Gov. Bobby Jindal's Awful Repsonse to Obama's Speech

There has been a good amount of reaction to both President Obama's address to the nation last evening and also the response that was given by Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA). Jindal's response can be viewed below:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I would like to meet whoever it is that thought this type of speech would be a good idea. The delivery is poor, Jindal is talking down to his audience as if they are in grade school, and he merely recycles the same Republican talking points that we have seen articulated for the last few decades. There are some surprising new arguments, like ridiculously using Hurricane Katrina as a positive example of restructuring the schooling system, but the majority of the speech plays the same old tune. From stirring up patriotism ("Americans can do anything") to using the same old "Republicans believe in the people, Democrats believe in the government", to telling stories with an overly simplistic message, it was one of the poorest rebuttals that I have ever seen.

David Brooks says:

..to come up at this moment in history with a stale "government is the problem," "we can't trust the federal government" - it's just a disaster for the Republican Party. The country is in a panic right now. They may not like the way the Democrats have passed the stimulus bill, but that idea that we're just gonna - that government is going to have no role, the federal government has no role in this, that - In a moment when only the federal government is actually big enough to do stuff, to just ignore all that and just say "government is the problem, corruption, earmarks, wasteful spending," it's just a form of nihilism. It's just not where the country is, it's not where the future of the country is. There's an intra-Republican debate. Some people say the Republican Party lost its way because they got too moderate. Some people say they got too weird or too conservative. He thinks they got too moderate, and so he's making that case. I think it's insane, and I just think it's a disaster for the party. I just think it's unfortunate right now.

The fact that the Republicans chose this type of message as a response to President Obama clearly shows the dysfunctional position that they are currently in. It is almost as if they set out to produce a GOP recruitment video, but forgot about (or omitted) everything that has happened over the last few decades.

Gather the Torches...

It's no surprise to hear the continued criticisms of President Obama from the right regarding his being a "socialist". After all, if being a "tax and spend liberal" isn't enough then I guess you could always through the dreaded "socialist" label around to get people riled up. As we saw during the campaign season, this type of language could be expected, but I have seen a recent trend of hyperbole and rhetoric that leaves a different taste in my mouth and I see that Digby and Andrew Sullivan have also picked up on this.

Alan Keyes recently said:

"Obama is a radical communist and I think it is becoming clear. That is what I told people in Illinois and now everybody realizes it is coming true. He is going to destroy this country and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist."

This may seem ridiculous at first, but the language of "either we stop Obama or America will not exist" is a little alarming and not isolated to Keyes. Rush Limbaugh recently stated:

RUSH: At this point, at this point, Gretchen, I don't care about the "why." They're not going to leave; they're trying to control it. At this point, the only thing is: They. Must. Be. Stopped.

CALLER: I agree, and what can you do, Rush?

RUSH: Within the confines of our Constitution and the political arena of ideas, they must be stopped. I don't care why they see this country the way they see it. I don't care why a murderer does it. I don't care why a rapist does it. I don't care why this Muslim guy off-ed his wife's head. The NOW gang is out there saying (paraphrased), "Nah, that's not domestic violence. That's just..." What did they call it? "It's a cultural thing, an 'honor killing.' This woman was going to divorce him, and that's against the law. That's his diversity." You know, I don't care. I don't care why anymore. If I figure it out I'll be glad to tell you because it's interesting to know, but it doesn't matter in terms of defeating them.

Limbaugh did mention that Obama should be stopped "within the confines of our Constitution", but if this the type of rhetoric that is being whipped up against Obama only one month into his Presidency, you can only imagine the road that we are headed down over the next four years.

Slow Day for Bronson at the Enquirer?

The Cincinnati Enquirer's Peter Bronson must be having a slow blogging day. His entry today is entitled "A president who never stops running can't stand for anything".

In this entry he criticizes President Obama for traveling to various cities throughout the country instead of staying at his office in Washington D.C. because Bronson somehow thinks that Obama's travels reflect poorly on Obama's management skills:

So when does our new president ever show up at the office? Is he so thrilled with Air Force One that he just can't resist taking it for a spin every day? (How do those chastised auto executives feel about that, as they drive electric cars to D.C. to panhandle for bailouts because they were spanked for using jets?) Or is Obama still hooked on the campaign jones, the adoring crowds, the adulation and cheers, the fainting fans who laugh uproariously if he dents a dimple?

