Saving ACA

After a West Coast Mets game was over, I was watching C-SPAN waiting for the vote for "skinny repeal" of ACA, which turned out to be a drawn out process that ended with McCain voting with Collins and Murkowski (two consistent "noes") against it. Many were upset at McCain for coming back after his cancer prognosis and voting to continuing the process. The whole thing was screwed up but the end result is appreciated. And, there 48 Democrats and three Republicans did the right thing. Lots of battles to come. But, whew. And, as a whole, Republicans still are horrible. Individual Republicans doing things like this are appreciated.

ETA: CJ Roberts was key to saving ACA so this gives me a chance to note the updated SCOTUS website. Sorta underwhelmed. SCOTUSBlog eventually talked about it, but in underwhelming fashion. Uh. They already had Internet links cited, access to transcripts, audio and other case information.

In memoriam

Good stuff on the military too. As seen by the Biden clip, important to note -- usual gripes aside -- both Biden and McCain have had kids deployed. Still, I think universal service might just be proper with the caveat of providing alternative service especially for COs.

The True Palin

On Lawrence O'Donnell (a political insider himself and one of the people behind West Wing), he as well as Nicolle Wallace (strongly anti-Palin McCain insider who later wrote two books on a Republican woman President that Rachel Maddow liked a lot) noted their admiration for the upcoming HBO film Game Change. I probably will take a look at it, but Andrew Sullivan previewed it by suggesting it provides a much too positive look at Palin herself (who is going around, shocker, denouncing the film). 

Anyone with even the faintest grasp of Palin's reality - including former close aides like Frank Bailey - understands that she is emotionally unstable, paranoid, vindictive, self-destructive, religiously fanatical and clinically deluded. Her "wonderful mothering" led her to take a tiny child with Down Syndrome and parade him in front of the cameras as a political prop, and later hauling him out half-naked at night to show off to fans on her book tour. None of her children has made it to college; one was a teenage vandal, another a teen mom. A man who lived in her house, says her children had to raise themselves. She quit office in mid-term because her vanity and rapacity were more important to her than public service. The victims of her vicious career lie strewn all over Alaska. Anyone faintly aware of reality also knows that John McCain was as cynical, brutal and expedient a figure as anyone to run for president - and that Palin's selection was an act of such grotesque vanity and cynicism that it instantly disqualified him from the presidency.

Don't sugar coat it, Andrew.  I think the analysis is overall fair. [Second thought there is that he is a bit too one-sided there and a bit over the top. "Victims of vicious career strewn all over Alaska" is a bit much.] It is striking how visceral my distaste of Republican candidates have been since 2000.  I didn't support but in no way find it distasteful that people might vote for Bush41 or Bob Dole.  On the other hand, finding Bush43 or McCain/Palin as credible candidates was on some basic level (to repeat myself) risible.  There are those who now were just shocked at how Bush turned out after they saw him as a sane choice in 2000.  Molly Ivins and others told us then that was wrong.  By 2004, as seen even by Meghan McCain, we knew it.  More so in '08 and now in '12.  It is not polite to say so, but we should sometimes be blunt about it. 

Also, I don't agree exactly with everything Andrew Sullivan says here in response to the Derrick Bell video controversy (see my embedded video below), but it is a reasonable analysis of the sort I appreciate.

[Update: The movie was decent -- I think the leads worked well overall  and we got some of the behind the scenes stuff, but it wasn't special or anything.  I think it got weaker as it went on with the second half pretty dull at times. The negatives of Palin as unprepared, above her pay grade, overwhelmed and having some delusions of grandeur was touched upon. I don't really think Sullivan is totally fair in thinking her character was too soft here and besides that would not be dramatically useful.

I think it could be sharper over all.  Mixed vote.  This is from a certain type of viewer of the political scene, of course, others might get more from this sort of thing.  Also, moments like people in the film explaining their connection to Palin or the ugliness of the campaign in certain respects.  So many like me see that talked about so much already but the average person who is not so bloggy etc.  might very well get more out of that.]

Quickies

I see someone looked at my early Palin comments. Often a bit amusing to look back. Started reading this 19th Century prose Shakespeare for younger readers (free via Kindle) and it is a pretty good way to get a quick taste. Mets start off well. Stewie foiled?

DADT Report

The DADT report was released, but Sen. McCain isn't satisfied. Dan Savage on Keith Olbermann called him a bigot; it's a mean word, but at some point, it sticks. Equality is the best policy, it works, even if it is a bit of trouble. If this happens, big win for Obama.

And, She Voted For Kerry After The 2000 ****!

Meghan McCain actually is quite likable and down to earth in Dirty Sexy Politics, though she does come off as a bit childish and shallow at times.  She sounds like a typical twenty-something who loves her dad.  But, you still sort of want a bit more from a Columbia grad.

