Bitch Slapping the Dems
| Tue May. 19, 2009 3:24 PM PDT
I never expected Barack Obama to be anything other than pragmatic and center left. Still, I confess to feeling a little in the dumps lately over just how much he seems willing to bend and compromise on some key issues. But then I read things like this:
In an abrupt shift, Senate Democratic leaders said on Tuesday that they would not provide the $80 million that President Obama requested to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
....The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, seemed to ramp up the concerns of Congressional Democrats, insisting during a news conference that lawmakers would never allow the terror suspects to be released into the United States....Pressed to explain if that meant they could not be transferred to American prisons, Mr. Reid said: "We don't want is them to be put in prisons in the United States. We don't want them around the United States."
To repeat: I read things like this. And I realize all over again just what Obama is up against. His own party won't support him against even the most transparent and insipid demagoguery coming from the conservative noise machine. The GOP's brain trust isn't offering even a hint of a substantive case that the U.S. Army can't safely keep a few dozen detainees behind bars in a military prison, but Dems are caving anyway. Because they're scared. And then they wonder why voters continue to think that a party that can be bitch slapped so easily might be viewed as weak on national security.
But that's the reality that Obama has to deal with. Under the circumstances, I guess he's not doing so badly after all.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Never underestimate Harry
Submitted by mert7878 (not verified) on Tue May. 19, 2009 3:53 PM PDT.
Never underestimate Harry Reid's spinelessness.
Really, I know a lot of successful politicians at the state level and, without exception, they have all had a strong streak of ruthlessness in them. How the hell did Harry Reid climb the ladder in Nevada -- Nevada!! -- without any at all. Truly mind boggling.
We've long suspected that
Submitted by jonas on Tue May. 19, 2009 4:16 PM PDT.
We've long suspected that Harry Reid is the most spineless and ineffective Democratic majority leader in history and now we have the proof. Some days I wish the Republicans would gin up some sort of scandal around Reid that would finally give Senate Dems a pretext to unload this loser.
The problem isn't Reid...
Submitted by Doug Singsen (not verified) on Thu May. 28, 2009 1:46 PM PDT.
it's the whole Democratic Party. They are not an anti-war party. Anti-war individuals have got to get this through their head. Check out this and this for more info.
as soon as i read kevin's
Submitted by howard (not verified) on Tue May. 19, 2009 4:17 PM PDT.
as soon as i read kevin's piece i said some boob is going to blame harry reid, and sure 'nuff, the first commenter could hardly wait.
honest to frickin' god, "spinelessness" on the part of harry reid has nothing to do with it; this is spinelessness in his caucus. this isn't the '50s, where lyndon johnson could manipulate his caucus, and this isn't the republican party where only authoritarian personalities, comfortable with following orders, need apply.
harry reid's "spine" means nothing to ben nelson or joe lieberman or evan bayh or mary landreiux, and one could go on: they believe (perhaps rightly) that such deviationism is essential to their own political futures. what does reid's spine say to that?
insofar as there is a way out of the dynamic, it has to come from the oval office, and ever since obama sold out on FISA, i've had every reason to expect that near-term, it won't. i will say that i respect that obama is playing a long game, and trying to redefine the center even as he (in my estimation) unnecessarily clings to it, but it leaves him open to being played by these types.
frankly, the one where he most needs to tell them all to stfu and get in line is whatever form of universal healthcare we're going to coalesce around: he cannot get squishy on that one. on gitmo, obama may have no choice.
I can appreciate the fact
Submitted by jonas on Tue May. 19, 2009 6:54 PM PDT.
I can appreciate the fact that leading the Democrats is a bit like herding cats these days, but I'm not faulting Reid for doing his best to frame this issue right and get people on board, but ultimately coming up short. The problem is, he's not even trying. Bayh or Lieberman merely clear their throat and Reid folds like Superman on laundry day. Fine, maybe there is nothing he can do there and he wants to keep his ammo dry for another fight, like you suggest. But then he goes out in press conferences and on TV and basically regurgitates the GOP talking points on the issue. That's why he sucks. Oh, and yeah, it would help if Obama occasionally acted like he wanted, and expected, Democrats to stand up on certain issues.
Reid's not spineless; he's a conservative
Submitted by joel hanes (not verified) on Tue May. 19, 2009 4:36 PM PDT.
Sen. Reid only gives the impression of spinelessness to avoid having to publicly defend his own actual views.
