Fourth Amendment? What Fourth Amendment?

As Jack Balkin at Balkinization points out, the Cheney plan to use the military to arrest terrorists in the United States amounted to a suspension of the Fourth Amendment.

The central problem with the Cheney/Yoo/Addington theory was that it allowed the President to declare anyone in the United States an enemy combatant. Then, once the President made this declaration, the person would lose all their civil rights. The military could arrest and imprison the person without charges or any of the procedural protections of the Bill of Rights; it could torture them for information (under the theory that these techniques did not shock the conscience under the Eighth Amendment), and it could hold them indefinitely in a military prison. The problem with the Cheney/Yoo/Addington theory, in short, was that it embraced elements of military dictatorship within the United States.

Frankly, until Republicans come to terms with this, I really can't see trusting them with executive ranch power again. Ever.

Shep, look out

Shep Smith, the sanest Fox News anchor, has been walking on thin ice anyway lately, because he actually said the US shouldn't torture people, but he's no doubt seeing some cracks appearing in the ice now since he made the mistake of pointing out that maybe that DHS report of Right Wing Extremist violence was full of hooey after all.

Nice summary here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/12/741721/-Fox-News-Viewers:-Fire-the-Messenger-(Shep-Smith)

It's simply amazing to me how pathological the Right Wing has become lately. It keeps getting worse. Personally, I believe the torture policy is to blame. The existence of it and the perceived need to defend it has slowly, but inexorably corrupted the political Right in this nation. As a matter of fact, I think there's a real possibility that the torture issue will actually destroy the Republican Party. As more comes to light about what happened over the Bush-Cheney years the GOP will be tainted, perhaps beyond recovery. There will always be a "conservative" party in the US, but it may be that conservatives will have to start a new party in order to escape the odor.

GOP can't decide if it wants to look stupid, petty or silly, so it goes for all three

I really don't know what to make of the Republican Party's need to continually top itself withs stupid, petty and silly antics.

It's bad enough that their in-house racists like take-the-bone-from-your-nose Limbaugh and Miamia-is-a-third-world-city Tancredo are calling Sotomayor "racist."

But no, the president takes his wife out for a date on Broadway and they feel the need to criticize it as supposedly insensitive while GM prepares to file bankruptcy. What? The Obamas are supposed to be in mourning, or something?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23122.html

My God, get a grip, you guys!

GOP rebranding fail

Good summary of the problem here from Lincoln Mitchell at the Huffington Post:

The quandary in which the Republican Party now finds itself is not due to a public relations problem, but stems from being strongly identified, and not without good reason, with the Bush administration. The Bush administration is broadly viewed as a failure, not because it didn't present itself well, but because it mishandled both the economy and foreign policy to disastrous effect. Additionally, some of the ideas which have been foundation of the Republican Party have, in the cases of radical social conservatism and unregulated financial sectors, become the views of an increasingly small minority of Americans. Other bedrock Republican views, such as fiscal conservatism and a realist based foreign policy, were abandoned altogether by the Bush administration and the Republican Party in the last decade. These are problems are profound and go to the core not just of the party's image, but to its vision, message and raison d'etre.

The link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/rebranding-will-not-be-en_b_196312.html

Meanwhile Rush is saying the Republicans don't need a listening tour but a teaching tour.

Right.

Here's the deal. The only GOP hope seems to be that Obama will really, really step in it, a la Clinton-Lewinsky or Nixon-Watergate or Johnson-Vietnam or at least Kennedy-Bay of Pigs.

This is never a good strategy, of course, While one should always be prepared to capitalize on your opponent's blunders you can't sit around just waiting for one to occur. There are legitimate questions about the long-term impact of some of Obama's policy preferences and they may turn out to be bad ideas, but they are, by definition, long-term questions and completely irrelevant to the GOP's short-term prospects. In the long-term Obama's time as president will be up, too, and the GOP will have to run against someone else.

But right now they have to cope with Obama, and they're still completely clueless about how to do so. Every single piece of real-world evidence about the intellect and instincts and character of Obama show that he's highly unlikely to make the sort of blunders that hobbled Clinton, Nixon of Johnson. He's a little more likely to fall victim to the sort of hubris that got Kennedy in political trouble but that's a slender thread indeed and Kennedy's blunders were masked by some big successes.

Nope, they can't wait around hoping Obama messes up big time. They have forgotten, but the public surely hasn't, that Obama has an easy act to follow. It's hard to imagine that any blunder he could commit would compare to Bush and therefore even his mistakes will not loom large in the public eye.

The Republicans have to address the substance of the public's criticism. The public views the Bush era as an across-the-board failure and the very, very, very first step in regaining the public's trust is that the GOP must acknowledge that Bush was a failure. So far the GOP response has been to wilfully insist that everything was just fine the last 8 years and the public is must too stupid, misinformed or daft to realize it. The public, naturally, disagrees and considers the GOP to be daft and/or stupid to say so.

