Fox News Started This War

Media Matters has a great video, posted above, rebutting the idea that the Obama administration has started a war on Fox News. As anyone who’s actually waged Fox or paid attention to what they say and do, it’s clear that the war has been waged by the characters at Fox News for the entire tenure of the administration. Only now is the White House taking steps to push back on their smears and attacks, which come straight from the Republican Party’s talking points. Fox News is not a media outlet. It is a propaganda arm of the Republican Party and should be treated as such.

China Executing, Disappearing Tibetans & Uighurs

Three stories across the wire today regarding the Chinese government’s continued human rights abuses and disregard for the rule of law.

First, the Tibetan political prisoner advocacy group that tracks many cases inside Tibet, GuChuSum, reports that three Tibetans were executed for their participation in the spring 2008 national uprising:

Yesterday,around 11 am (Chinese Standard Time),  three Tibetan political prisoners were shot dead by the Chinese soldiers in Lhasa, according to a reliable source. Among the dead was a girl from Nyenmo County, near Lhasa. One political prisoner was identified as Lobsang Tenzin from Lhasa, TAR. The other one was Amdo Ngaba.

All the three had participated in the 2008 uprising in Tibet.

Tension is rising in Lhasa as more Tibetans are arresting recently by the Chinese police. It is an act to crack-down on Tibetans who had participated in 2008 mass uprising against the Chinese government.

GuChuSum Movement of Tibet is gravely concerned about the well being of all political prisoners languishing in Chinese prisons in Tibet. We appeal the international community to exert pressure on the Chinese government to release all the political prisoners unconditionally.

Second, the Chinese government has disappeared at least 43 Uighurs in the crackdown following this year’s protests in East Turkestan. Human Rights Watch could document 43 cases, but assume that the actual number is higher.

The Human Rights Watch report disputes that [detentions have followed Chinese law], stating that in most cases, “the men and boys detained in the course of these sweeps and raids have been missing since the security forces took them away.”

“Their families’ attempts to inquire about the relatives at local police stations or with other law-enforcement agencies proved futile,” the report stated. “The authorities either said they had no knowledge of the arrests, or claimed the inquiry was still ongoing without admitting the fact of detention, or simply chased the families away.”

The report called the 43 cases “enforced disappearances,” saying they “are serious violations of international human-rights law” as well as Chinese law.

Lastly the New York Times has an article on Rebiya Kadeer, a leader of the Uighur exile community. The piece by Andrew Jacobs points out that Kadeer’s increased profile over the last year is due both to the Uighur uprising which received international coverage and the Chinese governments vicious and public attacks on her. The Chinese government’s attacks on Kadeer as a mastermind terrorist have fallen completely flat, similarly to nearly identical charges levied by the Chinese government against the Dalai Lama. Kadeer, as a leader of the Uighur World Congress, preaches nonviolence as a means for Uighurs to attain rights and end China’s military occupation of East Turkestan. The Chinese government has still not learned that the propaganda they spin at their citizenry does not work on a skeptical, reality-based global community.

Is Elizabeth Bumiller Making Things Up?

Today’s New York Times includes a story by Elizabeth Bumiller, titled “As the Commander in Chief Deliberates, Frustration Builds Within the Ranks.” It is a so-called Military Memo and as the title suggests, it is filled with quotes from Bumiller’s sources who aren’t too happy with the Obama administration’s deliberations over strategy in Afghanistan.

The headline of the piece clearly suggests that the frustration is within the active duty military. Bumiller echoes that claim in this paragraph:

A number of active duty and retired senior officers say there is concern that the president is moving too slowly, is revisiting a war strategy he announced in March and is unduly influenced by political advisers in the Situation Room. [Emphasis added]

Both the headline and this paragraph struck me as very odd, as it is rare to see members of the active duty military publicly speak out against the President qua Commander in Chief. I was even more surprised, then, that Bumiller’s piece does not quote any active duty member of the military voicing “furstration” or “concern” about the Obama administration…or any other issues. No active duty members of the military are quoted. Bumiller’s sources include:

“Nathaniel C. Fick, a former Marine Corps infantry officer…”

“the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Thomas J. Tradewell Sr….”

“A retired general who served in Iraq…”

“[Defense Secretary Robert M.] Gates…”

“Andrew M. Exum, a former Army officer in Afghanistan, an adviser to General McChrystal and a fellow at the Center for a New American Security…”

“Michael O’Hanlon, a national security expert at the Brookings Institution.”

