Posts

Why Did Obama Kill The Dawn Johnsen Nomination?

/149 Comments/in , , , /by

imagesYesterday, when I wrote about 34 Obama Nominees Not Named Dawn Johnsen being confirmed by the Senate on the heels of the healthcare vote, and before they left town, I was not aware, in addition (h/t earlofhuntingdon), the nomination was now completely dead. From Main Justice:

The Senate approved a unanimous consent request today to hold over several nominees for the second session of the 111th Congress, which begins in January.

But nominees to head three DOJ offices: Dawn Johnsen, for the Office of Legal Counsel, Mary L. Smith, for the Tax Division, and Christopher Schroeder, for the Office of Legal Policy, were returned to the White House before the Senate recessed for the holidays.

Johnsen, who was nominated in February, was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in March on a party line vote.

Several Senate Republicans, joined by Democratic Sens. Arlen Specter (Pa.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.), have voiced concerns about Johnsen’s vocal opposition to the Bush administration’s national security policies and her past work for an abortion rights group.

The nomination of Dawn Johnsen to be the head of the Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ, a critical post, is now truly dead. If Ms. Johnsen is to serve, she will have to be renominated by Barack Obama and start over. She never got the up or down vote promised as soon as the Senate had done healthcare, she never got an ounce of support from the Administration that nominated her, and a year of her life was taken in what certainly appears to be a cowardly and demeaning Read more →

Obama’s Infirm Lump Of Coal Judicial Policy

/149 Comments/in , , , /by

images5thumbnail1.thumbnail1Lost in the blizzard like white out of other concerns by the push by the Obama Administration and Congress to handwrap a huge present for the rapacious healthcare insurance industry, has been intelligent coverage of the breakdown of Barack Obama’s naive and feckless judicial policy and the emerging harm to the U.S. Federal Court system it portends.

Maybe that is starting to change.

At the end of last week, David Fontana at TNR penned an article entitled “Going Robe” noting the ever more glaring lack of accomplishment by the Obama Administration on judicial nominees. Since then, Scott Lemieux and Kevin Drum at Mother Jones have both followed up. All of these came on the heels of a startling editorial by the New York Times last month that received far too little play.

The facts and figures are stark and certain to be depressing to progressives and liberals who voted for Barack Obama and a Democratic majority with an eye to halting the rightward shift of both the Supreme Court and lower Federal court benches. Two months ago I wrote:

Three out of 23 [confirmations out of total nominations], with a popular President possessing a real electoral mandate and the supposed holy grail of a 60 seat caucus majority in the Senate, is a batting average that screams lame. But the real eye opener painting the full color of the context is that George W. Bush sent 95 nominees to the Senate for confirmation by this point in his first term. Whatever happened to the big push Greg Craig (he of two first names) was spearheading on this? And make no mistake, it is not as if there are not plenty of judicial seats to fill – there are currently at least 90 waiting to be filled – and it is having a deleterious impact on the ability of Federal courts across the country to function.
…
Time is wasting, there is no reason not to put up big blocks of nominees. Get on with it, make the Republicans vote in good faith or expose them as unprincipled obstructionists. Fight for your nominees and use the 60 seat majority. You can bet your family farm that is exactly what the Republicans would do; it is what they do when in the Presidency.

What has happened since that time? Not diddly squat with the exception that Obama has finally managed to get the centrist milquetoast David Hamilton confirmed. Despite the rejoicing, this is precious little to cheer. Which brings us back to where we stand now, and Scott Lemieux nails it perfectly:

But with respect to judicial appointments, Obama’s preemptive concessions really have been counterproductive. It’s not at all surprising that his attempts to put forward moderate appointments is not working — after all, we’re dealing with conservatives willing to claim that Cass Sunstein is a wide-eyed radical. Read more →

Stare Indecisis: Obama’s Inaction On Judicial Nominations

/29 Comments/in , /by

Michael Fletcher has an article in Friday’s Washington Post entitled “Obama Criticized as Too Cautious, Slow on Judicial Posts“.

President Obama has not made significant progress in his plan to infuse federal courts with a new cadre of judges, and liberal activists are beginning to blame his administration for moving too tentatively on what they considered a key priority.

During his first nine months in office, Obama has won confirmation in the Democratic-controlled Senate for just three of his 23 nominations for federal judgeships, largely because Republicans have used anonymous holds and filibuster threats to slow the proceedings to a crawl.

But some Democrats attribute that GOP success partly to the administration’s reluctance to fight, arguing that Obama’s emphasis on easing partisan rancor over judgeships has backfired and only emboldened Senate Republicans.