Bronson makes it sound like Obama is on vacation or giving stump speeches instead of visiting some of the areas that have been hit hardest by the economic crisis. Are not Presidents supposed to be in touch with the citizens of the country? I have no problem with a President who wants to visit different areas of the country to get a snapshot of how the economy is taking its toll on hardworking citizens.

Bronson then quotes Tony Blankly's latest piece in the Washington Times which criticizes Obama for apparently not knowing what would happen to the inmates at Guantanamo once he ordered the base closed. This stems from Obama asking his White House council if the executive order had been written in regard to the disposal of the detainees. Bronson uses both of these examples as indication that Obama has no management skills. Nevermind that Obama's order to close Guantanamo within one year includes a period of review so the Administration can decide what they should do with the detainees.

Using these examples to make Obama sound like some dunce who is gallivanting around the country on his jet while unable to grasp issues that need to be addressed for the policies that he is implementing is just a pathetic partisan attempt to make an issue out of no issue at all. A President who is always running can't stand for anything.....what?

Questions on Detainees Loom as al-Marri's Case Nears the Supreme Court

Jane Mayer was on NPR today and on Rachel Maddow's show yesterday discussing her latest piece in The New Yorker. Mayer writes about Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a native of Qatar who entered the United States on September 10, 2001 on a student visa. In December, 2001, al-Marri was arrested as a material witness in the September 11 attacks. Just as his trial was scheduled to begin in June, 2003, President Bush ordered the military to seize al-Marri and transport him to a military brig in South Carolina where he has been held, without charge, ever since.

Al-Marri's case is due to come before the Supreme Court sometime in April will more than likely put a host of questions before the Obama Administration on how they intend to not only handle this case, but other cases in which detainees have been designated "enemy combatants". Other issues that are likely to be addressed are the limits of executive power regarding the President's authority to label individuals enemy combatants and the scope of the so-called battlefield. After all, al-Marri was arrested in Illinois.

Marri recently released a statement saying:

“I am not asking to be taken at my word and to be released, although I very much want to go home to my family. All I am asking for is to be treated like every other person in the United States who is accused of a crime, including terrorism, and to be given a fair trial in an American court.”

Whether this happens remains to be seen, but due to this case rapidly approaching the Supreme Court, these various issues may be forced upon the Obama Administration. Obama has already indicated that his Administration is looking at various options for what to do with the detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay. There are some who believe that Obama may push for the creation of a separate National Security Court that will be separate from criminal trials and will allow for preventive detention for a certain period of time without charge. Others, like former Attorney General John Ashcroft, believe that Obama will handle detainees much like President Bush did. Ashcroft recently said:

“How will he be different? The main difference is going to be that he spells his name ‘O-b-a-m-a,’ not ‘B-u-s-h.’ ”

Regardless, this case is going to be very interesting to follow within the coming weeks to see how the Obama Administration is going to react in their first test on handling a so-called enemy combatant.

Here is a video clip of Jane Mayer discussing this issue on The Rachel Maddow Show:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Fixing Legal Policy Around Political Objectives

There is a continued buzz over the results of an investigation by H. Marshall Jarrett, head of the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility, into the legal advice that the Bush Administration received on policies of torture. The Public Record is quoting "legals sources familiar with the case" in saying that the results of this investigation are "damning" and that there was "misconduct" on the part of John Yoo and other lawyers who were apart of the Office of Legal Council during the Bush Administration.

The issue here is not merely that Yoo and others gave the Bush Administration bad legal advice, but that their opinions were not in good faith and were actually fixed around the policy goals that the Administration wanted to accomplish. This report and the conclusions that it reaches, could be very destructive for the Bush Administration's continued defense of its torture policies. The Bush Administration has continually pointed to the legal opinions that they received in the form of the Yoo and Bybee memos in justifying the legality of their policies on torture, but if these legal opinions were indeed fixed around political objectives, then this justification (which was shaky to begin with) will disintegrate.

From the article:

One part of the OPR report criticized Yoo’s use of an obscure 2000 health benefits statute to narrow the definition of torture in a way that permitted waterboarding and other acts that have historically been regarded as torture under U.S. law, the sources said.

The report also criticizes Yoo’s legal theories that the President of the United States had the right to suspend Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, the sources said. It is believed that Yoo’s legal theories led to a warrantless wiretap program after 9/11.