“A military policy analyst, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing senior Pentagon leaders”

Note that none of these are active duty members of the military.  The “military policy analyst” is almost certainly someone from a think tank, or, at most, a civilian working at the Pentagon. With seven sources in her piece, Bumiller has failed to back up the headline and her claim that “active duty” officers think Obama is moving too slowly and is being overly influenced by political advisers.

The only possible exception is that she does refer to Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s public disagreement about a reduction of the scale of the war in Afghanistan. But while McChrystal’s disagreement was public and widely reported, McChrystal did not say Obama was moving too slowly nor did he say he was being influenced by his political advisers. That is, Bumiller’s claim is not supported by McChrystal.

Reporting that active duty officers are speaking to the New York Times about their complaints of the President’s decision making timing and his choice of advisers is a big deal. It would be quite a controversy – one that Secretary Gates has already taken steps to avoid. But making the bold claim that this is happening and failing to back it up with even a single source — on the record or anonymous — is a bigger deal. Bumiller is telling a story she does not have sources to support. Conveniently, it’s one that fits into a common Beltway narrative fostered by the right that the military doesn’t trust Democrats. It’s sad that Bumiller has been given the space to do this, as it is an insult to the professionalism of the women and men of America’s military, generally, and the officer corps in particular.

Shortsightedness Is A Problem

I understand that there’s always a strong desire for folks at the White House to never hear public criticism from allied groups or Democratic politicians, but this assault on AFSCME’s  president Gerry McEntee by an anonymous White House official is really absurd. There are going to be many fights, health care is just one of them. But it is one that the White House has waged with the benefit of surrogates and allies like McEntee and his union members’ dues fighting in the field. AFSCME is one of the coalition partners of Healthcare for American Now (HCAN), the leading Democratic/progressive field campaign that has been working in support of reform (disclosure: my employer, SEIU, is a member of HCAN). That is, McEntee’s union is one of many that has been helping create the political environment necessary to allow for a strong reform bill to land on President Obama’s desk.

McEntee is one of the labor leaders who has been pushing most publicly back against the administration for not fighting harder for the public health insurance option and other key reforms Obama promised his health care agenda would contain while on the campaign trail. Gunning at him through anonymous quotes isn’t just petty, it’s stupid. It makes it harder for AFSCME to be an effective advocate for change on health care and it makes it less likely that AFSCME or any other progressive organization will want to be the tip of the spear for the administration’s agenda again. After all, no one is going to appreciate being attacked as McEntee was by an anonymous White House official.

David Waldman points out that there is a real imbalance here between the pressure the White House will publicly put on allies like McEntee and the complete lack of pressure being placed on Democratic senators who are actually holding up key parts of the reform package.

“Allies” don’t pass this thing. Senators do. Keeping “allies” in line is about keeping up appearances. Keeping Senators in line is about getting results.

Now, you could certainly argue that you use the soft touch with Senators, since they’re a prickly bunch. But what does a hard line with “allies” get you, really? What’s “unity” worth, exactly? What’s it good for?

You’ll get unity if you pass decent reform and are seen fighting for it. You’ll need unity if you plan to shush critics, pass a piece of crap and call it a win.

This is not a sustainable model for governance. The Obama administration is at risk of burning out their allies, while showing Democratic Senators that they have little to fear for being obstructionist and forcing reform to the right. Hopefully they realize this is the case and will cut this frustratingly short-sighted behavior out soon.

Lieberman & Vote Counting

Yesterday I wrote about some lessons from Robert Caro’s biography of LBJ’s years in the Senate, Master of the Senate, especially as they regard to the health care reform fight and Harry Reid’s failures of leadership. I wrote:

One thing that Caro’s coverage of LBJ’s Senate tenure makes clear, segregation was preserved and civil rights were delayed for upwards of half a century because of the dominance of conservative Southerners over liberals when it came to understanding the rules and procedures of the Senate. Time after time, liberals were out maneuvered in the civil rights fight. Often their troubles came from an inability to properly count their votes; other times they simply were outsmarted by the master legislators of the South who knew Senate procedure cold. The South had to know how to use the rules to their advantage and they had to know how to count their votes, because they did not control the majority on civil rights and they hadn’t for decades.

Well today it looks like liberals have a golden opportunity to show whether or not we learn our lessons from LBJ or from our liberal predecessors who repeatedly lost civil rights fights in the first 60 years of the last century. Joe Lieberman has come out with a half step in the right direction:

Lieberman said he was “inclined to let the motion to proceed” (or cloture) go forward, but “I haven’t decided yet.”

So he’s saying he might not vote against cloture, but he hasn’t decided. Sadly, my friend Jonathan Singer at MyDD thinks this is equivalent to Lieberman “walk[ing] back his threat” to oppose health care reform. Sorry Jonathan, but this is exactly the sort of vote counting mistake liberals of LBJ’s era made.

