Month: November 2009

What do you want to hear from President Obama in his speech on Afghanistan tomorrow?

Is Sarah Palin popular among Republicans?

In the poll, taken amid the media whirlwind surrounding the release of her memoir “Going Rogue,” more [Republicans and Republican-leaning independents] cite Palin than other Republicans as best reflecting the party’s core values and as the top vote-getter in hypothetical presidential nomination contests. But on neither question did she exceed 20 percent backing among all Republicans.

I think these results say more about the lack of leadership and direction in the Republican Party than they do about Sarah Palin’s popularity or electoral prospects. I think there was a point in 2002 when Joe Lieberman was polling as a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. It didn’t mean anything except that a lot of people knew him from his turn on the 2000 national ticket. Palin is ahead in these polls, but her support is weak. The GOP’s leadership is so discredited that mere fame is enough to give the misleading appearance that Palin is popular.

Just 1 percent pick George W. Bush as the best reflection of the party’s principles, and only a single person in the poll cites former vice president Richard B. Cheney. About seven in 10 say Bush bears at least “some” of the blame for the party’s problems.

That’s 1% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who think Bush represented the party’s principles. Cheney does even worse. This probably explains why we hear so much about Ronald Reagan.

Something has changed though. Dan Quayle is the American politician whose career most nearly resembles Sarah Palin’s. He was selected as a running mate without adequate vetting, he proved to be totally out of his league as both a candidate and a vice-president, and he looked to compensate for his weaknesses by pandering to the furthest-right reaches of the GOP base. But Quayle pretty much faded from view once Clinton and Gore defeated him in 1992. I don’t think Palin plans on fading from view.

Covered this month:
Suspects of Terrorism and Due Process
Race in the Age of Obama

This month’s insight into the public mind is on rights for suspects of terrorism and due process, and racial attitudes in the age of Obama, a topic which we will continue to track and analyze here over time.

SUSPECTS OF TERRORISM AND DUE PROCESS
The Obama administration has decided to try five terrorist suspects and Guantanamo Bay detainees, including alleged mastermind of the 9.11 attacks Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian federal court in New York. Since the decision was announced, several polls have been released exploring Americans approval, or not, of the administration’s decision. The public seems to be divided on whether military or civil trial with an edge for the former option. However not all polls tell the same story. Support for closed military courts tends to increase—drastically—dependent on the wording of the question and the information inserted in it. In no studies did the option for a civil trial gain more support than military courts. A closer look at demographic breakdowns suggest that party affiliation, as expected, drives support for military trial up.

The results of CBS News, ABC News/Washington Poll and CNN/Opinion Research are shown on chart 1, and party affiliation breakdown according to the CBS poll on chart 2.

CBS News Poll

The wording of the questions is as follows:
ABC/Post: Would you rather have suspects accused of involvement in the September 11 terrorist attacks put on trial in (the federal court system in the United States), or in (a military tribunal set up for that purpose)?

CBS News: When it comes to dealing with people suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks against the United States, which would you prefer: 1) Trying them in open criminal court with a jury, and a civilian judge, or 2) Trying them in a closed military court with a military judge?

New York State
45% of New Yorkers, when asked by Marist poll, said that a civil trial for the five detainees would be a good idea versus 41% who think it’s a bad idea. 14% are unsure.  Greg Sargent on his blog notes that opposition to the trial "New York court is almost entirely driven by old, white, and Republican voters. When the numbers are broken down by age, the only group against the trial is made up of those over 65, by 46%-41%. The other age groups are in favor of it. When the numbers are broken down by race, the only group against the trial is made up of whites, by 49%-41%. Blacks and Latinos both favor it, Latinos overwhelmingly so. And when the poll is broken down by party, Republicans are overwhelmingly against the trial, 68%-23%. Dems and “non-enrolled” both favor it."

Due process

It is also important to understand where Americans stand on one’s right to fair treatment in general, and in the case of suspects of terrorism and detainees. The most recent available data is drawn from studies conducted in 2007 and 2006, but we have reason to believe that public opinion has not shifited, especially in the case of due process for all, in the past two years.

