Classic George Will Concern Trolling

George Will makes the obnoxious argument that if Democrats were serious about winning in 2016, they'd nominate Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown over Hillary Clinton, but they won't because he's a white guy, and Democrats hate white guys.

If Ohio’s senior senator were named Sharon Brown instead of Sherrod Brown, progressives would have a plausible political pin-up and a serious alternative to the tawdry boredom of Hillary Clinton’s joyless plod toward her party’s presidential nomination. Drop one of Brown’s consonants and change another and a vowel, and we might be spared the infatuation of what Howard Dean called “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” for Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Sherrod Brown won’t be considered because the Democratic Party’s activist core is incurably devoted to identity politics — the proposition that people are whatever their gender is (or their race or ethnicity or sexual orientation or whatever seems stupendously important at the moment). And the party’s base seems determined to nominate and elect a woman, thereby proving that what has occurred in Britain, Germany, Israel, India, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and other nations can happen here. Feel the excitement.

This is classic projection here, as George Will assumes Democrats have the same thought processes as Republicans would in the same situation.  Of course Republicans would nominate the white guy, and of course Hillary Clinton and Liz Warren are only being considered because they are women.

Will proceeds to rattle off Brown's pretty decent record as a progressive, and then ends with this:

Are progressives so preoccupied with gender that they prefer Clinton’s risk-averse careerism, or Warren’s astonished tantrums about the obvious dynamics of big government, to Brown’s authentic progressivism? Yes.

See, if Democrats don't nominate the clearly more qualified white guy, it's because of affirmative action or something.  It's almost like Will knows nothing about the party, or politics, or anything.

Napoleon, Blown-Apart

Martin Longman argues that given the CIA's not-so-hilarious hijinks in snooping in Senate computers (and that's just the last straw), it's finally time for President Obama to toss CIA Director John Brennan out on his ass.

The administration defends John Brennan's actions by correctly pointing out that he was the one who asked the Inspector General to investigate this matter, and it's true that he did that and that he is allowing the investigation to go forward. But he also obstructed the investigation, leveled false charges at the Senate Intelligence Committee staff, filed those charges with Department of Justice, and oversees a process that has overly redacted their report.

By any normal standard, John Brennan would be prosecuted for his actions. But he is being protected by the administration. I don't think this is best explained by the idea that Brennan is doing a good job in other respects. He's a major embarrassment to the administration and protecting him makes them look extremely bad. From the very beginning of his administration, I think President Obama has simply been afraid to take on the Intelligence Community. And his official rationale is morally bankrupt:

Even before I came into office, I was very clear that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values. I understand why it happened. I think it's important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the twin towers fell and the Pentagon had been hit and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And, you know, it's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots, but having said all that, we did some things that were wrong. And that's what that report reflects.

This is how the president rebukes these unnamed CIA officers for acting contrary to our values without daring to hold them accountable despite what the law and our treaties say. It would be overly "sanctimonious" to hold them accountable. In actuality, it would be dangerous to hold them accountable. If anything is "sanctimonious," it is the failure to recognize that danger.

Even I have to call horseshit on President Obama's logic there.  9/11 happened 13 years ago.  It was hard on a lot of people, especially all the families who lost loved ones because our intelligence agencies screwed up.  It also has nothing to do whatsoever with spying on Senate Intelligence Committee computers in 2013, and he's lied multiple times about what the CIA has done.

The problem is Brennan's ouster would prove Rand Paul correct.  And getting a new CIA head right now would be impossible.  And given America's many foreign policy problems, slagging the CIA, even if they deserve it, has to take a back seat.  There are bigger problems out there, Putin, Netanyahu, Assad, and we need the CIA to keep us in the loop there.

I hate it and I want to see Brennan go.  It's not going to happen.

StupidiNews, Weekend Edition!

• House Republicans have passed the border bill many Tea Party members wanted, that would deport all immigrants here under President Obama's deferment.
• WHO officials say West Africa's Ebola outbreak is outpacing efforts to contain it, as at least 729 are dead from the disease.
• A factory explosion in China's Jiangsu province has killed at least 68 and injured 120 as officials say a flame ignited a dust-filled room.
• A Florida judge has ordered the state's legislature into special session to redraw unconstitutional congressional districts by August 15, possibly delaying elections.
• Facebook is facing a European class-action privacy lawsuit that is being opened to US and Canadian residents, alleging privacy violations under EU law.