Michael Sheen)'s last recent "mini-history," The Queen, is ultimately a more memorable moviegoing experience. Still, Ron Howard's film has its merits. It's much better about opening the space and feeling less play-like than John Patrick Shanley's recent reimagining of Doubt. And it has considerably less of the dry, "Will this be on the test?" feel of much of Bryan Singer's Valkyrie, which sometimes seemed designed as a go-to staple for high school history teachers feeling under the weather. Throw in two highly watchable performances by the main sparrers in this tale, Frank Langella and Michael Sheen as Nixon and Frost respectively, and some scene-stealing buffoonery by Oliver Platt and Sam Rockwell in the margins (Think Rosencrantz/Guildenstern), and you've got a keeper here with Frost/Nixon. And, fwiw, it's probably Howard's best film since Apollo 13, perhaps ever.

As you might expect, the movie begins with a brief recap of the Watergate crisis, culminating in the memorable departure of Richard Nixon (Langella, beady-eyed and furtive) from the White House grounds on August 9, 1974. And, while the mid-Seventies unwind, Nixon licks his wounds, and Rocky Balboa trains on the stairs of the Philadelphia Museum of Art for his one shot at Apollo Creed, another challenger -- this time from across the pond -- begins his own preparations for taking on the champ. In this case, the challenger is David Frost (Sheen), a talk show host and television personality whose American show failed in syndication and who has since been relegated to covering stupid-human-tricks Down Under. Hungry to get back into the Stateside game, Frost sees immediate opportunity in a series of interviews with Nixon, and, by dint of sheer ambition, manages to rope in his BBC producer friend (Matthew MacFadyen of Pride and Prejudice), two down-and-out researchers (Platt and Rockwell), and a leggy brunette he meets on the plane (Rebecca Hall of The Prestige and Vicky Christina Barcelona) into his audacious proposal.

At first, it seems, Frost is in luck. When not dying a slow death on the lecture circuit, the former president has been languishing in San Clemente, and he and his handlers (most notably Kevin Bacon) have been looking for a way to get back in the game themselves. So after Nixon's agent (Toby Jones) extracts from Frost a price the television "performer" can't really afford, and it is deemed by all involved that Frost is a certifiable lightweight, who can be molded as needed to fit the president's new media strategy, the interviews are agreed upon. In the early rounds -- and rounds they are, with points scored, corner men, sweat towels (no 1960 redux for Nixon this time) and the like -- everything proceeds according to plan, with Nixon pontificating presidentially and Frost (and his increasingly exasperated researchers) completely hemmed in. Will this spirited but out-of-his-depth newsman manage to break out of the corner and land a few punishing blows himself? I dunno, but we'll definitely need a montage...

To be honest, I don't think Frost/Nixon ever really succeeds in selling us on the purported importance of the Frost interviews. Granted, I'm too young to remember how they played at the time -- I was sorta more focused on Electric Company and Star Wars right around then. But for all the talk of much-needed national catharsis throughout the film, the world-historical stakes here seem rather small. Coming after all the investigations into the break-in and subsequent cover-up, the congressional hearings on Watergate, the ultimate resignation of the president, and the pardon by Ford, it's hard to see these 1977 talks as much more than a coda to the main event. And, while Langella is exemplary as the 37th president and definitely deserves his recent Oscar nod, I actually think Oliver Stone's Nixon did a better job of humanizing Tricky Dick and animating his demons. (In fact, there's a midnight drunk-dialing episode here in Frost/Nixon (an obviously fabricated event) which wouldn't seem out of place in Stone's film.)

Still, once you move past its historical pretensions and realize that, for all intent and purposes, Frost/Nixon is basically just the political debater's version of a boxing movie, there's still some good fun to be had here. And, hey, he may now seem like a piker when compared to the intelligence-falsifying, torture-happy shenanigans of 43 -- can we expect Lauer/Dubya just around the corner? -- but at least we'll always have Nixon to kick around some more.

Update: David Frost, Michael Sheen, and others talk about the film here.