I’m much more inclined to take a page from LBJ and not put Holy Joe in our column until we definitively know how he is voting on cloture. As there is still doubt, he should remain in the Nay column.

Lieberman is someone who loves being the center of attention. He loves being the deciding vote. His statement to the New Haven Register today, which shows that he is open to voting for cloture on a bill he will ultimately oppose, is something that might get people to  think he’s no longer relevant in the horse trading for cloture votes. I wouldn’t be shocked to see Lieberman wait while Nelson, Landrieu, and Bayh get their price and back off hard when his vote is finally the critical one. Remember, for Lieberman it is all about him, his ego, and his place as a Serious Bipartisan Gentleman. Everything else is the path to his increased importance.

The Imperative for Health Insurance Reform

I rarely do this on Hold Fast, but this is too incredible not to promote some work from my professional life at SEIU. The videos above is from a woman named Peggy Robertson. In the first she describes her experience of being told by her health insurance company that she was only eligible for coverage, because she had a c-section in the past, if she was sterilized. She was perfectly healthy, but her health insurance company would only cover her if she followed their requirement to be sterilized. The second video is of Peggy describing the trouble she had getting coverage for her healthy two year old son because he was “too small.”

Yesterday Peggy testified on the Hill at a hearing held by Senator Barbara Mikulski. Her story outraged Mikulski, who called it “bone-chiling” and the insurance policy “morally repugnant.” If there is any clearer imperative for massive insurance reform than Peggy’s story, I shudder to imagine what it might be.

Write your member of Congress and tell them that we need health insurance reform now to ensure that no company is ever again allowed to try to force a woman to be sterilized or deny coverage to healthy children.

The Failures of Leadership

I recently finished reading Robert Caro’s Master of the Senate, the volume of his biography of Lyndon Johnson that covered his years in the Senate.

One thing that Caro’s coverage of LBJ’s Senate tenure makes clear, segregation was preserved and civil rights were delayed for upwards of half a century because of the dominance of conservative Southerners over liberals when it came to understanding the rules and procedures of the Senate. Time after time, liberals were out maneuvered in the civil rights fight. Often their troubles came from an inability to properly count their votes; other times they simply were outsmarted by the master legislators of the South who knew Senate procedure cold. The South had to know how to use the rules to their advantage and they had to know how to count their votes, because they did not control the majority on civil rights and they hadn’t for decades.

This Politico post by Glenn Thrush on Reid and Schumer’s back and forth on the public option shows how lacking Senate Democrats are when it comes to both knowledge of Senate procedure and the vote counts on this issue. Much is made by conservative Democrats, Max Baucus, and Harry Reid’s office that the health care bill has to be something that can get 60 votes to overcome the Republican filibuster. But this simply isn’t the case. As long as there are 100 sitting Senators, a filibuster requires 41 votes to be maintained. Republicans only have 40 seats. There is simply no such thing as a “Republican filibuster.” A filibuster can only take place when one or more members of the Democratic caucus joins the Republican minority to stop an issue from moving forward. Any Democratic Senator who is complaining about a Republican filibuster is being at best dishonest with the public and at worst revealing how little they know about the legislative body in which they serve.

Yesterday Markos hit Reid hard for abdicating his leadership role in the Senate. I can’t say that, to this point in the health care debate, Reid has done anything other than fail to manage the caucus. Going back to Caro and LBJ, what made Johnson the “master of the Senate” was that he knew it cold. He knew the rules and procedures. He knew the vote count. He knew what would get every member to where he wanted them to be on a vote. When members of his caucus weren’t with them, he would beg, bully, or horse trade to get what he wanted. If a member of his caucus still didn’t go with him — if they weren’t on his team — he would punish them. For members who’d been in the body for a while, that would often mean simply ignoring their existence, both in terms of legislation they wanted moved forward and refusing to talk to them, turning his back when they entered a room. For more junior members, he would keep them off of the committees they wanted to be on (though he certainly did this to more senior members who’d waited a while for a spot to open up on a desired committee).

LBJ redefined the Senate during his tenure as Leader of the Democratic caucus. He dramatically shifted power from the major committee chairs to the leader. By the time he was done, the Majority Leader had infinitely more power than when he started. But it doesn’t seem that’s the case today, to judge by the performance of Harry Reid.

One of the things I’ve heard in the past during my work in politics is that Reid was first able to get the position of leader in the Democratic caucus by making a deal with the chairs of the major committees: they would back him in exchange of him giving them the power to run the show on their issues of jurisdiction. In a sense, Reid came to power with the agreement that he neuter himself as a leader. This decision in itself shows the sort of leader Reid would be: one without a strong desire to have power or use power to control the caucus.

