For Secretary Clinton, Transparency and Candor
Brings Criticism

post from TaylorMarsh.com on 23 February 2009 10:43:00 AM. © TaylorMarsh.com

Secretary Clinton’s first overseas tour has gotten a lot of attention and deservedly so. In catching up with Clinton, because of being on the road moving from west coast to east, one of my favorite moments was when Clinton made a refueling stop that took some in the traveling press by surprise.

We made a standard refueling stop here, between Beijing and Alaska, but to the reporters’ surprise, hundreds of military personnel and their families had gathered here for a campaign-style event in one of the airport hangers. No one on the secretary’s team had told us this was planned.

[...] The message on the 20,000-mile trip, Clinton said, is “that United States is ready and eager to lead. We can’t solve all the problems ourselves. But the world can’t solve their problems without us.” Then Clinton plunged into crowd, shaking hands and posing for pictures. She had transformed a standard refueling stop into another opportunity for the selling of the Obama administration’s foreign policy.

In China, Clinton made it clear that our two nations are inextricably linked: “Our economies are so intertwined… The Chinese know that in order to start exporting again to its biggest market . . . the United States has to take some drastic measures with the stimulus package. We have to incur more debt. The Chinese are recognizing our interconnection. “We are truly going to rise or fall together. …”

Subtle hint that reminds everyone America’s pocketbooks rev China’s engines.

But not everyone is happy about Clinton’s candor or her efforts to undo the Bush-Cheney double standard when it comes to reality, human rights and telling it like it is. You know, instead of talking in vapid streams of political gibberish that amount to a campaign with no intent to back it up, because “war on terror” policies make a mockery of diplomatic efforts. Of course I’m talking about the criticism coming Clinton’s way from human rights activists and others who have taken exception to her statements focusing on economic realities, instead of China’s appalling history of subverting human rights:

“But our pressing on those issues can’t interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis.” - Secretary Clinton

Amnesty International USA quickly reacted, saying they are “shocked and extremely disappointed” by Clinton’s remarks.

“The United States is one of the only countries that can meaningfully stand up to China on human rights issues,” he said.

“But by commenting that human rights will not interfere with other priorities, Secretary Clinton damages future US initiatives to protect those rights in China,” he said.

Students for a Free Tibet said Clinton’s remarks sent the wrong signal to China at a sensitive time.

“The US government cannot afford to let Beijing set the agenda,” said Tenzin Dorjee, deputy director of the New York-based advocacy group.

This is just stupid and easy to say when you only have to think about one thing in a vacuum of reality.

As for Clinton’s dialogue, think Nixon going to China. Only he could do it back when. Only Clinton could do it and talk economics in the face of what we all know to be true.

First lady Hillary Clinton put herself on the map in China back in the 1990s in a speech that has become famous, the foundation of her foreign policy philosophy on human rights. Secretary Clinton certainly doesn’t need nor deserve a lecture from the activist peanut gallery on China’s human rights or her commitment to calling them on it when the time is right.

But Clinton’s candor is drawing “mixed reviews,” according to the Post, though Craig Nelson’s comment not surprisingly is the one that nails the issue squarely.

“I think she clearly feels it’s necessary to induce realism and perspective to expectations and performance, and to tell the Chinese that Obama knows that we all need to work together, so she is determined not to let less centrally vital issues handicap that,” said Chris Nelson, who writes an influential newsletter on Asian policy.

That Clinton would state she knows what Beijing would say when approached about human rights in that country or in dealing with Tibet, especially as we come upon the 50th anniversary of the Tibet uprising, is realistic talk from a person who knows what she’s talking about.

“I think that to worry about something which is so self-evident is an impediment to clear thinking,” Clinton told reporters traveling with her. “And I don’t think it should be viewed as particularly extraordinary that someone in my position would say what’s obvious.”

No one, certainly not Secretary Clinton, is ignoring the human rights reality in China, a subject on which she’s made herself clear.

Anyone refusing to juxtapose our economic entanglements with China as being anything but central today misses that unless President Obama sets a firm foundation from the start with China, doing anything on human rights will be impossible.

Righteous activism oblivious to economic survival is rendered toothless, revealing myopia from having only one thing on your plate at a time.

Secretary Clinton has no such luxury.

