no thanks, wolf

(art and story by tom tomorrow)

help us obi-wan, part trois

i think CNN may be trying to kill us. they have announced who has been invited to their september 12th debate, and it includes, rather inexplicably, two "candidates" who aren't currently even running for the office:

in a statement, CNN announces its line-up for the september 12 tea party express co-sponsored debate in tampa: gov. rick perry, rep. michele bachmann, gov. mitt romney, rep. ron paul, newt gingrich, herman cain, rick santorum, and jon huntsman. the network adds that rudy giuliani and sarah palin were invited: "giuliani declined the debate invitation, while a palin representative has yet to respond to it."

you've got to be kidding me, right? we're still pretending rick santorum is somehow worthy of inclusion over, say, gary johnson or buddy roemer, but somehow CNN is still so hard up for slots that they're inviting two republicans who aren't even running? are we all that hard up for sarah palin news, that CNN is desperate to generate some whether she's running or not?

predictions

but who's keeping count ...?

CNN: with a short video on barackobama.com, the sitting president of the united states has launched his bid for re-election.

using what apparently will be one of his campaign slogans, "it begins with us," the campaign has told supporters that the kickoff of the campaign has started and that means the race for contributions is on.

the familiar-looking blue "o" over red and white stripes is back again for 2012. and at the bottom of the website, the candidates' names are clearly identified: obama-biden — for vice president joe biden. [apr 2011]

as i posted many times, 0b0z0 won't be running for reelection, precisely because of the fear of being "REQUIRED" to prove his eligibility.

to make certain of ousting 0kaka, an accented, naturalized american should run for POTUS in '12. if he/she is thrown out as he/she should be, then he/she WILL HAVE STANDING to sue for proof of ALL other candidates' eligibility!

this is why i believe that 0b0z0 will never dare to run for reelection

by melancholy [mar 2010]

i'm here to tell you right now.

hillary will be VP early next year. the zero will be forced from office 3+ months later.

same story with agnew, nixon and gerald ford.

by imJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago) [mar 2010]

here's the scenario i see being played out where BHO is concerned. he will be allowed to serve one term as POTUS ... he will announce the fact he won't run for president for a second term sometime early in his fourth year. it is indisputable BHO is ineligible to be POTUS ... he will be allowed to serve one term simply because removing him from office would roil political & economic conditions in this country that would have enormous consequences, both here and abroad. he will be allowed to walk away with the distinction of being the first black president. if he refuses, and runs for office again, he will be defeated ... because his ineligibility will be front and center. better to leave with a modicum of dignity then have your reputation besmirched by the ineligible issue.

by bluH2o [dec 2009]

2010 leads to a massive GOP victory in both houses, even with dem voter fraud. the dems will then try to shove every socialist bill they can through between the election and swearing in of the new congress. they will use every underhanded technique they can because this is their last chance. once obama loses the ability to pass his agenda he because useless to the socialist cause. that is when a perfect storm of the blago [disgraced former IL gov. rod blagojevich] trial wake, his eligibility and a closer look at the impact of his nationalization efforts will intersect. he will then be removed either through impeachment or illness claim. biden will be left in charge and to really muck things up for the 2012 election where the GOP is surely to win. however, the dems will have tried to damage the country so much through cloward-piven that it will take a reagan time 10 to fix it all.

one good thing that has come of the obama presidency is that we now know who and where many of the power communists are and have been hiding. it will be easier to clean house.

by dutch boy [jul 2010]

here's the bet: he resigns before 2012 or doesn't run for second term.

by 1234

my bet is no elections in 2012.

by ml/nj

i’m in on that bet. i’ll go so far as saying there will be no elections this fall.

by vanilla swirl [jul 2010]

i think the LBJ scenario is the most likely. and obama will need to claim it has nothing to do with the eligibility issue which means he will have to make the announcement sometime this year before there is any ballot qualification unpleasantness.

by menehune56 [feb 2011]

by now, all those politically motivated to question obama should be confident that he is never going to release it under any circumstances. i believe he will not even seek re-election as president if forced to prove his eligibility by showing his long-form birth certificate.

by joe farah, publisher, world net daily [sep 2010]

i am so confident about the eventual outcome now that i am increasingly persuaded that barack obama will not even seek re-election.

that will be the tipoff that our suspicions about obama's eligibility and/or life story were correct all along.

by joe farah [feb 2011]

life imitating art

art:

life:

actually, allow me to set the record straight: birthers aren't imitating cartoons — birthers are cartoons ...

birther on toast

u.s. army lieutenant colonel dr. terrence lakin is toast:

and he can't say i didn't warn him.

of course it's always possible that what looks, to both layfolk and seasoned practicioners, like a fatal drop kick to the groin, may be, to more astute eyes, a carefully orchestrated manuever in a larger overarching strategy:

if convicted, easy reversal and remand by SCOTUS [*].

this is a case where def[ense] adnits the alledged action but claims justicication in doing so, so pros[ecutor] must show "criminal intent." they are denying him the ability to show the lack of a "criminal state of mind," a "mens rea" in latin, a criminal intent.

[* supreme court of the united states]

umm, ok ... whatever.

or it's possible that he knows he's tilting at windmills and wants all the glitz and glory that comes with martyrdom — or at least as much as he can get from his cheerleading squad.

but whichever narrative is unfolding, everyone seems to agree that he's one step closer to his all-expense-paid vacation to fort leavenworth:

CNN — a judge on thursday denied a request for president barack obama to testify at a court martial for a U.S. army flight surgeon who refused to deploy to afghanistan until he saw proof that obama was born in the united states.

the judge, army col. denise lind, said any evidence or witnesses related to obama's citizenship is irrelevant to the charges against lt. col. terrence lakin, who has 17 years of service in the U.S. military.

after failing to deploy with his unit in april, lakin was charged with missing a movement, disobeying a lawful order and dereliction of duty.

the uniform code of military justice says the maximum punishment for both offenses -- missing his plane and disobeying lawful orders -- is a dishonorable discharge and up to two years in confinement. a guilty verdict could also result in forfeiture of lakin's pay, which totals $7,959 a month, according to a charge sheet provided by a group sponsoring his defense.

lakin's lawyers argued that all military orders stem from the commander-in-chief. without evidence that obama is eligible to be president, they say, the doctor's deployment order was illegal.

in addition to putting obama on their witness list, lakin's lawyers had asked lind to order obama's official birth records from hawaii be brought to court for trial.

