“Dangerously Unmoored From The American Consensus”: The GOP Is Crazier Than You Thought
In his latest speech, the president presents the modern Republican Party as a radical aberration from the American consensus.
If there was a question President Obama tried to answer with his speech this afternoon to the Associated Press, it was this—“what happened to the Republican Party?” And to that end, he marshaled evidence from a century of political history to show that today’s Grand Old Party is dangerously unmoored from the American consensus, with a budget proposal that amounts to “thinly veiled social Darwinism.”
To a large degree, Obama’s speech was filled with the frustration of liberals who see the extent to which the Republican Party has rejected the notion of a government that works positively within the economy. “It was Dwight Eisenhower who launched the interstate highway system and made investments in scientific research … Reagan worked with Democrats to save Social Security … It was George W. Bush who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage,” he said, citing Republican presidents who worked to strengthen the social safety net over the course of the last century. “What leaders in both parties have traditionally understood,” he declared, “is that these programs aren’t schemes to redistribute wealth … they are signs that we are one nation.”
Today’s Republican Party, Obama argued, has abandoned this traditional understanding, in favor of a “failed approach” of trickle-down economics. “In this country, broad-based prosperity has never come from the success of a wealthy few,” he said.
Case in point is Paul Ryan’s latest budget, which—like his Roadmap released last year—would require massive cuts to existing social spending and destroy any semblance of fairness in the economy, as the rich received huge benefits from an economy slanted in their favor. As Obama described it, “The Republicans have doubled down and proposed a budget so far to the right that it makes the Contract for America look like the New Deal.”
Indeed, Obama took the time to illustrate the extent to which the Ryan budget would demolish the federal government as we know it, citing the millions of people who would lose health care coverage with Medicaid cuts, the millions of children who would lose access to healthy food with WIC cuts, and the millions of students who would lose a shot at college because of cuts to Pell Grants and other programs designed to make school more affordable.
He pointed out that while Republicans refuse to say where they would make cuts, cuts have to happen if we adopt their budget, “Perhaps they will never tell us where the knife will fall, but you can be sure that with cuts this deep, there will never be a secret plan to protect the investments we need for our economy to grow. This is not conjecture, I am not exaggerating, these are facts.”
From his aggressive tone to his sharp and clear language, this was a campaign speech, and he took care to tie his likely competitor—former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney—to the policies pushed by congressional Republicans. “He called it ‘marvelous’,” said Obama, highlighting the degree to which the “Path to Prosperity” is the Republican Party platform for 2012.
I said this morning that thanks to the short-sighted ideological fervor of Paul Ryan, Obama can make a strong and clear case against the Republican Party. I didn’t realize that this would also be a brutal indictment of the party’s priorities. With his speech, Obama presented the GOP as the defenders of a failed ideology that would leave most Americans trapped in their station, struggling in a hostile economy. If this sounds far-fetched, look no further than the last three years—Republicans have either pushed to eliminate regulations and cut taxes on the rich, or they have stood against any effort to make the economy more fair, or put some restraints on those who caused the financial crisis.
Obama’s challenge is to convince the public that Republicans would continue on that path if elected to office. At the risk of sounding too certain, I think he can do it.
By: Jamelle Bouie, The American Prospect, April 3, 2012
A “Star Wars Bar Scene”: Mitt Romney’s Troubles Will Follow Him to the Convention
The train has left the station. The fat lady is about to sing. It is all over but the cheering. Any more trite phrases, as former Gov. Mitt Romney is about to wrap this nomination up?
On Tuesday, he should win Maryland, D.C., and Wisconsin. And some say former Sen. Rick Santorum is behind in the April 24 Pennsylvania primary.
But think about this: How does Romney manage the convention in Tampa with the likes of Rick Santorum, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Rep. Ron Paul, not to mention Rep. Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain wanting their moment in the sun?
Can you see this crowd clearing their speeches with the Romney high command?
Or imagine this, former Gov. Sarah Palin, fresh off the Today show and more time as Fox News diva, begins to insist on a prime time slot. She got shoved off the stage on election night 2008, you don’t think she’ll let it happen again do you?
This could be one rough convention, one strange cast of characters. Bar scene from Star Wars, anyone?
Clearly, Mitt Romney needs to unite the party, play to the hard conservatives, make sure his base is smiling and happy. But, at what cost? By showcasing this crowd? Reminding voters of all those lovely debates? Bringing up Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin to the stage to infuriate the undecided voters and the independents? Letting Santorum further alienate women and give a culture war speech?
My guess is that Romney would rather pretend that the last year never happened or at least that he put this away by New Hampshire. Sorry, you may have to play it again, Mitt!
Sure, he will have to figure out the vice presidential pick first but this convention could be one “really big show!”