"It is precisely our ideals which give us the strength and moral high ground to deal with the unthinking violence that we see emanating from terrorism organizations around the world...We are going to win this fight, we are going to win it on our terms." As hinted soon after the election, it's finally on its way out: One day after putting a hold on all Gitmo tribunals, the president orders the closing of the national embarrassment at Guantanamo within the year.

"[T]he orders [also] bring to an end a Central Intelligence Agency program that kept terrorism suspects in secret custody for months or years, a practice that has brought fierce criticism from foreign governments and human rights activists. They will also prohibit the C.I.A. from using coercive interrogation methods, requiring the agency to follow the same rules used by the military in interrogating terrorism suspects, government officials said."

And there was much rejoicing! We can all breathe a little easier and stand a little taller now that America is actually starting to act like America again. (And, trust me, I won't shed any tears over dropping the gulag and torture news category here at GitM.)

Btw, the "new sheriff in town" pic above is via The Big Picture's very worthwhile inaugural collection, as seen at Webgoddess.

"'We are here as public servants, and public service is a privilege,' Obama said, addressing his White House staff and Cabinet on his first full day in office. 'It’s not about advancing yourself or your corporate clients.'" Also part of President Obama's very solid first day: An executive order kicking out the lobbyists and imposing a gift ban on White House employees. "'We need to close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely and lets them use their time in public service” to promote their own interests when they leave, the president said." [Official Order.]

And, in another welcome executive order, the new President also overturned Dubya's secrecy rules with regards to presidential records, thus making life much easier for historians in the future. "[E]very agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known.” (This also means Pres. Obama only has nine more left to overturn on Dubya's worst ten.)

"So many of you have been with me in the happiest days and the hardest days. Together we have known success and seen setbacks, victory and defeat. But we have never lost our belief that we are all called to a better country and a newer world. And I pledge to you -- I pledge to you that I will be there next January on the floor of the United States Senate when we begin the great test." You made it, Teddy. Here's hoping the news concerning Senator Kennedy coming out of the Capitol right now isn't as dire as it sounds.

Update: CNN is reporting that Senator Byrd, who also left the event for medical reasons, is ok.

Update 2: He's ok. "'After testing, we believe the incident was brought on by simple fatigue,' Dr. Edward Aulisi, chairman of neurosurgery at Washington Hospital Center said in a statement released by the senator's office. 'He will remain ... overnight for observation, and will be released in the morning.'"

"Change has come to WhiteHouse.gov...Millions of Americans have powered President Obama's journey to the White House, many taking advantage of the internet to play a role in shaping our country's future. WhiteHouse.gov is just the beginning of the new administration's efforts to expand and deepen this online engagement. Just like your new government, WhiteHouse.gov and the rest of the Administration's online programs will put citizens first." Happily and quite impressively, the White House website gets Obamaifed.

All in all, I thought this was a great speech, both in its reaffirming of the real challenges ahead and its calm, resolute, and determined temper. And, with its emphases on virtue, history, commonality, and citzenship, this was as progressive-minded an inaugural as I could have ever hoped for. It's early yet. But, so far, 44 has lived up to his progressive potential, and then some.

In any case, now the real work begins. Make us proud, Mr. President. The world is watching.

Not to be the skeleton at the feast during this cheery festival of bipartisanship, but I seriously doubt I was the only person out there who saw EX(!)-veep Cheney wheeled out this morning and thought of this. Sorry, Dick: Bedford Falls needed a change, and it's George Bailey's time now.

Update: "The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? The bums will always lose!" TNR's Jonathan Chait finds another apt analogy in Jeffrey "Big" Lebowski.

Get yer agitprop on: By way of DCoE (and with a tip of the hat to Shepherd Fairey), Paste Magazine gives you the chance to make your own "Obamacon" posters. I could waste a lot of time with this.

Well, y'all, we made it. After eight long, damaging years, we've finally passed through the tunnel of Dubya. And in ten hours or so, we can finally begin the real work of restoring our nation and its place in the world.

It's a good day for a change.

"'I'm here tonight to say a few words about an American hero I have come to know very well and admire very much -- Sen. John McCain. And then, according to the rules agreed to by both parties, John will have approximately 30 seconds to make a rebuttal.'" Now here's a prez worth hugging...On the eve of his inauguration, Sen. Obama publicly makes nice with his former adversary, John McCain.