"if the president is ineligible, you need to know that," lakin's civilian attorney, paul jensen, told lind. "col. lakin needs to know that, the government needs to know that, america needs to know that."

the prosecutors in the case argued that obama's eligibility is not relevant because the officers who ordered lakin to go to fort campbell and then ordered him to answer questions about why he didn't go were his proper superiors in the military chain of command, and they gave him legal orders. jensen later conceded that point.

the judge ruled that the matter of obama's eligibility is not relevant because he did not give any orders in the case. she pointed out that while the president is commander-in-chief of the military, it is congress that is constitutionally empowered to raise armies, pay them and equip them.

any contention that any orders are invalid if the president is ineligible "is erroneous," the judge said.

lind also said that military law says that a soldier's personal beliefs or convictions are not sufficient to allow that soldier to determine that an order is illegal. the soldier has to have "no rational doubt" that the order is illegal before he or she can ignore it.

finally she ruled that a military court martial is not the forum in which to determine a president's eligibility, because the constitution says only congress has the power to impeach and remove the president.

afterward, jensen said he respected the judge's ruling, but called it distressing.

"it completely deprives us of any opportunity to present a defense in this case," jensen said.

the court martial is set to begin in october, but jensen said he's not giving up on the matter of obama's eligibility.

"we will be giving the army court of criminal appeals in the next week or two the opportunity to take up the issue, and we are going to fight on for justice to be served in this case."

lakin is among 27 percent of americans who doubt or deny that obama is american-born, according to a recent CNN/opinion research corp. poll. they compose the birther movement, which demands that obama present a birth certificate signed by the doctor who delivered him in 1961.

CNN and other news organizations have thoroughly debunked the rumors about the president's birthplace. the obama campaign released a copy of a birth record issued by the state in 2007, called a "certification of live birth," and allowed reporters to examine the document in person in 2008.

last year, hawaiian state officials issued a statement that they had personally viewed the president's original hawaiian birth record, called a "certificate of live birth," and verified it to be authentic. state law bars the release of the original certificate. in addition, two hawaiian newspapers ran notices in 1961 announcing obama's birth in the state.

lakin's fate was sealed the moment he disobeyed his orders to report to duty. under military law all orders are presumed to be legal, which places the burden of contesting an order on the subordinate. there is only one perilous defense for disobedience:

an order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. this inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

but lakin wants to argue that:

1. his orders come from the president.
2. barack obama might not really be president.
3. obeying obama's orders could therefore be a crime.

unfortunately for lakin, his argument fails on all three points.

first, while obama is certainly his commander-in-chief, lakin's april orders to report came from his immediate superiors, as reflected in the specific formal charges leveled against him:

CHARGE I, VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ. ARTICLE 87

THE SPECIFICATION: in that lieutenant colonel terrence l. lakin, US army, did. at or near arlington, virginia. on or about 12 april 2010, through design, miss the movement of US airways flight number 1123. departing from baltimore/washington international airport arriving in charlotte. north carolina. in order to deploy for a temporary change of station in support of operation enduring freedom with the 32nd calvary regiment, 101st airborne division (air assault), fort campbell, kentucky. with which he was required in the course of duty to move

CHARGE II, VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ. ARTICLE 92

SPECIFICATION 1: in that lieutenant colonel terrence l. lakin. US army. having knowledge of a lawful order issued by lieutenant colonel william judd. to report to the office of his brigade commander. colonel gordon r. roberts. at 1345 hours. or words to that effect. an order which it was his duty to obey. did. at or near arlington, virginia. on or about 31 march 2010, fail to obey the same by wrongfully not reporting as directed.

SPECIFICATION 2: in that lieutenant colonel terrence l. lakin. US army. having knowledge of a lawful order issued by colonel gordon r. roberts. to wit: a memorandum signed by the said colonel gordon r. roberts, dated 31 march 2010, an order which it was his duty to obey. did, at or near arlington. virginia. on or about 31 march 2010, fail to obey the same by wrongfully not reporting as directed.

SPECIFICATION 3: in that lieutenant colonel terrence l. lakin. US army. having knowledge of a lawful order issued by colonel peter m. mchugh. to wit: temporary change of station orders 099-17. dated 9 april 2010, issued by colonel peter mchugh. requiring the said lieutenant colonel terrence l. lakin to report to fort campbell, kentucky not later than 1500 hours on 12 april 2010, an order which it was his duty to obey. did at or near washington. district of columbia. on or about 12 april 2010, fail to obey the same by wrongfully failing to report to 32nd calvary regiment. 101st airborne division (air assault), fort campbell, kentucky.