By: Peter Fenn, U. s. News and World report, April 4, 2012
Republicans “Inconvenient Truth”: Why Romney Is Attacking Obama For Comments To Medvedev
Republicans and conservatives are determined to turn an unremarkable off the record comment by President Obama into a major campaign issue. Last week Obama was caught on an open mic telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have more “flexibility” after the November election. “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for [incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin] to give me space,” Obama told Medvedev.
Romney pounced. He immediately issued a statement complaining that Obama is going to cave to Russia on missile defense.” Later he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage and for this president to be looking for greater flexibility where he doesn’t have to answer to the American people in his relations with Russia is very, very troubling, very alarming…. This is without question our number one geopolitical foe.” The Republican National Committee released a statement and video criticizing Obama’s comments to Medvedev as well.
Why is Romney making such a major issue out of such a minor gaffe? The conventional explanation is that he is pivoting towards attacking Obama on foreign policy. Romney is trailing Obama in matchup polls and watching the issue he has made the centerpiece of his campaign–the weak economy–disappearing as employment picks up. So he may be seeking a new campaign strategy. As The Washington Post reported “Advisers say Romney intends to deliver a major foreign policy address in April or May, depending on the status of the primary contest, and create what one adviser described as a series of ‘platforms’ to highlight the differences between the two candidates…. The political opportunity Romney sees in foreign policy was reflected this week when he seized on Obama’s open-mike conversation with his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev.”
To Democrats this might seem odd. Obama has ended the unpopular Iraq War, decimated Al Qaeda’s leadership and overseen the killings of Osama bin Laden and Muammar Qaddafi. To a liberal, if Obama has made any mistakes in the foreign policy realm they would be ones of excessive rather than insufficient militarism.
But that is not the critique that Romney or any other Republican is making. Rather, they say that Obama shows weakness in negotiations with our adversaries. China, Iran and Venezuela are frequently invoked by Republican foreign policy figures such as John Bolton. Specific actions by Obama to bolster this sentiment can be hard to come by, so his comments to Medvedev provide a perfect opportunity. “Obama will have a good gut-check response with bin Laden, but there will be plenty to work with for a broader critique of the foreign policy of this administration,” says Republican consultant Soren Dayton regarding the political saliency of foreign policy attacks on Obama. “The Russia exchange could end up being a powerful example of how Obama offers concessions to enemies but pressures our allies, like Israel and Canada.”
This is good for stirring up the Republican base, but is unlikely to sway many swing voters. “It is a rare election that is decided on foreign policy,” says Dayton. “In all likelihood, instability in the Middle East will have an impact through things like the price of crude oil and gas at the pump.”
But perhaps the Republican political calculation is not about foreign policy. The average swing voter may not care much about U.S. policy on European missile defense but they often do care about the president’s character. “[Republicans] are just trying to neutralize the ‘etch-a-sketch’ criticisms that Democrats are lobbing at Romney,” says Darrell West, director of the Governance Studies program at the Brookings Institution. “They want voters to see Obama as just another politician to delegitimize him. They’re playing to public cynicism: it’s easy to portray politicians as willing to say anything.”
Leonardo Alcivar, a national Republican political consultant with Hynes Communications, agrees. “Romney was right to criticize the President’s gaffe, for both tactical and strategic reasons,” says Alcivar. “The Romney team well understands the need to position the President as a typical Washington politician whose failed economic policy is compounded by a rudderless foreign policy. The open mike gaffe supports a widely held, and largely correct, view that the President has been campaigning, not leading.”
From Obama’s perspective, trying to improve relations with Russia is leading, or at least governing. Nation contributor and Russia expert Stephen F. Cohen writes that “the United States is farther from a partnership with Russia today than it was more than twenty years ago.” As Cohen explains, partnership with Russia is essential for U.S. objectives such as preventing nuclear proliferation and access to Russia’s vast natural resources. But, as Cohen notes, the Obama administration is “refusing to respond to Moscow’s concessions on Afghanistan and Iran with reciprocal agreements on Russia’s top priorities, NATO expansion and missile defense.” That is the crucial context for Obama’s remarks. Moscow sees us placing missile defense installations near Russia’s border as a provocation.
Election year politicking such as Romney’s can make relations between the U.S. and Russia even more fraught. As Vice-President Joe Biden pointed out on Sunday, Romney’s characterization of Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe” is outdated and unhelpful. “He acts like he thinks the Cold War is still on [and] Russia is still our major adversary,” said Biden to Bob Schieffer on CBS’ Face the Nation. “I don’t know where he has been.” Back in February Cohen predicted that the election could exacerbate tensions with Russia, writing, “recent developments, including presidential campaigns and other political changes under way in both countries, may soon make relations even worse.” Obama was merely stating the truth when speaking to Medvedev. And nothing upsets Republicans like an inconvenient truth.