And, apparently it's not just for show: According to the NYT, the president-elect has been trying to forge a bond with McCain (and his No. 2, Lindsey Graham) since soon after the election. "Mr. Obama arrived for their Chicago meeting on Nov. 16 with several well-researched proposals to collaborate on involving some of Mr. McCain’s favorite causes, including a commission to cut 'corporate welfare,' curbing waste in military procurement and an overhaul of immigration rules."

Hey, rapprochement is good, bipartisanship is good. And working Senators McCain and Graham (and, I'd presume Maine's moderates, Snowe and Collins) is simply smart politics. Still, when push inevitably comes to shove on Iraq, health care, and a host of other issues, hopefully the president-elect will remember to dance with who brung him.

"Waterboarding is torture." True story. In his confirmation hearings before the Senate, Obama's nominee for Attorney General, Eric Holder, states the obvious. Then again, it's been several years since the obvious had a seat anywhere near the table at OAG, so this is cause for rejoicing. As Sen. Dick Durbin put it, ""In three words, the world changed."

"This evening, my thoughts return to the first night I addressed you from this house - Sept. 11, 2001." Now, there's a surprise. To be honest, there's not much to be said about Dubya's dismal farewell speech last night, which had been touted earlier in the week as potentially something interesting. [Transcript.] Rather than go the statesman route a la Eisenhower, Dubya chose to spend his last few moments with the nation's ear dispensing trite, self-serving, and patently idiotic bromides about the world that will do nothing to alter his status in history as one of our worst presidents, if not the worst president, to-date.

I hope to spend very little blog-time in the future attempting to parse the immature, inchoate worldview of this soon-to-be ex-president. But, for example: "When people live in freedom, they do not willingly choose leaders who pursue campaigns of terror." Uh, they don't? (No, then it's called regime change. [rimshot].)

By the way, was America not "free" in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, or were Andrew Jackson, John C. Calhoun, and other duly-elected architects of ugly institutions like indian removal and slavery all just part of ye old axis of iniquitye? Now, put your keyboards down, crazy right-wing Freeper-types. (How'd you end up here anyway?) I'm not arguing that the U.S. is evil -- I love America (I just hate flag pins.) But I am arguing that it's never been satisfactorily proven by world events that ostensibly freedom-loving people aren't capable of horrible atrocities from time to time.

This is the same ridiculous note Dubya struck constantly in his second inaugural ("Freedom, yeah!"), and it still rings false. When people live in freedom, they can willingly choose anything they want, including paths and policies deeply at odds with the direction we -- or even common humanity -- might want them to go. News flash: Dubya's windbreaker-clad nemesis, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is -- along with being a certifiable, Holocaust-denying nutjob -- the freely-elected president of Iran. So let's stop pretending that the introduction (or imposition by force) of a western-style democracy to a region is a sudden and immediate cure-all for that area's problems. Even after eight years in the world's most powerful office, Dubya once again showed us last night that he harbors the black-and-white, absolutist worldview of a child...or an ex-alcoholic. Good riddance.

Update: See also DYFL on this Dubya chestnut last night: "Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere. Um, yeah.

Speaking of those ostensibly terror-despising free peoples, I haven't written here on the depressing situation in Gaza, but friend and colleague Liam of sententiae et clamores concisely and elegantly summed up my basic sentiment toward recent events the other day: "it seems that almost all the discussion and reporting on the issue is one-sided and simplistic. Let me state my position: I am pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, anti-Hamas and against current Israeli policy. I oppose what the Israeli government is doing now in the same way I opposed my own government's war against Iraq: not only is it immoral, heartless, and cynical, but actually increases the long-term security problems for Israel, much like our invasion of Iraq has weakened our own security situation."

Given what little I know about what's going on, that's basically my view of it as well. On the one hand, Israel is responding to an untenable security situation -- Hamas rockets being fired into neighborhoods and cities -- that we wouldn't tolerate for a second. (In fact, we invaded Iraq on a much flimsier security pretext.) Still, it's hard to shake the feeling that Israel is trying to run the table right here right now, in the twilight moments of the Dubya presidency, because they know they have carte blanche from 43 to do what they will. And I suspect this particular neocon-run advance, like all the rest of 'em in recent years, is doomed to failure -- if anything, I'd wager, it's just swelling the ranks (and the coffers) of Hamas.

