Archive for the ‘BILL BLOG’ Category
Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Conflict of Interest
Friday, July 9th, 2010
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
So what’s the wife of a Supreme Court justice supposed to do? Stay home and bake cookies?
That’s never been an option for Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. A longtime political activist, she first stirred up controversy in 2000 when, as a staffer for the Heritage Foundation, she solicited resumes for potential transition members of the George W. Bush administration — while her husband was deciding who would occupy the White House.
Mrs. Thomas is back in hot water as founder of a new advocacy group called Liberty Central, which she describes as a bridge between the conservative political establishment and the anti-establishment Tea Party. “I’m getting to know the Tea Party groups,” she told Human Events magazine. “What I think I can bring to the table is a connective tissue between the new people and the old people.” Especially, she might have added, but didn’t have to, when your husband is an associate justice of the Supreme Court.
Now, no self-respecting liberal would demand that Ginni Thomas abandon her own professional career simply because her husband has a big-time job. Washington’s filled with congressional spouses who lobby, organize, or consult with major corporations and organizations. But most of them do so quietly.
Not Thomas. As head of Liberty Central, she’s adopted the Tea Party rhetoric, accusing President Obama of establishing a “hard left” government and leading the nation toward “tyranny.” On Fox News, she told Sean Hannity her mission was to fight “a massive power grab” in Washington. And the real challenge facing Americans today, she says, is whether we’re “self-governed or ruled; citizens or subjects.”
Most Washington spouses also do a better job of avoiding potential conflicts of interests. Thomas’ organization is a conflict-heavy minefield. Consider, for example, the questionnaire Liberty Central circulated to federal candidates seeking their endorsement. It includes the question: “Would you support repealing the Obama health-care bill, including the individual mandate?” Since several state attorneys-general have already filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate, that question will eventually be decided by the high court. Will Justice Thomas recuse himself?
Other potential conflicts abound. Candidates are also asked to state their views on the constitutionality of government regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions, Congress’s use of the “general welfare” clause, free-trade agreements, enforcement of the border, federal bailouts, the administration’s conduct of the war on terror, and federal spending levels — which reads like the list of cases now before court. Is Clarence Thomas expected just to sit out the entire next session?
And then there’s the question of money. As first reported by Politico, Ginni Thomas launched her organization in November 2009 with two big donations: one for $50,000 and one for $500,000. They are the only contributions reported so far. Yet, according to rules governing 501 (c)(4) organizations, the donors’ identity is not revealed. Only Ginni Thomas and her staff know who they are — and, presumably, Justice Thomas. What happens when one of Mrs. Thomas’ secret corporate donors has an interest in a case before the court? We’d have to depend on the honesty of Justice Thomas to make public the connection and step aside.
Conflict? There is none, Mrs. Thomas told World Net Daily, because she and her husband maintain a strict separation between their family and professional lives. In other words, she heads a political organization and he’s a Supreme Court justice, yet they never talk politics. If you believe that, I have a CD of Long Dong Silver I’d like to sell you.
Even if Mrs. Thomas sees no conflict, there’s an obvious one facing the justice. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct reads: “Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment.” Et tu, Clarence?
Again, Ginni Thomas is doing nothing illegal or immoral … yet. But, by taking advantage of her husband’s position to build a political-advocacy organization and raise funds, she is clearly setting both her and her husband up for trouble. Imagine the outcry among conservatives had Justice Steve Breyer’s wife headed Moveon.org and accused President George W. Bush of tyranny.
As everyone in Washington knows, in public life it’s important not only to avoid wrongdoing, but also to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing. Before it’s too late, either Mrs. Thomas — or Mr. Thomas — should step aside and find another job.
© 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Posted in BILL BLOG | 1 Comment »
I’ll stop talking about TOXIC TALK when they stop talking TOXIC TALK
Thursday, July 8th, 2010
Hey, I’ll make you a deal. I’ll stop talking about TOXIC TALK, if those crazy right-wing talkers would just stop talking TOXIC TALK.
But, it’ll never happen. Because if they didn’t talk trash, they wouldn’t have anything to say.
Take the latest from ol’ Rushbo.
Now, it’s OK to disagree with President Obama. Not even I agree with him all the time. But, you gotta admit, he’s one smart dude. One of the smartest ever to occupy the White House. And he’s trying to do what he thinks is best for this country.