Well, yeah, that is about right. In fairness, and Fletcher, despite the gist of his title, does point this out in the body of his article, the GOP is acting in bad faith with the obstructionistic filibustering and holds. So, it isn’t all Obama. But there sure is a problem here.

Three out of 23, with a popular President possessing a real electoral mandate and the supposed holy grail of a 60 seat caucus majority in the Senate, is a batting average that screams lame. But the real eye opener painting the full color of the context is that George W. Bush sent 95 nominees to the Senate for confirmation by this point in his first term. Whatever happened to the big push Greg Craig (he of two first names) was spearheading on this? And make no mistake, it is not as if there are not plenty of judicial seats to fill – there are currently at least 90 waiting to be filled – and it is having a deleterious impact on the ability of Federal courts across the country to function.

The delays are having a ripple effect in federal courts, where caseloads continue to back up, said Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). Currently, about 90 judicial seats — about 10 percent of the total — remain vacant in appeals and district courts.

The part of Fletcher’s article that is most distressing, however, is the description of the namby pamby attitude and philosophy Obama has on his judicial nomination policy.

Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, said that Republicans consider the federal courts crucial to furthering their policy aims by overturning current law, but that Obama is among Democrats who view court appointments mainly as a means of defending the legal status quo.

Obama has said he wants to appoint empathetic judges, but “beyond that, he hasn’t said much. So it is hard to know exactly what he has in mind,” Posner said.

Empathy. Hate to agree with the Republican talking points; but they are right, empathy is a bogus and impertinent concept to frame a Presidential judicial nomination policy around. Posner is absolutely right though, non-controversial empathetic centrists is about the sum total of the game plan for the Obama Administration. And he is not even making headway on that weak agenda.

Obama’s first nominee was David Hamilton, a centrist milquetoast from Indiana. Hamilton has a (despite the nitpicking claims of the GOP) bland and clean record, is Lee Hamilton’s nephew and has the ardent backing of home state GOP Senator Richard Lugar. Yet Hamilton languishes without a vote. Just like the other forgotten nominee from Indiana, Dawn Johnsen. And that is the way it is going to be with the current Republican minority; and it isn’t going to get any better after healthcare has been passed against their will.

Time is wasting, there is no reason not to put up big blocks of nominees. Get on with it, make the Republicans vote in good faith or expose them as unprincipled obstructionists. Fight for your nominees and use the 60 seat majority. You can bet your family farm that is exactly what the Republicans would do; it is what they do when in the Presidency.

Obama (and John Boehner) on Al Punto

/51 Comments/in /by

Since I pushed Obama’s appearance on Univision’s Al Punto the other day, I thought I should watch it.

The Obama interview lasted about 15 minutes (as did the Boehner interview that followed) and included–in addition to the questions about whether undocumented workers and health care reform I discuss in more detail below–the following questions (working from memory–my Spanish too rusty to live-blog and retranslate while listening!!):

  • Whether the opposition to Obama’s policies stem from racism (he gave the answer about delegitimizing government he has given elsewhere)
  • Presenting a claim John Boehner made–that Democrats don’t have the votes to pass health care by themselves–whether the Democrats could do it on their own (Obama gave a typical answer celebrating bipartisanship but saying he thought it would pass)
  • Whether Obama supported a public option and whether it could be passed (Obama repeated his answers about the importance of the public option as part of a larger reform, and said he did not believe that it was dead)
  • Whether Obama, who has said he supports more cultural exchange with Cuba, supported a big concert they’re doing there
  • What Obama would do regarding Honduras (Obama took a middle ground, appealing to having a more legitimate election in the future)
  • Whether Obama would fulfill his promise to put forth immigration reform in the first year of his Administration (again, Obama took a middle ground, and pointed out he promised he’d have to get it passed)

The most important questions, of course, had to do with the exclusion of undocumented workers from the health exchange (and therefore from health care in the United States). Al Punto host Jorge Ramos asked Obama whether this policy made sense in about three different ways (and asked the same question in his interview of John Boehner). Both Obama and Boehner generally responded by pretending that exclusion from the exchange didn’t amount to exclusion from health care (Obama said something like, "well, if they buy health care from insurers directly, that’s between them and the insurer"). Both, too, responded to questions about health care by talking about the need for immigration reform. Ramos asked Obama specifically about the number of children born in this country who, because at least one parent is undocumented, will have problems accessing health care (if I heard it right, Obama said he’d like to cover these children in SCHIP).

Read more →

The Max Tax Distribution List

/60 Comments/in , /by

Well, this is interesting. Not only did Bad Max send the MaxTax plan out with the name of WellPoint’s former VP still on it, but he distributed it to the industry hacks too. Only the industry hacks.