Regardless, the Obama administration and Secretary of State Clinton are going to have their work cut out for them. I'm not one who believes particularly that conflicts with roots in millennia-long religious strife can get "solved" in one or two US presidential terms. But let's at least hope, under their watch, we can start to achieve the type of broader range of discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that you can find in...say, Israel. It's both embarrassing and extremely counterproductive for our nation to be seen -- and to continually be used -- as a knee-jerk diplomatic dupe that will always blindly support policies initiated by the most conservative factions in Israeli politics.

Two recent and choice Columbia-related links by way of Ted at The Late Adopter:

"Lincoln is important to us not because of his melancholia or how he chose his cabinet but because of his role in the vast human drama of emancipation and what his life tells us about slavery's enduring legacy...In the wake of the 2008 election and on the eve of an inaugural address with 'a new birth of freedom,' a phrase borrowed from the Gettysburg Address, as its theme, the Lincoln we should remember is the politician whose greatness lay in his capacity for growth." In The Nation and on the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth, Eric Foner evaluates the continuing legacy of the 16th president.

"Economic orthodoxy -- which gave high priority to balanced budgets and fiscal restraint -- remained a powerful force in the 1930s, even as its limitations became increasingly obvious. Similar arguments can still be heard today...The New Deal was least successful when it was least aggressive--when it let concerns about fiscal prudence override the urgent need to pump enormous sums of money into a moribund economy." And, over in TNR, Alan Brinkley notes what the Obama administration can learn from the New Deal.

Update: "Most Americans, I suspect, if asked whether they would prefer a president with strong principles or one who prefers pragmatic politics, would choose an idealist over a realist in a flash. But almost all successful politicians combine principle with pragmatism constantly." In a TNR piece that ties the two above together quite well, Prof. Brinkley speculates on the fatal flaw in Dubya's make-up: certitude. "For whatever reasons...Bush has seemed to be comfortable only when he could make quick and firm decisions, however complicated the issue, and then move on. Admitting mistakes or changing course seems almost contrary to his nature."

"The Republican Party’s suit was clearly prompted by its troubles in the 2008 election, in which Mr. Obama proved far more adept at fund-raising than John McCain. It is disturbing that the R.N.C. sees its salvation in clearing the way for corporations and other special interests to flood its campaign coffers once again."

I missed this when it first went down, but the NYT just apprised me of it: On the verge of electoral oblivion -- the retirements of Sens. Martinez, Brownback, Bond and Voinovich don't help -- the Republicans have filed two lawsuits aimed at overturning McCain-Feingold, apparently in the hope that they could then feasibly prostitute themselves back into power. (Feingold's response.)

"In 2003, in McConnell v. F.E.C., the justices upheld the precise provisions the Republicans are now challenging...The McConnell decision should end the matter. But the R.N.C. seems to be hoping that because of changes in the court -- in particular, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s replacement by Samuel Alito -- it can persuade the court to undo this recent and important precedent." Hmm. I've got a bad feeling about this.

"I have often said that history will look back and determine that which could have been done better, or, you know, mistakes I made. Clearly putting a 'Mission Accomplished' on a aircraft carrier was a mistake. It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently, but nevertheless, it conveyed a different message. Obviously, some of my rhetoric has been a mistake. I've thought long and hard about Katrina -- you know, could I have done something differently..."

After eight long years, the end is in sight, and the Idiot Wind is at long last subsiding. For the 43rd president of these United States, George Dubya Bush, gave his final press conference today, during which he finally conceded that "there have been disappointments." Why, yes, yes, there have. "Abu Ghraib obviously was a huge disappointment during the presidency. Not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment. I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but they were -- things didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way." Um, yeah.

At any rate, don't worry: I'm sure we'll be getting one last round of 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 before closing time, when Dubya delivers his "farewell address" on Thursday. One can only hope that it turns out to be Eisenhoweresque, and not one more final, futile attempt to rewrite the history books. But I'm not keeping my fingers crossed.