SPECIFICATION 4: in that lieutenant colonel terrence l. lakin. US army. who knew or should have known of his duties at or near washington. district of columbia. on or about 12 april 2010. was derelict in the perforrmance of those duties in that he willfully failed to report to fort campbell, kentucky in accordance with temporary change of station orders 099-17. dated 9 april 2010, issued by colonel peter mchugh. in support of operation enduring freedom. as it was his duty to do.

note that the name "barack h. obama" does not appear anywhere in these charges, and even if it could be demonstrated that every military order traces back to the president, no court is going to agree that every latrine assignment since noon january 20, 2009 has been illegal.

second, lakin takes careful pains to avoid claiming that obama isn't the lawful president (possibly to avoid added charges of contempt). he only claims that he's unsure and just needs his mind put at ease. unfortunately for soldiers, there is no room for doubt in the chain of command, no matter how sincere. lakin is obligated to follow orders unless he has damning evidence in hand at the time of his refusal. asking for the judge's help to find the evidence that he's required to bring to court himself counts for real chutzpah if nothing else.

third, even if obama were proven ineligible, his orders would nonetheless remain perfectly valid, according to the de facto officer doctrine:

the de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.

... the de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.

all of lakins arguments collide head-on with well-established mechanisms essential to maintaining military discipline and those mechanisms are designed to turn recalcitrants like lakin into toast, which he must full well know:

i attempted all avenues i could over a year ago. i submitted an article 138, which is the only way that i could research how to &mdash how to address this issue, asking and begging my leadership for guidance in how to — how to address this issue. and the answers that i got were not ...

... answers that he wanted to hear, apparently — confirmed by former JAG defense attorney charles gittins:

i told LTCOL lakin that he was being badly advised when he called me to join his legal team. i gave him my (very) candid advice. i told him to seek opinions from other military justice experts if he was not willing to accept my advice. he is where he is for a reason. i am very sad for him. he has been deluded by a very incompetent attorney, who has done a disservice [to] our profession and military justice.

now that lakin's legs have been predictably cut from under him, his attorney and his cheerleaders claim that he's not being allowed a defense. but the judge, rightly, wants lakin to defend against the charges he's facing. all that lakin's being denied is the opportunity to rant incoherently. during his trial for the murder of dr. george tiller, scott roeder was not allowed to rant incoherently about perfectly legal abortion procedures. instead, facing a charge of first degree murder, roeder was allowed only to explain if he believed someone's life was in imminent danger or if he were legally insane when he pulled the trigger, because those are the only justifications allowed.

as noted in the cnn report above, lakin's attorney has already been forced to concede in court that lakin's orders were legal. if that leaves lakin without a defense, the person at fault is not the judge.

the toast is ready. it is only waiting to be served.

birther morituri

the interview is just under eight minutes. i doubt the court-martial lasts as long:

