ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Wasserman Schultz: ‘Mr. Paulson Seems To Be Flailing About A Bit’

Yesterday, the Treasury Department, under the direction of Secretary Henry Paulson, reported that it is “making preparations” to ask Congress for access to the second $350 billion of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). This comes just one week after Paulson said that he would not be asking for the second TARP installment.

Today, on MSNBC, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) expressed concern that Paulson “seems to be flailing about a bit.” Watch it:

Indeed, this was just the latest in a series of reversals and missteps that Paulson has made while implementing the $700 billion economic rescue program. Here is a roundup of how Paulson has flailed about more than just “a bit”:

Flip-flopped on whether to spend the second $350 billion: Yesterday, it was reported that the Treasury is “now making preparations to ask Congress for clearance to tap into the second half of the massive $700 billion financial markets rescue fund.” However, just one week ago, Paulson said that he did not need the second $350 billion, claiming that “I want to preserve the firepower, the flexibility we have now and those that come after us will have.”

Changed the purpose of the program: Paulson intially said that “the single most effective thing we can do to help homeowners, the American people, and stimulate our economy,” is to buy troubled assets from banks. Paulson promptly abandoned that plan, instead deciding “to reinforce the stability of the financial system by providing sorely needed capital to banks, and even non-bank institutions that securitize credit card, auto and student loans.”

Misled about the stability of the banking system: Paulson announced on November 13 that the banking system “has been stabilized,” and “No one is asking themselves anymore, is there some major institution that might fail.” One week later, Paulson was bailing out Citigroup.

Ultimately, the $700 billion bailout was necessary to avert full-scale economic disaster. Still, as Rachel Maddow opined last night, “The all-over-the-map, reverse-course-at-every-turn approach has been exciting, but exciting in a bad way, when what the financial system needs is predictability and credibility and confidence.”

Transcript: Read more

Yglesias

Just the Man for the Job

holbrooke300_1.jpeg

Richard Holbrooke’s not going to be Secretary of State and he’s not going to be Deputy Secretary. I think the feeling is that he would regard the remaining jobs available is unworthy of his stature. And yet Spencer Ackerman has an intriguing suggestion — perhaps Holbrooke should be our next Ambassador to Baghdad. After all, even those of us who haven’t always agreed with Holbrooke on some issues would have to concede that he’s really excelled as a troubleshooter and a negotiator. And even as the tactical military situation in Baghdad has improved, our relationships with different Iraqi factions have gotten ever-more-complicated, and the current team’s efforts to (metaphorically) crack some skulls over there and reach some kind of consensus on what we’re going to do next have been rather lackluster.

One might analogize the situation over there to the issues in the Balkans when Holbrooke helped spearhead the Dayton Accords and bring slash push people together. Indeed, Holbrooke himself has drawn the analogy:

But the world has more or less turned its back on Bosnia itself. I returned to see how things were going. What I found has relevance to many other areas, including Iraq. [...] No agreement is worth much if it is not vigorously implemented and enforced. Political arrangements must reflect historical and ethnic realities. A unitary state with a strong central government may work in France or Japan, but not in Bosnia — nor, I believe, in such places as (to choose from many) Iraq, Afghanistan or Sudan. There (as in the United States, Germany and India), power must be shared between the central government and the states or provinces. The United States must recognize this in Iraq.

I can think of a bunch of reasons why Holbrooke might not want to do this, but I honestly can’t think of anyone who comes to mind as a better candidate.

Politics

Does Hannity have the guts to partner with a ‘big-league liberal?’

hannity.gifEarlier this week, Alan Colmes announced that he would be relinquishing his role as co-host of Hannity & Colmes at the end of the year. The Chicago Tribune’s Eric Zorn observes, “Hannity is quicker, louder, angrier, funnier and more confrontational and self-assured than the comparatively mild, cerebral Colmes, therefore he’s the dominant and more compelling half of the team.” Asking the question, “Does Sean Hannity have the guts to partner with a big-league liberal?” Zorn suggests that Ed Schultz, Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes, and Al Franken (if he loses) would be good replacement candidates to spar with Hannity on his show.

Update

The answer is apparently not. According to the New York Times, Hannity is planning to “go it alone” as the sole host for the hour-long show.

Politics

U.S. Commander: Al Qaeda’s focus is Pakistan, not Iraq.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Gen. James Conway, the head of the Marine Corps and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “Iraq is now a rear-guard action on the part of al Qaeda. … They’ve changed their strategic focus not to Afghanistan but to Pakistan, because Pakistan is the closest place where you have the nexus of terrorism and nuclear weapons.” Caroline Wadhams explains what we need to do to address the problem.