"What’s interesting about the Madoff scandal, in retrospect, is how little interest anyone inside the financial system had in exposing it...OUR financial catastrophe, like Bernard Madoff’s pyramid scheme, required all sorts of important, plugged-in people to sacrifice our collective long-term interests for short-term gain. The pressure to do this in today’s financial markets is immense. Obviously the greater the market pressure to excel in the short term, the greater the need for pressure from outside the market to consider the longer term. But that’s the problem: there is no longer any serious pressure from outside the market."

In an extended NYT editorial, authors Michael Lewis and David Einhorn survey recent economic developments with an eye to the broader problem: a financial institutional culture that fosters and legitimates idiotic amounts of risk. "The fixable problem isn’t the greed of the few but the misaligned interests of the many...The tyranny of the short term has extended itself with frightening ease into the entities that were meant to, one way or another, discipline Wall Street, and force it to consider its enlightened self-interest."

Among the culprits in Lewis and Einhorn's worthwhile dissection: the credit rating agencies. "In pursuit of their own short-term earnings, they did exactly the opposite of what they were meant to do: rather than expose financial risk they systematically disguised it. " See also: the S.E.C. "Created to protect investors from financial predators, the commission has somehow evolved into a mechanism for protecting financial predators with political clout from investors...And here’s the most incredible thing of all: 18 months into the most spectacular man-made financial calamity in modern experience, nothing has been done to change that, or any of the other bad incentives that led us here in the first place."

It's not all doom, gloom, and (highly justified) finger-pointing. In part two of the editorial, Lewis and Einhorn offer some quick fixes to our current institutional myopia that should be relatively simple to put through...in a perfect world. "The funny thing is, there’s nothing all that radical about most of these changes. A disinterested person would probably wonder why many of them had not been made long ago. A committee of people whose financial interests are somehow bound up with Wall Street is a different matter."

In the latest round of pre-inaugural musical chairs, Virginia governor Tim Kaine is new head of the DNC, former Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta is in at CIA...

...and Governor Bill Richardson is out at Commerce. "'Given the gravity of the economic situation the nation is facing,' the governor said, 'I could not in good conscience ask the president-elect to delay for one day the important work that needs to be done.'" [Official Statements.] Um, ok...but how has the situation on the ground changed in the past month or so? It doesn't seem like this investigation into a possible pay-to-play deal in New Mexico snuck up on anyone, and, at least according to Mother Jones, Richardson may have a history of this potentially sordid behavior. One would think Gov. Richardson could have rejected the offer of Commerce when it was first presented to him, not so very long ago.

At any rate, with Richardson now looking suspect, that means two of our 2008 Dem Final Four -- the other, of course, being John Edwards -- were harboring potential general-election-killing scandals that they didn't see fit to tell anyone about. (That number rises to two and a half if you count the recent brouhaha involving developer Robert Congel and the Clinton foundation, but that one sounds iffier to me, in part because Congel donated money well after the potential favors were bestowed.) Really, what's wrong with these people? Is it too much to ask that these so-called statesmen take their own shadiness into account before playing dice with our future?

Well, one would hope this and Blagojevich's recent antics will further press on our party the need for comprehensive lobbying, ethics, and campaign finance reform, and soon. These may be state-level scandals, but they're also indicators of a broken system that's awash in -- and often only responds to -- money. And, now that we'll soon be running both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. again, the last thing we need is to follow the GOP down their low road of avarice and ignominy.

With the recount winding down and enraged Republicans frothing up -- where was this outrage in Dade County eight years ago? -- it seems that Democrat Al Franken is up by 225 votes, and is likely slated to be the next Senator from Minnesota. Several potential legal challenges remain in the arsenal of Republican Norm Coleman (who also happens to be trying to fend off an FBI bribery investigation at the moment), but apparently it's hard to see any outcome from these proceedings that will avail him the needed margin of victory.

So, Franken it is, then. Great, another Dem in the Senate is always excellent news. That being said, perhaps we should view recent events in Minnesota as the umpteenth wake-up call for this country to get its voting infrastructure in order? If I go take out a hundred bucks from an ATM at the local 7-11, I never have to wait in line for hours. The record of my transaction never goes missing, get displaced, or ends up being double-counted. I've got a paper trail of the withdrawal, and my bank and/or creditors in their faraway lands know the score immediately -- there's no waiting two months to tally up my recent expenditures. Truly, this is an Age of Wonders.