Not Rush. On yesterday’s radio show, he insisted again that Obama hates America and is trying to destroy it.
Not only that, he says Obama would never have been elected president, were he not black. He’d be a tour guide in Honolulu, according to Rush. And Oprah would never be such a huge success on TV, were she not black.
Well, at the risk of name-calling myself, let me just say: That is pure, out and out racism. No different from those who once denied blacks their freedom because they didn’t believe blacks had the same level of intelligence as whites.
I can only repeat Keith Olbermann’s plea: “Oh, Oprah, please crush this schmuck!”
Posted in BILL BLOG | 3 Comments »
On Afghanistan, Michael Steele is Right
Tuesday, July 6th, 2010
As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
So, once in a while, even Republican Chairman Michael Steele gets something right. As he sure did on Afghanistan.
Speaking to a Republican fundraiser in Connecticut last week, Steele blasted the war in Afghanistan. “This was a war of Obama’s choosing,” said the controversial RNC Chair. “This is not something the United States prosecuted or wanted to engage in.”
Not only that, insisted Steele, it was the wrong war to begin with. “One thing you don’t do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan,” he explained. “Because everyone who’s tried over a thousand years of history has failed.”
Now, that may be a stupid thing for the Chairman of the Republican Party to say – after all, the war in Afghanistan was started by President George W. Bush and enjoys almost unanimous support among members of Congress.
But, on the merits, Michael Steele is absolutely correct. Ever since the surge, the war in Afghanistan has become Obama’s war. And we will be no more successful creating a strong, central government in Afghanistan than the British or Russians who were there before us.
So, on Afghanistan, Michael Steele is right. He’s just Chairman of the wrong party.
That’s my parting shot for today.
Posted in BILL BLOG | 2 Comments »
Keep Glenn Beck Away From the Lincoln Memorial
Monday, July 5th, 2010
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
He’s already launched a radio and TV show, written several best-selling books, organized Tea Party rallies, launched a voter registration drive, and performed his own stand-up comedy tour. So what’s the self-described “recovering alcoholic rodeo clown” do next to feed his massive ego?
How ‘bout a rally at the Lincoln Memorial? That’s exactly what megalomaniac Glenn Beck is planning next. He bills it as the “Restoring Honor Rally.” Organized to support our troops, he says, “on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.” The rally is scheduled for Aug. 28 — 47 years to the day that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his magnificent “I Have a Dream” speech at the same location.
God forbid! It’s outrageous that the National Park Service would even consider granting a talk show host permission to occupy that sacred site on that historic day. It’s like granting al-Qaida permission to hold a “Hate America” rally at Ground Zero on Sept. 11.
Once I heard about it, I contacted the National Park Service (NPS), only to discover that, as is usually the case with Glenn Beck, he’s not always telling the truth. Despite his nonstop promotion of the event, for example, Beck does not yet have a final permit for the rally. He may get it; he may not. According to Bill Line, communications officer for the NPS, negotiations are still under way. Meanwhile, Beck is inviting people to the rally, soliciting donations to help pay for it, and selling T-shirts and posters. Caveat emptor.
Nor would the rally, if approved, be held, as Beck insists, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. It would be staged, instead, on the steps of the Reflecting Pool, in front of and across the service road from the structure — with, of course, the imposing memorial in the background.
Beck’s not honest about supporting the troops, either. True, on the rally Website, he solicits tax-deductible donations to the “Special Operations Warrior Foundation,” an organization founded 30 years ago to raise funds for wounded members of the Special Forces and their families. Sounds good, until you read the fine print at the bottom of the Website: “All contributions made to the SOWF will first be applied to the costs of the Restoring Honor Rally taking place on Aug. 28, 2010.” Only leftover funds, after Beck pays for his party (and speaking fee?), will go to the troops.
But Beck doesn’t mind stealing money from our troops to feed his Washington Mall-sized ego. “If you come, I believe this may — and it may be in a hundred years from now, or 200 years from now — I believe this will be remembered as the moment America turned the corner,” he told his radio listeners. By that time, no doubt, he expects it will be called the Beck Memorial, no longer the Lincoln Memorial — with him, and not Poor Abe, sitting on the marble throne.
There’s no way this television huckster should be given permission to hold the Lincoln Memorial hostage on Aug. 28, or any other day. And, no matter what some fuzzy-brained liberals might say, it has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Nobody’s attempting to deny Glenn Beck his freedom of speech. He can spout his toxic talk on national radio and television every day. And there are many other possible venues for his political showmanship.