Sen. Webb: Profile In Courage ... Not!

The Senate Armed Services Committee has voted to repeal the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell statute and give the Pentagon discretion to end the policy. The vote? 16-12, with Maine’s Susan Collins voting to join all but one of the panel’s Democrats. The lone Democratic dissenter? James Webb.

Sure not quite McCain level dickery.

McCain Has Another Grampa Simpson Moment

And, what a spin job! As shown by the Second Amendment, as members of "the people," gays have a right to equal protection here. But, talk of "studies" etc. suggest yet more second class citizenship.

Imperfect in the Right Direction?

Sen. McCain (Maddow noted the gap in the video) and Snowe again suggest that being a Republican means being a b.s. artist, emphatically. Bottom line, I lean toward Yglesias regarding health care, even with Nelson/NE getting his/theirs. Also, for me (some disagree): focus on expansion of benefits, then worry about costs.

Characters v. Real Character

Dean is right; it's not all about Lieberman. But, Collins has a point:

You can move on, and try to make yourself useful (Kerry, Al Gore). Or you can work out barely suppressed rage by attacking things that you used to be for, like trying to control Medicare costs (McCain) or expanding Medicare eligibility (Lieberman).

First Day for Kagan and Sotomayor

And Also: As a preview to the big speech, Paul Krugman on the public option, and the need for Dems not to run away from government regulation. And, a comment underlines what Van Jones' critics think as "radical." Other point to the b.s. of "czars" too.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court had an official ceremony where Justice Sotomayor took her seat. Ronald Dworkin had an article in the NY Review of Books criticizing her confirmation hearings, putting some blame on her personally:

Her hearings could therefore have been a particularly valuable opportunity to explain the complexity of constitutional issues to the public and thus improve public understanding of this crucially important aspect of our government. But she destroyed any possibility of that benefit in her opening statement when she proclaimed, and repeated at every opportunity throughout the hearings, that her constitutional philosophy is very simple: fidelity to the law. That empty statement perpetuated the silly and democratically harmful fiction that a judge can interpret the key abstract clauses of the United States Constitution without making controversial judgments of political morality in the light of his or her own political principles. Fidelity to law, as such, cannot be a constitutional philosophy because a judge needs a constitutional philosophy to decide what the law is.

As a comment re-printed on the bottom of this article that basically agrees with the sentiments suggest, I think too much can be asserted in this vein. I surely don't blame her -- it's the job of the Senate to challenge her as part of its advise and consent duties. But, it is quite true that following the "law" in this context requires an understanding of the basic philosophy one follows. Comparing Justices Breyer and Scalia's jurisprudential books underlines the point.

So will be seen in the case from the 2008 Term that was left hanging last June. A preview noted the apparent immediate issue: "Citizens United is an ideological group (like the NRA or Planned Parenthood), but it takes for-profit corporate funding." Thus, even if a video for demand documentary about Hillary Clinton was at stake ... not fiscal donations to a candidate as such (the core concern here, apparently) ... it violated McCain/Feingold. Putting aside the ironic matter that McCain's ideal justice Scalia is on the wrong side in his view (dead wrong), there was the assumption that some as applied violation would be found here, chipping away at the law.

This made sense given the suspect nature of the record on some broader argument. Issues of this nature involve reams of factual materials. The Obama Administration had somewhat less time to prepare the first time around given the nature of things. Being told in June to defend against a much broader overturning of corporate regulations would be particularly dubious. In fact, Justice Sotomayor's first questions focused just on that matter. Why not a limited statutory solution? What about the limits of the record? [OTOH, in one extended question, she even suggested broad protection of corporate personhood was a problem.]

It is useful, with all the big questions and principles being tossed around, to remember things could be decided narrowly. The precedent being examined today, for instance, was not an across the board limit on corporations, and even there, the core matter was setting up a separate PAC independent from the corporation itself. As Justice Brennan noted in a concurrence, even certain corporations would be protected:

First, the group "was formed for the express purpose of promoting political ideas, and [could not] engage in business activities." Id., at 264. Second, it "ha[d] no shareholders or other persons affiliated so as to have a claim on its assets or earnings. This ensure[d] that persons connected with the organization [had] no economic disincentive for disassociating with it if they disagree[d] with its political activity." Ibid. (footnote omitted). Third, the group "was not established by a business corporation or a labor union, and it [was] its policy not to accept contributions from such entities. This prevent[ed it] from serving as [a] condui[t] for the type of direct spending that creates a threat to the political marketplace." Ibid.