While taking into account some system of anonymity that will maintain the secret ballot, perhaps we can find a way to apply this magical 21st-century technology to the voting process? Heck, at this point I'll settle for applying 20th century tech to the problem.

"I always let the other fellow have my way." Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-RI), 1918-2009. "[H]e was best known for his sponsorship of the 1972 program that has helped 54 million low-income and moderate-income students attend college. He also sponsored the legislation that founded the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities."

So I take it y'all have been following the recent outrage in Empire State politics: A woman who's never held any kind of elected office but happens to have a big, important surname just up and decides she'd like to be the Senator from New York. To accommodate this sudden quasi-royal prerogative, other deserving candidates in the Democratic party are completely shunted aside, including some who've spent their entire careers in public service. And, here's the real kicker: At the end of the day, despite having very little to show for her legislative career, this well-named woman is for some reason made Secretary of State.

Ok, I'm partly kidding. Nonetheless, I find the recent furor over Caroline Kennedy's possible two-year appointment to the New York Senate to be a bit willfully obtuse about both recent events and the former occupants of that Senate seat. Even the obvious Clinton analogy notwithstanding, lest we forget: Longtime Massachusetts resident Bobby Kennedy was only tangentially qualified for a New York Senate seat in 1964, and even his brother Teddy was basically appointed the first time 'round. And, besides, if Clinton's perch doesn't go to Mrs. Kennedy, who then is waiting in the wings? Well, most likely, Andrew Cuomo. A real bootstrapper, that one.

Don't get me wrong: In principle, I'm dead set against the idea of Senate seats being doled out on the basis of familial connections. It's an ugly, monarchical habit, and if the seat ends up going to a relatively unknown pol who's paid their dues (a la Nita Lowey, who got pushed out for Clinton in 2000), all the better. Still, I'm inclined to think charitably of Caroline Kennedy for several reasons other than her name and historic lineage: her early advocacy of Sen. Obama and the good work she's done for my sister's organization over the years, to name just two. And, if Gov. Patterson were to end up choosing her...well, ok. I can think of more egregious injustices in this world. To watch the TNR gang throw an extended fit about it, or read Salon hackmeister Joan Walsh (who, by the way, penned an extraordinarily self-serving 2008 retrospective this past week) put down her Clinton pom-poms for a second to tsk-tsk the Kennedy "celebrity" candidacy is, in a word, irritating.

It took awhile to get here, but Gus Van Sant's timely and vibrant biopic Milk, which I caught on Christmas day, is well worth the wait. In a year that witnessed a former community organizer take his message of hope all the way to the White House, and saw a majority of Californians vote for legislating and invalidating their neighbors' marriages (my favorite pin: "Can we vote on your marriage now?"), Milk couldn't feel any more of the moment. (If anything, I wish Milk had come out before the Prop 8 vote, when it might've done some good.) Arguably the best film about the realities of politics since Charlie Wilson's War, Milk is blessed with excellent performances across the board -- most notably Sean Penn, James Franco, and Josh Brolin, but also supporting turns by Emile Hirsch, Alison Pill, and others. And as a chronicle of a key moment in an ongoing civil rights struggle, Milk also feels like a watershed film of its own in its approach to its gay and lesbian characters. In short, it's one of the best films of 2008.

"My name is Harvey Milk, and I want to recruit you." So began the oft-repeated speel of the San Francisco city supervisor and "Mayor of Castro Street," who, in 1977 and after several attempts, became the first openly gay official elected to office in the US. But, seven years before those heady days, Milk (Sean Penn) was just a 40-year-old insurance man (and Republican, even), living a closeted life of quiet desperation in NYC. After a chance encounter and illicit proposition becomes an impromptu birthday party, Milk and new beau Scott Smith (James Franco) fall in love, talk about starting over, and decide to go West. Life is peaceful there...or is it? Even as Milk's camera shop in the gay-friendly Castro district becomes a salon of artists, thinkers, and free spirits, bigotry is rampant even in the streets of San Francisco, and the cops at best turn a blind eye to -- and at worst actively participate in -- antigay violence. No more, says Milk. Taking a page from the ethnic political machines of an earlier century, he organizes Castro's gays and lesbians into first a protest movement and then an organized voting and boycotting bloc. And when a redistricting plan emphasizing community self-rule in San Francisco is put into effect, Milk becomes an actual, legitimate political wheeler-and-dealer, with all the benefits and aggravations attending. (For more on the man and the movement, see the 1984 documentary The Times of Harvey Milk, now on Hulu for free.)

