Barack Obama

Sarah Palin Loses It

Samuel Hooper1 Comment

The headline seemed too implausible, too sensationalist to be true, but you can’t make stuff like this up – Sarah Palin called on people to “bomb Obamacare” as her political action committee released their latest anti health reform advertisement:

Palin rails against Obamacare in her usual eloquent, measured tones.
Palin rails against Obamacare in her usual eloquent, measured tones.

The 2+ minute long video is available to view on YouTube here:

 

I comprehensively “refudiated” Sarah Palin’s “death panel” claims on this blog a year ago, as did every other sentient person on the internet, so there is no need to cover this old territory. So where to start with this latest deliberately provocative outburst by the half-term governor from Alaska?

Perhaps with the fact that the GOP-led House of Representatives has now voted 40 times to repeal ObamaCare, each time in the full knowledge that the repeal would never pass the Democratic-held Senate, let alone be signed by President Obama.

Or maybe the fact that Obamacare (or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to use the correct title) is President Obama’s signature domestic legislative accomplishment, he campaigned on a platform of health reform in 2008 and won re-election by a significant popular and electoral college majority in 2012 after having brought it to fruition.

Nor has the “grassroots tsunami” against the bill, invoked by Senator Rand Paul, materialised in any meaningful way. Polls continue to show the American public divided in support of the word Obamacare itself (a testimony to Republican misinformation and scare tactics), but broadly supportive of the various measures contained within the bill.

And so apparently the only recourse left to Palin and her legion of fact-averse followers is to dust off the violent, revolutionary rhetoric as though Obama were King George reincarnate.

I make no apology for always assuming the worst about Sarah Palin’s motives, so my theory for this bizarre use of phrasing in her appeal for a popular revolt against Obamacare is that she deliberately used the word “bomb” in the knowledge that the fiftieth anniversary of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing was fast approaching, hoping to get a rise out of offended liberals who would then accuse her of race-baiting or racial insensitivity, allowing her to play her patented Palin Persecution Card and receive even more unearned air time.

If you think that this is a harsh accusation to level against someone, recall that Palin has accused the president of the United States of “palling around with terrorists”, treason and a litany of other crimes and misdemeanors. Accusing Palin of being a sneaky, calculating, insensitive charlatan is pretty mild by comparison.

First we had this...
First we had this…

First we had the gun sights over Democratic-held congressional districts that Sarah Palin’s PAC was targeting in the 2010 midterms. Looking at this action in isolation, I can understand and forgive; showing literal targets over parts of the map that Republicans want to target politically does not seem unreasonable or violent to me, and I felt that the left-wing furore and attempts to link the imagery to the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in Arizona were craven and opportunistic.

But there is no comparable popular imagery relating to a bomb. We don’t talk about bombing a goal that we want to accomplish in the way that we might talk about targeting a goal or an aspiration. The word “bomb” has connotations only of violence and terrorism.

Sarah Palin, of course, does not wish for any literal bombs to be detonated in opposition to Obamacare, and would doubtless be horrified and appalled if one of her supporters were to read her words too literally and actually start blowing things up. But she is quite happy to use a charged, loaded word – a word associated only with war and terrorism – in relation to the US healthcare debate, to ensure that her fading political voice gains more prominence.

It doesn’t make Palin a terrorist supporter. But it does reveal her to be a shrewd, conniving, opportunistic and (still) dangerous political presence, willing to say and do almost anything to demonstrate her opposition to President Obama’s policies and legislative accomplishments.

Which, of course, we all already knew.

Putin Takes Charge

Samuel HooperLeave a comment

In an unusual development, Vladimir Putin and the Russians have taken over the drivers seat when it comes to the international response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. This shift has been met either by gushing praise over President Obama’s deft handling of a fluid situation, or condescending scorn that Obama allowed the United States to be upstaged and outplayed in the diplomatic arena by an old arch-enemy.

This should be interesting.
This should be interesting.

Regardless of where the truth really lies between these two extremes, two things are certain:

1. The ball is in Russia’s court. They have seized the initiative, they have the ear of Syria, and they are now in the best position to force Bashar al-Assad to comply with demands to turn over his chemical weapons to the international community.

2. Russia is already flunking the test, and their first shot at global responsibility.

Rather than getting to work immediately to establish an architecture and process for the international community to verify the safe removal and decommissioning of Syria’s chemical weapons, President Putin is spending his time writing op-ed pieces in the New York Times, arguing the lonely and discredited position that the Syrian rebels were responsible for the chemical attack on themselves, and urging the American people (not that much urging is required) to speak out against any future military strikes against the regime. Furthering Russia’s own interests rather than trying to solve a global problem.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

Ah yes, Russia – tireless, stalwart defenders of the rule of law, at home and abroad. And then we get this:

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists.

It makes a change to see Vladimir Putin peddling a “false-flag” conspiracy theory rather than being the subject of one.