cooper:	he's a decorated army doctor, and tonight lieutenant colonel terrence lakin has become the face of the so-called birthers movement, whose followers believe president obama may not have been born in the U.S. and may not be eligible to be president of the united states. lieutenant colonel lakin, who's been an active-duty physician for the military for 18 years, has been ordered to deploy to afghanistan for a second tour of duty. but lakin is refusing that command, saying the order is coming from a commander in chief who he believes may not, in fact, be a natural-born citizen. lakin has also invited his own court-martial and says he wants proof the president was born in the U.S. lieutenant colonel terrence lakin joins me now, along with his attorney, paul jensen. i appreciate both of you being with us. colonel, you say you're refusing your orders because, quote, "there is significant evidence or unanswered speculation that mr. obama is not eligible to be president." you said that in a note to general casey. now, ignoring the idea that you actually cited speculation as a justification for your decision, but to say there's significant evidence that the president was not born in america is just false. i mean, you're an honorable guy. you've served your country incredibly well. you're a doctor. do you honestly believe president obama was not born in hawaii?
jensen:	well, anderson, let me answer as his lawyer ...
cooper:	no, no, no. excuse me. wait, this is a doctor — excuse me. this is a doctor. this is a man who served his country for 18 years. i think he can answer a question by himself.
jensen:	i think that the lawyer should protect the client from incriminating himself. you say it's false. you're not prosecuting this case.
cooper:	ok, lieutenants colonel, if you call up the state of hawaii and you ask for a birth certificate, you're sent a certificate of live birth. that is the official document. and the president has ...
jensen:	that is not correct.
cooper:	and the president ...
jensen:	that is absolutely not correct.
cooper:	and the president has released — and the president has released that certificate of live birth — there it is — to newspapers. in 1961, had birth announcements provided by the state of hawaii health department. certificates. the republican governor of hawaii sent someone to personally view the birth certificate at the department of health and says it's there.
jensen:	that's not ...
cooper:	again, can the colonel not talk for himself? the guy's an adult.
jensen:	you said that that's a birth certificate, mr. cooper. now you want to tell the truth to your viewers.
cooper:	according to the state of hawaii ...
jensen:	that's an abstract, a computer-generated abstract ...
cooper:	according to the state of hawaii, the certificate of live birth, and i'm quoting from the state of hawaii health department. the certificate of live birth is the standard form acceptable by federal agencies. so are you saying, colonel, but you're not actually saying anything. but i would appreciate it if you actually would, and not hide behind your attorney. are you actually saying that all soldiers who currently serve who are from hawaii should be suspect because that's what they provide?
lakin:	this is a constitutional matter. and the truth matters, and ...
cooper:	well, and answers matter. can you answer my question? should all soldiers who are from hawaii and who have given certificate of live births as their proof of citizenship, should they all be suspect now?
lakin:	this isn't a matter about all soldiers. this is a matter about ...
cooper:	well, you're saying the president ...
lakin:	... the two positions that are — require — that require a natural-born citizen.
cooper:	you've taken countless orders in your — in your laudable service over the years. have you ever asked for any superior's birth certificate?
jensen:	you know, that really is — begs the question...
cooper:	no, no, no, sir, please let your client answer. you served under general casey. where was he born?
jensen:	i'm the lawyer, and i'm going to tell you, mr. cooper, the issue isn't about where general casey was born, where mr. ...
cooper:	he doesn't know. because you've never asked the question, because you just assume that they're americans.
jensen:	he doesn't have to be a natural-born citizen to be the chief of staff of the army.
cooper:	actually, to serve in the united states army, according to your own documents, citizenship papers have to be brought to bear. in fact ...
jensen:	that's not the issue. to serve as president of the united state...
cooper:	in your own letter ...
jensen:	mister — mr. cooper, please.
cooper:	in your own letter ...
jensen:	... to be president of the united states ...
cooper:	... to general casey you have said that you had to provide your birth certificate.
jensen:	you're afraid of letting me answer. are you afraid of letting me answer?
cooper:	no, i'd like your client to answer.
jensen:	the issue under the united states constitution is whether the president is eligible to hold the office. that determine — is determined by whether he's 35 years old and a natural-born citizen. those are not requirements for the chief of staff of the army, sir. and what colonel lakin has said is that there's mounting evidence that he is not. and the original birth certificate has not been released.
cooper:	right, ok. there's not mounting evidence. and he has ...
jensen:	that's what you said.
cooper:	excuse me. let me respond. he has taken orders for years from people, probably thousands of orders. countless orders. he has never questioned the legitimacy of the people he is taking orders from. general casey. but he doesn't know where general casey is born. for all he knows, general casey could be a foreign-born, not an american citizen.
jensen:	mr. cooper, if you've done your research, you know that, in the state of hawaii, there's a statute that allows anyone born outside the state of hawaii, including in a foreign country, to obtain a hawaiian birth certificate at any age by going back and filling out a form...
cooper:	right. and if you'd done your research, you'd know that, on the certificate of live birth, it would indicate if the person was born in another country. it would say they were born in another country ...
jensen:	that's not correct.
cooper:	that is correct. that is the fact.
jensen:	i beg your pardon. under hawaiian statute 338-17.8, there's nothing that says that in the statute.
cooper:	ok.
jensen:	you point it out to me if i'm wrong.
cooper:	in your complaint to general casey, colonel, you say, quote, that you're not seeking any grandstanding or publicity for this action. how can you seriously say that? i mean, you put out a youtube video with your — talking, frankly, more than you've talked here tonight. you have this group paying all your legal fees, the american patriot foundation legal defense fund. they've provided the attorney who's sitting next to you. and they're fundraising based on you. they're raising money using you.
lakin:	i attempted all avenues i could over a year ago. i submitted an article 138, which is the only way that i could research how to — how to address this issue, asking and begging my leadership for guidance in how to — how to address this issue. and the answers that i got were not ...
jensen:	mr. cooper, you — the standard is not satisfying you — the standard is to satisfy ...
	[crosstalk]
cooper:	lieutenant colonel, you sound like an honorable man — excuse me. i'm addressing your client. lieutenant colonel, you seem like an incredibly honorable man who's obviously served his country. you're a doctor; you're an educated man. why is it this issue? i mean, of all the orders you've taken, of all the people you've served under, why this, why now? what is it that has got you so, you know, sticking on this issue?
lakin:	it's a fundamental of the constitution, and my oath of office is to the constitution. and i believe we need truth on this matter.
cooper:	but i mean, what's wrong with the certificate of live birth, in your opinion? what's wrong — i mean, how do you explain a newspaper — two newspapers in 1961 announcing the birth of barack obama in hawaii? which is not something his parents did or his grandparents did. those are based on health records sent by the health department, as it does for every person born in hawaii. and everyone gets a newspaper now.
jensen:	mr. cooper, that's simply not correct. and the issue is instead why hasn't the president released the original birth certificate, if one exists? this could be over tonight. tonight. release the birth certificate, if it exists, signed by the doctor in 1961. it's in the state of hawaii's records. if —
cooper:	i'm just going to read you a quote from janice okubu from the department of health: "our certificate of live birth is the standard form which was modeled after national standards that are acceptable by federal agencies and organizations."
jensen:	but it is not the only form ...
cooper:	the governor of hawaii, a republican, has said, and i quote, "i had my health doctor, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the department of health, and we issued a news release."
jensen:	and she is not going to be testifying at the court-martial. this is a criminal case. the president should release the original birth certificate, and this would be over tonight. these other documents and testimony are not admissible and will not be admitted in court.
cooper:	well, i appreciate you being on the program tonight. lieutenant colonel terrence lakin, i appreciate it, as well. thank you, sir.
jensen:	thank you.
cooper:	you can join the live chat. let us know what you think about this issue at ac360.com.

none of these birther claims will be admissible at trial, which will go something like this:

judge:	did you disobey a direct order?
lakin:	yes, but ...
judge:	guilty. welcome to leavenworth.
lakin:	b-b-but ...

or, as the military justice blog caaflog explains:

... while i find the eligibility debate interesting, it is also profoundly irrelevant to the prosecution of LTC lakin. LTC lakin is guilty of missing movement and violating lawful orders regardless of whether the president is or isn't constitutionally eligible to serve. there is no real prospect that his court-martial will result in the production of any documents or testimony concerning the irrelevant issue of president obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president. instead, the case is likely to be a circus leading to an inevitable conviction. attempts to press the issue on direct appeal will fail because ACCA will hold that discovery into eligibility issues isn't relevant and CAAF will either agree or, more likely, simply deny review, thus foreclosing a cert petition on direct review. collateral review attempts will fail under abstention (if filed before the completion of direct appeals) or because the issue was fully and fairly resolved by the military (if filed after completion of direct appeals). some courts on collateral review may add that they agree with the military courts' determination that president obama's eligibility was irrelevant.

round and round

... we go.

where we stop, does anyone know ... ?

