Matt Yglesias after the passage of the health bill in March:

For the past 65-70 years—and especially for the past 30 years since the end of the civil rights argument—American politics has been dominated by controversy over the size and scope of the welfare state. Today, that argument is largely over with liberals having largely won. [. . .] Due to the bill’s almost comically delayed implementation, for several years we’re still going to have a lot of political tussling over it. And even once it’s in place, the system will continue to be debated and tweaked for years to come. But over time, I think American politics will come to look quite different and we’ll look back on this day as a turning point.

(Emphasis supplied.) Kevin Drum today:

Glenn Greenwald cites to this Scott Horton post on the question of Presidential assassinations. Glenn describes Horton's post thusly:

Harper's Scott Horton, who says he originally thought the objections of civil libertarians in the Awlaki case were overblown, but has now concluded -- in light of the Obama DOJ's brief -- that the Obama program is the embodiment of "tyranny"[.]

Horton's post is quite muddled in my view (and rightly so - this is a very tough issue.) For Horton also writes:

I don’t for a second question the principle established in Quirin, and I believe that the president can in some circumstances target and remove figures in a command-and-control position over hostile forces even if they are removed from a conventional battlefield. But I am deeply suspicious of the need to add to the president’s theoretical powers by killing a U.S. citizen in Yemen who could certainly be captured, brought back to the United States and put on trial.

(Emphasis supplied.) What if the President concludes that Al-Alwaki was "in a command-and-control position over hostile forces removed from a conventional battlefield?" I have great respect for Greenwald and Horton. I think they raise important problems with this policy. I think the legality of the policy is not one of those problems.

Speaking for me only

So Markos posts about waning Latino enthusiasm for Dems and one of the first comments to the post is this (from a guy we like and respect no less):

Hard for me to understand Hispanics voting for a candidate from a party that demonizes them. Yes, I can understand disappointment with Dems, but voting for bigoted Rs makes no sense.

I happen to agree with this sentiment but find it disheartening that Democrats, from the President on down, seem to think the proper reaction to this type of finding is to "blame the voter."

I want to try this one more time to see if my mic is on - POLITICS IS STUPID! But the STUPIDEST politics is blaming the voter. Please stop it Dems. Which reminds me of this from Jon Stewart.

Speaking for me only

The issue of the "kill or capture" order issued by President Obama against Al-Awlaki (believed to be in Yemen) has spurred significant debate. I think it is a very difficult issue as a policy question, but what it boils down to as a legal question is this - what is the battlefield when it comes to terrorism? Glenn Greenwald writes:

I actually can't believe that there is even a "debate" over whether an American President -- without a shred of due process or oversight -- has the power to compile hit lists of American citizens whom he orders the CIA to kill far away from any battlefield.

(Emphasis supplied.) While using the appropriate word in this case - "assassination" - is intended to shock, and it definitely jars, the REAL issue is what is the battlefield? Glenn is just plain wrong in my view when he writes "it's almost impossible to ignore how similar are the rhetoric and rationale between (a) Bush supporters who justified presidential torture and (b) Obama supporters who now justify presidential due-process-free assassinations." Let's be clear - torture is a war crime, illegal under US law, is ineffective and is simply indefensible morally and legally. Glenn's "b" is what happens in war. Now you can argue that war is like torture (remember that torture is a violation of the Laws of War) and to even speak of Laws of War as an oxymoron, but it is simply wrong of Glenn to act as if they are the same. More . . .

Taliban Dan's BFF is an advocate of stoning:

[A]n August 5, 1996 article in the Gainesville Sun quoted Webster, 'I respect (Gothard) as much as anybody. [. . .] Bill Gothard, in turn, was a close ally of R.J. Rushdoony, considered the father of Christian Reconstructionism and founder of the movement's flagship institution, the Chalcedon Institute.

[Gothard] agreed that Rushdoony's vision for Biblical law should be imposed upon America. That vision included instituting stoning as a form of capital punishment for rape, kidnapping, murder, heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, "sodomy or homosexuality," incest, striking a parent, extreme juvenile delinquency, and "unchastity before marriage."

(Emphasis supplied.) More on Rushdoony can be found in the March 2010 American Prospect article American Taliban ("You may not have heard of R.J. Rushdoony. He is a kind of American Talib".

Speaking for me only

Via Digby, Alan Grayson's opponent Daniel Webster does not like people knowing about his religious group, Institute in Basic Life Principles:

[Webster] brings with him 14 years of experience with Gothard's Institute in Basic Life Principles, where Webster has not only attended seminars, but also taught classes and even made an instructional video that raised money for the institute.