QUESTION: The Finance Committee — well, actually, Senator Baucus’s draft has been, now, bouncing around for a few days on Capitol Hill.

First, has the president seen it (inaudible) his outline?

GIBBS: I don’t — I don’t believe — I don’t believe anybody here has — I’m — we’ve seen what we’ve read in the paper, but I do not believe that we’ve seen paper on the plan.

QUESTION: I understand it’s bouncing around K Street.

GIBBS: Not surprisingly, but I have not seen it here.

[snip]

QUESTION: What did you just mean…

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: I’m sorry. What did you just mean by it’s bouncing around K Street ?

GIBBS: I was told that — that K Street had a copy of the Baucus plan, meaning, not surprisingly, the special interests have gotten a copy of the plan that I understand was given to committee members today.

QUESTION: And…

GIBBS: It wasn’t cryptic. It’s who…

QUESTION: I mean, who is that a…

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Are you impugning somebody here? I mean, it sounded like you were impugning, like, well, K Street has it. I mean, what…

BTW, it was none other than Chuck Todd worried that mean Robert Gibbs was "impugning" the parasites from K Street. I’m glad you’re looking out for the important issues, Chuck.

And, as Kagro X added, Bad Max didn’t share a copy with Harry Reid, either. 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he had not seen Baucus’s draft either, when asked during a briefing at the White House after a meeting with Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). 

Now, I know that Obama and (particularly) Reid have made a career of letting people walk all over them. But this is the kind of thing that might really piss them off–particularly the control freaks at the White House. 

I mean, embarrassing the President like this, regarding the plan he’s been pitching since June? And Rahm’s lackey (and Bad Max’s former lackey) Jim Messina didn’t tell his bosses about this?  

Bad Max released this without sharing–I mean, sharing with any but his clients on K Street. I’m not entirely sure what that means, but I get the feeling that the White House was none too happy about that. 

“Believe”

/103 Comments/in /by

Just two days before his joint session address to Congress, Obama said this in a speech to the AFL-CIO:

And I continue to believe that a public option within the basket of insurance choices would help improve quality and bring down costs.

After the speech finished, Chuck Todd came on and said something like, "progressives have to be disappointed." Todd’s point, I think, was that Obama didn’t really mean it. It was weak tea designed to fire up Obama’s labor audience but ultimately Obama was going to drop the public option.

And it may well have been.

But what Todd doesn’t seem to get is that Obama stands to lose more if he utters those words–if he acknowledges our point, that the public option is key to real reform, to bringing down costs–than having not uttered them.

So while Todd may take Obama’s weak tea mention of the public option as so much weak tea, he seems to be missing that any such a mention is only going to further inflame progressives if and when Obama sacrifices something he "believes" in just a few days.

Here’s the complete speech, as written (note, he said "EFCA" instead of "Employee Free Choice Act" when he delivered it):

Read more →

Cheney’s Sophistry on Torture Investigations

/17 Comments/in , /by

It will not surprise you to learn that PapaDick parsed wildly about what Obama has said about torture in Cheney’s defense of torture today. Five times today, Cheney claimed that Obama is "going back on his word," "his promise," that "his administration would not go back and look at or try to prosecute CIA personnel."

President Obama made the announcement some weeks ago that this would not happen, that his administration would not go back and look at or try to prosecute CIA personnel.

[snip]

We had the president of the United States, President Obama, tell us a few months ago there wouldn’t be any investigation like this, that there would not be any look back at CIA personnel who were carrying out the policies of the prior administration. Now they get a little heat from the left wing of the Democratic Party, and they’re reversing course on that. 

The president is the chief law enforcement officer in the administration. He’s now saying, well, this isn’t anything that he’s got anything to do with. He’s up on vacation on Martha’s Vineyard and his attorney general is going back and doing something that the president said some months ago he wouldn’t do. 

[snip]

Instead, they’re out there now threatening to disbar the lawyers who gave us the legal opinions, threatening contrary to what the president originally said. They’re going to go out and investigate the CIA personnel who carried out those investigations. I just think it’s an outrageous political act that will do great damage long term to our capacity to be able to have people take on difficult jobs, make difficult decisions, without having to worry about what the next administration is going to say. 

[snip]

I think if you look at the Constitution, the president of the United States is the chief law enforcement officer in the land. The attorney general’s a statutory officer. He’s a member of the cabinet. The president’s the one who bears this responsibility. And for him to say, gee, I didn’t have anything to do with it, especially after he sat in the Oval Office and said this wouldn’t happen, then Holder decides he’s going to do it.