Pointing out that the Democrats are spenders, for one small example, has no traction. The public says "and your point is ... ." Because in the public's view the Republicans were also big spenders, but the Republicans didn't spend any of it on them. The GOP has to show that it can be trusted with the money and the only way it will have to do that is at the state level. So GOP governors and state lawmakers, get to it.

Daniel Larison on target

Larison is one of the best of the new conservative voices. Pointing out the imperviousness of the GOP party regulars and movement conservatives to their plight he notes they refuse to listen.

Nowadays, if they acknowledge mistakes at all, mainstream conservatives are keen to pin responsibility on anyone but themselves while tarring anyone who points out the obvious errors of the last decade as treacherous or some crypto-liberal eager to score points with the media.

GOP = Whigs

Not as crazy as it seems. This Death Spiral of the GOP is far more serious than the problems the Dems had with their crazy Left. If the Repuboicans don't shake out of it somehow then there may be an opening for a real Center-Right party to emerge.

Point made at http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5011
This leads to an opportunity for a new Party to emerge. What that will look like is very unclear right now, but we should not kid ourselves as Democrats that our electoral victories are all due to the public wanting to do things our way. When your choices are a Party you disagree with most of the time and the bat-shit insane, well that is not really much of a choice, is it?

Rush lets caller call him a "brainwashed Nazi"

Frankly, I'm surprised Rush Limbaugh lets this guy go for so long. http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200904070031?show=1

The caller really lets him have it for Rush's support for torture, which really seems to be the caller's biggest beef about the Republicans.

There's a lot about the Bush GOP's regime that I didn't like, but a lot of it I could have forgiven (it's not like the Democrats are any better on a lot of things) but the torture issue is the one I know I can't get over. The Republican Party will not be worthy fo support until the day it purges itself of the torture supporters.

Party of torture

Obsidian Wings speculates that Gen. Petreaus may have ruined his chances of being a future GOP presidential nominee by coming out against former VP Cheney's pro-torture remarks.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/03/it-could-have-been-a-brilliant-career.html

Unlike some KOS folks, I don't find it at all surprising that Petreaus is against torture. You'd be hard pressed to find a senior US officer who believes otherwise.

But if it turns out to be true that the GOP will have a pro-torture litmus test in the future, then that party is in much more danger than I thought. It will indeed spend a very long time in the wilderness in that case, because Americans will not support a pro-torture party.

GOP budget

Who knew it was so easy?

Mocked by a Nobel prize winner

Krugman notes that conservatives used to agree with liberals that there are some things that governments properly do, such as defense and provide for public safety.

Hence his surprise that Jindal criticized funding for monitoring volcanos that could erupt, obviously a public good that no private interest could undertake.

Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead.

GOP too stupid to earn votes of the college-educated

Scott Horton's long post has plenty of example, but this one stands out for the profound ignorance it reveals:

And of course there was the recent historical excursion of Ohio Republican Congressman Steve Austria:
“When (President Franklin) Roosevelt did this, he put our country into a Great Depression,” Austria said. “He tried to borrow and spend, he tried to use the Keynesian approach, and our country ended up in a Great Depression. That’s just history.”
Except of course that Roosevelt became president in 1933 and the Great Depression started in 1929 in the presidency of Republican Herbert Hoover.

He goes on: How does this play to the voters? In an intriguing article in the current National Journal, Ronald Brownstein and David Wasserman take a look at how Republicans are doing with educated voters. Their view: Democrats are scoring “dramatic gains” among better educated voters, namely those who hold college diplomas. They bore into a number of sample counties, like Oakland County, Michigan, which was once reliably Republican—and where well-educated voters now feel the G.O.P. is just too stupid to earn their vote.

The whole post is here: http://www.harpers.org/subjects/NoComment

Rush Limbaugh is a dumb fuck

He evidently said this:

Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule.....

Let me emphasize the key part: Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule.....

How stupid can you be to utter this and not understand the implications of what you are saying?

Yes, Rush, if the GOP doesn't wise up it could be another 50 years before they recover ... if ever. Or maybe they'll be the Whigs and get replaced by an genuine conservative party instead of the right-wing knucklehead semi-fascist anti-science racist kooks completely in the pocket of corporate interests that passes for a Conservative party now.

Gut feeling -- it won't be enough

I think the stimulus package, regardless of what exact form it takes, is not a bad thing. It's at the least, politically necessary that the government appear to be doing something.

But at the end of the day I don't think it will prove to be enough.

I don't have any deep economic data to back this up. I don't have a crystal ball or a degree in economics, although I don't think there's any evidence either one would be useful in making a forecast.

No, I base my opinion on the simple observation that at every single stage of this unfolding crisis the "experts" have severely underestimated the nature, scope and duration of the problem.