Reid (and Dianne Feinstein) are genuine conservatives -- old people who with to avert any hint of change that might upset the working relationships with Very Important And Serious (and wealthy) people that they have spent a lifetime cultivating. Regardless of their public statements, both Senators consistently act to ensure that more authority accrues to those already in charge, more power to the already-powerful, and that the wealth of the already-wealthy is never ever threatened.
The Senate's rules and procedures make it possible to cast very public but ineffective votes for liberal policies, while quietly doing the committee work to ensure that those policies are led into a dark alley and strangled. This has been Reid's MO from day 1 of his leadership.
Harry "Thin" Reid needs to
Submitted by Hedley Lamarr (not verified) on Tue May. 19, 2009 4:55 PM PDT.
Harry "Thin" Reid needs to come out from under his bed.
Not news. Obama's no king...
Submitted by Davis X. Machina on Tue May. 19, 2009 5:29 PM PDT.
...and even King John had baron issues, and that was 800 years ago.
Plus ça change...
Closing Gitmo isn't the same as "release"
Submitted by Steve (not verified) on Tue May. 19, 2009 5:31 PM PDT.
Where do these clowns get the idea that closing Gitmo and applying a little Constitutionally-based jurisprudence is the equivalent of "releasing" the prisoners?
Don't they realize that we have some nice secure Supermax prisons holding some fairly hardcore baddies quite safely. Heck, we imprison more people per capita than anywhere else in the world. We're good at keeping people in jail.
Terry Nichols, Sirhan Sirhan, Ted Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph, Charles Manson, et al, aren't exactly running around loose, are they? They're safely tucked away in Federal and State slammers and will be for the rest of their lives. Why should Gitmo prisoners be any different, assuming they're guilty of a crime.
I suspect that what worries some on the right and some of the more spineless Democrats (yes, I realized that's redundant) is that if we apply a little law to the situation, we may find out that a number of these "Worst of the Worst", as Cheney and his ilk called them, aren't anything more than people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and were turned over to the US as "terrorists" to settle old scores or simply for reward money.
Better to lock them away without trial and without recourse than to admit that we've been holding innocent people whose only crime is a different skin color and an unpopular religion.
just a guess
Submitted by junebug on Tue May. 19, 2009 8:59 PM PDT.
Terry Nichols, Sirhan Sirhan, Ted Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph, Charles Manson, et al, aren't exactly running around loose, are they? They're safely tucked away in Federal and State slammers and will be for the rest of their lives. Why should Gitmo prisoners be any different, assuming they're guilty of a crime.
You're right, of course. If the US does anything well, it's locking people away in nasty conditions for very, very long periods of time. I don't think that the concern, such as it is, among Democratic lawmakers has so much to do with the possibility that any of the Gitmo detainees would escape from a US penitentiary. They're probably so completely fried from years of abuse, if not outright torture, that they'd scream at the mere sight of natural light. Rather, they probably imagine the facilities housing these prisoners as targets for terrorism, and they don't want to see that fear realized in campaign ads against them.
Didn't we used to call them
Submitted by flounder2 (not verified) on Tue May. 19, 2009 5:40 PM PDT.
Didn't we used to call them Vichy Dems?
$$$$$$$
Submitted by steve duncan on Tue May. 19, 2009 6:08 PM PDT.
Won't happen, but......... wouldn't it be great if a few humanitarian billionaires got together and bequeathed Obama his $80 million? Buffet, Soros, Gates and a couple others just write checks and say "Eff you" to all the knuckleheads in Congress. Frame it as standing up for what's right to do. I can dream a bit.
$$$$$$$-another thought
Submitted by steve duncan on Tue May. 19, 2009 6:33 PM PDT.
I remember during the height of Afghanistan/Iraq hostilties all the talk of money for various purposes. There were always references to sums that weren't earmarked or specifically designated for anything in particular. People bitched about Bush having his own private slush fund to pretty much do with as he pleased. Bush was "going around Congress" and "thwarting their intent" when passing defense spending bills. No one really moved to stop it, no talk of it being brazenly (if at all) illegal. Doesn't Obama have a similar piggy bank? If not, why not? I know it's not Obama's style but the President can make things pretty damned miserable for recalcitrant members of Congress. The time is going to come when Obama has to dispense with civility and make an example of someone. Put someone's head on a goddamned stick and plant it on the front lawn of the White House.
$$$$$$$-another thought
Submitted by steve duncan on Tue May. 19, 2009 6:33 PM PDT.