“I think she clearly feels it’s necessary to induce realism and perspective to expectations and performance, and to tell the Chinese that Obama knows that we all need to work together, so she is determined not to let less centrally vital issues handicap that,” said Chris Nelson, who writes an influential newsletter on Asian policy.

Read The Full Article:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/02/23/for-secretary-clinton-transparency-and-cand
or-brings-criticism/

Digg this

Bunning Signs Justice Ginsburg's Death Warrant

post from They gave us a republic... - Front Page on 23 February 2009 10:36:09 AM. © They gave us a republic... - Front Page

Bunning: Justice Ginsburg likely will be dead in 9 months

Senator Jim Bunning, a former Republican stalwart and apparently some kind of sports hero from way back in my younger days, decided to play doctor and discuss Someone's medical problems in public. That seems more than a little bit... well... tacky to me, given the context in which it was done.

From the guy who would rather throw 300,000 more Americans out of work than back off in his mission to destroy organized labor:

U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning predicted over the weekend that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would likely be dead from pancreatic cancer within nine months.
During a wide-ranging 30-minute speech on Saturday at the Hardin County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Bunning said he supports conservative judges "and that's going to be in place very shortly because Ruth Bader Ginsburg ... has cancer."
"Bad cancer. The kind that you don't get better from," he told a crowd of about 100 at the old State Theater.
"Even though she was operated on, usually, nine months is the longest that anybody would live after (being diagnosed) with pancreatic cancer," he said.

Damn, don't you just love it when one of these pigs goes all "compassionate" in public? His concern for Justice Ginsburg's condition makes me tremble with the warm and fuzzies.

No, actually I get the impression that he can barely hide his glee that another "librul" judge is, at least in his opinion, about to bite the dust.

It must have taken immense self control for this slug whose sole claim to any real fame was having thrown a few baseballs around 50 years ago not to have actually cackled with glee with the thought that there would soon be a SCJ nomination to filibuster.

No wonder even the Senator's own party has backed away from him.

Bunning also reiterated that he would run for re-election in 2010. But he said he doesn't have the ability to raise money like U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who spent more than $20 million in last year's election.
Bunning, who only has about $150,000 in his campaign account, has been criticized because of his inability to raise money.

Abandoned by the rich Republicans and having basically told the working class to go f**k themselves, it's not a damned bit surprising that he has nobody to turn to to finance another round of being a professional public prick.

He also made a veiled attack on National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman John Cornyn of Texas, criticizing him for not using Senatorial committee funds to help him and conservative Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and David Vitter of Louisiana

Old Jimmy doesn't like anybody does he? The man is a an open book on the Republican agenda and has probably done as much as any to help establish the new version of feudalism they have in store for the country and now he's being frozen out by the other nobles? Effing priceless.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheyGaveUsARepublic-FrontPage/~3/545880022/showDia
ry.do

Digg this

Santelli, Cerberus And Nationalization

post from TalkLeft on 23 February 2009 10:35:00 AM. © TalkLeft

A clownish CNBC "on-air personality" (I take the phrase from a Chicago Tribune article), Rick Santelli, acted a fool the other day, ranting against help to homeowners in distress (WH spokesman Robert Gibbs rightly dismssed Santelli as someone "who does not know what he is talking about." But today, the NYTimes has an editorial that touches the actual issue with a needle. The editorial asks:

If Chrysler is really on track for a turnaround and all it needs is some financing to get over a bad patch in sales and debt markets, why doesn’t Cerberus Capital Management, which owns 80 percent of the company, put up the money itself? Why should taxpayers have to take the risk? That’s what private equity funds like Cerberus are supposed to do. . . . It seems the secretive private-equity fund is willing to gamble on Chrysler’s survival with the taxpayer’s dime, but not its own.

(Emphasis supplied.) This argument is available, of course for the distressed financial sector as well. If Citibank, Bank of America, et al, are worth saving, why doesn't private equity step in and save them? Or to put it in Santelli's parlance, do we live in "Communist Cuba?" Of course, the difference between individuals needing relief to avoid becoming homeless (oh by the way and demolishing the housing market) and handing out hundreds of billions of dollars to wealthy investors so they can go gamble at the dogtrack is patent to anyone above the intelligence of a Santelli. But this discussion leads us to the big one - nationalization. I'll discuss that on the flip.

