The Next Litmus Test

As I've said before, Health Care Reform will be the new litmus test for anyone Obama nominates for SCOTUS.  Republicans will be brutal until they get assurances that Obama's Supreme Court pick will be the fifth vote against it.  Michael Barone brings it up again today but adds an argument I find interesting:

Some 14 state attorneys general are trying to raise the issue in court, and pending state laws outlawing mandates could raise the question, as well. Those state laws are obviously invalid under the supremacy clause unless the federal law is unconstitutional. Is it?

I would expect an Obama nominee to decline to answer. But Republicans may not take such a response as meekly as they did when Ginsberg declined to answer dozens of questions back in 1993. They might press harder, as they did in 2009 when they prompted Sotomayor to declare, to the dismay of some liberal law professors, that she would only interpret the Constitution and the law, not make new law. Just raising the health care mandate issue helps Republicans given the great and apparently growing unpopularity of the Democrats' legislation.

Another set of questions could prove embarrassing for Democrats who have lauded Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade for creating a right to privacy that includes contraception and abortion. "How can the freedom to make such choices with your doctor be protected and not freedom to choose a hip replacement or a Caesarean section?" asks former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey in The Wall Street Journal. "Either your body is protected from government interference or it's not."

And that's a hell of an argument in the court of public opinion:  Roe v. Wade means that Obamacare should be struck down.  You're telling me that after all this time, conservatives are defending Roe to argue that health care reform is unconstitutional?  They're willing to give up opposition to Roe (and the contraception precedent in Griswold v Connecticut) just to get rid of this bill?

That's astounding.  Even if you don't buy the legal argument (which I don't) the fact that conservatives are willing to go there is a bit of a gobsmacker.  Opposition to Roe is the basis for modern social conservatism, frankly.  It has been for my entire lifetime, and yet here we have at least one argument for Roe used as a tool to get rid of health care reform.

The priority matrix has clearly shifted here.  Keep an eye on the response to this argument that Roe's precedence means health care reform must be overturned.  It's a specious argument at best (mandating health insurance is not mandating government health care interference any more than mandating car insurance means the government controls what car you buy) but the shift that giving up Roe to stop health care reform shows just how much of a threat this is to conservatives.

Watch the response to this idea closely.

Shooting The Messenger

This Evan Thomas/Eve Conant piece in this week's Newsweek is surely worth a read.  The warning signs are there for those who have been watching our domestic terrorism problem grow.  The Internet's dark side is that technology has made this all the more easier, and that's being multiplied by the merchants of hate on talk radio.

The Internet offers a dark social network for militiamen and real soldiers. A July 2008 FBI intelligence report by the bureau's counterterrorism division warned that white-supremacist leaders were encouraging followers to "infiltrate the military as 'ghost skins' in order to recruit and receive training for the benefit of the extremist movement." (The report said the hate-group leaders were especially interested in planting moles without any documented history with neo-Nazi groups or "overt racist insignia such as tattoos" so they could more easily slip by military recruiters. The FBI identified 203 people with confirmed or claimed military service who were active in ex-tremist groups. On the NewSaxon.org Web site for white supremacists, a blogger called "shadowman" posted a photo of a U.S. Army enlisted man in camouflage carrying a weapon with the boast "i am a professional killer?.?.?.?a soldier born of war." The Defense Department has long had a "zero tolerance" policy for membership in extremist groups, but last November the Pentagon quietly tightened its regulations governing such activity, a Pentagon official confirmed to newsweek. Not only are service members barred from "active participation" in such groups, they also may not "actively advocate supremacist doctrine, ideology, or causes," according to a copy of the Pentagon regulation.