More than eight in ten Americans feel strongly that being treated fairly in the criminal justice system if accused of a crime (83%) should be considered a human right, according to an August 2007 survey by The Opportunity Agenda and Belden Russonello & Stewart.

Should Terrorism Suspects Have Due Process Rights?
Word Public Opinion asked Americans in July 2007 about legal protections that should be granted to suspects of terrorism. 73% said such suspects should have the right to request and receive a hearing in the case of those "captured outside the U.S.". In addition, 77% said such suspects should be given access to a lawyer; 60% said they should not be held indefinitely without charges or a trial in the case of suspects "arrested in the U.S.". According to Word Public Opinion "The size of the majority supporting such rights was a bit lower for terrorism suspects than for suspects in general. Separate samples were asked about the rights of detainees in general and about the rights of those suspected of terrorism. Significantly fewer respondents favored legal protections for terrorism suspects, with differences ranging from 4 to 14 points."

An afterthought: It is important to remember that due process is central to the credibility of our justice system, and American values of justice and fairness only stand strong when we uphold the human right to due process.  Once we start denying rights for one individual or type of people, it puts all individuals’ rights at risk.

AMERICAN ATTITUDES ON RACIAL JUSTICE

Many Americans are ambivalent on the modern existence of racial bias and other forms of unequal opportunity in our laws or workplace policies. At the same time, many also report incidents of such bias in their immediate community seen or experienced in their daily lives. But with the historic election of an African American president, that skepticism is more widespread and more vocal than ever.

Starting today, we will summarize and analyze through this platform race, public opinion and media. Intergroup (racial or ethnic) relations in the U.S., and attitudes, assumptions and anxieties that people have about themselves and those in other groups will be placed under the microscope. How social changes, such as ethic diversification or the surge of an African American to the national stage, impact those attitudes, and how racism suffuses, if at all, the decisions we make, political or social.

A retrospective look at dominant themes of public opinion and discourse on race shows that most Americans admit that there has been progress getting rid of racial discrimination since the 1960’sand that African Americans have or will soon soon achieve racial equality. However, many Americans still perceive racial discrimination in their own community, and think that racism is still a problem in our society, with a majority says that racism is still a problem in our society, although far fewer Americans think that it s a big problem compared to about 1 out of who think that it is somewhat of a problem. Acceptance of existence of racism or discrimination is driven by black Americans, at times at large. Whites are less likely to perceive racism while Latinos and Asians are somewhere in the middle.

As expected, there is a large gap between what Americans think should be the standard practice and what they perceive as such in our country. Although a vast majority of Americans (83%) strongly believe that equal opportunities regardless of race and freedom from discrimination are human rights, a much smaller majority (60%) think that white and black people have "an equal chance of getting ahead."

Race Relations in the U.S.
Conflicts between blacks and whites are perceived as strong by far less whites (38%) than African Americans (53%) or Latinos (47%).

Blacks and whites equally think that race relations will always be a problem in the U.S. ( about 43%)

All above, source: Pew Research Survey April 2009

Racial discrimination and Racism
There has been progress getting rid of racial discrimination since the 1960’s: 83% of whites, 59% of blacks.
The New York Times/CBS News Poll, April 2009
1 out of 2 think that blacks experience racial discrimination in their community (64% of blacks, 43% of whites)

3 out of 4 blacks have personally felt discriminated against 
because of their race

Far fewer Americans (26%) think that racism is a big problem (1 out of 2 blacks, 1 out of 5 whites). Yet, most Americans think that it is a problem, whether big or somewhat big: 85% of blacks, and 72% of whites.

The source for all of the above: Washington Post-ABC News Polls Jan 2009

Equal Opportunity

Most Americans (60%) think that white and black people have an "equal chance of getting ahead". More blacks than ever think so but still not a majority (44%). Also a majority think (73%) that African Americans have reached or will soon achieve racial equality. The New York Times/CBS News Poll, April 2009

Personal responsibility vs. Equal Opportunity

Failure to take advantage of available opportunities (62%) rather than discrimination by whites is more of a problem for blacks today (21%)

CNN/Essence Magazine/Opinion Research Corp. July 2008

Through a Human Rights lens:

Vast majorities strongly believe that equal opportunities regardless of race (86%), Being treated fairly in the justice system (83%), or Freedom from discrimination (83%) are human rights.