One loses track if the current law would match this; the solicitor general (Elena Kagan, also her first time at the rodeo) got in some trouble for providing a novel reading of precedents ... how dare she do that when the majority here is itching to overturn the precedent anyway. She did say the fear was that even nonprofits would someone serve as "conduits" to for-profits ... the two do not tend to be separate, I'd think, given the number of non-profit donations involved alone. Anyway, the headnotes to the Austin case, the one at risk, gets to the core of its holding by upholding a law with the purpose to:

eliminate the distortion caused by corporate spending while also allowing corporations to express their political views by making expenditures through separate segregated funds

The conservative majority, again this time not so friendly in the minds of Sen. McCain, tends to find this sort of thing a threat to free speech. Anyway, remember, donations alone isn't at issue in this case. It is an "independent expenditure" that promotes a particular message, one for/against a candidate whose election would affect the business of the corporation. Kagan raises the problem that shareholders might not support the message, shareholders via mutual funds and the like for which they are not likely to know at any given time which stocks they even own. CJ Roberts felt this was "paternalistic."

Information about the orals today can be found here and here. A few quick thoughts. Floyd Abrams, arguing for Sen. McConnell (the loser in the case five or so years back) didn't seem to me to be too compelling. He pushed for a broad holding as did Ted Olson (not only having strange bedfellows in same sex marriage cases), who did a better job. It might be a time matter -- Seth Waxman for the other side did not seem to do much for his ten minutes. Kagan was spunky. She promises to be fun. And, as the Election Blog noted, there was a "hot bench," many sharp questioning. But, as you know, only when Sotomayor does that is it a problem.

The government is probably going to lose ... it only depends how big. When Roberts fears "FCC bureaucrats" will be left to protect the First Amendment, and Alito (the other swing) snipes that appeal to the history of corporate regulation is a "sound bite," you know you are in trouble. Kagan assured the justices that books were not going to be touched here, even if technically the law might leave that open. I'm unsure, as with Alito, where the line is there. Why not film? Is film a second-rate medium now? Also, I think Scalia has a point -- if we fear corporate power, a blunderbuss applying to all corporations, most rather small, is overbroad. And, if shareholders is the problem, some limited disclosure law could be set up.

But, the intelligent thing to do would be to send a warning Congress' way (see the voting rights case last June) while deciding things fairly narrowly. Yes, there is a danger of overbroard laws, but something of this caliber deserves a full record, not an overtime serious question akin to a child asking mommy about sex a few minutes before she drops him or her off at school. Let's see what happens.

Various

And Also: To add something, here's an interesting essay comparing vegans with homosexuals, which seems to hold up.

GG today provides a prime example of an asshole. These people, and there are loads of them, poison the well. Substantive results are what matters often enough, but assholes tend to have negative ones. They are more likely to reason poorly and not care too much about the facts. This includes those with a veneer of respectability, but who push comes to shove, are no better. McCain comes off this way -- I'm starting to have that emotional reaction to his voice as I did when President Bush talked.

Meanwhile, the bare minimum denied when someone is not even given the chance for a fair independent hearing is underlined here -- would it have be so very hard to give him such a hearing five years ago? OTOH, quite cases went the other way, underlining the basic right still has bite. It does suggest the need for follow-ups. News tends to be a pinpoint matter, particularly reporting court cases, when in reality it is more like a river. For instance, ultimately, this person's claim was upheld, even on the more limited basis of the Souter opinion.

Among the critics, Hans von Spakovsky, a former key Bush-era official at the division, has accused the Obama team of “nakedly political” maneuvers.

A bit of "he said/she said" from an article entitled "Justice Department to Recharge Civil Rights Enforcement." As TPM might say, this is rich, but who would know given the article gives us absolutely no context concerning the guy. Anyway, this is yet another reason why it matters who is running things, even if you don't want to have a beer with the guy. OTOH, there is the fact that we know at least you can have a beer with this guy. Given the long haul, maybe lots of them.

And, no light beer!

Declaration of Interdependence

And Also: Palin is resigning about a year and a half early ... thank goodness it wasn't two years! Yes, we were supposed to take seriously someone who chose this person as his vice president. Bye.

When we are true to ourselves, to our own beginnings and to the best of our history, we do not assert our entitlement to something called 'world leadership' on the ground of our now being 'the only superpower' -- that is, after all, just the bully's reason for claiming dominance -- but to our commitment to human rights.

- Charles L. Black, A New Birth Of Freedom: Human Rights, Named & Unnamed

Since the Fourth of July honors the signing of a declaration defending independence as necessary to better protect such rights -- independence itself voted upon two days before -- that quote is fitting. But, the fact that we needed help, particularly from France, so is this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all people are created equal and interdependent; that all life on this planet exists interdependently; that the future of all people requires that they live with respect for one another and for this earth.

That all people are endowed by their very humanity with certain universal, inalienable, and indivisible rights; that among these rights are the rights to life, liberty, clean air, clean water, food, shelter, consensual intimacy, education, health care, political participation, cultural expression, peace, justice and the pursuit of happiness.