It is hard to know how much such grim fantasies are stirred by the steady stream of conspiracy theories pushed by talk-radio hosts. Rush Limbaugh talks about the Democrats planning to "kill you" with health-care reform and suggests (agreeing with black Muslim minister Louis Farrakhan, of all people) that it "seems perfectly within the realm of reality" that the H1N1 vaccine was "developed to kill people." Like many talk-show hosts, he uses martial language to rouse the faithful: "The enemy camp is the White House right now," he says. Former Alaska governor turned media star Sarah Palin posted on her Facebook page a list of House Democrats who voted for health-care reform with crosshairs aimed at their home districts, while tweeting to her followers, "Don't Retreat, Instead—RELOAD!" She strongly denied any intent to incite violence. Other conservative talkers insist their foes are preparing violent attacks on them. Glenn Beck of Fox News is the master purveyor of this particular brand of sly paranoia. He suggests that he will be the victim of violence. "I'd better start wearing a [bulletproof] vest" to guard against White House attacks, he says, and warns that the Democrats will sic goons on him to break his kneecaps. Some talk-show hosts see the risk of going too far. Bill O'Reilly, the top-rated talker on Fox News, interviewed Stewart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers in February and treated him coolly. After the interview O'Reilly said to his audience, "We have a system to uphold the Constitution. It is called the judicial branch. The Supreme Court. The Oath Keepers are not the system." Wise words, but it's a sign of disturbing times that O'Reilly felt required to say them.

There's a lot more of this out there, and it's growing daily.  And for the sin of pointing them out,  Newsweek will be called racist, they will be called traitors who weaken our military during a time of war, they will be called all sorts of things.

It doesn't change the fact that these people are out there, stoking the fires.  And they will continue to do so right until they lose control of the beast they unleashed.

The Crusade For Justice

I'm thinking that Connecticut's Catholic bishops would be better served by protesting this measure a tad less.

A bill in Connecticut's legislature that would remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases has sparked a fervent response from the state's Roman Catholic bishops, who released a letter to parishioners Saturday imploring them to oppose the measure.


Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law would rescind that statute of limitations.

The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.

The letter is posted on the Web site of the Connecticut Catholic Public Affairs Conference, the public policy and advocacy office of Connecticut's Catholic bishops. It asks parishioners to contact their legislators in opposition of the bill.

I'm thinking why would any church official be actively saying "You know, we don't want these people to be able to have their case heard.  It puts us at risk."  Isn't that exactly why the statue of limitations should be removed?  Why would any religious official say "It's better for this person to not have their claim of sexual abuse by a member of our organization be heard"?

That seems bitterly self-serving and arrogant to me.  It also seems to fly in the face of the God they teach us about.  Maybe it is better to let God judge these men.  It would be better still to make sure this never happens again...and we are still a nation of laws, too.  The former does not invalidate the latter.

We're Steele In This Together, You And I

Michael Steele is warning his critics on the right that he's the indispensable man in the RNC chair right now.

Steele warned the audience that Democrats will try to use his troubles to shift the focus in an election year that looks like it could be a tough road for the majority party. He urged his fellow party members not to let that happen.

"Democrats are looking for those distractions," he said. "And lord knows I've provided a few."

"But Democrats also know they have some explaining to do," he added. "And they'd love nothing more than for us to keep pointing fingers at me and others instead of their radical un-American agenda. And we shouldn't fall for that trap."

And he's right, Democrats are trying to shift gears to Michael Steele.  But Steele is making it so easy to do so. Steele's been fighting for his job since Day One, and he's not exactly been the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to playing politics.  After all, his job is playing politics.

However, I don't see Steele going anywhere.  He's survived this long, they really can't fire him without admitting it was a cynical pandering move to hire him in the first place, and the guy does have charisma.  The RNC is stuck with him, frankly.

But I also believe that will continue to benefit the Democrats more than the Republicans.  After November's elections however, Steele's job security situation may change very rapidly (especially if the Republicans fail to recapture Congress.)

For now, he's Steele the one.

Lookin' To Get Out (Of His Head)

Via the Rumpies, actor Jon Voight has descended into self-parody of his own roles.