Newsflash, Vladimir – the military option is off the table for the time being. You helped to do that (though certainly not out of high-minded, altruistic pacifism). Tempting as it must surely be to rub the Obama administration’s face in your steaming pile of diplomatic cunning, it would be far more helpful to keep military action off the table, not by performing a valedictory lap in the media, but by buckling down and taking action on the new commitment that you have just made for your country. Your time is not well spent testing the patience of the United States and her allies  by stalling and prevaricating, especially when Obama has made clear (just like all other US presidents in recent history) that constitution be damned, he seeks neither congressional approval or public support to attack another sovereign nation.

And to those who side with President Putin and crow that there was a diplomatic solution at hand the whole time if only the warmongers had been looking for one, it should be remembered that without the credible threat of force emanating from  the United States, the present reset of diplomatic efforts would not have been possible. You don’t need to have supported military strikes to understand this – I was against military strikes without the rest of the international community joining us on the moral and financial hook, but I still appreciate that it was only the determination to proceed with strikes on the part of the Obama administration that ultimately led Damascus to seize so gratefully on the Russian proposal.

So, the responsibility for achieving a meaningful disarmament now lies with the Russians. As Putin concludes his op-ed:

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

I have grave doubts that Russia is serious about this. But if they are, then we must wish them every success. Whether motivated purely by self interest or not, Lord knows we need more mature actors on the world stage.

The President Makes The Case

Samuel HooperLeave a comment

Andrew Sullivan, who a week ago was tearing his hair out at what he saw as the Obama administration’s collapse into the same neo-conservative, interventionist sinkhole as his predecessor, is now waxing eloquent about how well President Obama has engineered a situation whereby the Russians are forced to take responsibility for their wayward client state and help to enforce international norms and agreements. Fair play to him – my views on Syria have also been evolving, so I do not begrudge him that – though it is interesting that a week ago, Sullivan appeared fairly dismissive of readers who put forward the idea that Obama might be playing a tactical long game. Personally, I feel that Sullivan is giving Obama too much credit for a serendipitous outcome that appears to have sprung quite unexpectedly from an off-the-cuff remark by his jetlagged Secretary of State, John Kerry. One line in particular was too much for me: “Yes, he’s still a community organizer. It’s just that now, the community he is so effectively organizing is the world.” Really, Andrew? I think that this goes a little too far. The outcome may be encouraging, but the process by which we got there certainly was not. If Assad relinquishing his chemical weapons to the international community is enough to prevent US attacks on Syria, why was this not mentioned before everyone started dusting off the Tomahawk missiles?

Andrew Sullivan's avatarThe Dish

That was one of the clearest, simplest and most moving presidential speeches to the nation I can imagine. It explained and it argued, point after point. Everything the president said extemporaneously at the post-G20 presser was touched on, made terser, more elegant and more persuasive.

The key points: it is an abdication of America’s exceptional role in the world to look away from the horrific use of poison gas to wipe out civilian populations and kill rebels in a civil war. Given that the world would have ignored August 21 or engaged in meaningless blather about it, Obama took the decision to say he would strike. Since such a strike was not in response to an imminent threat to our national security, Obama felt he should go to the Congress, and reverse some of the strong currents toward the imperial presidency that took hold under Dick Cheney.

As that moment…

View original post 603 more words

Saving Obama From Himself

Samuel HooperLeave a comment

Andrew Sullivan, having followed an interesting, winding analytical road since his return from vacation, has finally arrived at the right answer with regard to Syria, together with the right reasons for expressing the idea. He is completely correct that the correct forum for handling and mediating international issues such as violations of agreements on the non-use of chemical weapons is something that must rest with international forums, in this case the United Nations. For too long the UN has been able to sit back and wash its hands of responsibility for the evil going on in the world – no more. The US and UK should no longer bear the greatest burden of keeping the peace and preventing humanitarian disasters, paying in blood and treasure. Sullivan is also correct, of course, about the need for democracy to function correctly when it comes to making war. Grave decisions such as this should always rest with the people through their elected representatives in Parliament or Congress, and not the executive (the branch of government most likely to itch for war, as we have seen in the past and see today). I must admit that I was a little surprised initially to see Sullivan and other commentators referring to the proposed limited strikes as “war” at all, given the fact that the US has not technically been at war since WW2, and it has become commonplace to think that the “good” countries have the God-given right to lob a few missiles at misbehaving “bad” countries to bring them into line, and have this as viewed as something less than war. It would certainly be considered war if such an attack were perpetrated against us. My instincts still tell me that Obama has painted himself too deep into a corner to back down at this point – he would appear weak, irritating his liberal supporters and earning the mockery of his conservative opponents (even those who would want him to back down), and therefore I see my prescription for limited military strikes focusing solely on the upper echelons of the Syrian military leadership remains the best course of action if we want to avoid igniting the powder keg. But I fear that Mr. Obama has other, more ambitious ideas entirely.