Looking at Congress members, particularly the GOP, yammering about tax cuts and spending (which they suddenly hate), shows that they really don't get it.

The speed and scale of the crisis has stunned the general public, so the coming reaction has been delayed, but it will come. Dick Cheney, of all people, warned the Republicans about a "Hoover moment." They aren't listening.

The class warfare that the wealthy have waged for the last couple of decades (note the disconnect between earning power and productivity) is very dangerous. Historical precedent suggest that it could end rather badly for the let-them-eat-cake crowd. While U.S. political structures are probably robust enough to prevent the worst kinds of reaction, that's not true elsewhere and I'd be especially watchful about how things play out in more volatile places such as China, India, Brazil, Russia and, closer to home, Mexico.

GOP lifts off from any connection with reality or principles

There are a few things evident from the last few weeks:

Republicans are opposed to deficit spending By Democrats -- but not Republicans.

Republicans are happy to setting strict rules on how much taxpayer money you can receive if you are on welfare or a union auto worker -- but not if you're a Wall Street CEO.

Republicans are happy to cut taxes -- so long as most of the tax cut benefits the wealthy.

Republicans are against class warfare so long as it's waged against the rich -- but it's OK against the middle class, working class and poor.

Republicans are all for bipartisan compromise -- so long as they get what they want but don't have to actually vote for it.

Democrats are invertebrates.

Obama starts to lay down markers

Frankly, I think bipartisanship support for the Stimulus package is probably a waste of time in the current situation.

I don't see any reason to think the GOP is going to do anything constructive until they realize that they have something to lose. Obama needs to make it clear he's going to pass something they like less if they aren't willing to compromise.

Gergen is talking on CNN is talking about "driving the GOP away" but if they're NOT going to vote for it anyway then there's little reason to placate them. IF the GOP wants to get stuff out of the bill, some of them need to be willing to provide a few votes at the end of the day.

Remember, the GOP is the party of fiscal discipline

Heckuva Job, Bushie

Gallup's poll of 350,000 people to determine self-identification by party.

Reagan wouldn't recognize this GOP

Mickey Edwards, former Republican congressman explains why the Republicans are so lost:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-edwards24-2009jan24,0,3344794.story

Key point:

The Republican Party that is in such disrepute today is not the party of Reagan. It is the party of Rush Limbaugh, of Ann Coulter, of Newt Gingrich, of George W. Bush, of Karl Rove. It is not a conservative party, it is a party built on the blind and narrow pursuit of power.Not too long ago, conservatives were thought of as the locus of creative thought. Conservative think tanks (full disclosure: I was one of the three founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation) were thought of as cutting-edge, offering conservative solutions to national problems. By the 2008 elections, the very idea of ideas had been rejected. One who listened to Barry Goldwater's speeches in the mid-'60s, or to Reagan's in the '80s, might have been struck by their philosophical tone, their proposed (even if hotly contested) reformulation of the proper relationship between state and citizen. Last year's presidential campaign, on the other hand, saw the emergence of a Republican Party that was anti-intellectual, nativist, populist (in populism's worst sense) and prepared to send Joe the Plumber to Washington to manage the nation's public affairs

When they return to reality the GOP may have some prospects

From the National Republcain Website:

"Economy

Thanks to Republican economic policies, the U.S. economy is robust and job creation is strong.
Republican tax cuts are creating jobs and continuing to strengthen the economy, yet there is still more to do so that every American who wants a job can find one."

I know that the Bush years were marked by strong doses of if-you-believe-it-hard-enough-it-will-be-true thinking, but that was then and this is now. Until they rejoin the same reality as everybody else they really won't have anything to say to voters.

More McCarthy foolishness

McCarthy admits the obvious, but then lapses into excuse-making again at The Corner:

It seems pretty clear that the Bush administration did not help matters here. Nearly seven years ago, the President publicly claimed the Algerians were planning a bomb attack on the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. Last month, however, the Justice Department suddenly informed the Court that it was no longer relying on that information. We've seen this sort of thing happen too many times over the last seven years, and the effect can only be to reduce the confidence of the court and the public that the government is in command of the relevant facts and can be trusted to make thoughtful decisions.
All that said, though, Judge Leon concluded that “[t]o rest [combatant detention] on so thin a reed would be inconsistent with this court’s obligation.” That is puzzling. There is nothing in the training of a judge that makes him an expert in military matters. In our system of divided government, the question of who is an enemy combatant should be committed to the executive brach — specifically, to the military professionals waging the war. If there is any evidence supporting the military's wartime decision to detain (and, to reiterate, Judge Leon said there was sufficient evidence to hold these men for intelligence purposes), the court should defer to the military judgment.

It takes very little imagination to think of many ways in which evidence sufficient to detain someone for intelligence gathering purposes would be completely inadequate to justify indefinite detention. In a civilian context similar things happen with material witnesses, police investigations and even protective custody.