The group preaches a literal interpretation of the Bible, including the belief that women should submit to their husbands' authority. [. . .] Webster is an enthusiastic supporter. His six children learn at home, taught by his wife, Sandy, using the institute's curriculum. The family, which also is active in its Orlando Baptist church, has participated in numerous institute seminars over the years.

(Emphasis supplied.) Daniel Webster believes wives should submit to their husbands. No amount of spin from Factcheck.org can change that fact.

Speaking for me only

Remarking on the President's whine about not being appreciated by Dem voters, Steve Benen writes:

It probably won't surprise regular readers to learn that I find this pretty compelling. Regardless, it raises an opportunity to make a distinction between different kinds of center-left critics of the president. [. . .] I'd argue that if Glenn [Greenwald]'s contingent represents one group of the disaffected, the other two general groups of center-left critics are (2) those who believe the president's accomplishments have been inadequate; and (3) those who are struggling badly in this economy, and expected conditions to be better than they are under Obama.

For those in the "inadequate" camp, the president's pitch may or may not be persuasive, but I think it should be. [. . .] I continue to believe it's a record that's as impressive as anything we've seen in modern times. [. . .]

I, to say the least, don't think it a "record as impressive as anything we've seen in modern times." (But I'm voting for the Dems anyway.) More importantly, saying it is has persuaded no one but those already persuaded. Whining about people not agreeing with Benen's assessment is simply lousy politics. Whatever you think of the Democratic performance the past 2 years, can we not at least agree that whining from politicians is stupid politics? That the White House has chosen an absolutely idiotic strategy here? That they need to end this strategy immediately? Can I persuade anyone of that?

Speaking for me only

It is obvious now that this is a concerted strategy:

Admonishing his own party, President Barack Obama says it would be "inexcusable" and "irresponsible" for unenthusiastic Democratic voters to sit out the midterm elections, warning that the consequences could be a squandered agenda for years. "People need to shake off this lethargy. People need to buck up," Obama told Rolling Stone in an interview to be published Friday. The president told Democrats that making change happen is hard and "if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place."

While I agree that voters should vote Dem (yes, they are largely the lesser of two evils, but here we are), I strongly disagree that the strategy of scolding voters is a smart one. In fact, I think it is an idiotic strategy. Here is the main problem:

What we are buying here is a modest home, not a mansion. What we are getting here is a starter home. It’s got a good foundation. Think about it that way. -- Tom Harkin

At Balloon Juice, Tim F. writes:

I pimped the hell out of [the health] bill, and I certainly did not think the bill was perfect. I pimped it because no national politician can bring back rescissions or pre-existing condition exemptions and expect to keep his seat. Weaker points can get ironed out later (or made worse), but major protections that affect large percentages of the public are a one-way ratchet. They quickly get fixed in the national character and people move on to fight about other things. Republicans always knew this. That’s why they fought it so hard. The good things got fixed so fast that even the GOP’s half-baked pledge promises to keep them. More will come later. Even if it doesn’t we’re a far sight better off than the status quo ante.

"More will come later?" How? By whom? What's the plan? Will this "starter house" bill survive a GOP hurricane? It's funny because Democrats have insisted on demanding loud clapping for the most progressive achievement in 40 years. That is the natural impulse of a politician - to take credit. In this case, the better approach would have been more of a "stay the course" strategy, and treat the the passage of a health bill as the first step in a longer journey. But apparently Dems have decided to play the "Stop Whining" card instead. Yeah, that'll work.

Speaking for me only

Via Digby, time for the Beltway to prepare the fainting couch:

Speaking for me only

Last week, I wrote a post noting that in order for the health bill to be even what its most ardent supporters claim it is, it would need to survive assaults on its provisions from Republicans. I argued that the structure of the law made it particularly vulnerable to Republican retrenchment and that the argument that it would become more popular and be harder to deconstruct over time was faulty because the law as structured did not create a powerful constituency. I then pointed to the fact that Republicans were already diagramming how to attack the progressive features of the bill. In purporting to disagree with my post, John Cole mischaracterized my point - which was that the health bill was not structured in a way to be transformatively progressive, as asserted by strong health bill supporters. For example, Matt Yglesias argued:

Exhibit A for why the Dems will get creamed in November, Steny Hoyer:

WALLACE: Why not pass the extension of the middle-class tax cuts before you go home to campaign for a month?

HOYER: The obstruction is in the Senate. Well, it would be a specious act for us. [. . .] But what we have -- what is not a specious act, Chris, is we have absolutely guaranteed that there will be no increase in middle-income taxes. The president's that. The speaker and I have said that. Harry Reid and Dick Durbin have said that. There will be no increase...

Sheesh.

Speaking for me only