Andrew Sullivan's avatarThe Dish

The next couple of weeks will be full of surprises, twists and turns, as this country debates in its Congress and media and living rooms whether to launch another war in the Middle East. But I think it’s fair to offer a preliminary assessment of where the wind is blowing. Obama’s case for war is disintegrating fast. And his insistence on a new war – against much of the world and 60 percent of Americans – is easily his biggest misjudgment since taking office. His options now are not whether to go to war or not, but simply whether he has the strength and sense to stand down and save his second term before it is too late.

Here’s what we know now for sure already: even if the president were somehow to get a majority in House and Senate for entering into RUSSIA-G20-SUMMITSyria’s vortex of sectarian violence, it will…

View original post 962 more words

Unimpeachable

Samuel HooperLeave a comment

The blogger MyKeyStrokes writes an excellent piece trying to dissect the American right wing’s newfound, fruitless obsession with the idea of impeaching President Obama.

Yeah, that's not going to happen.
Yeah, that’s not going to happen.

Essentially, those elected GOP officials and conservative pundits who peddle this impeachment talk know that there is zero chance of making this outcome a reality – but of course, that was never their aim:

Sometimes politics is like high-stakes poker. If you look around the table after a few hands and you can’t tell who’s the pigeon, citizen, chances are it’s you: the guy who plunked down $26.95 for a book called Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama from Office.

Yeah, you with the “Impeach Obama” bumpersticker on your car. The guy standing on a freeway overpass waving a “Honk for Impeachment” sign. You may as well go around in a little bird’s nest hat, like Donald Duck’s eccentric friend Gyro Gearloose.

Because it not only ain’t going to happen, but the people peddling this nonsense don’t even want it to happen. Not really. They’re just making a buck off people who can’t count and running a classic misdirection play.

Yes. Making a quick buck by whipping scared people into a furious rage, and then either selling them products that help to reinforce their End Times beliefs (Obama wants to destroy America! We are now a socialist country!) or leveraging their support to achieve higher political office.

As MyKeyStrokes sees it, however, this is potentially good news for any centrist or Democratic-leaning voter, because the more preoccupied the GOP becomes with the alluring mirage of seeing President Obama impeached, the more they inadvertently reveal that they have given up hope of passing any of their agenda (see the 40 pointless votes to repeal ObamaCare in the House of Representatives as just one shining example):

Like it or not, the possibility of repealing “Obamacare” ended when the Supreme Court found it Constitutional and the president won re-election. You’d think after 40 — count ’em, 40 — fruitless votes to abort the law, that message might start to sink in. We still have majority rule in this country.

But no, it hasn’t sunk in at all. Like a baseball team demanding to play the eighth game of the World Series, GOP hardliners have come up with yet another plan to force the president’s hand. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has called for something he infelicitously called a “grassroots tsunami” to make Obama relent.

Whether the GOP’s current malaise is a good or bad thing largely depends on one’s own political leanings, or the importance that one attaches to having a functioning two-party system where neither party is beholden to an intractable, crazy political base. Personally, as someone who advocates for smaller government and empowering the citizen over the state (and consequently very much against the recent assaults on the First and Fourth Amendments by the Bush and Obama administrations), I find it disheartening to find myself frequently having to side with Democrats because the other side are, more often than not, acting in a totally nihilistic, immature manner.

It was bad enough when this childish behaviour (“I didn’t get my way, so now I’m taking my toys and leaving, and refusing to cooperate or compromise in the business of government”) was limited to the House of Representatives, but now we see this reality-denial infecting the Senate as well. Both Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are rising stars in the GOP, and both have some degree of promise. Certainly neither of them are stupid. And yet they both seek to burnish their conservative credentials by playing chicken with the US debt ceiling again, and failing to call out the crazies from among their supporters who have persuaded themselves to believe that a twice-elected president pursuing his political agenda is somehow akin to “high crimes and misdemeanors” worthy of impeachment:

At a recent town hall meeting in Muskogee, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, ostensibly a personal friend of the president’s, answered a constituent’s question about impeachment by allowing as how “those are serious things, but we’re in serious times. And I don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ but I think you’re getting perilously close.”

Campaigning in Texas, Senator Cruz responded to a constituent who asked, “Why don’t we impeach him?” by saying, “It’s a good question.”

No. It isn’t a good question. It’s a dumb question. Ted Cruz graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School, and assuming he wasn’t high during his constitutional law lectures, understands perfectly well that Obama has not committed any impeachable offense any more than have the previous eight or so presidents.

cruzpalin

But impeachment is not the goal. The business of governing through compromise is not the goal. Even the full enactment of their declared conservative agenda is not the goal (Republicans will rail against dependence on government but would never risk the wrath of the AARP by voting to abolish the socialised medicine that is MediCare). So what is the goal?

Money and/or Political Power.

And all of those saps “honking to impeach” Obama are playing right into their hands.