Now, the lie goes very deep, and President Obama has been cleverly trained in the Alinsky method and it is very important that every American knows what that is. It is a Socialist/Marxist teaching and with it, little-by-little, he rapes this nation, taking down our defenses and making new language for Islamic extremists.
...
This will be the first President to ever weaken the United States of America. President Obama uses his aggression and arrogance for his own agenda against the will of the American people, when he should be using his will and aggression against our enemies.

Just back away from the camera slowly there, Jon.  This isn't "24" or "Enemy of the State" or the remake of "The Manchurian Candidate" here, buddy.  But it is pretty disturbing.  You know, eight years ago if this had been an actor saying "Bush uses his aggression and arrogance for his own agenda against the will of the American people" FOX would be the first network calling for that actor's head for attacking the President so publicly.

Nowadays FOX gives actors attacking the President guest spots on their shows.

Greek Fire Would Be Nothing Next To A Japanese Tsunami

While I've written extensively about Greece's bailout, Japan's situation is actually much more precarious.

Public debt is expected to hit 200 percent of GDP in the next year as the government tries to spend its way out of the economic doldrums despite plummeting tax revenues and soaring welfare costs for its ageing population.

Based on fiscal 2010's nominal GDP of 475 trillion yen, Japan's debt is estimated to reach around 950 trillion yen -- or roughly 7.5 million yen per person.

Japan "can't finance" its record trillion-dollar budget passed in March for the coming year as it tries to stimulate its fragile economy, said Hideo Kumano, chief economist at Dai-ichi Life Research Institute.

"Japan's revenue is roughly 37 trillion yen and debt is 44 trillion yen in fiscal 2010, " he said. "Its debt to budget ratio is more than 50 percent."

Without issuing more government bonds, Japan "would go bankrupt by 2011", he added.

The question then becomes "When does Japan's bond market go under?"  The good news is Japan has a massive account surplus so the risk of that bond market collapsing is much lower.  The bad news is that means the results will almost certainly be a continued long deflationary spiral instead of a collapse.

But if that collapse does happen, and as Japan's debt-to-GDP ratio rises that possibility grows, then all bets are off.  Keep in mind there are plenty of countries in the economic danger zone right now and they will continue to remain there for some time.  Greece is only the beginning of the secondary effects to 2008's financial meltdown.

StupidiNews!

• President Obama hosts a two-day nuclear summit to discuss security and non-proliferation issues with 46 other world leaders.
• A car bomb exploded near the MI5 offices in Northern Ireland amidst Belfast retaking control of policing the province.
• California's new parole policy is drawing heat from lawmakers, communities, and justice activists.
• Iran is storing oil in idle supertankers again, which could cause the price of oil to jump as it did in 2008.
• A former NBC exec is calling on the FCC to mandate TV tuners in all US cell phones so that they can get local emergency broadcasts.

Last Call

And Phil Mickelson takes his third Masters.

The 39-year-old made improbable pars out of the pines on the ninth and 10th holes, birdied the 12th and 13th — the latter after a 205-yard approach from the right pines that may have been the shot of his career — and coasted home from there to card a 67 and win his third Masters by three strokes over Englishman Lee Westwood (71).

“He’s been through a hard time just recently,” Westwood said, “and he deserves a break or two.”

Anthony Kim shot a final-round 65, tied for the best of the day, to finish third, four back, while K.J. Choi and Tiger Woods, playing partners all four days, each shot 69 to tie for fourth.

Mickelson ties Jimmy Demaret, Nick Faldo, Sam Snead and Gary Player with his third green jacket. Only Woods and Arnold Palmer (four apiece) and Jack Nicklaus (six) have more.

Just when it seemed Westwood was Mickelson’s biggest worry, Choi entered the picture with four birdies in his first 10 holes.

Woods bogeyed three of his first fives holes, and despite an eagle 2 on the seventh hole, never seriously threatened.

“As the week went on I played worse,” Woods said. 