But, even as Harvey Milk rises to power in San Fran, a parallel movement stirs amid the churches and suburbs of Orange County. Led by former beauty queen, singer, and orange juice shiller Anita Bryant, the ever-so-Christian "Save Our Children" campaign gathers steam across the nation in its quest to roll back what meager protections gays and lesbians have managed to establish over the years. And when conservative state senator John Briggs (Denis O'Hare, seemingly forever destined to play assholes) brings the fight west in the form of Proposition 6, an initiative that would ban gays and lesbians from public schools, the battle for California is on. And even as Milk becomes the poster boy against Prop 6 and for recognizing gays and lesbians as full citizens and fellow human beings, he has to contend with trouble on the homefront -- not only in his personal life (his new boyfriend Jack (Diego Luna) is more than a little erratic) but in his political backyard, where supervisor Dan White (Josh Brolin), from the Catholic, working-class district next door, is starting to act increasingly unstable. (But, I guess this is what happens when society is so permissive as to let a man get all hopped up on twinkies.)

Which reminds me: A word of appreciation for Josh Brolin's work here. Sean Penn is garnering kudos across the board, and a likely Oscar nod, for his portrayal of Milk, and they're very well-deserved. It's really an astonishing transformation Penn accomplishes here -- not so much because he's playing someone who's gay (homosexual), but because he's playing someone who's gay (happy).This is the same guy who sulked through Mystic River?) And, while Brolin will likely -- and, imho, justifiably in the end -- get edged out for Best Supporting Actor by Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight, his work here suggests he's got some serious chops. At first it seems as if Brolin will just be coasting on his recent Dubya impression -- another good-natured, hard-hearted conservative fratboy for the resume. Then, just as you think Brolin's endangering himself in terms of typecasting, it's suggested Dan White might also be a deeply repressed closet case. (I tend to find the argument that all frothing-at-the-mouth homophobes are in reality trapped in the closet to be too simplistic by half, but apparently there's some grounding for it in White's story. In any case, Brolin underplays it beautifully ) As Milk progresses, we begin to sense other reasons why White is such a strange and ultimately homicidal bird -- he's envious of Harvey, he feels personally screwed over by him, he's something of a friendless wonder, he's not the brightest bulb on the tree anyway, he feels trapped by, and powerless before, the authority figures in his life (his wife, his cop buddies, his church). Brolin lets all of this play out without tipping his hand in any one direction. It's a subtle, complex, and very worthwhile performance, and it's a testament to the film's heart that it extends such empathy even to its ostensible antagonist.

Speaking of empathy, this isn't at all a surprise coming from Gus Van Sant, always a very humanistic director, but it should be noted regardless: When it comes to full recognition of gays and lesbians, Milk laudably practices what it preaches. Jonathan Demme's Philadelphia was good for its time, but nowadays (it's on heavy rotation on AMC) it gives off a distinctly Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? vibe. And, as I said when it came out, Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain often seemed "as somber, restrained, and delicate as Kabuki theater." By contrast, the couples of Milk are passionate -- both physically and emotionally -- messy, flawed, and alive. Of course, there have been other well-rounded depictions of gays and lesbians in film in the past -- in Van Sant's earlier work, in the films of other gay directors like Todd Haynes, John Cameron Mitchell, and Kimberly Peirce, and in countless others. Still, Milk feels like an event of sorts. Unlike many of its forebears, it's a mainstream Oscar-caliber movie that just takes its characters' sexuality at face value and without apology. In that sense, it feels like a film whose time has come.