Racial profiling (84%), or Police stopping people solely based on their race (84% agree) are violations of their human rights.

The Opportunity Agenda/BRS Survey August 2007
Ethnic Diversification and Intergroup relations

More Americans believe that there is a serious conflict between immigrants and native–born than between blacks and whites. Pew Research Survey April 2009

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

The Senate meets today at 2pm, with debate on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 (PPACA) starting at 3pm. The House meets tomorrow, and David Waldman tells us what they’ll be up to. After all, they’ve got to pass the time while the Senate gets all the attention doing health care.

Most of the whispers — and not a few shouts from the rooftops — indicate that there’s a strong interest in spending the time on jobs, jobs, jobs. Which means Democrats look for ways to stimulate job creation, and Republicans say they won’t work and oppose them, then hold press events in their districts accepting the money for those programs.

That seems about right. Meanwhile, there are many things to keep your eye on during the Senate debate. What’s not getting enough attention is that the Republicans are going to have a strategy for killing health reform. What will it be? How dilatory are they willing to be? What kind of poison amendments have they dreamed up? Is Harry Reid prepared, or has he been forced to spend all his energy worrying about his own caucus? We’ll begin to find out today.

Reform would make us a more decent society, but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we’ve already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one. – David Brooks; NY Times
I never thought I would see the day when I would agree with David Brooks, the syndicated Conservative columnist from the New York Times. But when you’re right, you’re right. This health care debate is about the values we hold as a nation and those things we think are important. However, after that point our views are markedly different. You see Mr. Brooks believes that wealth should only flow upwards from the middle and lower classes to the wealthy. He believes that by taxing the wealthy we stifle future growth and make ourselves a less vibrant nation. I would be curious as to how he would explain the Bush tax-breaks for the wealthy and how removing the regulations from Wall Street made us a more vibrant nation?

You see what Mr. Brooks fails to divulge is that giving money to rich people has never stimulated anything except profits made from capital manipulation and not the profits made from manufacturing anything. The goal of the wealthy is not to spend money but to hoard money; this is how you get to be wealthy by not spending your own money. His premise that if we continue to funnel money upward that this will insure the future growth of this nation is false and has historically been proven to be false. What has stimulated growth in our nation’s history have been those expensive promises that he and so many other compassionate Conservatives have been opposed to from their inception. It was not the robber-barons that made us a vibrant society; on the contrary it was those programs put in place that created the middle-class. If Mr. Brooks and his cronies had their way we would have two classes: the very wealthy and the rest of us.

But beyond the economic benefits of these “promises” there is also the moral imperative of a society to provide basic services to all of their people. Just once I would like to completely shut down this evil government for one week. For an entire week the government stops providing all the services it now provides and then see how these anti-government wing-nuts would respond. My guess is they would do rather well considering the have the funds to replace government services, but what about all of those folks without a pot to piss in or a window to throw out who turn out for these anti-government rallies? I remember during the Presidential campaign at McCain rallies when he would say Obama wants to raise taxes on those people earning over 250,000 dollars a year and there would be boos and then they would pan the audience and no one at the rally appeared to make over 50,000 a year and it was amazing to me to see their responses to policies that would benefit them.

Another thing that troubles me about the column is its inherent divisiveness. Mr. Brooks is attempting to appeal to the young to choose greed over compassion. As if money and the acquisition of stuff is all that defines a nation and a person and this conversation has come to dominate the health care debate in our country. What’s in it for me is the new mantra of our society. There was a time not long ago when sacrifices for our country was more than a bumper sticker; when having compassion on your fellow citizen’s did not have to be justified by a bottom line. It’s funny whenever we discuss helping the least of us we become suddenly fiscal hawks, but where were these fiscal hawks when Mr. Bush was funding two wars and giving tax-breaks to the richest among us? Why weren’t these expenditures scrutinized to the level that health reform has been?