- DECLARATION OF INTERDEPENDENCE

The Fourth of July is the time when many are filled with patriotic fervor, fervor that glorifies in our Independence and greatness. The Declaration of Independence, however, honors our interdependence as well. Its very first paragraph speaks of "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind." Such respect obligated us to explain why we were declaring our right to "assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station" to which we are entitled. Do we really feel we are "equal" to the other powers of the earth? Do we have a decent respect of the opinion of mankind?

Next, the document speaks about how governments are formed to secure rights,* "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." When the government becomes "destructive of these ends," it is "the right of the people" to alter [including by election] or abolish it. "Their" safety and happiness is key, and it is "their" right, "their" duty to throw off government that fails them, even if prudence leads them to suffer until it is no longer sufferable. And, those involved are not singled out by race, blood, or religion ... "all" are included. The basic interdependent nature of this whole enterprise is crystal clear. The people must work together to insure that their interests, their rights are protected.

The document then lists various abuses,** targeting the king as many now target the President, though others such as the Parliament (Congress) have "too been deaf to the voice of justice." All the same, the document speaks in the plural, speaking of the American people as a whole. Their interdependence and basic interests as a whole are crystal clear. Not those of a select body of the people at large. Likewise, the ideal put forth is a peaceful and universal one: "we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace, friends."

The document ends with a basic statement of honor: "And for the support of the declaration [and all it stands for] ... we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." The interests of the community at large is our basic concern, but our honor must not be violated in the process. Power and self-interest alone are not to be our guide. The respect of our fellow citizens and the world at large is also a basic concern.

---

* The Declaration states that we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness is probably a term of philosophical art, involving what an ideal well-rounded person would seek. These rights are equally held. Lest we forget, the government has a responsibility to "secure" such rights, which surely includes a realistic ability to enjoy them.

** The list is quite interesting and continues to have significance, including the importance of juries, civil over military power, abuses in war, setting up jurisdictions "foreign" to our laws, and so forth as the document quoted above suggests.

Letterman Again

And Also: After a new low yesterday, I think it would be useful if I took a break from watching the local NL team. Watching games so they could blow it late, hearing about the latest on the disabled list, or hearing excited calls [references to the skills of the other side] by the announcers of said team as the team falls apart yet again (must be hard to keep from boredom -- ho hum, they messed up ... again) is harmful to my health. Embarrassment.

A recent ruling by the New York Court of Appeals (highest court) held that a local nighttime curfew law "violated the substantive due process rights of minors to enjoy freedom of movement and of parents to control the upbringing of their children." An example of state courts having an important role in interpreting the law, lest we forget in the midst of the Sotomayor talk and references to the powers of the federal courts, particularly the Supremes.

But, why not just stay in and watch late night television? On that note, a bit more about David Letterman's Palin jokes. Keith is gleefully spending days on the matter, his usual habit of beating dead horses, but Salon and others have called David out while still noting that Palins are going overboard. As I noted earlier, Keith did the former too, but in effect thinks the Palins continue pushback is over the top. This would include comments like "It would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman."

Salon noted that:

"Slutty flight attendant" is not just a sexual put-down; it's a socioeconomic one.

I will say a bit more about this below, but this is a selective quote, the joke being about "buying makeup at Bloomingdale's to update her slutty flight attendant look." Another article, which links the one with that line, has a 'pox on both your houses' sentiment. Jokes like that and "Sarah Palin went to a Yankees Game yesterday … during the seventh inning stretch, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez" are bad, but so was her response:

She's absolutely right that jokes like that contribute to an oppressive culture for women and young girls. But on this rare occasion when she's absolutely right about a couple of things, she can't just stop there. She has to blow straight past reasonable outrage and into disingenuous, over-the-top accusations.

That is, that Letterman really meant Willow, etc. The article is right to note that the apology was somewhat half-hearted, with the audience laughing, but he did apologize, and his tone was in part a result of that fact he thought it stupid that it was assumed Willow was the brunt of the joke. Or, that he was joking about the sexual abuse of 14 year olds. Two comments to the article are on the money. One spoke about the difference of the people involved:

The difference between the two to me, the difference between the two is their roles. Letterman is a comedian. Not one I particularly like, and I didn't find his recent Palin jokes funny, but a comedian. He made a joke. When it wasn't received well, he clarified and apologized.

Palin, however, is an elected public official and former vice-presidential candidate. She implied Letterman is a child molester, and when given the opportunity to clarify or apologize, she didn't. This is different from making a bad attempt at topical humour, this is an active attempt at defamation. Isn't she open to a defamation or libel suit for this? If absolutely nothing else, she more than overreacted to a bad joke.