obama: ... any plan i sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans — including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest — and choose what’s best for your family. (jul. 17)

obama: all i'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. (aug. 15)

ap: health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius says obama still believes there should be choice and competition" in the health insurance market — but that a public option is 'not the essential element.' (aug. 16)

sebelius: here’s the bottom-line: absolutely nothing has changed. we continue to support the public option that will help lower costs, give american consumers more choice, and keep private insurers honest. (aug. 18)

obama: the only thing that we have said — and this continues to be the truth — and i mean, sometimes you can fault me maybe for being honest to a fault — is that the public option is just one component of a broader plan. (aug. 20)

dailykos: [senate majority leader harry] reid spokesman jim manley emails in that reid's preference is for a "public option," but would not confirm that reid means "public option" as commonly understood: an insurance program run by the department of health and human services or another government body. (aug. 28)

nancy pelosi: a bill without a strong public option will not pass the house. eliminating the public option would be a major victory for the insurance companies who have rationed care, increased premiums and denied coverage. (sep. 3)

politico: "we have been saying all along that the most important part of this debate is not the public option, but rather ensuring choice and competition," [a white house] aide said. (sep. 3)

ny times: [administration officials] insisted that mr. obama had not given up on the provision that has attracted the most fire from the right, a proposal for a government-run competitor to private insurers, although many democrats say the proposal may eventually be jettisoned. (sep. 3)

cnn: president barack obama and top aides have quietly stepped up talks with moderate republican sen. olympia snowe of maine on a scaled-back health-care bill, according to two sources familiar with the negotiations. the compromise plan would lack a government-run public health insurance option favored by obama, but would leave the door open to adding that provision down the road under an idea proposed by snowe, the sources said. (sep. 3)

unanswered questions

birther blitz

if any publicity is good publicity, then this week was an unabashed (though admittedly unrequited) love fest for our attention-starved birther buddies:

obama press secretary robert gibbs, press briefing, c-span (7/13):

keith olbermann, countdown, msnbc (7/14):

keith olbermann, countdown, msnbc (7/15):

brett baier, political grapevine, fox (7/17)

kitty pilgrim, lou dobbs tonight, cnn (7/17):

tough times for teabaggers

the meme that keeps on giving: pundit david gergen mulls over republican woes, but cnn anchor anderson cooper gets to the nut of their problems ...

gergen:	... this happens to a minority party after it's lost a couple of bad elections. but they're searching for their voice.
cooper:	it's hard to talk when you're teabagging.
gergen:	[after a beat] hrruheh heh! heh! heh! heh! heh! heh ... !

negotiation 101

this should not have been a learning experience:

what has this experience with the stimulus led you to think about when you think about these future challenges?

obama: now, just in terms of the historic record here, the republicans were brought in early and were consulted. and you'll remember that when we initially introduced our framework, they were pleasantly surprised and complimentary about the tax cuts that were presented in that framework. those tax cuts are still in there. i mean, i suppose what i could have done is started off with no tax cuts, knowing that i was going to want some, and then let them take credit for all of them. and maybe that's the lesson i learned.

never open with a compromise. always make your counterpart earn every concession, especially when he isn't bargaining in good faith. your initial generosity won't be acknowledged as a concession to be reciprocated and will be treated as a giveaway, as it predictably was: it won obama zero republican votes. his initial plan might as well have been to nationalize the economy and imprison all the bankers for all the support it got from across the aisle. it would have been at least a better hand to start with.

if nothing else, the gambit for "bipartisanship" helped expose the republicans as the "know-nothings" and "do-nothings" they've devolved into, at little cost to obama's popularity.

gallup:

cnn:

seventy-six percent of those questioned in a cnn/opinion research corp. survey released monday gave obama a thumbs-up on how he's performing his duties, while 23 percent disapproved.

... three out of four poll respondents said that obama is doing enough to cooperate with republicans in congress, but only 39 percent feel that congressional republicans are cooperating enough with the president.

six out of 10 approved of the way democratic leaders in congress are handling their jobs. but only 44 percent of those questioned approved of the way republican leaders in congress are performing. overall, only 29 percent said they like the way congress is handling its job, with 71 percent disapproving.

cnn asks: where's the love?

rick sanchez: i want you to look at this video, alright? it seems almost sad. look at this — this is the president of the united states walking out on stage to take a picture with world leaders, invited to the g-20 summit over the weekend. look at him. and he seems like the most unpopular kid in high school that nobody liked, uh, the one with the cooties. everybody's shaking hands, but he walks in, and nobody's shaking his hand, and he's not shaking anybody's hand. this is different, though, because, look, i'll let you watch this again — watch, everybody's shaking hands ... he's not shaking hands. remember just six years ago? he was, quote, "the bully", who everyone seemed to like — or did they just pretend to like him? by the way, just to be clear: "bully" is not my word. it's one of the words most used to describe the bush administration's foreign and economic policies around the world. to check, i googled "bush" and "bully" together — you ready? — two million, five hundred thousand hits! this may be a case of "what goes around, comes around", maybe not ...

poodles and pitchforks

after eight years of cuddling at the decider's feet, have the media poodles become terriers?

sounds like mcworse has neglected feeding the pets, after waving treats in their faces for weeks ...

bear with me for a short rant on another subject, because frankly, i have had it and i know a lot of other women out there are with me on this. i have had enough of the sexist treatment of sarah palin. it has to end. she was here in new york city today meeting with world leaders at the u.n. and what did the mccain campaign do? they tried to ban reporters from covering those meetings. and they did ban reporters from asking governor palin any questions. tonight i call on the mccain campaign to stop treating sarah palin like she is a delicate flower that will wilt at any moment. this woman is from alaska for crying out loud. she is strong. she is tough. she is confident. and you claim she is ready to be one heart beat away form the presidency. if that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. allow her to show her stuff. allow her to face down those pesky reporters, just like barack obama did today. just like john mccain did today. just like joe biden has done on numerous occasions. let her have a real news conference with real questions. by treating sarah palin different from the other candidates in this race, you are not showing her the respect she deserves. free sarah palin. free her from the chauvinistic chain you are binding her with. sexism in this campaign must come to an end. sarah palin has just as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do. so let her act like one.

the mchoneymoon is over

the reviews are in and even fox news couldn't spin this one ...