I said earlier that Dan White was ostensibly the villain of Milk, but that's not entirely true. Rather, to its credit, the film is pretty bold about pointing the finger where the trouble really lies: at the conservative-minded legions of organized Christendom -- or at the very least its right-wing, for-profit flank -- who've decided that arbitrarily upholding one proscription mentioned in passing in the Old Testament (shellfish, anyone?), and then ruthlessly enforcing it on the backs of their neighbors and co-workers, is more important than upholding the central tenet of the actual teachings of Jesus: "Love one another." (Along those lines, expect a good bit of "godless liberal Hollywood" bluster from the usual corners if this film gets any Oscar buzz.)

Which brings us to that Wal-Mart of spirituality, Rick Warren, who as you all know will be delivering the invocation at Obama's inauguration this month, and who has said all manner of intemperate things about gays and lesbians (as well as jews, pro-choice voters, and others) in the past, even going so far as to campaign for Prop 8 in California two months ago.

Now, when the Rick Warren pick first came out, I didn't say anything here for two reasons. One was deeply selfish: That was the week I was finishing up my speechwriting app, and it didn't seem like the most opportune time to be too critical of the administration around here at GitM. (In the end, it didn't matter anyway, of course.) More importantly, though, I am -- and still partly remain -- of the mind that the bigger picture needs to be kept in mind here. If it keeps the right-wing fundies relatively happy and docile, and helps them to buy into the notion of a post-partisan Obama presidency, then Rick Warren can give all the one minute ceremonial speeches he wants, so long as Obama ultimately shows himself a friend to gay and lesbian rights in his presidential actions.

But, there's a sequence in Milk that brought me around a bit. When Dan White mentions the "issue" of gay rights in one crucial scene, Harvey replies: "These are not issues, Dan. These are our lives we're fighting for." And, put that way, the calculus changes. To straight progressive folk such as myself, one can easily -- too easily -- get to thinking of gay rights as an "issue" among many. But, for gays and lesbians all around the country, this is their lives. And, when considered thusly, the president of these United States -- least of all a president who ran and won on a campaign of hope -- should not be legitimizing bigotry, such as that continuously expressed by Warren without apology, in any kind of forum, let alone the most portentous and culturally significant inauguration in at least fifty years, perhaps ever.

In an eloquent column last week, the NYT's Frank Rich articulated basically where I stand on Obama's decision at this point: His choice of Warren is "no Bay of Pigs. But it does add an asterisk to the joyous inaugural of our first black president. It’s bizarre that Obama, of all people, would allow himself to be on the wrong side of this history." Let's hope that Obama doesn't follow in the footsteps of the last Democratic president, who very quickly started backpedaling on gay rights once in office, vis a vis "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And, while I'm sure he's pretty busy these days, the president-elect (apparently a movie buff of sorts) could do worse than spend a few hours to reflect on the story of another community-organizer who believed in the transformative power of hope, who carried the hopes of his constitutents into higher office...and who faced unflinching and unwavering contempt from an irreconcilable opposition once he got there.

"I think you can be a law-and-order leader and still understand that the criminal justice system as we understand it today is broken, unfair, locking up the wrong people in many cases and not locking up the right person in many cases." In an auspicious sign for 2009, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) announces he'll be taking at stab at criminal justice and prison reform in the coming year. "Webb aims much of his criticism at enforcement efforts that he says too often target low-level drug offenders and parole violators, rather than those who perpetrate violence, such as gang members. He also blames policies that strip felons of citizenship rights and can hinder their chances of finding a job after release."

It sounds like he's on the right track, and bully to Sen. Webb for even taking this issue -- normally not one that brings in the votes -- on. (Let's hope Webb knows his Wire.)

Of course, a lot of headway could be made if we just started taking a saner approach to drugs in this country, i.e. unclogging the justice system of non-violent drug offenders and doing away with mandatory minimums. From there, I hope Sen. Webb sets his sights on the shameful and grotesque private, for-profit prison industry that has sprouted here in America. I for one believe running an unsafe, substandard prison and getting rich by outsourcing your supply of "captive" laborers to corporations that don't want to pay market wages is much more immoral and criminal behavior than getting high in some fashion and being unlucky (and/or black) enough to get caught. And I don't think I'm in the minority in this assessment anymore.