The other focused on one of the jokes. Likewise, other comments suggested the jokes about Bristol (sic) were more about A-Rod and Spitzer, about their loose sexual ways, than about Ms. Palin. Not so sure this is totally true, since Bristol's pregnancy and so forth adds juice to the joke, but it's at least half-true. The discussion of the Palin joke hits home though, the criticisms really setting up a double standard:

Letterman didn't call Sarah Palin a slut. What he did say was perfectly accurate: that McCain/Palin/RNC spent a fortune to sexualize Palin during the campaign. This mischaracterization of Letterman's joke is as bad as Palin's.

What about the suggestion that there was a "socioeconomic" edge to the joke? It is not like he said a "stewardess" ... "slutty" was added, suggesting that stewardesses alone are not always slutty. To be honest, that image does fit the clearly intentional sexualization here. This includes the skirt uniforms traditionally seen among stewardesses and their use of glossy makeup. It seems a bit of a stretch to make this about class. A lone use of "slut" would be rather harsh, less funny, so they needed to water it down somehow. What should the writers have used here?

The audience's reaction during his apology (half-hearted or not, he spent the time to address the matter) appears justified. There is less here that meets the eye, especially when he admits to taking the path of least resistance in many cases to get a laugh. Clinton appealed to the MTV generation and had to deal with it when people did not give him the respect someone who was less low brow in various ways might deserve. Palin used her sexuality, and made her children into public figures (exploiting them in the process, particularly making Bristol/Levi into some nice couple, which bit her in the ass as events progressed), and people make jokes. And, she gets more air time.

Are some in poor taste? Sure. Is she full of herself? Definitely.

Meghan McCain Helps The Conversation

And Also: After Keith covered Obama's speech positively and attacked Cheney (low hanging fruit, but we can't ignore it), Rachel opened her show attacking the preventive detention proposal. Meanwhile, the latest plot caught in the planning stages is labeled "aspirational." Tricky, but conspiracies can be targeted if the planning stages are real enough. Unclear.

The Obama v. McCain moment was good political theater, but meanwhile another side of sorts gets play in the news. No, not the desperation of the likes of Keith to hang on to Sarah Palin, including bringing in public appearances of Bristol and her former boyfriend. No, I'm talking about Meghan McCain. Someone over at the NYT blog finds her embarrassing, something I bet her dad thinks sometimes. See also, Wonkette.

But, I think overall, she comes off pretty good with the proviso that without her father, she would not be saying anything particularly newsworthy. Or, rather, Meghan McCain would just be representative of many of her generation, educated well-off independent minded sorts that the current Republican Party is not doing much to attract. Such is her message, after all, and she should know -- she voted for both Kerry and McCain. MM became a Republican on Father's Day when her dad was running. If he was not, one wonders if she ever would have.

Here’s what I’ve never understood about the party: its resistance to discussing better access to birth control. As a Republican, I am pro-life. But using birth control and having an abortion are not the same at all. Actually, the best way to prevent abortions is to educate people about birth control and make it widely and easily accessible. True, abstinence is the only way to fully prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Still, the problem with abstinence-only education is that it does not make teenagers and young adults more knowledgeable about all the issues they face if or when they have sex—physically and emotionally.

This is an example of her blog entries at The Daily Beast, which along with her going on Colbert to say she is "pro-sex" is the sort of thing that got attention long before now. She almost seems ready to join Feministing or something. She seems a stark contrast to many Republicans, but she is not really too much different than her dad -- who is a media hog and has not shied too far away from his "bad boy" rep in the past. The problem, of course, is that the current Republican Party simply does not fit here, even if it could potentially do so. Let's be honest here. It's why she voted for Kerry, I bet. More:

Putting it bluntly, we’ve done a disservice to our violence problems by making the political argument about guns instead of whatever causes people to be violent in the first place. Anger, alcohol, drugs, economic hopelessness, reckless driving—they can all precipitate tragedy. Simply removing guns from the equation does not solve the larger problem. Worse, it gives the wrong impression about what can and should be done to help those who are troubled. The real solution to preventing gun violence is not taking away the tools, but tackling its causes: poverty, inadequate health care, mental illness, joblessness, inadequate housing, and poor education. Desperate people will make anything a weapon. We need to eliminate desperation, not guns.

Sound enough ... up to a point. I think MM helps the conversation, so overall, I think she is a positive influence. Let's remember she is not Bristol Palin; she is in her twenties, and a graduate of Colombia. (Well, that explains it!) MM comes off as a bit of an airhead at times, but the same can be said for many much more well paid talking heads. Still, my concern would be to force her to make some hard calls. Pro-life? Fine. Do you think this complex choice should be compelled by law? Pro-gun? Fine. How about things like this?