There are not 60 votes against the public health insurance option in the Senate. There are not 41 Republican votes to filibuster health care reform. Quite simply, the fate of health care reform lies in the ability or inability of Harry Reid (with assistance from President Obama) to control the Democratic caucus. Harry Reid must be accountable for getting reform an up or down, simple majority vote. He can do this if he can control his caucus and he can do it on a bill that includes a public option if it is in the underlying bill he brings to the floor. And anyone in his caucus who stands in his way could face consequences for years following a move against him.

But we’re talking about Harry Reid and as such, I can’t expect anything that resembles leadership from him. He is a leader in title only and he resembles the incompetents who preceded LBJ – Scott Lucas and Ernest McFarland, men who had no control of their caucus and were completely ineffective majority leaders. Of note: both Lucas and McFarland were voted out of office after their short tenures as feckless majority leaders, something that should worry Harry Reid deeply.

The Silent Filibuster: Already in Progress

Jane Hamsher has a must-read post on the culpability of Harry Reid in the possibility that there is a silent filibuster of the public health insurance option. Jane writes:

There are 51 Senators who will vote for a public option, something 77% of the country wants. It would win a majority in a floor vote. We were told that we needed 60 votes in the Caucus so we’d have a filibuster-proof majority — so that the GOP would never block a bill from getting to the floor. The only reason not to put the HELP Committee public option in the Senate bill is because Joe Lieberman and other “ConservaDems” are conducting a silent filibuster — they won’t say it publicly but they’ll say privately that they will vote with the GOP to filibuster the bill.

That means the Democratic caucus will now filibuster itself.

I only have one thing to say: Don’t even fucking think about it. We were told we had to suck up all manner of corporate whoredom for that 60 vote filibuster proof majority — that’s what we supposedly got in exchange for letting Lieberman have his committee chair, right? Except now I guess he gets all the power and the perks just because you like him, with none of the responsibility to stick with the caucus on procedural votes.

Sadly it already looks like Reid is going to not stand up to the silent filibuster.  What makes me say this? Well, yesterday following the passage of the Senate Finance bill, Reid’s office committed to keeping Olympia Snowe involved in the process by giving her a spot on the negotiating team that will merge the SFC and HELP bills. From the NYT Prescriptions blog:

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid, said that Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, the lone Republican on the Finance Committee to vote in favor of the bill, would be invited to future sessions. And Mr. Manley said the Democratic leader was prepared to go to substantial lengths to keep Ms. Snowe’s support.

“He is prepared to do what he can to keep her on board while putting together a bill that can get the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster,” Mr. Manley said.

But here’s the thing: if Reid were stopping the silent filibuster of the public option, he would not need Snowe’s vote to “overcome a Republican filibuster.” He would need Snowe’s vote if and only if he has to overcome a Democratic filibuster.

Snowe is only necessary when Reid cannot or will not maintain Democratic caucus discipline. By Manley’s admission, Reid is not going to do this. Hopefully at some point soon Manley and other representatives for Senator Reid will begin to honestly speak about their decision to not hold caucus discipline and instead prioritize letting Snowe write the legislation that she wants to see come to the floor of the Senate. The sole virtue in this – the sole thing that might actually lead this to more than 60 votes – is that it will be so bad it will satisfy the concerns of people like Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson. But that’s not what Democrats promised and it most certainly isn’t what the country wants.

Fox News, Opposition Party

Eric Boehlert of Media Matters has a long piece on the development of Fox News from quasi-news outlet with strong partisan bend to full-time political opposition outlet, with no distinction between the opposition put forth by Fox News pundits and Fox News “reporters.” I’ll be honest – a lot of the content Media Matters produces goes straight into my “Tell Me What I Don’t Know” file. Right wing pundits are smearing Democrats? Yep.Fox News reporters consistently get the facts wrong? Still! They do yeoman’s work, but a lot of the time it feels like Media Matters is just shooting fish in a barrel.

But Boehlert’s piece today documents an incredibly important phenomenon — the development as Fox News as the political leader of the American right, as seen in particular by the Tea Party protests and Glenn Beck’s 9-12 Project. Boehlert brings together a similar analysis put forth by Glenn Greenwald, Jonathan Alter and Hendrik Hertzberg. These voices are important, for as Boehlert notes, the reason Fox News has been able to devolve into the leader of the Republican Party is because other members of the press — outlets like Politico and the New York Times — continue to white wash Fox’s abject partisanship. It’s “the façade of journalism” that has let Fox take its aggressive role. At some point, that façade must come down.