At least the golf world has the grace for the headline not to be "Tiger Woods Loses, Ha Ha Ha."

A False START

President Lieberman doesn't like our nuke treaty with the Russians, and he's afraid Obama may just have to scrap the whole thing and start over.

Anytime we are working on something with our old Cold War enemy, Russia, cooperatively, it’s a good sign. Anything we can do to reduce the number of nuclear warheads in the world is a positive development. But in my opinion as we reduce the number of nuclear warheads… we have to make darn sure that are nuclear warheads are capable and modern and a lot of them are decades old. So I feel very strongly that I am going to be real hesitant to vote for this treaty unless we have a commitment from the Administration that they are prepared to modernize our nuclear stockpile.

In other words, we can't reduce our nuclear weapons stockpile unless we make more advanced nuclear weapons.  Ergo, President Joe here just can't bring himself to support that Obama guy.

He gets a nice laugh out of it too.  Meanwhile, the questions remains if Obama can find any Republicans at all who will sign off on this treaty, because after all any sort of foreign policy victory for Obama might embolden the guy into thinking he runs the country, and not the Republicans.

And we can't have that.

Greek Fire, Part 10

The fire is spreading.  The EU has pledged $40 billion to Greece should Greece "need" it.

Not only does Greece need it, Greece wants twice that.  Zero Hedge:

It would be logical that the EU/IMF aid for Greece amounts to some 80 billion euros ($107 billion) over the next three years if the mechanism is triggered, a senior finance ministry official said on Sunday.

The senior offical said aid this year would amount to at least 30 billion euros from the euro zone and at least 10 billion from the IMF.

"40 billions for 2010 is part of a bigger amount for the three-year period. A logical amount for the three-year period would be double than 40 billion," the official told reporters.

The EU has now officially set a precedent for bailing out its nation-state members.  It's moral hazard on a multi-national scale now.  As Tyler Durden remarks:

Here is what happens when you green light Moral Hazard - in less than two hours after the videoconference in which the EMU announced €30 billion in aid for Greece, a Greek senior official has already come up and said that they were only kidding about needing just €40 or so billion (with the IMF's 10). The full amount will actually be double that, or €80 billion, for the three year period. Look for Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, and Lithuania to come knocking in the next 45 minutes. 

Greece won the lottery.  Why can't the rest of Europe's ailing friends cash in too?  "Where's our offer?  Aren't we a valuable member of the EU like Greece is?"  Everyone else will now demand their cut this spring too.  Watch.

Greek fire was famous for not being able to be put out.

Sunday Funnies: Here We Go Again Supreme Edition

Poor Fluffy.  Can't score any respect even on his own show.

Gregory: who should be on the Supreme Court?

Leahy: an Ordinary American who knows what it’s like to live on less than $500,000 a year

Gregory: someone outside the monastery?

Leahy: Celibacy leads to bad things greggers

Gregory: like molesting?

Leahy: that Gregorian Chant CD

Gregory: hey

Sessions: we need someone who realizes they are subordinate to the Constitution, Jesus Christ, states rights and who totally lacks empathy

Gregory: will this be a big fight?

Sessions: Obama should nominate someone uncontroversial who doesn’t think judges
know the Constitution best

Gregory: Obama must unite the nation by nominating a Corporation to sit on the court

Leahy: this is an activist court Fluffy - they rewrite the laws to pursue a conservative agenda

Gregory: that’s not what I asked - I asked whether Obama should do whatever Republicans want for the good of the nation

Leahy: well then he might as well nominate the most popular person in America - Hurley from Lost

Gregory: he is adorable

Sessions: the person could be on the court for 50 years - they could have something creepy in their backgrounds

Leahy: creepier than Jeff Sessions?

Gregory: good point

I think Hurley would do a better job than John Roberts, certainly.  Hell, I think Cousin Balki from Perfect Strangers would do a better job.