The bottom line is that our systems are failing not just the least of us, but all of us and until we come to that conclusion jointly as people it will continue to do so. This debate isn’t really about right or left, rich or poor it is about what is best for us as nation. We have seen firsthand what the politics of greed has wrought us. Every twenty years we are brought to the brink of self destruction by a financial industry that puts profits not only before people but also our nation. But why should we believe our eyes when we can take the word of shrills like Mr. Brooks and believe beyond reality that the rich folks will take care of the rest of us once they get enough money. The only problem with that theory is that they will never get enough money and so it goes.

Wisdom: to live in the present, plan for the future, and profit from the past – Unknown
The Disputed Truth

Can we call them Nazis now?

The politically connected conservative religious group in Washington, DC, known as “The Family” made infamous in the United States recently by the sex scandal of one of it’s member’s, Senator John Ensign, seemed creepy but also essentially harmless. Sort of a Religious Right version of The Addams Family. Good for a laugh, even if that laugh was a nervous one.

Well, today, I’m no longer willing to consider The Family, it’s members and its agenda as quite so harmless, because it appears to be the driving force behind laws meant to execute homosexuals in Uganda:

We already noted the religious right-wing’s support of making Uganda a home base for homophobia, but now comes word that America’s own Christian politicos are backing President Yoweri Museveni’s campaign to make gay sex punishable by death.

As Jeff Sharlot, author of the expose The Family, tells it, the bill’s biggest supporter is a member of The Family. David Bahati, the lawmaker pushing for aggravated homosexuality crimes, “appears to be a core member of The Family. He works, he organizes their Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast and oversees a African sort of student leadership program designed to create future leaders for Africa, into which The Family has poured millions of dollars working through a very convoluted chain of linkages passing the money over to Uganda.”

Moreover, says Sharlot, “we discovered that David Bahati, the man behind this legislation, is really deeply, deeply involved in The Family’s work in Uganda, that the ethics minister of Uganda, Museveni’s kind of right-hand man, a guy named Nsaba Buturo, is also helping to organize The Family’s National Prayer Breakfast. And here’s a guy who has been the main force for this Anti-Homosexuality Act in Uganda’s executive office and has been very vocal about what he’s doing, in a rather extreme and hateful way. But these guys are not so much under the influence of The Family. They are, in Uganda, The Family.”

Don’t doubt for one minute that this is exactly the same agenda that The Family would like to bring to America: laws to exterminate homosexuals. In Uganda, homosexuality is already a crime punishable by life imprisonment. The new Ugandan law would execute “repeat offenders” as well as jail anyone for three years for failing to “inform authorities” of someone they knew to be gay.

It seems the current Dictator of Uganda, “President” Musevini, has had deep connections with members of The Family since the mid 1980’s. Thus it should come as no surprise that his tyrannical regime, which imprisons journalists, has received the support of prominent American Republican Senators with ties to the Religious Right, such as Sam Brownback of Kansas and James Inhofe of Oklahoma. They help him obtain material aid from the United States government and he just happens to pass and enforce the most heinous anti-homosexual laws:

GROSS: So what does that mean? What influence does The Family have on him?

Mr. SHARLET: It means that they have a deep relationship of what they’ll call spiritual counsel, but you’re going to talk about moral issues. You’re going to talk about political issues. Your relationships are going to be organized through these associates. So Museveni can go to Senator Brownback and seek military aid. Inhofe, as he describes, Inhofe says that he cares about Africa more than any other senator.

And that may be true. He’s certainly traveled there extensively. He says he likes to accuse the State Department of ignoring Africa so he becomes our point man with guys like Museveni and Uganda, this nation he says he’s adopted. As we give foreign aid to Uganda, these are the people who are in a position to steer that money. And as Museveni comes over, and as he does and spends time at The Family’s headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, a place called The Cedars, and sits down for counsel with Doug Coe, that’s where those relationships occur.

It’s never going to be the hard sell, where they’re going to, you know, twist Museveni’s arm behind his back and say do this. As The Family themselves describes it, you create a prayer cell, or what they call – and this again, this is their language from their documents – an invisible believing group of God-led politicians who get together and talk with one another about what God wants them to do in their leadership capacity. And that’s the nature of their relationship with Museveni.