Yglesias

Bushism: The Highest Form of Conservatism

george_bush_sour_1.jpg

Only the Leninist cool kids will get the title, but it’s still true. At any rate, here’s Ryan Avent on the leader of the free world:

[Bush] very easily could have asked Congress to send him a stimulus bill, even a modest one, amid an intensification of what will likely be the worst recession in thirty years, if not longer. It would have made a difference. It would have made the season a little more bearable for the growing numbers of unemployed, and it would have made Obama’s task a little less daunting.

Instead, he’s spending his waning days weakening environmental rules, helping his cronies get jobs in the professional bureacracy, and preparing his pardons. What a stupid, despicable man. History can’t judge him too cruelly.

It’s true and it’s important and it’s also true and important to note that while Bush has deviated from conservative thought in some respects, he’s been despicable precisely insofar as he’s tended to represent the apogee of contemporary conservatism. There being no further point to running a sham policy operation for political purposes, Bush has just stopped even bothering to run a sham policy operation. There’s basically just nothing doing in the movement-controlled elements of the administration and the congress except a continuing effort — one that, I might add, may well prove successful over the long run — to put the survival of the human race at risk in order to advance the short-term financial interests of polluters. No effort to help shelter the poor from the worst consequences of the recession. No nothing.

And no complaints about it from the right! His indifference to the well-being of the vulnerable is their indifference.

Yglesias

I Work Inside a Metaphorical Factory

Time‘s Michael Scherer has a piece titled “Inside Obama’s Ideas Factory” which is all about how we here at CAP are super-awesome. Scherer writes that “it is difficult to overstate the influence in Obamaland of CAP.” So keep in mind when you read this blog that everything I write is incredibly influential.

Climate Progress

Shades Of Treason: White House Lobbies Against Federal Global Warming Regulations

PollutionThe Bush White House, though in the shadows of President-elect Barack Obama’s transition effort, continues to subvert the rule of law and impede action on global warming — in other words, Bush isn’t just pardoning turkeys. Last week, the White House emailed mayors asking them to oppose the Environmental Protection Agency’s draft proposal for greenhouse gas regulations. According to the Washington Post, the email by Jeremy J. Broggi, associate director of the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs reminded mayors to formally submit complaints to the EPA:

At the time, President Bush warned that this was the wrong way to regulate emissions. Chairman John D. Dingell called it “a glorious mess.” And many of you contacted us to let us know how harmful this rule would be to the economies of the cities and counties you serve.

Broggi, a young Dick Cheney protegé, also linked to a November 20 U.S. Chamber of Commerce blog post by Bill Kovacs that makes the absurd claim regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act “will operate as a de facto moratorium on major construction and infrastructure projects.” Broggi’s lobbying against his own government is nothing new — last year the Department of Transportation lobbied Congress to oppose global warming regulations.

To avoid action on global warming despite a direct order from the Supreme Court, Bush’s people have brazenly flouted their Constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the law, ignoring science, ignoring Congressional subpoenas, even ignoring emails from the EPA. Just as former attorney general Alberto Gonzales claimed the Geneva Convention’s ban on torture was “quaint,” EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson called the Clean Air Act “outdated” and “ill-suited” to the task of regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

However, it is the approach of the likes of George Bush, Stephen Johnson, Bill Kovacs, and John Dingell to the climate crisis that is “outdated,” “ill-suited,” and “a glorious mess” — not laws like the Clean Air Act. Robert Sussman, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and co-chairman of Obama’s EPA transition team, explained last month:

In fact, a new administration could enforce new global warming regulations with common sense, focusing on large emitters of greenhouse gases to achieve reasonable reductions while spurring trillions of dollars worth of economic growth and green-collar jobs.

Come January, Dingell will have been replaced as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), and the Bush administration by Obama’s team. Sadly, Kovacs will continue plugging his dangerous message of inaction, although major companies are starting to abandon the Chamber’s reactionary rhetoric.

Broggi’s email reminded Bush’s allies in “bold, underlined text” that the public comment period for these proposed regulations closes this Friday, November 28. You can join the We Campaign in sending the message that the EPA can and should take immediate action to control global warming and to help repower America.

Update

Kalee Kreider, Al Gore’s spokeswoman, tells the Wonk Room: “We look forward to a day when the Chamber of Commerce is not seen as a neutral arbiter of information and the rule of reason is re-established in governance.”


Update

,The Wonk Room has received the text of the email: Read more

Media

The Party of Denial

One respect in which I thought it might be healthy for the conservative movement to go into opposition for a while is that it might kick them out of the habit of knee-jerk denialism about problems. With Bush in office, there was a tendency to dismiss any concern about any aspect of the nation’s economic well-being as a politically motivated attack on the Bush administration. So for no real reason, the conservative movement became an ideological tendency devoted to the proposition that rising household debt was a good thing.