I remember during the height of Afghanistan/Iraq hostilties all the talk of money for various purposes. There were always references to sums that weren't earmarked or specifically designated for anything in particular. People bitched about Bush having his own private slush fund to pretty much do with as he pleased. Bush was "going around Congress" and "thwarting their intent" when passing defense spending bills. No one really moved to stop it, no talk of it being brazenly (if at all) illegal. Doesn't Obama have a similar piggy bank? If not, why not? I know it's not Obama's style but the President can make things pretty damned miserable for recalcitrant members of Congress. The time is going to come when Obama has to dispense with civility and make an example of someone. Put someone's head on a goddamned stick and plant it on the front lawn of the White House.
Agree that the Dems are
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue May. 19, 2009 6:48 PM PDT.
Agree that the Dems are being weak, but don't agree with your takeaway. Obama isn't exactly pushing or giving Senate Dems a ton of cover on this, or related issues. More a downward spiral than a test case for the limits of what Obama could get.
Btw, I admire the analysis Josh Marshall applied in coming up with the "bitch slap" theory (at least that's where I first saw it). But the term is always borderline, and can really strike me wrong if not used very carefully. For instance Josh has used it to describe D's turning it around on R's, and it quickly becomes ugly when referring to activity you are rooting on. Realize you are not cheering on here; just an illustration.
Great post Kevin (love the title)
Submitted by elmo on Tue May. 19, 2009 6:51 PM PDT.
Now, Mr. Reid. I don't care what the fuck the wingnuts are holding over you; re-election challenges, consistent visits from hookers, money laundering...I don't give a fuck. But you better find some honor. Because the path you are traveling caught your ass on fire long ago and is about to engulf you entirely...
It's not clear to me what
Submitted by JS (not verified) on Tue May. 19, 2009 6:55 PM PDT.
It's not clear to me what the objective is in closing Guantanamo. If it is to provide more humane prison conditions, then I doubt that mainland prisons would be an improvement -- they are just under less scrutiny than Gitmo. Assuming Obama has the power to end torture at Guantanamo, I would think that any rational prisoner would prefer Cuba to Texas or Arizona where prisoner abuse is endemic.
One would have thought that closing it would save some money -- but evidently it will cost $80 million. That's curious too.
And why hand the Republicans another easy-to-distort wedge issue?
It's about symbolism. Cheney
Submitted by jonas on Tue May. 19, 2009 7:04 PM PDT.
It's about symbolism. Cheney and Bush didn't create Gitmo because it was convenient, or cost effective, or more secure than a mainland prison. They did it because they thought that a military detention facility not on US soil gave them license to torture and brutalize prisoners outside the penumbra of the Geneva Conventions.
The images of hooded, shackled, humiliated Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo, in addition to both verified and unverified accounts of the abuse that took place there, have been an Al Qaeda recruiter's dream come true for the past seven years.
We have to close it down. Even if it costs extra money. Even if Democrats have to put up with 24/7 bullshit from Hannity and O'Reilly. Ultimately, our efforts to diffuse the grievances that feed Islamic radicalism abroad -- and hence our lives and safety -- may depend on it.
Healthcare reform
Submitted by Rich in NJ (not verified) on Tue May. 19, 2009 7:51 PM PDT.
To me, the acid test is the inclusion of a public option in any healthcare reform. If that is part of the final legislation in a non-watered down version, then I can live with Obama's accommodations on other issues.
Just politicians. Moisten a
Submitted by Luther on Tue May. 19, 2009 8:16 PM PDT.
Just politicians. Moisten a finger, put it in the wind, read the direction, then take the heat for their popular leader.
"The GOP's brain trust isn't
Submitted by Chicounsel (not verified) on Tue May. 19, 2009 9:15 PM PDT.
"The GOP's brain trust isn't offering even a hint of a substantive case that the U.S. Army can't safely keep a few dozen detainees behind bars in a military prison, but Dems are caving anyway. Because they're scared."
Ah, Kevin, the U.S. Army is already keeping these detainees safely behind bars in a military prison. At Gitmo.
Since Obama has already decided to keep using military commissions and indefinite detention for those who can't be otherwise processed, what possible sense would it make to transfer those detainees to some other place in the US, that is going to be less secure than Gitmo and whose local politicians are going to raise holy hell?
It makes no sense whatsoever. Obama has already validated much, if not all, of the Bush-Cheney national security policies by his continuation of them. At this point, what difference does it make for him to change his mind again and decide to leave Gitmo open?