The OPR report was completed late last year but was kept under wraps by Attorney General Michael Mukasey while Bush finished out his days in office, the sources said.

While the question of why Former Attorney General Mukasey decided to suppress this report needs to be answered, it is interesting to take into account John Yoo's involvement in White House policy meetings at the same time that he was forming the legal opinions that allowed for said policies to be implemented. It is clear, as The Public Record points out, that Yoo's own writings provide evidence of his involvement in the shaping of policy. Perhaps two of the most interesting lines from Yoo's book War by Other Means state:

“Many at Gitmo are not in a state of calm surrender. Open barracks for most are utterly impossible; some al-Qaeda detainees want to kill not only guards, but their peers who might be cooperating with the United States. The provision of ordinary POW rights...is infeasible.”

“If Geneva Convention rules were applied, some believed they would interfere with our ability to apprehend or interrogate al-Qaeda leaders.”

These lines indicate not only Yoo's communication with those who believed that the Geneva Conventions should not be applied, but they indicate that Yoo's involvement with policy makers translated into legal results that allowed for this very policy to become justified. With this "damning" of a report, it becomes harder for both the Bush Administration to justify their actions on torture and for the Obama Administration to ignore the need for punishment of the arrogant law-breaking from the last eight years.

A Rare Challenge to the Beltway Mindset

Believe me, I was just as surprised as anyone to see MSNBC's Contessa Brewer provide a brief moment of clarity that was able to cut through the mindset of beltway journalism. Kudos to Crooks and Liars for catching this exchange with Sheryl Gay Stolberg, White House Correspondent for the New York Times:

Brewer: Is President Obama able to control his message against than the Nattering Nabobs of Negativism Can he slowly change the ways of Washington?

Stolberg: Obama wanted a big bipartisan vote and he didn't get it. He passed it just like George Bush passed his...by pushing through a one party bill.

Harwood: Are you respond as a Nattering Nabob since he's at 66%?

Stolberg: I am a Nattering Nabob of Fairness instead

Stolberg: Obama went courting Republicans...he framed bill as a show of unity. Instead it could have been a lesson in setting expectations. We need this measure and if it get Republican votes fine, but it's a high priority for us.

Brewer: Didn't he do just that....Cocktails etc. Reaching across the aisle. But they wanted what? a Republican stamp on the bill. After all the Democrats won.

Stolberg: (long reply about the "I won" statement from POTUS meaning nothing) Even so the pres made such a strong point in his campaign of about changing the ways of Washington, it couldn't help but be a disappointment when it didn't get
republican votes.

Brewer: Perhaps it was the Republicans with the deaf ears on that front

Stolberg (Taken aback and stutters) "Well perhaps.....

Brewer: Let's make that the last word on that

Stolberg: Okay I'll let you have the last word.

You can view video of the exchange here. It really is amazing to watch what happens when an anchor has a moment of clarity and dare challenge the beltway mentality, that Obama failed in his mission for a bipartisan stimulus bill. Nevermind if the Republicans turned "deaf ears" to any idea of bargaining and nevermind that Obama weakened his own bill in order to appease the minority, a minority that ends up patting itself on the back for not voting for the bill. This is the new definition of bipartisanship, President Obama moves to the right by accommodating the wants of the Republicans and they react by not bargaining in good faith and end up voting in a bloc against the legislation. This narrative has failed to get through to the beltway journalists and it is moments like this that are a little bit refreshing.

Obama to Tackle Social Security Reform?

Here is an item to watch. According to Co-Director of the Center for Economic Policy and Research, Dean Baker:

Word has it that President Obama intends to appoint a task force the week after next which will be charged with "reforming" Social Security. According to inside gossip, the task force will be led entirely by economists who were not able to see the $8 trillion housing bubble, the collapse of which is giving the country its sharpest downturn since the Great Depression.

Let's hope that Baker is dead wrong about this and that this rumor (I don't like to put my faith in articles that start with the phrase "word has it") will remain a rumor. Tackling Social Security reform is a silly idea at a time of such economic crisis and plus, as Baker points out, Social Security can pay out its benefits for the next 40 years without reform according to the GAO's own figures. Remember what happened when President Bush tried to reform Social Security?

Perhaps President Obama's time would be better spent continuing to focus on getting the economy back on track and if anything is in need of reform in the near future, it is the Health Care industry, not Social Security. Stay tuned on this one.