By: Ben Adler, The Nation, April 3, 2012
“The Wonder Years” Of George W. Bush: Barack Obama’s Best Friend In The 2012 Election
So George W. Bush, reports Politico, is laying low these days, avoiding the spotlight that shone briefly on his father and his brother Jeb recently as they endorsed Mitt Romney’s candidacy. This whole subject of the post-Bush GOP and its relationship to No. 43 is pretty fascinating. Like a crazy, drunk uncle shooting an epileptic dog because he has fleas, the current GOP shuns him for all the wrong reasons. Since the GOP will presumably spend the next few months trying to pretend the man never existed, Democrats ought to remind people that he did. In fact, the Democratic Party should spend the next 20 years talking about Bush, turning him into the new Jimmy Carter and making the memory of those eight squalid years quadrennially fresh to everyone with living memory of them for as long as is humanly possible.
Bush, Politico notes, “is in a self-imposed political exile.” Perhaps predictably, Ari Fleischer pops up to note that that’s a lowdown dirty shame because Bush “kept us safe” through a perilous time and oversaw a booming economy in between two recessions.
These claims aren’t even worth spitting out one’s cornflakes over, let alone rebutting. But merely as a point of information, people should know that the economy didn’t exactly boom from 2002 to 2008, except of course for the 1 percent of the population the policies were designed to aid. Bush’s job-growth record was the worst of any president going back to the Depression. The table you can see here goes back to Truman. Obviously, Roosevelt grew jobs at a fairly significant rate, since unemployment under him went from 24 percent to essentially zero during the height of the war. So you have to go back, I’d suppose, to Herbert Hoover to find someone who did worse than Bush’s .01 percent growth in jobs per.
Yes, Obama’s jobs record is worse—for now. But at least in Obama’s case you have a guy who really did come into office at the start of a major recession, the worst in 80 years. Since the recession eased and ended, nearly 3.3 million jobs have been added—meaning that if he has a second term, he will in all likelihood leave Dubya eating some of that famous Texas dust. In any case, Americans still pin the shattered economy on Bush. A poll released only last week from CNN showed 56 percent blame Bush, while just 29 percent finger Obama.
The fact that we’re still clawing our way out of the darkness that Bush set upon us is the reason he is still relevant. Recently, Romney made him even more so, by insisting to an audience that it was Bush and Hank Paulson who actually saved the country from a depression. Beyond that, Romney’s campaign staff and advisers are so full of Bush people—on political strategy, the economy, foreign policy, and other areas—that one former Bush speechwriter (who is not on the Romney bus) has called it “a restoration of the Bush establishment.”
And yet, even as Romney makes those moves, which only about 2 percent of the population will know about, the party will obviously try to distance itself from Bush publicly. What in the world are they going to do with him at the convention? Ex-presidents are supposed to get nice speaking gigs. Will Bush? To say what? That we must let the free market work, the way it worked on his watch in September 2008? That we must be vigilant against the terrorists, the way he was while Osama bin Laden was living a few heaves of a baseball away from a Pakistani officer-training facility? That we must protect the homeland, as he did in New Orleans? It’s hard to imagine what kind of speech he could deliver. It wouldn’t be shocking if Bush is reduced (if he would accept) to some ceremonial function, some transparent and treacly soft-focus attempt to fool Latinos, since Bush was among that small handful of Republicans known not to actively hate brown people.
Democrats really need to keep Bush in the frame here. And Dick Cheney. I know everyone says “but elections are about the future.” Well, maybe. But the Bush years were so uniquely bad, so plainly and emphatically horrible on so many fronts for such a vast majority of citizens, that to fail to mention the era would just be missing a free whack. It would be the equivalent of someone trying to slag Halle Berry without mentioning Catwoman. Very often, people—especially Democratic people—overthink politics and worry too much about how people are going to react. But this one is simple. Bush really just stank up the joint for eight years. Mention him, and the pundit class might bray about it, but most people will react by thinking: Yeah, that guy really just stank up the joint for eight years.
I often wonder about what Bush himself thinks. Does he know, deep down, what a failure he was? He must. We all tell ourselves stories that try to put a good face on things. And any president or governor can come up with a list of good deeds accomplished, so maybe he leans on those, waiting patiently for the day when, because people’s memories are short and because some rich Texas buddies undoubtedly stand ready to pour millions into a PR-rehabilitation campaign when they sense the time is right, he can reemerge in the public eye, smirk intact, smiting Democrats like in the good old days of 2002. Democrats must make sure that that rehabilitation never, ever happens.