"john mccain had better start working on his speech-making and learn how to use a teleprompter." "john mccain sounded old." — mort kondrake, roll call (fox news) "... last i checked this was not a speech-making contest. thank god!" — alex costellanos, republican strategist (cnn) "what about that mccain speech? that was awful ... that was pathetic! he looked awful. he looked catatonic. i mean that audience, that handful of people. you've got 20,000 people in minnesota [listening to obama] and, like, a couple hundred in louisiana ... where [mccain's] struggling with the teleprompter. i mean, i thought that was one of the worst speeches that i've ever seen him give." — jeffrey toobin, legal analyst (cnn) "i thought the green backdrop was pretty awful." — david gergen, analyst (cnn) "does he need help in presenting a case for himself?" — anderson cooper (cnn) "we're just trying to lower expectations now." — alex costellanos, republican strategist (cnn) "i gotta give 'em credit, the mccain people: they put a room together where john mccain's the youngest person in the room!" — james carville, clinton strategist (cnn) "it's kinda painful, at least tonight, listening to john mccain." — mort kondrake, roll call (fox news) "this was really a hopeless night for mccain to really match up with obama. he shouldn't have tried in the first place." — bill kristol, weekly standard (fox news)

... nope, no gold spun out of that one — but not for the lack of trying:

"i think we would agree that this was a speech that was better on the printed page than it was coming from john mccain's mouth." — chris wallace (fox news) "let's not be mistaken — this speech tonight by john mccain may be the best he's given on the campaign trail." — harold ford, chairman, democratic leadership council (fox news)

let campaign '08 begin!

red alert

boys, it's time to duct tape the windows, strap on your diapers and man the keyboards — the islamo-irani-talibani-qaeda-o'fascists have taken connecticut!

chuck roberts, anchor @ cnn headline news:

how does this factor into the lieberman/lamont contest? and might some argue, as some have already argued, that lamont is the al qaeda candidate?

tony snow, press secretary @ the white house:

... the real question for the american people to ask themselves is, do you take the war on terror seriously? with all the developments around the world — and, if so, how do you fight it to win? there seems to be two approaches, and in the connecticut race, one of the approaches is ignore the difficulties and walk away. now, when the united states walked away, in the opinion of the osama bin laden in 1991, bin laden drew from that the conclusion that americans were weak and wouldn’t stay the course and that led to september 11th.

dick cheney, vice president @ the white house:

the thing that's partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the american people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. and when we see the democratic party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today if that's becoming the dominant view of the democratic party, the basic, fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won't — we can't be.

bill o'reilly, talking head @ the o'reilly factor:

i believe this is a chilling indication of what lies ahead in american politics. iran’s betting we americans have no will to restrain their jihad, and judging from the connecticut vote last night, they might be right.

cal thomas, columnist @ the washington times:

the narrow primary defeat of veteran sen. joe lieberman in connecticut's democratic primary is more than a loss for one man. it is a loss for his party and for the country. it completes the capture of the democratic party by its taliban wing. they used to be "san francisco democrats," a phrase coined by former u.s. ambassador to the united nations jeane kirkpatrick to describe the party's 1984 convention. but they have now morphed into taliban democrats because they are willing to "kill" one of their own, if he does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party's kook fringe.

joe lieberman, sore loser @ the new york times:

if we just pick up like ned lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in england. it will strengthen them, and they will strike again. i'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to american security and the evil of the enemy that faces us — more evil, or as evil, as nazism and probably more dangerous than the soviet communists we fought during the long cold war. how the heck can we be in a battle in which we are fighting as democrats and republicans against each other, when these terrorists certainly don't distinguish based on our party affiliation? they want to kill any and all of us.

has it been six months yet?

not quite, according to new york times columnist tom friedman:

the next six months in iraq — which will determine the prospects for democracy-building there — are the most important six months in u.s. foreign policy in a long, long time. — new york times, "the chant not heard", november 30, 2003

what i absolutely don't understand is just at the moment when we finally have a un-approved iraqi-caretaker government made up of — i know a lot of these guys — reasonably decent people and more than reasonably decent people, everyone wants to declare it's over. i don't get it. it might be over in a week, it might be over in a month, it might be over in six months, but what's the rush? can we let this play out, please? — npr fresh air, june 3, 2004

what we're gonna find out, bob, in the next six to nine months is whether we have liberated a country or uncorked a civil war. — cbs face the nation, october 3, 2004

improv time is over. this is crunch time. iraq will be won or lost in the next few months. but it won't be won with high rhetoric. it will be won on the ground in a war over the last mile. — new york times, "the last mile", november 28, 2004

i think we're in the end game now. ... i think we're in a six-month window here where it's going to become very clear and this is all going to pre-empt i think the next congressional election—that's my own feeling— let alone the presidential one. — nbc meet the press, september 25, 2005

maybe the cynical europeans were right. maybe this neighborhood is just beyond transformation. that will become clear in the next few months as we see just what kind of minority the sunnis in iraq intend to be. if they come around, a decent outcome in iraq is still possible, and we should stay to help build it. if they won't, then we are wasting our time. — new york times, "the endgame in iraq", september 28, 2005

we've teed up this situation for iraqis, and i think the next six months really are going to determine whether this country is going to collapse into three parts or more or whether it's going to come together. — cbs face the nation, december 18, 2005

we're at the beginning of, i think, the decisive, i would say, six months in iraq, ok, because i feel like this election — you know, i felt from the beginning iraq was going to be ultimately, charlie, what iraqis make of it. — pbs charlie rose show, december 20, 2005