You know who we need to seriously put on the Supreme Court?  Draw an overworked, underpaid public defender's name out of a hat.  If they check out on background, nominate 'em.  Somebody with coffee stains on their briefcase they got from Office Depot.

That's the person's opinion I would like to see represented on the Supreme Court.  Just...once.

Playing With Fire

Steve M. takes a frank look at the Village treatment of Rand Paul, the Tea Party movement, and wingnuts in general as he analyzes Kate Zernike's piece in the NY Times on the Randy One.

Zernike does note that Rand Paul -- son of Ron Paul -- is being criticized for stands that don't seem quite mainstream, even by contemporary standards. But his opponent in the GOP primary, an establishment Republican named Trey Grayson, is still trailing, and doesn't seem to be getting any traction with the argument that Paul's support for the notion of eliminating three Cabinet departments in D.C. is, in Zernike's words, "too 'weird' for Kentucky." (Hey Kate, the notion of getting rid of Cabinet departments was very, very mainstream in the Reagan years.) Paul's having a little more trouble with the fact he's expressed support in the past for closing Gitmo -- but now he says he wants to keep it open. Smart guy.

Zernike, like so many mainstream journalists, is looking for signs of a mainstream GOP/teabag schism. Good luck with that. Rand Paul's going to win, he's going to keep modifying any troublesome Paulite positions on foreign policy or push them into the background, and he's probably going to win big in November -- for the glaringly obvious reason that he hates what teabaggers and non-teabag Republicans hate, namely Obamaism and "big government." And he's making crowds giddly at the thought of chaos:

Outside a courthouse in Independence, he told a group of about 100 people, mostly Tea Party supporters, that one of his first acts as a senator would be to unite with conservatives and demand that Congress stop work for a week if it could not amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget. "Let's just stop it up," he said, "and let's invite the Tea Party up and let's fill the Mall and let's debate a balanced budget amendment and let them explain why they can't do it."

"Gridlock!" one man cheered.

It's going to be a really unpleasant 2011, folks.

Living here in Kentucky, I have to say that "voting against your own self-interest" has become the state's all-consuming pastime.  The Village move to legitimize Rand Paul and the Tea Party is now in full swing.  Like Steve, I actually don't think there's a schism between the Republicans and the Tea Party at all.  But it sure makes a good excuse to profile how "normal and mainstream" the views of Rand Paul are.

Which is to say, Obama Derangement Syndrome as standard operating procedure.  Give in to your emotions, young Skywalker...

Even more than Clinton, Barack Obama represents everything that Rand Paul supporters in Kentucky are not:  the logical endpoint of anti-government, anti-social program corporatism disguised as populism.  "We can't afford social programs.  Let's cut taxes instead!"  It's the continuation of what I was talking about yesterday:  these are the people convinced that the measly 2.5% of America's total wealth in the hands of the entire bottom 50% of the American people is unconstitutionally high, and that the sin of increasing that through government assistance is worthy of a second American Revolution.

All the while, these are the same people voting to reduce their own meager share even more, surrendering it to the plutocrats.  The most successful thing the right-wing movement in this country has done is convince millions of Americans to destroy their own self-interest and give more to the wealthiest people on the planet.

There's a reason why Rand Paul's major financial support is coming from outside Kentucky, folks.

The Blue And The Gray (Area)

CNN's Roland Martin responds to critics of his takedown of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's Confederate History Month proclamation conveniently omitting slavery by upping the score:  comparing Confederate soldiers to terrorists.

When you make the argument that the South was angry with the North for "invading" its "homeland," Osama bin Laden has said the same about U.S. soldiers being on Arab soil. He has objected to our bases in Saudi Arabia, and that's one of the reasons he has launched his jihad against us. Is there really that much of a difference between him and the Confederates? Same language; same cause; same effect.

If a Confederate soldier was merely doing his job in defending his homeland, honor and heritage, what are we to say about young Muslim radicals who say the exact same thing as their rationale for strapping bombs on their bodies and blowing up cafes and buildings?