Let him rent Fed-Ex field or Yankee Stadium, but not the Lincoln Memorial. It’s a living tribute to the memory of our greatest president. And also to Marian Anderson, who gave her concert on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1939, after she was denied permission to perform in Constitution Hall. And, of course, in our lifetime, it’s a tribute to Martin Luther King Jr., who came “to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now” and share his dream that “one day little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as brothers and sisters.”
Our great national shrine should not be polluted by the hateful rhetoric of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. The National Park Service should, instead, honor the memories of Abraham Lincoln, Marian Anderson and Martin Luther King Jr. — and keep politics and Glenn Beck away from the Lincoln Memorial.
© 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Posted in BILL BLOG | 1 Comment »
Robert Byrd: A Man of Change
Wednesday, June 30th, 2010
The United States Senate, the people of West Virginia, and the entire country lost a great leader this week, with the death of Senator Robert Byrd.
He was a legendary figure. A true son of West Virginia. Grew up in poverty. An orphan who never went to college, but earned a law degree through night courses. Played the fiddle while campaigning for political office, and went on to become the longest-serving member of Congress in history.
And, he literally grew while in office. From a segregationist and former KKK member, to a proud liberal and supporter of civil rights. From a booster of the War in Vietnam to one of the most outspoken critics of the War in Iraq.
As if on cue, right-wing talkers accused Democrats of hypocrisy for praising Robert Byrd, after having dumped on Trent Lott for his racist statements.
Nonsense. There’s a big difference between a young man who joined the Klan in 1942 – and later profusely apologized for it. And a Senate leader who says, in 2002, we’d all be better off if segregationist Strom Thurmond had been elected president.
Robert Byrd. With his friend Teddy Kennedy, another giant gone from the U.S. Senate.
That’s my parting shot for today.
Posted in BILL BLOG | 2 Comments »
Sarah Palin is Desperate for Publicity
Monday, June 28th, 2010
How desperate is Sarah Palin for publicity?
You can’t get any more desperate than this. Last week, she tweeted that her brain-addled followers should read a column by Thomas Sowell, in which the extreme-right conservative compared President Obama to Hitler and accused him of Nazi-like tactics in convincing BP to contribute $20 billion to compensate victims of the Gulf oil spill.
Palin not only recommended reading the column, she endorsed its conclusion. “This is about the rule of law versus an unconstitutional power grab,” she wrote herself.
Now, it’s not surprising that “Drill, baby, drill Baby” should rush to defend BP. But: comparing Obama to Hitler. Puh-leeze!
First of all, BP was not forced to do anything. They offered to set up an independent claims fund, with an initial $20 billion, and Obama accepted.
Second, this was no unconstitutional power grab. Current law requires that the oil company responsible for the spill pay all costs associated with the spill. That’s the law.
Third, any association with Hitler is simply odious. But, it’s part of the continuing Fox News refrain that started during the 2008 campaign, remember, and continues yet today.
Sarah Palin is just doing her job as a Fox News contributor. But nobody with half a brain would take her seriously.
That’s my parting shot for today.
Posted in BILL BLOG | 10 Comments »
Cancel Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Memorial Rally
Monday, June 28th, 2010
Is there nothing sacred anymore? Apparently not.
And certainly not the Lincoln Memorial or the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
In a slap at both President Lincoln and Dr. King, not to mention the American people, the National Park Service has given Glenn Beck permission to hold a Tea Party rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28 – 47 years to the day after Martin Luther King gave his magnificent “I Have A Dream” speech.
If you ask me, that’s like granting al Qaeda permission to hold a rally on September 11 – at Ground Zero.
What the hell were those bureaucrats at the Park Service thinking?
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Glenn Beck has every right to spew his poison on radio, on television, and at every political rally he organizes across the country.
This has to do with recognizing the special significance of some of our most sacred sites – the Jefferson Memorial, the White House, the Lincoln Memorial – and not letting them be used for political circuses – by anybody, of any political persuasion.
Glenn Beck’s August 28 Tea Party rally at the Lincoln Memorial is an abomination. It should be cancelled – immediately.
That’s my parting shot for today.