Expect for oissing off liberals and the ACLU, who the hell cares where these detainees are housed?
Sure this is a case of
Submitted by get what you give (not verified) on Wed May. 20, 2009 12:41 AM PDT.
Sure this is a case of scaredydems running because the Reps yelled boo.
But if I was a progressive Dem I wouldn't think long and hard before taking one for the team on defense/terrorism/natl security if I am not getting the repeal of dont ask, card check and a better economic recovery program. If the administration continues to go for half measures that is what I would give them in return.
National security done right
Submitted by Marc W on Wed May. 20, 2009 3:12 AM PDT.
National security done right is serious business that doesn't accommodate the normal political trade-offs. (Done right.)
People who blow off what the rest of the world thinks don't get it. People who care only about what the rest of the world thinks don't get it either.
Reid's view is typical of Democrats on national security. Americans and their "leaders" know little of the rest of the world, and of what they know they are largely distainful. Too many of those in power in both parties confuse breast-beating with a coherent strategy for national security. Such ignorance prevents me from taking the symbolic step (and only to myself anyway) of registering as a Democrat.
Junebug is probably correct that politicians fear an attack by terrorists, not a solitary jail-break, and that they fear criticism by political rivals. If that is the fear driving this announcement by Reid, only by discussing that fear openly can we clear the way to a solution here.
I just heard McCain on the radio expressing his concerns about the lack of a plan. Where is Obama's plan?
Obama is surrounded by idiots and yes, he's in another tough spot.
When will the Democrats
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed May. 20, 2009 4:51 AM PDT.
When will the Democrats learn? If you have a majority leader from a conservative state, he or she will bend over backwards to please conservatives, ie. Republicans. And does Obama really think continuing Bush detention policies will innoculate him against Republican vilification if there IS another terrorist attack? If so, he and the Democrats are dreaming. He's compromised his (and our) principles for nothing.
I seem to remember
Submitted by Patriot4Peace on Wed May. 20, 2009 5:54 AM PDT.
Remember the Mariel boatlift of 1980 when Castro emptied his jails and asylums and sent them all into Miami?
Wouldn't it be tempting to let the detainees loose on the Cuban population?
Back here in reality, I wonder how American can justify keeping people without a shred of evidence against them?
If there is any evidence, hold them for trial.
And someone please tell John (I'm Orange) Boehner that none of these terrorists are going to buy the house next door to him.
They wouldn't want to live in a neighborhood full of racist homophobic tight asses anyway.
This is embarrassing ...
Submitted by al-Fubar (not verified) on Wed May. 20, 2009 5:55 AM PDT.
But it really should not be surprising. And it has absolutely nothing to do with ideology. The Republicans are just hitching a ride on good old NIMBYism.
Of course there'd be 'terrorists in your community' only if your community happens to be the maximum security wing of a federal penitentiary. But all politics is local, while human mental laziness is pretty universal.
Sigh and move on ...
59 votes in the Senate and a
Submitted by Another Brad (not verified) on Wed May. 20, 2009 6:11 AM PDT.
59 votes in the Senate and a large majority in the house, and who does Drum blame? Republicans! More specifically, the "republican noise machine," whatever that is. If you can't get even Democrats on board, then it just isn't good policy, whatever the googoo left thinks.
"Bitch slapping?"
Submitted by thersites on Wed May. 20, 2009 7:05 AM PDT.
Kevin, you know I admire you as a writer and observer. But "Bitch slapping" is a phrase taken right out of the worst elements of our popular culture, that segment that regards a pimp beating up a "ho" as an action to be admired and emulated.
In my opinion, for a writer of your stature to use it is a sad sign of the degradation of our language.
Having said that, I agree entirely with the content of your post.
Another Brad appears to
Submitted by Marc W on Wed May. 20, 2009 7:15 AM PDT.
Another Brad appears to believe that an idea opposed by political leaders of both major parties has to constitute bad public policy, and that a person advocating a position opposed by spineless political leaders of both major parties has to be of the so-called googoo left. Another Brad appears to be Another Victim of the sum-zero, left-right, soft-hard view of the world that is easy to embrace. And wrong.
Mr. Drum is blaming Republicans for fear-mongering for which they offer no reason, but he is also blaming Democrats for succumbing to the fear, again without a reason.
Helpful hint, Another Brad: The "Republican noise machine" produces the bleating one hears from Republicans who proclaim with confidence positions on serious national security issues of which they are profoundly and dangerously ignorant; it's a "machine" because it's a coordinated political effort designed to achieve a particular political result.