the only thing i am certain of is that in the wake of this election, iraq will be what iraqis make of it — and the next six months will tell us a lot. i remain guardedly hopeful. — new york times, "the measure of success", december 21, 2005

i think that we're going to know after six to nine months whether this project has any chance of succeeding. in which case, i think the american people as a whole will want to play it out or whether it really is a fool's errand. — oprah winfrey show, january 23, 2006

i think we're in the end game there, in the next three to six months, bob. we've got for the first time an iraqi government elected on the basis of an iraqi constitution. either they're going to produce the kind of inclusive consensual government that we aspire to in the near term, in which case america will stick with it, or they're not, in which case i think the bottom's going to fall out. — cbs, january 31, 2006

i think we are in the end game. the next six to nine months are going to tell whether we can produce a decent outcome in iraq. — msnbc today show, march 2, 2006

can iraqis get this government together? if they do, i think the american public will continue to want to support the effort there to try to produce a decent, stable iraq. but if they don't, then i think the bottom is going to fall out of public support here for the whole iraq endeavor. so one way or another, i think we're in the end game in the sense it's going to be decided in the next weeks or months whether there's an iraq there worth investing in. and that is something only iraqis can tell us. — cnn late edition with wolf blitzer, april 23, 2006

well, i think that we're going to find out, chris, in the next year to six months — probably sooner — whether a decent outcome is possible there, and i think we're going to have to just let this play out. — msnbc hardball with chris matthews, may 11, 2006

yes, folks, you've heard tom's song before. it's sung to the tune of "turn, turn, turn".

(hat tip to the media researchniks at f.a.i.r.)

the limits of failure, pt. iii

hmmm. that didn't take long.

a new cnn poll, comparing attitudes towards president bush's job performance with that of his predecessor bill clinton, seems to have put josh marshall off our running wager:

speaks for itself. and i suspect americans attitudes toward president bush will own [sic] grow more grim over time.

clinton outperformed bush in every measure: economy, foreign policy, national security, disaster management, promoting unity, meeting people's needs and honesty.

looks like buyer's remorse has officially set in.

the nine-percent delusion

9%.

nine percent.

i think we've found the absolute bottom that bush's approval rating could possibly sink to:

the cnn poll, conducted april 21-23 by opinion research corporation, found that only 9 percent thought the u.s. mission in iraq had been accomplished, while 40 percent believed it would be complete someday.

that's 21 points to go. at its current trajectory, an average of one point per month, his numbers should hit 9% in february 2008.

(and if that 9% ever wakes up, bush'll hit zero just in time for the 2008 elections!)

(hat tip to think progress.)

endgame

the bush presidency, to borrow a phrase from its dour deputy, is in its last throes.

32 years ago it was a "second-rate burglary" that brought down the highest office in the land. today it appears, at first glance, far less — mere snippets of "almost gossip", delivered, we are told, in an "offhand, casual manner" — that now threaten again to collapse an office already on its knees beneath a debilitating barrage of ceaseless scandal.

bush's folly can be traced from his team's opening moves, when the texas governor, taking advantage of the climate lingering after clinton's impeachment, made a campaign mantra out of a sacred and solemn promise to usher in an age of honor:

august 11, 2000: i will swear to uphold the laws of the land. but i will also swear to uphold the honor and the integrity of the office to which i have been elected, so help me god. august 13, 2000: americans want to be assured that the next administration will bring honor and dignity to the white house. september 15, 2000: americans are tired of investigations and scandal, and the best way to get rid of them is to elect a new president who will bring a new administration, who will restore honor and dignity to the white house. october 17, 2000: should i be fortunate enough to become your president, when i put my hand on the bible, i will swear to not only uphold the laws of the land, but i will also swear to uphold the honor and the dignity of the office to which i have been elected, so help me god. november 3, 2000: i want to conclude by telling you i understand the awesome responsibilities of this job. i understand the serious undertaking. i understand that when i put my hand on the bible, i will swear to not only uphold the laws of this land, but to answer the calls of the mothers and dads who i see all the time around america, who come to my rallies and hold a picture of their child and look me in the eye and say, "governor, i'm here to say, never let us down again," to hear those calls. i will also swear to uphold the honor and the integrity of the office to which i have been elected, so help me god.

it was a promise he would not forget to reiterate as he swore in his staff:

january 22, 2001: we must remember the high standards that come with high office. this begins with careful adherence to the rules. i expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries that define legal and ethical conduct. this means avoiding even the appearance of problems. this means checking and, if need be, double-checking that the rules have been obeyed. this means never compromising those rules. no one in the white house should be afraid to confront the people they work for, for ethical concerns, and no one should hesitate to confront me as well. we are all accountable to one another. and above all, we are all accountable to the law and to the american people.

but my, what a difference 1900 days make!

even without such stultifying failures as the iraq occupation, the stillborn response to hurricane katrina and the dubious dubai port deal, the grinding investigation into the july 2003 outing of cia agent valerie plame seemed destined to erode the one asset that pundits continue to insist the president still commands:

blitzer: here's what you write in the book. you write: "candidates have to look closely at george w. bush and realize that they cannot win by running away from the leader of their party. rather, they have to identify the single greatest strength the president embodies and put it front and center in their campaigns." "that greatest strength," you write, "is, in fact, trustworthiness." now, we looked at our most recent cnn/"usa today"/gallup poll. in february 2004, two years ago, 55 percent thought bush was honest and trustworthy. that has gone down now, in february 2006, to 47 percent, not even a majority. hewitt: yes. but that's still much better than most of his other numbers on performance. it's his strongest calling card. — the situation room, cnn, march 31, 2006

just as nixon had at the beginning of watergate, bush, speaking through press secretary scott mcclellan, denied all involvement and knowledge in the scandal. he even declared the leak a firing offense ...