Sometimes, it is necessary to walk before you run, and her sanity on birth control, gay rights,* and so forth is an important message. But, if she wants to speak out, particularly on some liberal friendly outlets, she has to go the next step. After all, if she wants to save the party from itself, talk about realistic policies, we also have to know the answers to those questions too. I'm okay with her not talking about Palin. Her saying she simply does not know much about the economy is fine, since she was not trying to run for President. [Does make it easier for her to defend the Republican line!]

She has to explain a bit more about the breadth of her positions all the same. For same sex marriage? Cheers! If you think abortion should be illegal, the bloom might be suddenly off the rose. Colbert is right though ... she does not quite sound Republican. This only helps her, of course.

---

* Yet again, the "guest columnist" for the NY Daily News is ten times better (in nausea level alone) than the regulars, including the likes of Charles "Obama is a big phony" Krauthammer, doing his regular channeling of Cheney.

JP Day Approaches

I'm an Irish/Italian mutt, so today (St. Pat's) and Thursday (St. Joseph's, patron saint of Italians) is of some note. As is tomorrow -- it is JP Day, in honor of us mutts. Sample food: pasta and beer. Meanwhile, Meghan McCain ... you go girl.

Obama's First Signing Statement

And Also: My morning Salon email provides lots of interesting stuff, including discussion of a new report that raises doubts as to the value of parental notification/consent laws. A look at the details suggests a mixed bag at best, many negative results at worst. A companion read for Helen Silverstein's Girls On The Stand: How Courts Fail Pregnant Minors. But, when Bristol Palin (single mom?) provides a realistic stance on abstinence only education, how surprising is this?*

Obama ran and is governing as a centrist, which is good in various ways, except to the degree that things are so skewered that being in the center is not really acceptable in various respects. On the latter front, I have referenced his stance on truth commissions, state secrets, and so forth. But, clearly, he has done a lot of good even this early in his administration. And, a middle of the road path is sane on many levels. For instance, earmarks. McCain's extremism on the topic is inane. It's an annoyance, can be abused, but also is a part of the system that will continue, one that actually has good points. Such perspective is but one reason Obama won.

The same can be said about signing statements. Obama said he opposed their abuse, but -- again unlike McCain -- was not an absolutist about the whole thing. Obama said that in various ways, signing statements are legitimate, and he would use them ... just with more care and discretion than his predecessor: "with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well founded.” As I noted recently, it is this abuse that was the core problem, not the use per se. Likewise, the proof will be in the pudding -- that is, how they are used. Coverage should highlight this issue, including addressing in some fashion if the use is legitimate, and if it is truly comparable with his predecessor.

Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes. Therefore, although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. Likewise, one other provision gives congressional committees the power to establish guidelines for funding costs associated with implementing security improvements to buildings. Executive officials shall treat such guidelines as advisory. Yet another provision requires the Secretary of the Treasury to accede to all requests of a Board of Trustees that contains congressional representatives. The Secretary shall treat such requests as nonbinding.

-- "Obama issues first signing statement" (Salon)

Charles Savage did yeoman work over his former Boston environs on executive power issues during the Bush years, including a fundamentally important questionnaire given to presidential candidates. Now at the NYT, his article on Obama's first signing statement therefore is particularly worth reading. TPM and Salon also reported on the issue, but Savage included more details. The former two focused on provisions concerning spending, particularly ones that in effect were legislative vetoes requiring committee approval for certain actions. This is in clear opposition to INS v. Chada. IOW, for those who want court review when there is a debate between the branches (or a veto), the review has been held.

He would consider such things as advisory, but will be sure to reasonably keep the Congress informed. This is an omnibus spending bill, and Obama specifically addressed such legislation as warranting some middle of the road approach. This is acceptable, surely realistic, on some level. This was a budget already in the works, not one developed during the Obama Administration entirely, and thus provided less opportunity for feedback and consideration. One hopes that some controversial measures of this sort can be addressed during this process beforehand, so that signing statements are not the first time we hear about the issue. Not that executive/legislative jocking will end, it being inherent in the process. But, there are degrees.

Savage adds additional details, such as:

One of the budget bill's provisions that Mr. Obama said he could circumvent concerns United Nations peacekeeping missions. It says money may not be spent on any such mission if it entails putting United States troops under a foreign commander, unless Mr. Obama’s military advisers so recommend.

"This provision," Mr. Obama wrote, "raises constitutional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions, by conditioning the exercise of my authority as commander in chief on the recommendations of subordinates within the military chain of command, and by constraining my diplomatic negotiating authority."

More troubling. To the degree it places "conditions" etc., it does so by the power of the purse. The legislature has every right to condition spending in this fashion and this on the face of it appears to me an abuse of the signing statement power. Now, the substance of the provision also is suspect -- it has a taint of right wing anti-UN about it. Ike can command foreign troops in various ways, sure, but hey, no Frenchie is going to command our troops! It's absurd. The UN will require various actions that require leadership. The U.S. will not be able to control everything or be able to be freestanding actors. So sorry. That's not how it works.