Both parties actually can claim serious national security/foreign policy people, but these folks aren't getting the attention on this issue. At least at the moment.
guns in parks
Submitted by alan (not verified) on Wed May. 20, 2009 7:34 AM PDT.
Reportedly Obama is signing a bill today to allow concealed weapons in national parks.
Genius!
neo-con scum like Harman
Submitted by tpx on Wed May. 20, 2009 7:52 AM PDT.
As long as Democrats keep electing neo-con scum like Harman, inhumane national policies will be difficult to change.
Contradictions
Submitted by Outis (not verified) on Wed May. 20, 2009 7:56 AM PDT.
On Morning Joe this morning (if I was not so busy in the mornings, and saw more than the occasional snippet, I think I would throw the TV through out the window), someone (I think it was a guest) actually said that we could not let the Gitmo prisoners come to the US because they might get into a court of law and be released, and thus would no longer be useful to us as sources of information. If they really do not think that we can have a trial and actually convict these people, on what grounds are we holding them? How can they simultaneously be asserted with certainty as being useful sources of information about terrorist activity and yet beyond proof of their status as terrorists? The blatant contradiction suggests a clumsy attempt to coverup a mistake, for which no real justification can be provided.
This problem has already been solved
Submitted by Godless Heathen at work (not verified) on Wed May. 20, 2009 9:38 AM PDT.
I don't understand what is taking this whole deal so long. There is a vacant prison building in rural Montana that is an abandoned project of the state. The town that houses the prison is one of the poorest towns in one of the poorest counties in the state. The mayor has offered on multiple occasions to let the prison be finished and filled with whoever needs to be caged just so the town can get some jobs.
Now, with everybody freaking out over this $80M number, let's let Halliburton bid the job for $40M so they can do the work for $20M and charge us the $80M we were originally expecting. Require them to hire and train 100 citizens of the town, boom everybody's happy.
Its not the prisons
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed May. 20, 2009 9:53 AM PDT.
Of course we could house them in US prisons. That is until the ACLU and you silly leftists brought enough pressure on the left-wing administration to release them because they are obviously "victims" of American wrong-doing. Then its into the general population which would be in grave danger.
BTW: The GITMO prisones have gained so much weight and are in such better health that it is called the "Gitmo spa" that and prayer rugs and having the KORAN and being allowed time-outs to pray 5 times a day. Ah, but this is abuse according to the left.
Thank you, Anonymous, for
Submitted by Marc W on Wed May. 20, 2009 1:42 PM PDT.
Thank you, Anonymous, for illustrating a recent point.
The fallacy of the zero sum game, and the left-right, good-bad, two dimensional world was revealed by geniuses like Wolfowitz and Bush Junior. Bush didn't pay attention in school and still doesn't understand the world. But he likely knows now, and has likely known for a while, that he relied on people, unlike the Brent Scowcrofts of his father's team, who sounded like they knew what they were talking about. But didn't. Their BS destroyed his presidency on the very issue he thought would distinguish his "tough" administration from his father's "wimpy" administration.
The contrast he created cannot be what he had in mind. His silence may well reflect good manners, but may also reflect a need to take some time to sort out in his own mind how he screwed up and how he should respond. In other words, he needs to reflect upon his legacy.
reid the coward
Submitted by orion (not verified) on Wed May. 20, 2009 2:27 PM PDT.
I can understand why Harry Reid peed in his pants on 9/11; after all, many Americans were scared that day. But 7 and a half years later, it's time for him to take off his "depends" and be a real man. Otherwise, his salary is a waste of taxpayer dollars. He and Pelosi may be good politicians, but they are terrible and deficient leaders at a time in our history when we need backbone from those in power.
What does this say about the Democrats?
Submitted by Doug Singsen (not verified) on Thu May. 28, 2009 1:40 PM PDT.
Rather than seeing the terrible behavior of the Democrats as showing how great Obama really is, what this really shows is that the Democrats as a whole are no great opponents of war or injustice. In fact, they are just the other party of imperialism and war (after the Republicans). This is why we need a real independent Left in this country. See my post here for more.
Biz rate for foot detox pads
Submitted by Nora (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 8:53 PM PDT.
Hello. When you want to believe in something, you also have to believe in everything that's necessary for believing in it.
I am from Czech and also now'm speaking English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "It is based that a carbon condition tobacco says feet from the entire foot to the products."
With respect :-(, Nora.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