Who is the secretive leader of The Family? A man named Doug Coe who has been active in promoting the political influence of his particular brand of Christianity in Washington for decades. Here’s how Jeff Sharlett, the investigative reporter Terri Gross interviewed, describes a meeting he attended with this man regarding the proper model for exerting Christian influence in countries around the globe:

And some of the, really the core rhetoric of The Family is this idea that most of us misread the New Testament, that Christ’s message – the bottom line of Christ’s message wasn’t really about love or mercy or justice or forgiveness. It was about power. So Doug Coe, the leader of the group, tries to illustrate this, for instance, by saying, sort of posing a puzzle: name three men in the 20th century who best understood that message of The New Testament. And most people are going to say someone like Martin Luther King, or Bonhoeffer; or maybe they’re more conservative, they’re going to say Billy Graham. And Coe likes to give in answer: Hitler, Stalin and Mao, which just makes your jaw drop. And he will say – he’s quick to say these are evil men, but they understood power. And that message recurs again, and again, and again in The Family.

When I was at the C Street house, I sat in on a session between Doug Coe and Congressman Tiahrt of Kansas. And Coe was encouraging Tiahrt to understand the message of Jesus by thinking about the model of power exemplified by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. There are so many examples of this, and I give several because I don’t want people to think that I’m cherrypicking one bad choice of words. This is a core idea of The Family. There is actually video that [NBC News] found of Coe talking about the fellowship that he wants to model the things on is like that of the great friendship enjoyed by Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler.

If that isn’t a formula for Christian Fascism, I don’t know what is. In Uganda today, gay people are paying a steep price, and perhaps soon the ultimate price, for the immutable fact of their sexual orientation. And this has happened because of the active support of a putative Christian Dictator by a secretive religious organization of influential Christian politicians based in Washington, DC. In short, these “Family” politicians are, at best, enablers of genocide against homosexuals in Africa. At worst? We can only speculate, but ask yourself these questions:

Do you want prominent American politicians involved in a secretive organization whose primary mission is to spread the message that Jesus Christ wasn’t about loving people and forgiveness, but was instead preaching about obtaining power for Christian rulers? Rulers who would make life and death decisions regarding the fate of millions based on their own interpretation of that message? Hell, do you really want our politicians acting as missionaries for one tiny but influential and powerful sect of Right Wing Fundamentalist Christians? And using US tax payer dollars to further that goal?

I can tell you how the gay people in Uganda would answer that question today.

I grew up in central New Jersey. Mercer County isn’t horse-farm country exactly, but you don’t have to go far to get there. You can drive north up Rte. 206 an hour or so and be right in the heart of Christie Todd Whitman’s turf. Or you can drive east on Rte. 33 toward the Shore and really get a taste for the high-life. There really are people who play polo in their spare time. They’re called Republicans. They’re totally isolated from what ordinary people call ‘hardship,’ and they pretty nearly resemble the assholes at Caddyshack’s Bushwood Country Club. They don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Glenn Beck, and they have almost exactly nothing in common with Tom DeLay. For the most part, the money these people have was earned by a father or grandfather or great-grandfather, but they do alright letting the magic of compound interest keep them in luxury. Most of them mean no harm.

To answer Josh Marshall’s question, yeah, a lot of these people probably have absorbed some pretty socially conservative views by osmosis. That happens when you attend the Republican National Convention as a delegate and everyone you meet is a redneck. But most of them are too concerned about getting grass-stains to mix with the Hoi Polloi that make up the Republican Party’s base. If their child developed a taste for NASCAR they’d send him to a psychiatrist faster than a Southern Baptist would his gay son.

The more sophisticated of these people…the ones that actually are still conducting international business transactions…got worried enough about our deteriorating status in the world that they actually voted for Obama-Biden over the erratic and bizarre campaign of McCain-Palin. They may not want to pay taxes, but they’re not giving up their European vacations, and they hear from their European clients.

The Republican Party doesn’t seem to want anything to do with these country club Republicans. And I’ll admit that they’re not an attractive lot, and never were. But these elites ran the opposition to the New Deal and Great Society a far sight better than the teabaggers. Don’t you think?

