Indefinite Detention? But I Have Soccer Practice at 4: U.S. Politics 2012

that's very disappointing news about Mikulski and Boxer, kind of surprising really. but yeah I totally blame Congressional cowardice/NIMBYism for Gitmo remaining open.

I also recall someone suggesting that the Dems should have made their own macho arguments on the point--we are tough Americans who are not afraid to try accused terrorists right here in the US of A---those wimpy Republicans are too scared to do so.

Barney Frank may have; my memory's fuzzy.

yeah, it seems like such an obvious rhetorical tack to take

when you're not a bunch of lifelong chickenshit corporate asshole liberals.

well there's that

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/06/did-supreme-court-just-gut-habeas

So much for detainees using the courts to appeal

and there's this re whistleblowers and leakers:

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/06/12/the-bipartisan-witch-hunt-for-leakers-in-the-obama-administration/

The politicians gunning for someone within the Obama administration to hold responsible for leaks want nothing less than someone they can use to justify increased secrecy in government. They want an official they can use to call for a further clampdown on disclosures on national security issues to reporters. Understanding that, unlike President George W. Bush, Obama does not merely retaliate against whistleblowers but also prosecutes them, Republicans like McCain and King see this as an opportunity to make political points in an election year. Having successfully forced the administration into refusing to try terror suspects at Guantanamo in civil ccourts, having prevented the administration from closing Guantanamo and having inspired the administration to expand the US covert drone war so there would be no question that Obama was fiercely fighting the “war on terrorism,” this is the next area of national security policy in which Obama is vulnerable.

Feinstein, Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss, Rogers and Democratic Representative Dutch Ruppersberger are all plotting legislative action in response to the leak of public information. The lawmakers say it will be aimed at “preventing future leaks.”

Yemeni democracy activist in NYT op-ed:

Drone strikes are causing more and more Yemenis to hate America and join radical militants; they are not driven by ideology but rather by a sense of revenge and despair. Robert Grenier, the former head of the C.I.A.’s counterterrorism center, has warned that the American drone program in Yemen risks turning the country into a safe haven for Al Qaeda like the tribal areas of Pakistan — “the Arabian equivalent of Waziristan.”

Anti-Americanism is far less prevalent in Yemen than in Pakistan. But rather than winning the hearts and minds of Yemeni civilians, America is alienating them by killing their relatives and friends. Indeed, the drone program is leading to the Talibanization of vast tribal areas and the radicalization of people who could otherwise be America’s allies in the fight against terrorism in Yemen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/opinion/how-drones-help-al-qaeda.html?_r=1

Sally Quinn mourns the death of the DC she knew. Chait has a ball with it.

Washington writer Sally Quinn told of a 1950s reception where: “My mother and I headed for the buffet table. As we were reaching for the shrimp, both of us jumped and let out a shriek. Senator Strom Thurmond, grinning from ear to ear, had one hand on my behind and the other on my mother’s. As I recall, we were both quite flattered, and thought it terribly funny and wicked of Ol’ Strom.”

"Once Washington was a happy place where a girl and her mother could be groped simultaneously in good fun by a white supremacist. Sadly, it has all been ruined by Kim Kardashian and Ezra Klein."

ha i was just reading that

great tpm headlines: "Arizona Republican Spokesman Calls Criticism From Women A 'Bitch Session'"

how the Administration plans to keep the war machine running ... so many pies to thumb:

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/14/the_new_obama_doctrine_a_six_point_plan_for_global_war/singleton/

Republican infighting:

.@RoyBlunt Let me be blunt, Senator: On what planet is the slacker mandate a “common sense health care solution?”

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) June 14, 2012

The "slacker mandate" is her term for the Health Care provision allowing someone to stay on their parents insurance until age 26

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_06/the_fleeting_chris_christie_mo037995.php

Willie Hortons in NJ under Christie?

New Christie theme song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2BqLlVHlWA

Discussed earlier, but this is a nice summation:

if it's good policy to affirm the right of loving couples to marry and allow blameless DREAMers to remain in the U.S. in June 2012, wasn't it good policy in June 2010 as well? If the Obama Administration is doing this in order to shore up base support for its own reelection bid, why did it not do likewise to preserve Democratic Congressional majorities in 2010?

There's another disturbing point here: all of these moves are carefully calculated based on polling and focus groups. In order for the President to feel comfortable taking these stands, one of two things (or both) must be true: either the LGBT and Latino base is furious enough with the President to cost him his election, and/or those all-important "moderates" in swing states like Ohio must not care that badly about deporting DREAMers or letting gays get married.

If the former, how is it that the President wasn't aware of this problem earlier? It's been brewing for years. If the latter, why take more centrist stands in the first place? And why not be unafraid to lead in any case?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/moving-to-left-for-general-election-by.html

i think the answer is that these are issues that divide the GOP (or at least romney from some of his bases) as much as democrats, if not moreso

Just wondering, was any legislation passed at all during that "Obama comes out for gay marriage" bit? Or was it just a nice TV sound bite?

nope.

electioneering

lol @ idea of legislation (about anything) passing

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2012/06/18/white-house-democrats-still-have-no-health-care-plan-b-for-supreme-court-decision/

So neither side has a plan.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/06/chart-why-liberals-lose-primaries-more-often-conservatives

i.e. there are more wingnuts than faux-liberals

I have pointed this out 1000x times

there is only so much you can hope for when you share a democracy w/ tens of millions of insane people

the trendlines between "liberals" and "moderates" within the democrats were surprising to me tbh

Koch money and the vast right-wing echo chamber solidify support for their views, there is less money and less folks staying on message in the liberal political world

Depressing.

we don't like staying on message

what does a "liberal republican" even look like in 2012? bloomberg?

Mitt Romney

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/administration-official/ao_image/President_Official_Portrait_HiRes.jpg

i assume the people who identify as liberal republicans are part of the 3-5% noise in any survey that should be discounted (i.e., accidentally answered that way, actually a child who picked up the phone, stoners, total fools, etc)

oh, and barack obama

Al Franken

what do you have against Franken morbz

Ulysses S. Grant

(genuinely curious - he seems to have kept his head down in the Senate afaict?)

xp

you mean Horace Greeley, right, goole?

well today i bet they'd put their diffs behind them and get together with tip o'neill to craft a fine tax reform/let's not take over cuba by force bill

what do you have against Franken morbz

One of the few name-recognition Democrats among people who don't vote or protest?

Is Al Franken on your lawn, Morbs?

I'm sure the answer includes the words "Israel" and "AIPAC."

he's just a lockstep Clintonite. And as Bill himself said (acc to Bob Woodward), he was an Eisenhower Republican.

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2012/05/which-republican-are-you.html

That wraps up cogently -- "the story of Election 2012: A Bush Republican versus a Bonkers Republican."

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/233389-senate-dems-balk-at-ending-bush-tax-rates-for-wealthy

How do you define these 7 Senate Dems

road kill

"acting in a non-surprising manner," is how i'd define them.

of the lot of them, at least Jim Webb made an interesting point -- that if we were really serious about making the 1% pay their fair share, then we'd get rid of preferential tax treatment of capital gains and tax them at the same rate as regular income. though that's kind of disingenuous in that that proposal isn't the one on the table right now.

The most tempting option for some Democrats would be to extend the Bush tax rates temporarily to give Congress more time to work on a broader deal, which is what congressional Republican leaders have proposed.

get a brain morans

Well if it's only temporary...

obv some of these guys are stupid but I don't doubt that another few use negotiation as a cover story: in other words these Dems really do believe in preserving the tax cuts.