With the right on the way out, maybe that can change and conservatives can start seeing problems and trying to devise distinctly conservative solutions to them. So far, though, Andy McCarthy seems determined to stay in denial mode, deriding talk of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression as a bit of “Obamanomics” spin.

Climate Progress

Planet Gore, ever wrong, never in doubt, adds libel to denial

NOTE:  See below for definition of the inane “Gore effect.”

The mere fact that the National Review Online would name their climate blog “Planet Gore” (PG) tells you how little regard they have for science in general or for those working to prevent the greatest preventable threat to the health and well-being of future generations.

In the blogosphere, strong adjectives fly wildly, and I myself have been known to use them from time to time. But Chris Horner’s attack on me (and Grist’s Dave Roberts) today is beyond the pale. Responding to our shredding of what are easily two of the worst climate pieces of this century by a reasonably legitimate news operation (see “Politico pimps global cooling for Hill deniers” and “Politico’s journalist malpractice“), PG’s Chris Horner wrote:

On cue, aspiring Obama administration climate thug Joe Romm of the Soros-funded Climate Progress … and David “Nuremburg-syle trials for those b@$tards” Roberts of Grist did what they’re paid to do: change the subject by attacking the person with names and slurs.

First off, that requires an apology. I have made very clear I do not aspire to the Obama administration. Seriously, though, in what way am I “a brutal ruffian or assassin“? That does require an apology. It is inexcusable, even for someone with Bush-like language skills who doesn’t know the meaning of the word nonplussed and who once told CNN’s Glenn Beck, “This is a political issue because it’s been politicized, and we wouldn’t even be talking about it right now if it weren’t for the politicians.”

Second, Horner wins the 2008 “instant self-revelation award” for revealing himself to be a hypocrite in a single sentence. He calls me a “thug” and then claims I change the subject by attacking the person with “names and slurs.” As anyone who read my post can see, I provided extensive links to studies and experts who debunked the Politico’s central nonsense about global cooling. Characteristically, however, Horner simply rants without any appeal to facts or evidence.

Third, Horner works on climate issues as a Counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which actually runs ad campaigns aimed at destroying the climate for centuries. You can read all about Horner at ExxonSecrets.org. He is a master of pushing long-debunked denier talking points, stating as recently as April 2005, “the atmosphere inarguably shows no appreciable warming in the 25-year history of satellite and radiosonde measurements (initiated in response to the cooling panic).” Amazing how “inarguable” denier claims turn out not only to be arguable but scientifically disapprovable — yet CEI still keeps the long-debunked statement on its website.

Read more

Security

Turley: By Refusing To Pardon Torture Officials, Bush Is Allowing Democrats To Repair His Legacy

Last night on MSNBC Rachel Maddow highlighted a report from the Wall Street Journal that said that President Bush is unlikely to pardon any officials involved in engineering or executing the Bush administration’s torture program. According to the Wall Street Journal report, the White House believes that the Justice Department’s torture memos give the officials all the legal cover they need.

Maddow’s guest, constitutional legal scholar Jonathan Turley, said that he also believes that Bush is unlikely to pardon his torture officials, but for reasons that have little to do with the torture memos:

TURLEY: What the administration is doing is they know that the people that want him to pardon our torture program is primarily the Democrats, not the Republicans. The Democratic leadership would love to have a pardon so they could go to their supporters and say, “Look, there’s really nothing we could do.”

Well, the Bush administration is calling their bluff. They know that the Democratic leadership will not allow criminal investigations or indictments.

Turley explained that without the pardons, Bush is clearing the way for Democrats to repair the president’s torture legacy. Bush will be “able to say there’s nothing stopping indictments or prosecutions but a Democratic Congress and a Democratic White House didn’t think there was any basis for it,” Turley said. Watch it:

But not all of the Bush administration’s torture critics are on the same page. Jack Goldsmith, the individual responsible for withdrawing the torture memos and author of the Terror Presidency, penned an op-ed in today’s Washington Post entitled, “No New Torture Probes.” Goldsmith argues today that rather than initiating criminal investigations or even a bipartisan truth commission, the next administration should simply let the current torture investigations conclude and release their findings:

[The current] investigations were politically necessary, and the Obama administration should let them continue. When they are complete, the administration should disclose the facts and documents (including legal opinions) that can be made public without jeopardizing national security.

He explains that in his view the “danger now is that lawyers will become excessively cautious in giving advice and will substitute predictions of political palatability for careful legal judgment.”

As Goldsmith notes, many of the facts related to who engineered Bush’s torture programs are already public. Whether or not Congress initiates new investigations, Bush will likely remain the torture president.

Update

Crooks and Liars has more.

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up