september 29, 2003: the president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. he's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

... and speaking on his own, hinted suspiciously, that despite his sincerest efforts, the leaker might never be found:

september 30, 2003: there’s just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of my administration, i want to know who it is. october 7, 2003: i want to know the truth. … i have no idea whether we’ll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. october 28, 2003: i’d like to know if somebody in my white house did leak sensitive information.

the press, however, failed the president, despite his sincerest hints. unwilling to suffer jail for contempt, time magazine reporter matthew cooper revealed that both karl rove and scooter libby were his sources on the plame story, forcing bush the next day to refine his position:

july 18, 2005: it's best people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. i don't know all the facts. i want to know all the facts. i would like this to end as quickly as possible. if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.

but cooper's revelation had dealt bush's credibility a solid blow; an abc news poll found that only 25% believed that the white house was fully cooperating with fitzgerald's investigation and that 75% thought that rove should be fired if he leaked classified information.

by the time fitzgerald finally handed down his indictment of scooter libby on charges of obstruction and perjury, scott mcclellan informed the press that the white house had decided that the best defense was now no defense at all:

october 28, 2005 : because of the ongoing investigation and legal proceedings, at the direction of the white house counsel's office, all white house officials, including myself, are not going to be able to respond to questions or discuss the factual circumstances of the matter, except as requested by the special counsel, or in consultation with the white house counsel's office.

bush himself issued only his regrets at libby's resignation. a week later came the announcement of an eight-part refresher course on ethics for the staff, no doubt to the collective rolling of eyes from coast to coast.

but as embarrassing as the scandal grew, as tight as the noose became, the president himself remained unimplicated in the leak.

this, of course, would soon change.

explosively.

ironically, it would be libby himself (considered by many the "firewall" between the prosecutor and his employers) who secured the knot, as revealed in fitzgerald's bombshell april filing in response to libby's request for documents for his own defense:

april 6, 2006: mr. libby is said to have testified that "at first" he rebuffed mr. cheney's suggestion to release the information because the estimate was classified. however, according to the vice presidential aide, mr. cheney subsequently said he got permission for the release directly from mr. bush. "defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the [national intelligence estimate]," the prosecution filing said.

after several days of silence, bush would admit, in a cheneyesque display of sophistry, that while he had indeed authorized the leak, not only was the intel no longer classified, but his authorization meant that the leak wasn't really a leak at all:

april 10, 2006: i decided to declassify the nie for a reason. i wanted people to see what some of those statements were based on, so i wanted people to see the truth.

such noble sentiment. nonetheless, bush's noose is threatening to become a gibbet, as the fitzgerald filing also bluntly revealed a basis for conspiracy charges all around:

april 7, 2006: [libby] wants the materials because he thinks they will show that his misstatements were innocent and did not stem from an orchestrated administration campaign to discredit wilson, according to his court filings. fitzgerald's brief uses unusually strong language to rebut this claim. in light of the grand jury testimony, the prosecutor said, "it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of white house efforts to 'punish' wilson."

it appears that the game the white house has been playing over the last five years is drawing to a desperate close. it was a game in which honor and dignity were nothing more than chips and tokens; morals and ethics just a strategem. it is an old gambit, to be sure, and if there remains anyone left at all surprised by the endgame, it is probably only bush and his once-swaggering team. but now the entire board itself is in near total ruin, with his pawns being stripped, one by one, while the king himself stands naked:

pew research center: until now, the most frequently offered word to describe the president was "honest," but this comes up far less often today than in the past. other positive traits such as "integrity" are also cited less, and virtually no respondent used superlatives such as "excellent" or "great", terms that came up fairly often in previous surveys. the single word most frequently associated with george w. bush today is "incompetent," and close behind are two other increasingly mentioned descriptors: "idiot" and "liar." all three are mentioned far more often today than a year ago. newsweek's johnathan alter: there are not a lot of people who expect him to move very much in the polls. and once you're tagged as an incompetent, that's pretty hard to recover from. gop pollster tony fabrizio : these numbers are scary. we’ve lost every advantage we’ve ever had.

checkmate.

changing the storyline

abc news washington correspondent jake tapper discussing charges of media bias in the persistently bleak coverage of iraq with howard kurtz, host of cnn reliable sources, march 19 2006:

kurtz: jake tapper, in this morning's washington post, donald rumsfeld, the defense secretary, has an op-ed pieces which says, in part, "history is not made up of daily headlines, blogs on web sites, or the latest sensational attack. history is a bigger picture." now, since you are just back from iraq, do you believe the journalists provided a distorted picture, or did it seem different to you when you got there than you might have expected? tapper: it's a very complicated question, obviously. what journalists, when, who, what are you talking about specifically? i think that there is a lot of violence still in iraq, and i think that if you listen to commanders on the ground and if you go to iraq, you'll see that that security situation is an incredibly important one. and as much as the pentagon may not want to talk about it or may want to talk about the positive, the parliament and the elections and the things that are being achieved, which are tangible achievements, the violence makes it very difficult to get past, you know, the daily boom. let me just — one quick story. we wanted to do a story about the freedom of the press in iraq, and we went to the set of a new iraqi sitcom that they're filming, because there's been — there's all this entertainment now, and it's one of the things that the ambassador there has trumpeted. kurtz: so what happened? tapper: we got there, and the guy who had set it up with us — we shot — we shot for a little while, and the guy who had helped us arrange it was assassinated the very morning while we were there on the set. and so our cameras were rolling while the director and the producer and the cast and crew found out that the guy that had green-lit the show and the guy that had set up our being there was killed. so no matter how hard we try to cover the positive, the violence has a way of rearing its head. kurtz: talk about changing your storyline.