On another issue:

He also raised concerns about a section that establishes whistle-blower protections for federal employees who give information to Congress.

"I do not interpret this provision," he wrote, "to detract from my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control and correct employees' communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential."

This is more a matter of nuance. What does "properly" mean and so forth. Still, to the degree whistleblowers need protection from executive departments, their very function to say things that the PTB might not wish to be heard, there is a troubling flavor to the statement. The statement implies to some extent that if heads say something is "confidential" (state secret alert!), it could block whistleblowers from reporting to Congress on important matters that again is something Congress has the power to demand. Both statements can be defended as necessary to guard executive power over underlings, though the former hits closer to the core of executive power. This one however is more domestic in scope and bad policy to boot. And, when would it be "unlawful" for whistleblowers to go to Congress?! Are we to trust the executive -- who the whistle is being blown on! -- that "there's nothing to see here?" Absurd.

Savage ends with some context:

Many of Mr. Bush's signing statements made arguments similar to those made Wednesday by Mr. Obama. But Mr. Bush invoked particularly contentious claims of executive authority, as when he declared that a ban on torture violated his powers as commander in chief.

The Bush administration defended its use of signing statements as lawful and appropriate. The American Bar Association, on the other hand, condemned them as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers," and called on presidents to stop using them.

Other legal specialists have argued that there is a role for the practice so long as presidents invoke only mainstream legal theories. They say Congress sometimes includes minor constitutional flaws in important bills that are impractical to veto.

The word "similar" will rankle with some, but the whistleblower provision is not so far afield from the last administration to be free of such taint. The commander-in-chief power defended, ironically addressing a conservative friendly provision, is less controversial. After all, what is the substantive effect of such a provision? What military commander would overrule the wishes of the Obama Administration? And, if s/he did, Obama clearly has the power to remove said miscreant, making the whole thing basically symbolic. The legislative veto matters also are not really controversial, and a careful statement is welcomed as a matter of full disclosure.

OTOH, how are they similar overall? Details? It also is not surprising that the Bush Administration defended what it did. It would be a tad bit surprising if it did not. As to the ABA, I question if their stance is so black/white, but if it is, that is a tad extreme. Simply put, laws provide enough discretion that signing statements are useful for that reason alone. As to cases of executive nullification, which is but one aspect of signing statements (which sometimes are just a sort of press release, btw), that is more troubling. Still, those "other legal specialists" have a point, and in various respects, Obama clearly is taking a reasonable centrist path on this issue ... one he was upfront about during the campaign.

This in no way means there will be difficulties and line crossing involved. Defense of executive power is part of the job, but we still have checks and balances. The whistleblower provision alone underlines the point. Continue to be on guard, since even our friends slip now and again.

---

* Nancy Pelosi's daughter is also out there making documentaries, often on conservative subjects. We also have been hearing from McCain's daughter -- having dating woes since she doesn't like Dems or Republicans who are too gung ho -- including how she doesn't like Ann Coutler and on the importance of something of a moderate path that includes providing a critical take on one's own movement. This all is welcomed.

She was on Rachel Maddow last night and gets an "A" for enthusiasm, if not coming off as totally mature as of yet. It is unfortunate that RM didn't ask her why she is so excited about the Republicans as such. M. was on for an extended interview after all, and it would have been a better question than a half-hearted "are you really supportive of all their policies" question, letting her off the hook as about as clued in on economic issues as her dad. But, she has an excuse -- she is in her mid-20s and did not run for President.

Anyway, hopefully, other Republicans will go on the show. It can be more useful than having the likes of Frank Rich. BTW, Keith Olberman had an extended anti-O'Reilly segment on last night. Keith's speaking to the choir qualities annoy, but there is a place for addressing right wing talking points. He provided counterpoints with facts. This is appreciated.

Budget As Policy Statement & Earmarks (Yawn)

And Also: Prof. Colb has a good essay up on our "moral schizophrenia" on animal welfare, though Hilzoy is also right on the value (if limited overall) of the "Captive Primate Safety Act." As a law review article Colb cites notes, our hearts are often in the right place. It is the breadth of the concern and selective exceptions that are ultimately problematic.

Keith Olbermann made a good point recently when noting that Obama's budget is not just about dollars and cents, but more important, an expression of his policy views. His view of what we as a people should care about as expressed by what we spend our money on. In the Bush years, for instance, tax policy was skewered to the rich. Obama and the Democrats have a different approach in mind, even if Joe the Plumber sorts want to pretend otherwise. Likewise, tidbits such as this underline the important policy implications of budgets:

The 2009 omnibus appropriations bill has a little-noticed provision that will have a huge impact on college women. It's called the "affordable birth control fix," and is aimed at restoring access to affordable birth control for nearly four million college students and low-income women!