Not exactly “suck on this,” but not all that much better from the Mustache of Understanding:

Have no doubt: we punched a fist into the Arab/Muslim world after 9/11, partly to send a message of deterrence, but primarily to destroy two tyrannical regimes — the Taliban and the Baathists — and to work with Afghans and Iraqis to build a different kind of politics. In the process, we did some stupid and bad things.

If the narrative ain’t working for us, do you think trying harder is going to change that?

This Tuesday Obama is supposed to announce his decision on troops and Afghanistan (the last guess I heard was 30,000 as opposed to the 40,000 the General asked for) and we will once again see our middle-east  battle commitment increase.

But is there a reason why the President didn’t turn the problem over to the State Department for a negotiated solution? Sherwood Ross in OpEdNews writes an extended article on why diplomacy wasn’t even considered. here’s a clip:

Afghanistan is valued today for the oil and gas pipelines the U.S. wants built there, no matter what other reasons Obama gives.

“In the late 1990s,” writes Washington reporter Bill Blum in his “Anti-Empire Report,” “the American oil company, Unocal, met with Taliban officials in Texas to discuss the pipelines” Unocal’s talks with the Taliban, conducted with the full knowledge of the Clinton administration”continued as late as 2000 or 2001.” Adds Paul Craig Roberts writing in the December Rock Creek Free Press of Washington, D.C., the U.S./U.K. military aggression in Afghanistan “had to do with the natural gas deposits in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.” Roberts explains:

“The Americans wanted a pipeline that bypassed Russia and Iran and went through Afghanistan. To insure this, an invasion was necessary. The idiot American public could be told that the invasion was necessary because of 9/11 and to save them from `terrorism,’ and the utter fools would believe the lie.” The war, Roberts continued, is to guard the pipeline route. “It’s about money, it’s about energy, it’s not about democracy.”

So, if this is indeed  WHY we are there, how long can it last?

In January, a Defense Department report stated “building a fully competent and independent Afghan government will be a lengthy process that will last, at a minimum, decades,” The Nation magazine’s Jonathan Schell reports (Nov. 30). So far from defeating the Taliban are Allied forces that US military contractors “are forced to pay suspected insurgents to protect American supply routes,” Aram Roston writes in the same issue. “It is an accepted fact of the military logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government funds the very forces American troops are fighting.” In fact, an American executive there told Roston, “The Army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at them. It is Department of Defense money.”

It is Corporate concern which controls the decision making here…xnd, of course, we travel farther into deficit spending by pouring money into Afghanistan (and Iraq, which we are NOT remotely out of, yet.)

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has stated that it costs about a million dollars per year for each deployed US soldier, beyond the expense of training and maintaining a security force.  You can do the math: there are 180,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq right now…  add another 30,000 and we are spending $210,000,000,000.00 per year (that’s just on those troops active in the mid-east… we are also paying for the pentagon, all our worldwide bases, all the equipment we use worldwide, health recovery by the veteran’s Administration for soldiers who come back wounded… not to mention the costs for those who come back dead.) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost 768.8 billion dollars so far and by the end of this fiscal year, the price tag will approach one trillion dollars.

It’s not even a number that most people can even conceive of!

Ross goes on to say that…

“…in all the recent debate in Washington, who has heard a word of concern for the impact of escalation on the suffering civilian populations of Afghanistan and Pakistan?

” ‘Our military demands ever more troops,’ Veterans Speaker Alliance’s founder Paul Cox said at an Oakland, Calif., rally, last week with Barbara Lee, the only member of Congress to vote against the initial Afghan aggression. ‘Meanwhile, our economy is in the toilet, health care costs are out of control, and we can’t afford to educate our children. But somehow, there’s always money for war.’ Rep. Lee called for putting ‘this stage of American history–a stage characterized by open-ended war–to a close.’ “

Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders and a few others represent a very tiny segment of The Congress, both Representatives and Senators,  who would push to get us out of the middle east as warriors.

Unless America rises up to support such a massive withdrawal, this will never even be a remote possibility. Ongoing warfare is our Heritage and our Curse.

Under The LobsterScope

.
Update [2009-11-30 00:09 AM PST by Oui]:

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."