The new euphemism for the issue is bank stability, but I think it applies to automakers with equal force. A NYTimes article reports:

The Obama administration will begin taking a hard look at the financial condition of the country’s 20 biggest banks this week to judge whether they could hold up even if the downturn worsens further than policy makers already expect. These reviews of the banks’ books, known as “stress tests,” are heightening a dilemma for Obama aides about how candid they should be about the health of banks like Citigroup and Bank of America. The tests are expected to take several weeks.

Bank shares were pummeled last week, partly because of rumors that the government might nationalize some of the banks. Officials consider many of the top 20 banks “too big to fail." On Monday, the administration reiterated in a statement that it thought banks should remain private but also offered some reassurance that it would support the banks as needed.

(Emphasis supplied.) This is rather insane. These banks are not too big too fail. They have already failed. Bank shares were not pummeled last week, they were pummelled the past year. In May 2008, Citi was trading at 25. Today it trades at 2. Oh, in case you are wondering, last week it was trading at 3. Long term Citi shareholders have already been wiped out. Short term vultures are counting on the government to make them a bundle.

In the NYTimes story, the government is reported to say:

“The government will ensure that banks have the capital and liquidity they need to provide the credit necessary to restore economic growth . . . Moreover, we reiterate our determination to preserve the viability of systemically important financial institutions so that they are able to meet their commitments."

There is one way to do that now - nationalization. Citi, Bank of America and other such financial institutions (and the troubled automakers as well) have to go into "government receivership" (that is a pretty phrase for temporary nationalization) and when the financial crisis and these institutions are stabilized, the government can return them to the private markets.

After all, as Rick Santelli says, this is not Communist Cuba.

Speaking for me only

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TalkleftThePoliticsOfCrime/~3/kPuiWptfis4/685

Digg this

THE POWER OF THE GOP BASE.

post from Ezra Klein on 23 February 2009 10:28:00 AM. © Ezra Klein

I'm transfixed by the sudden competition among Republican governors to reject stimulus money. First Bobby Jindal decided his state didn't need the boost in unemployment benefits. Then Mark Sanford tossed out $42 million in funding for green buildings[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=02&year=2009&base_name
=the_power_of_the_gop_base

Digg this

Monday Morning Open Thread

post from TalkLeft on 23 February 2009 10:24:00 AM. © TalkLeft

I'm off to court and then the jail. In case our co-bloggers are also busy, here's an open thread for you.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TalkleftThePoliticsOfCrime/~3/fANsVTSh2AE/663

Digg this

Forget change: GOP eyes retro strategy (Jeanne
Cummings/The Politico)

post from memeorandum on 23 February 2009 10:20:00 AM. © memeorandum

Jeanne Cummings / The Politico:
Forget change: GOP eyes retro strategy — Republicans are hatching a political comeback by dusting off a strategic playbook written nearly two decades ago. — Its themes: Unite against Democrats' economic policy, block and counter health care reform and tar them with spending scandals.

Read The Full Article:
http://www.memeorandum.com/090223/p17#a090223p17

Digg this

Assessing Obama's Job Approval at the One-Month
Mark (Lydia Saad/Gallup)

Lydia Saad / Gallup:
Assessing Obama's Job Approval at the One-Month Mark — Receives solid approval, but not extraordinary in historical terms — USA - Government and Politics - Presidential Job Approval - The Presidency - Americas - Northern America — PRINCETON, NJ — President Barack Obama remains …

Read The Full Article:
http://www.memeorandum.com/090223/p32#a090223p32

Digg this

Second Class Citizens

This is another entry in my New Deal pictorial series. It just takes a roundabout route to get there. We start a generation before the Great Depression, as Seattle photographer Edward Curtis was traveling the west for his epic photographic[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Docudharma/~3/546088428/showDiary.do

Digg this

Democrats Resisting Obama on Social Security
(Jackie Calmes/New York Times)

Jackie Calmes / New York Times:
Democrats Resisting Obama on Social Security — WASHINGTON — President Obama is eager to seek a bipartisan solution to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security, people who have spoken with him say, but he is running into opposition from his party's left and from Democratic Congressional leaders …

Read The Full Article:
http://www.memeorandum.com/090223/p30#a090223p30

Digg this