If the Sons of Confederate Veterans use as a talking point the vicious manner in which people in the South were treated by the North, doesn't that sound exactly like the Taliban saying they want to kill Americans for the slaughter of innocent people in Afghanistan?

Defenders of the Confederacy say that innocent people were killed in the Civil War; hasn't the same argument been presented by Muslim radicals in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places where the U.S. has tangled with terrorists?

We can't on the one hand justify the actions of Confederates as being their duty as valiant men of the South, and then condemn the Muslim extremists who want to see Americans die a brutal death. These men are held up as honorable by their brethren, so why do Americans see them as different from our homegrown terrorists?

Now, I'll give Roland Martin an uncommon amount of credit.  There are very few people brave enough to do this on the national stage as a media figure.  One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, the saying goes. 

Is Martin correct?  There are those who will savage Martin by saying that if the Confederacy was 1862's Taliban, then the American Revolution, French Revolution, South African resistance to apartheid, India's colonial revolution from the Raj, and the various South and Central American, Caribbean and African colonial revolutions and eastern European revolutions are all acts of terrorism as well.

History's full of revolutions and resistances to occupations, frankly.  But Martin's more refined point is that the Confederacy wasn't a brave and honorable resistance movement, they were fighting to keep slavery as an economic engine of the Southern economy.  It was couched in all sorts of noble terms and rhetoric, but let's never forget the Civil War was a group of states that banded together militarily to defend slavery, because without it the wealthiest landowners in those states were going to lose a staggering amount of that wealth.  These were the guys who also happened to be in charge of these state governments, so they basically went to war over it.

It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression, it was the War Of Using Colored People As A Natural Resource Rather Than Treating Them As Human Beings.  And that particular war is still being fought in some parts of the country 150 or so years later.

So, were the Confederates the original domestic terrorists?  Martin is correct to point out the similarities in rhetoric and mindset.  Terrorism and a shooting war is a matter of degrees, but at the core Martin is correct.  His conclusion:

Even if you're a relative of one of the 9/11 hijackers, that man was an out-and-out terrorist, and nothing you can say will change that. And if your great-great-great-granddaddy was a Confederate who stood up for Southern ideals, he too was a terrorist.

They are the same.

As a matter of conscience, I will not justify, understand or accept the atrocious view of Muslim terrorists that their actions represent a just war. They are reprehensible, and their actions a sin against humanity.

And I will never, under any circumstances, cast Confederates as heroic figures who should be honored and revered. No -- they were, and forever will be, domestic terrorists.

Keep an eye on the reaction of the right to this one.  It will not be pretty.  But what Martin said needed to be said, and he's a brave man for saying it.

Correlation Does Not Equal Causation

But sometimes the correlations are damned interesting anyway.  This one's making the rounds today from Fourth Branch:

Perhaps more interesting is looking at where federal spending is directed. The red states in the map below are states which received more than $1.00 in federal money for every $1.00 in taxes paid by residents of that state. Blue states are states which received less than $1.00 in federal money for every $1.00 paid by residents of that state in taxes (information from a 2005 study by the Tax Foundation).

If that map looks familiar, perhaps it is because it closely resembles the red and blue state divide from the 2008 presidential election (red states voted for McCain, blue for Obama).

There is a very strong correlation, then, between a state voting for Republicans and receiving more in federal spending than its residents pay to the federal government in taxes (the rust belt and Texas being notable exceptions). In essence, those in blue states are subsidizing those in red states. Both red and blue states appear to be acting politically in opposition to their economic interests. Blue states are voting for candidates who are likely to continue the policies of red state subsidization while red states are voting for candidates who profess a desire to reduce federal spending (and presumably red state subsidization).

In other words, the states that voted for McCain are the ones getting taxpayer money from other states, the exceptions being Texas who pays more in, and the rust belt states, which get a bit more out than $1.00 for every federal tax dollar they pay.  States like North Carolina and Indiana were very close and could have gone either way.  They have been Republican in the past, along with Ohio and Pennsylvania.