By: Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast, April 3, 2012
“Unreasonable Search And Seizure”: Supreme Court Undercuts 4th Amendment Protections-Again
In yet another 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court, the conservatives sitting on the Roberts Court have cut deeply into our protection from unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed to Americans by the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.
As a result of today’s ruling, jailers can now perform bodily strip searches on anyone brought in to a holding cell, no matter how minor the alleged infraction. And when I say ‘minor’, I’m not talking about people arrested and held for violent or even misdemeanor drug related crimes.
I’m talking about individuals arrested for riding a bicycle without an audible bell, driving a car with a noisy muffler or failing to properly use a signal when making a left or right turn.
Seriously.
These are but a few of the offenses that were committed by people who found themselves being strip-searched and subject to the long arm of the law when that long arm intruded into personal spaces where no arm was intended to go. These were also the offenses represented in a class action brought against two New Jersey jails by Albert Florence, a New Jersey resident who was also subjected to the humiliation of a strip search—twice— for what the police believed was an outstanding warrant for failing to pay a court fine.
Florence’s ordeal began on a day in 2005 while he and his family were on his way to his mother-in-law’s home to celebrate the purchase of a new residence for the Florence family. Mrs. Florence was at the wheel of the family BMW when she was pulled over for speeding. When the police officer ran a check on Mr. Florence as the owner of the car (despite the fact that he wasn’t driving), they discovered that he had an outstanding warrant for failing to pay a fine to the Court.
Never mind that Mr. Florence, a financial executive with an automobile dealership, had, in fact, paid the fine and actually had proof of having done so in the glove box of his automobile because he feared that local police were suspicious of black men who drive nice cars. And never mind that even if the warrant had been an outstanding bench order, not paying a court fine in New Jersey is not a crime.
Florence was arrested and handcuffed as his pregnant wife and young son watched in distress.
When Mr. Florence arrived at the local jail where he was to be held pending a hearing on the warrant, he was subjected to a strip-search. And when he was transferred to a different county jail he was treated to a search of his body once again, despite the fact that, at no time since his first strip-search, was he outside the custody of the police.
During his first strip-search, Florence was forced to disrobe in front of an officer and told to lift his genitals. Upon arriving at the second jail, he was made to squat and cough in front of a number of viewers for the purpose of expelling anything that might be hidden in a body cavity.
Setting aside my curiosity as to what the cops expected to find hiding beneath his genitals, I will simply report that the local Magistrate finally ordered Mr. Florence released when he determined that Florence had, indeed, paid the fine some years before.
Still, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the body searches Mr. Florence was subjected to—not once but twice and despite the fact that he had been in police custody the entire time between the first and second search—were “reasonable” within the meaning of what constitutes a reasonable search and seizure for 4th Amendment purposes.
So deeply concerned was the five Justice majority for the need to keep contraband—including weapons and drugs—out of the jail system, they were prepared to relieve authorities throughout the nation of their responsibility to afford American citizens their privacy rights—even when they are hauled in for having a broken bell on a bicycle.
Writing the minority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that this behavior is not constitutionally appropriate for an individual arrested for a minor offense that does not involve drugs or violence.
“A strip search that involves a stranger peering without consent at a naked individual, and in particular at the most private portions of that person’s body, is a serious invasion of privacy,” Breyer wrote. The “invasion of personal rights” at issue in this case, the dissenters argued, “is very serious and lacks need or justification — at least as to the category of minor offenses at issue.
The Court’s decision greatly expands upon what authorities can do when searching those they detain for alleged crimes, no matter how miniscule the charge may be.
In 1979, the Supreme Court upheld the policy of body cavity searches for prisoners after they had met with visitors. The theory was that the possibility of a guest from the outside having slipped an item of contraband to a prisoner posed a significant threat to the remainder of the prison population and jail officials. For that reason, the search was deemed reasonable.
However, since that decision, the principle has been widely limited so as not to to be applied to newly arriving prisoners where there was no reason for authorities to suspect that the incoming prisoner might have some item of contraband on his or her person requiring confiscation. In other words, the ‘reasonable’ standard was applied.
That limitation is no longer the law of the land.
In what is becoming a habit of some members of the conservative side of the Court who don’t appear to want to be held responsible for the bad precedents they set, Justices Roberts and Alito when out of their way to say that this practice should be limited to the case at hand and that it should not be assumed that this principle is to be applied to all searches—particularly when someone is only to be held for a short time and placed in a cell separated from the general population.
The hope is that this limiting opinion will be applied at jails throughout the country so that people held only until bond is posted will not be subjected to intrusive and humiliating strip -searches.
Just last year, the Roberts Court put another serious dent into the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure when it upheld the constitutionality of police in Kentucky entering a suspect’s home without a search warrant.
By: Rick Ungar, Contributor, The Policy Page, Forbes, April 2, 2012
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 