(Reposted from June 16, 2010)
Posted in BILL BLOG | 52 Comments »
Firing McChrystal Doesn’t Fix the Problem
Thursday, June 24th, 2010
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
For commanders in the field, hidden away somewhere in the Pentagon’s handbook of military strategy must be the warning: “In the middle of a war, don’t waste your time hanging out with reporters.”
General Stanley McChrystal ignored that advice by granting unprecedented access to freelance journalist Michael Hastings, working on a story for Rolling Stone, after the Icelandic volcano stranded them both in Europe. The two bonded so well that, once flights resumed, a naive or media-hungry McChrystal invited Hastings to accompany him back to Afghanistan — where Hastings was allowed to spend another full month with the commanding general and his staff, recording their every irreverent comment. What was McChrystal thinking?
It was a McChrystal staffer who mocked Vice President Biden as Joe “Bite Me.” And another who called National Security Adviser James Jones “a clown.” But it was McChrystal himself who disparaged his commander in chief, describing Obama as intimidated by Pentagon generals, confused, unfocused, and wasting his time in the Oval Office with a 10-minute “photo op.”
Those comments cost McChrystal his job, and rightfully so. President Obama had no choice but to fire McChrystal. Because he not only spoke out of turn, he also violated the sacred chain of command on which military discipline depends, and without which it would be impossible to conduct the war in Afghanistan or any other war.
The problem with firing McChrystal, however, is that it was too easy — and doesn’t fix the real problem. America’s real problem in Afghanistan is not a general with foot-in-mouth disease, it’s a war, now in its ninth year, that drags on and on with little sign of progress.
Last year, ignoring the advice of Vice President Biden and others to scale back operations in Afghanistan, President Obama instead embraced the counter-insurgency strategy designed by Generals McChrystal and Petraeus. To carry it out, he ordered another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Today, it’s clear that Obama’s “surge” is not working. Indeed, the most devastating comments in Hasting’s Rolling Stone article are not the insults tossed toward Washington by McChrystal and his aides. They’re the words of despair uttered by soldiers in the field, who believe that the rules of engagement in Afghanistan, under Obama’s counter-insurgency plan, are so strict that they prevent troops from doing their job. “Sir, some of the guys here, sir, think we’re losing, sir,” one soldier tells McChrystal.
The truth is, we may not be losing in Afghanistan, but we’re not winning, either. In February, American forces launched an offensive in Marjah. It was billed as a quick, demonstrative test of the success of the counter-insurgency program: to move into an area, rout the Taliban, live among and make friends with the villagers, then withdraw, leaving them in peace and in charge. And General McChrystal planned it as a warm-up for the mother of all counter-insurgency operations, in Kandahar, birthplace of the Taliban.
But things didn’t quite work out that way. Five months later, the operation in Marjah drags on. Instead of staying to make new friends, many native villagers deserted the area once American troops moved in. Meanwhile, the Taliban stayed behind, went underground, and still launch daily, deadly attacks against American forces. Things are so bad in Marjah that McChrystal himself called it a “bleeding ulcer.” And the planned offensive in Kandahar, expected to be completed before the holy month of Ramadan in August, has been indefinitely postponed.
So it would be a big mistake to believe that, by making a necessary change in leadership in Afghanistan, President Obama has brought us any closer to victory. That is simply not the case.
Equally mistaken is the belief that the same strategy that worked in Iraq will work in Afghanistan. Wrong! They are two different countries, with two different histories. Iraq has long had a strong, central government, however brutal or corrupt. Afghanistan has never, for centuries — and it’s not about to embrace one now.
So the success of our mission in Afghanistan remains very much in doubt. Yes, a new man’s in charge. That’s the good news. But the same old counter-insurgency policy’s in place. That’s the bad news.
In David Petraeus, President Obama has the right man in Afghanistan. Now he must give him the right assignment. Which is not to figure out how to win in Afghanistan, but how to get the hell out of there.
© 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Posted in BILL BLOG | 2 Comments »
Really The Commander in Chief
Thursday, June 24th, 2010
It was a major test of leadership for President Obama – and he passed it with flying colors.
There were those, starting with the Wall Street Journal, who urged the president to turn the other cheek. Remember: we’re at war, they said. You can’t change generals in the middle of a war.
And, I admit, I was worried Obama, who’s not a vengeful man, might fall for that line of thinking.
But he rose brilliantly to the occasion, instead, and fired General McChrystal precisely because we are in the middle of a war – and you can’t win a war without military discipline, starting at the top.