For the most part, southern and western states are getting paid for by states like New York, California, and Florida.  Red states come out ahead in federal taxes.  They are a net drain on the economy.

And these are the states complaining the loudest about being taxed too much.

Yet Another President Odubya Moment

Apparently Obama has chosen to enshrine Bush-era warrantless wiretapping as standard operating procedure.  There can be no other logical conclusion from the withdrawal of Dawn Johnsen as head of the DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel.  Marcy Wheeler:

So, it was not Ben Nelson who killed the nomination of Dawn Johnsen, nor was it Arlen Specter or Senate Republicans. No, the sole reason Dawn Johnsen is not leading the OLC is that Barack Obama and his coterie of advisors did not want Dawn Johnsen leading the OLC. The Obama Administration cravenly hung their own nominee out to dry, and the reason is almost certainly that she was not compatible with the Administration’s determination to maintain, if not expand, the Bush/Cheney positions on unbridled executive power, indefinite detention without due process as well as warrantless wiretapping and other Fourth Amendment invasions.

Obama could have made Johnsen as a recess appointment.  He chose not to after 15 months.  That was Obama's choice.  If he was serious about ending torture and warrantless wiretapping, Johnsen would have been appointed.  She was not.  Obama chose not to do so.  It really is that simple.  Glenn Greenwald:

What Johnsen insists must not be done reads like a manual of what Barack Obama ended up doing and continues to do -- from supporting retroactive immunity to terminate FISA litigations to endless assertions of "state secrecy" in order to block courts from adjudicating Bush crimes to suppressing torture photos on the ground that "opennees will empower terrorists" to the overarching Obama dictate that we "simply move on."  Could she have described any more perfectly what Obama would end up doing when she wrote, in March, 2008, what the next President "must not do"?

It is a toss-up to see which is a larger failure so far in this administration:  the failure to fix Bush's legal excesses, or the failure to fix Bush's financial catastrophe.  Both will have far-reaching, long-lasting consequences that will haunt us for decades.  President Obama has done a lot of good as leader of the free world.  But in this respect, he has absolutely failed us as a country.

The Republicans of course would have chosen the same path on warrantless wiretapping and financial regulation.  The difference is we would have gotten virtually none of the accomplishments Obama has done.  It is however a steep, steep price to pay for real benefits to America like health care reform and nuclear reduction.  Serious students of history will be asking if that price was worth it for quite some time to come.

Obama will go down as a conflicted President.  He will go down as one who made accomplishments.  But these decisions will also haunt him.  He will not be remembered as a great President, merely one that came out on the positive side of the balance.

The galling part is after Bush, we needed better.  Obama can do some real good with his Supreme Court nomination here to replace Justice Stevens.  It is possible he let Johnsen go in order to marshal his capital for a truly liberal nominee.  It is possible that's the price he had to pay.  I don't know.  Republicans will attack whomever he nominates and demonize them as an unconscionable liberal ideologue that must be stopped to save humanity.  But he could have appointed Johnsen in recess.  He chose not to.  He chose to cut Johnsen out.  Why was she appointed in the first place?

It is possible that Johnsen had some sort of problem that we aren't aware of.  I don't know the full story.  I'm merely going with Occam's Razor based on the previous decisions Obama has made.  But I will be questioning the cost of this decision in every other action Obama makes now.  Do not make the mistake of forgetting that in the end, Barack Obama is a politician.  He is better than Bush.  He is better than McCain/Palin by an order of magnitude, easily.  That is still a shamefully low standard to meet.  We need better alternatives than "hideous" and "is not hideous".

Unless you think America is perfectly fine with "is not hideous" in its leadership.

[UPDATE 11:32 AM]  Senators like Joe Lieberman are already saying Obama has the opportunity to make the Supreme Court "less liberal".  Take that as you will.