Read more →

Obama’s Remarks on Kennedy

/64 Comments/in /by

I wanted to say a few words about passing of extraordinary leader, Senator Edward Kennedy. Call Teddy colleague, counselor, friend. We awaited this day with no small amount of dread. Seen courage with which he battled illness. Let him hear from people in every corner of nation and around world how much he meant to all of us. Blessing of time to say thank you and goodbye. Outpouring of love and gratitude is a testament to the way he touched so many lives. His ideas stamped on so many laws. Seniors who know new dignity, Children who know new promise. Including myself.

Kennedy name is synonymous with Dem Party. Target of campaign attacks. In Senate no one who engendered more affection from both sides of the aisle. Sense of purpose matched by good cheer. Passionately battle others but still maintain warm friendships across party lines. One of the greatest Senators, one of the most accomplished Americans. Extraordinary good that he did. Defender of a dream. Spoke earlier with Vicki, who was, to the end, such a source of strength. Thoughts with her and the entire Kennedy family.

Better than Clearing Brush … Getting HELP from Kennedy?

/95 Comments/in /by

barack_obama_and_ted_kennedy_in_hartford_february_4_2008.thumbnail.jpg

The AP and Politico have competing stories up speculating that–along with clearing brush this week–Obama might pay Ted Kennedy a visit. The AP, relying entirely on speculation, suggests a visit could be a big boost for Obama’s efforts to pass health care reform, one of Kennedy’s lifelong goals. The Politico, relying on an email from a Kennedy aide, says Obama is not and never was scheduled to visit Kennedy.

But a Kennedy aide said in an e-mail Friday that an Obama-Kennedy visit is not going to happen and was never in the works.

Given Kennedy’s apparent health struggles of late, it may be that he’s not up to meeting with Obama in the first place, and particularly not if Obama comes with press corps in tow.

That said, for the next week, Obama will be one 10 to 15 mile chopper ride away from the man who perhaps unexpectedly bestowed on Obama the Kennedy mantle–and in doing so, had a significant role in getting Obama elected. Obama owes Kennedy, Obama is flailing with legislation Kennedy cares deeply about, and this may be the last time Kennedy can collect on Obama’s debts to him.

Therein may be the problem.

After all, the AP is correct that even reports of an Obama visit to Hyannisport would boost Obama’s fortunes and presumably those of health care legislation. A visit followed by a call to "Do it for Teddy!" might inspire Democrats (and possibly some of Kennedy’s close friends on the other side of the aisle) to pull together to get this done.

But for what bill?

Discussions I’ve seen on a potential visit all focus on Obama’s current trajectory, which appears to be an attempt to pass insurance company reform under the cover of public option kabuki. None of that discussion on a potential Kennedy visit focuses on the HELP bill–Kennedy’s bill, shepherded through by Chris Dodd. One that resembles those passed through the House, including a public option. 

If I were Kennedy, I wouldn’t let Obama set foot in my house unless he promised to ditch the Rahm/Messina plan to follow the Baucus plan. If I were Kennedy, I’d use this opportunity to kick Obama’s ass for embracing that fraudulent kabuki after all the things Kennedy has done to help Obama.

And if I were Obama, I might take that opportunity to pivot. Read more →

Honoring Service Rather than Trumping Up War

/8 Comments/in /by

Seven years ago, Dick Cheney addressed the Veterans of Foreign War national convention (George Bush was otherwise occupied in Crawford, clearing brush). In a speech he did not have vetted by the Intelligence Community (as was normal), Cheney made the claims about Iraq having nukes that served as a foundation for the Iraq War campaign rolled out just a few weeks later (remember, you don’t introduce a new product in August).

The case of Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of our country, requires a candid appraisal of the facts. After his defeat in the Gulf War in 1991, Saddam agreed under to U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 to cease all development of weapons of mass destruction. He agreed to end his nuclear weapons program. He agreed to destroy his chemical and his biological weapons. He further agreed to admit U.N. inspection teams into his country to ensure that he was in fact complying with these terms.

In the past decade, Saddam has systematically broken each of these agreements. The Iraqi regime has in fact been very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents. And they continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago. These are not weapons for the purpose of defending Iraq; these are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam can hold the threat over the head of anyone he chooses, in his own region or beyond.

On the nuclear question, many of you will recall that Saddam’s nuclear ambitions suffered a severe setback in 1981 when the Israelis bombed the Osirak reactor. They suffered another major blow in Desert Storm and its aftermath.

But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we’ve gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors — including Saddam’s own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddam’s direction. Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.

Today, Obama is the one addressing the VFW. While he’s describing his stance in Iraq and Afghanistan, he is, at the same time, repeating his promise to America’s service men and women.

That is why I have made this pledge to our armed forces: I will only send you into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary. Read more →