So now a new man’s in charge. That’s the good news.
But the same old policy’s in place. That’s the bad news.
There’s no evidence that the surge is working in Afghanistan – and plenty of evidence it’s not.
The big offensive in Marja, supposed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the surge, is still dragging on, five months later. The long-awaited offensive in Kandahar has been delayed indefinitely. And Hamid Karzai shows no signs of cleaning up his act.
Bottom line: In David Petraeus, President Obama has the right man in Afghanistan. Now he must give him the right mission.
Not: figure out how to win in Afghanistan. But figure out how to get the hell out of there.
That’s my parting shot for today. I’m Bill Press.
Posted in BILL BLOG | 2 Comments »
Oil Spill is Not Obama’s Katrina
Friday, June 18th, 2010
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
For the last two months, commenting on the BP oil spill, pundits have been on steroids. The environmental and economic catastrophe in the Gulf has been variously labeled as Obama’s Katrina, Obama’s Iran Hostage Crisis, Obama’s 9/11, or Obama’s Waterloo.
Take a deep breath. The answer is: None of the above.
Frankly, I wish all those who compare Obama’s resolute response to the BP spill with George W. Bush’s pathetic response to Katrina could have joined me at the White House on Wednesday, June 16 — the day of his fateful meeting with BP executives.
Arriving at the White House at 1:30 for Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ scheduled 2 p.m. briefing, I was surprised to discover a huge crowd of reporters outside the entrance to the West Wing. And further surprised to find they were waiting for BP executives to leave the White House after their 10:15 meeting with President Obama, originally supposed to last only 20 minutes. Yet they were still locked in the Roosevelt Room with Obama, who had meanwhile postponed his statement on the summit, originally scheduled for 12:15.
Shortly before 2 p.m., we were informed that the meeting, which had now stretched to almost four hours, was breaking up and we were escorted to the State Dining Room, where President Obama made his dramatic announcement: BP had agreed to the creation of an independent claims process for economic damages from the Gulf spill, fueled by an initial $20 billion pumped into a special fund for victims of the spill. In addition, they had voluntarily established a special fund of $100 million to compensate oil rig workers who had lost their jobs due to the moratorium on new drilling in the Gulf imposed by Obama until the Deepwater Horizon leak is plugged and we know what caused it. Ten minutes later, BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg — he who cares about “small people” — emerged from the West Wing to confirm Obama’s account of the marathon meeting.
OK, that’s it. Pundits beware! Drop all talk of Bush/Katrina and Obama/Gulf oil spill. The comparison was lame from the beginning. First, for obvious reasons: Katrina was a natural disaster, the Gulf spill man-made. Katrina impacted two or three neighborhoods of one city; the BP spill, five states and the entire Gulf of Mexico.
But there was also a huge difference in presidential response. After Katrina struck, Bush dithered on his ranch for a couple of days, flew 30,000 feet over New Orleans on his way back to Washington, then delayed any action for several more days — until flying to the region and congratulating horse trainer Michael Brown on doing “a heck of a job.”
Under Obama, by contrast, federal agencies, led by the U.S. Coast Guard, were on the scene of the Gulf blowout from day one: first, in a search-and-rescue operation for 11 missing platform workers; then, in a frantic effort to plug the leak. Granted, that effort has so far been unsuccessful. For several reasons: because never before has any oil company sunk a well in such deep waters; because BP was given a permit to drill that deepest well without having in place a plan and equipment to respond to the worst-case scenario; and because nowhere on the planet — in no marine lab nor oil company — does the technology exist to plug a leak a mile below the surface of the sea.
But those failings can in no way be laid at the feet of a president who has only been in office 18 months. They are, instead, the inevitable legacy of decades of special treatment of oil companies by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the Department of the Interior, which authorized BP and other companies to “drill, baby, drill” in ever deeper waters, with no planning for the inevitability of “spill, baby, spill.”
If the Obama administration can be blamed for anything, it’s for not acting sooner to break up the MMS and separate its permitting functions from its revenue division. But that would still not have stopped exploratory drilling on the Deepwater Horizon platform, approved in 2008.
It’ll be a long time before the leak is plugged and the Gulf is cleaned up, but the difference between Obama and the Gulf and Bush and Katrina is already clear: as clear as the difference between competence and total incompetence.
© 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Posted in BILL BLOG | 1 Comment »