In 2005, Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act, which tightened regulations about who was eligible for nominally priced drugs. In doing so, Congress inadvertently cut off every single college and university health center and other safety-net providers from obtaining birth control at a low cost, and passing on those savings to their patients. Women like me are now paying up to 10 times more each month for basic birth control.

The discussion suggests the effect of such things, including the message being sent to women, and limits on their ability to true equality, especially in respect to their bodies. This also puts into perspective that people simply do not care too much about McCain's harping on earmarks. They have a sense of perspective, even if in some fashion they appreciate his call for fiscal restraint, one he admits is not shared by many of his political brethren. McCain, however, supports the Republican fiscal policies overall (now, including tax cuts for the rich), which in the long run is a lot more fiscally irresponsible:

But after eight years of the policies McCain mostly promised to continue if he won the election, eliminating the millions -- or even billions -- of dollars that get sprinkled around on lawmakers' pet projects isn't going to fix much.

Putting aside that things like scientific research and the like is clearly beneficial. Earmarks -- now no longer secret -- might be of individual concern, but they often involve important matters all the same. Consider a USA Today (h/t "Today's Papers" at Slate) feature as to how a $410 billion bill has $227 million for "pet projects for former lawmakers." We are talking a tiny fraction of one percent here (someone tells me the total earmark figure is about 1%), and even there, the measures include things like funding for "North Carolina Sheriffs' Association for the North Carolina Sheriffs' Association to equip a training facility". Plus, it provides the necessary grease to satisfy local interests that is needed to pass large budget bills.

Yes, some are dubious, some are open to ridicule. Take any program, however, and some results will be dubious, some open to ridicule. And, even there, upon closer look, it might not seem too ridiculous. McCain, for example, ridicules funding for astronomic research. How silly! Surely, studying our atmosphere and space overall is stupid. Or, studies on let's say pig odor. This is not so silly if you are in a farming community, is it? It is akin to those who made fun of Rep. Gillibrand for being on some farm related committee, when in fact her region in upstate New York is quite concerned with that issue. Press loving mavericks at times miss the forest for the trees, and clearly this is but one reason the people rejected him as President.

And, this is why the Republicans whining about pork in a military funding bill late in the Bush Administration didn't concern me. All such bills tend to have some sort of pork. It was an non-issue, something to change the subject about how flawed the Bush policy was. Meanwhile, reforms have been made to earmarks, which have been (so I hear) reduced. McCain snide comments about "changes we can believe in" notwithstanding.

Voter Suppression: Then and Now

Baseball: Tampa, after leading the toughest division in baseball for most of the season and whacking around rather good pitching in the playoffs (cf: the Rockies second half streak or the Tigers slip-up late in the season), decides to choke and provide us yet ANOTHER lame World Series. What a f-ing waste.

Charles Zelden wrote The Battle for the Black Ballot, one of those short form accounts of landmark Supreme Court cases, this one concerning Smith v. Allwright. This case served as the true death sentence to the "white primary," even if it was in some fashion run by the party itself. Note that the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, dealing with poll taxes in federal elections, specifically includes "primary" and other elections in its text. This underlines that simplistic interpretative rules are problematic -- in various cases, this might be seen as implying that amendments without "primary" are less all inclusive. Note as well that the Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment to attack state poll taxes.

The all white primary was but one disenfranchisement technique, a myriad of "neutral" laws (including still lingering examples such as felon disenfranchisement aka former felon disenfranchisment, since we are not just talking about people in prison or even on parole/probation) put in place toward this end. Such laws also sometimes targeted other "wrong" sorts, such as poll taxes that in some cases were clearly in place also to harm poor whites. An understanding of history would help in seeing behind the neutrality, including in cases involving "at large" voting that historically was used to dilute the voting strength of local black communities. Missing the forest for the trees, such things look perfectly fine.

See also, various Republican voter suppression techniques. John Stossel has an idiots shouldn't vote piece up. I'm not sure many of his (conservative) supporters would want to know how that would work in practice. BTW, I recently saw the second half of Recount, the HBO movie about the 2000 mess. I'm reading a book by Zelden on the matter as well. Depressing, but useful. Unlike some, I cannot "get over" the hijacking of a presidential election. Blacks did not "get over" early defeats in white primary cases.

Disenfranchisement and dirty pool tended to stick in their craw.

Obama: Respected and Credible

It is not all good, but the fact that Obama is getting support all over the place (e.g., former McCain adviser Charles Fried) is telling. Consider the respect given by a conservative scholar to his constitutional wisdom -- the substance is notable too -- as compared to the knee-jerk b.s. (see also last link) from the McCain side. One side is at the end of the day credible, the other is not.