Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 65)
Plane crash kills 28 in Papua New Guinea

Four reported survivors including two pilots after Airlines PNG Dash-8 plane comes down in forest near Madang A plane has crashed in stormy weather in Papua New Guinea’s remote forests, killing 28 people and leaving four survivors, officials have said. Two pilots – one Australian and one New Zealander – were among those who survived Thursday’s crash on the northern coast, Australia’s foreign affairs department said. The Airlines PNG Dash 8 plane crashed while flying from Lae to the resort hub of Madang, Papua New Guinea’s Accident Investigation Commission spokesman Sid O’Toole said. Most of the passengers had been parents travelling to attend their children’s university graduation ceremony in Madang this weekend, according to the Australian Associated Press news agency. The duty manager at the Madang Resort, Donald Lambert, said six of the plane’s occupants – one passenger and five crew members – had reservations to stay at his hotel. “I went to meet them at the airport,” he said. The crash site was 12 miles (20km) south of Madang. Police and ambulances had reached the crash site and investigators were on their way. Australian consular officials were planning to travel to Madang on Friday. “Initial indications are that there are no Australians amongst those killed,” Australia’s foreign affairs department said in a statement. Trevor Hattersley, the Australian high commission’s warden in Madang, said the plane went down during a violent storm in remote jungle not far from the coast. “The weather was horrendous,” Hattersley told the Associated Press. “There was a huge storm that came through at the same time – big rain, big wind.” The storm had flooded the only road from the crash site to Madang, so rescuers had to get the four survivors to the nearest beach and transport them to Madang by boat. Papua New Guinea journalist Scott Waide told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that he had visited the hospital where the survivors were being treated. One of the survivors told a nurse he fled the burning wreckage through a crack in the fuselage. “He told the nurses he was sitting on the seventh seat and the plane broke in half,” Waide told the ABC. “While struggling to get out his arms got burned and his back got burned.” Airlines PNG said a full investigation was under way and it had temporarily grounded its fleet of 12 Dash 8 planes. Plane crashes Papua New Guinea Australia New Zealand guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Berlusconi stakes his fate on confidence vote in parliament

The Italian PM’s government must resign if it fails to win more votes than the opposition on Friday Silvio Berlusconi is to stake the fate of his government and his own political future on a confidence vote in parliament on Friday. Standing before a half-empty chamber boycotted by the opposition, he appealed on Thursday for support from the chamber of deputies, the lower house of the Italian parliament, saying: “There are no alternatives.” Berlusconi decided to seek a vote of confidence after losing a crucial division on the public accounts earlier this week. The result of the confidence vote is due at around 11.30am GMT on Friday. To survive, the government needs only to secure more votes than the opposition. If it loses, it is constitutionally bound to resign. All but six deputies were missing from the opposition benches when the prime minister got up to speak, the main opposition parties having decided to stay away from the debate in protest at Berlusconi’s refusal to step down. Under mounting pressure from the courts, where he is a defendant in three trials, the prime minister leads an increasingly fractious party. However, one of the biggest question marks hanging over Friday’s vote was removed when his chief ally, Umberto Bossi, the leader of the Northern League, confirmed his support for Berlusconi’s rightwing coalition. “The government will still be here tomorrow evening,” he told reporters after listening to the prime minister’s speech. But there is still a risk that individual maverick deputies will stay away in numbers sufficient to bring down the government. This week brought a high-profile defection in the person of Santo Versace, the brother of the designers Donatella and the late Gianni Versace. Santo Versace was elected for Berlusconi’s party, the Freedom People (PdL), when the right stormed back into power three years ago. But, he said: “The economic situation is critical. I’ll be voting against [the government] because it is better to change.” The latest crisis to engulf Berlusconi’s government has come in the midst of the eurozone emergency at a time when Italy is battling to convince investors of its creditworthiness, despite massive public debts of around 120% of GDP. So far this year the government has passed four increasingly stringent austerity packages aimed at reducing the budget deficit. But it has been fiercely criticised, not only by trade unions but also employers’ groups, for neglecting measures to stimulate economic growth. Unusually for a conservative government, Berlusconi’s is under open attack from the leading bosses’ federation, Confindustria. Alarm over the state of the economy also helps to explain the emergence in recent weeks of critical factions in the PdL, notably one centred on a former minister, Claudio Scajola, who resigned last year in an alleged corruption scandal. Bossi too has been having difficulty controlling the League where dissatisfaction is growing over his autocratic style of leadership. He was barracked at a congress last weekend in Varese, north of Milan, after he imposed a new, unelected local party secretary. Scajola said he and his followers would support the government on Friday and the PdL’s parliamentary business managers appeared confident they could muster enough votes in the 630-member chamber. There has been widespread media speculation that rebels in the Northern League and Berlusconi’s own party would prefer to wait until January before delivering a fatal blow to the government. That could clear the way for an election in the spring – before taxpayers start to feel the full effects of the tax rises and spending cuts imposed in recent months. But with Berlusconi’s approval rating below 25% in the polls, the right has a vast amount of ground to make up. The president, Giorgio Napolitano, does not have to dissolve parliament until 2013, however, if there is enough support for a cross-party “technical” government to steer Italy out of the eurozone crisis and perhaps recast the country’s much-criticised electoral system. A frequently mooted candidate for prime minister is the economist and former EU commissioner Mario Monti. Berlusconi discounted the idea in his speech to the chamber: “The problems of the country cannot be resolved by a technical government not democratically legitimated to make choices that in the present circumstance would also be unpopular ones,” he said. Silvio Berlusconi Italy Europe John Hooper guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Occupy Wall Street: Police and Protesters Face Off Over Cleaning

As the days ticked by, September rolled into October and the Occupy Wall Street movement dug in at Lower Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park, a question loomed: How long would they stay once cold weather came? We may not have to wait that long to find out. On Wednesday, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s office released a

Continue reading …

Title: Long Walk To D.C. Artist: The Staple Singers In a perfect life, I would be awakened each morning by The Staple Singers playing live in my living room. Here’s their first single for Stax, celebrating Dr. Martin Luther King’s 1963 March On Washington.

Continue reading …

Under the pretext of protecting the park, Mayor Bloomberg is hiding behind his girlfriend to threaten the occupants of Zuccoti Park. (As we pointed out the other day, his live-in gal pal Diana Taylor is on the board of directors.) Now they have suddenly decided that Occupy Wall Street is making the park unfit for humans (even though they did a massive cleanup today) and Bloomberg will attempt to clear the park: Tell Bloomberg: Don’t Foreclose the Occupation. Join us at 6AM FRIDAY for non-violent eviction defense. Please take a minute to read this, and please take action and spread the word far and wide. Occupy Wall Street is gaining momentum, with occupation actions now happening in cities across the country. But last night Mayor Bloomberg and the NYPD notified Occupy Wall Street participants about plans to “clean the park”—the site of the Wall Street protests—tomorrow starting at 7am. “Cleaning” was used as a pretext to shut down “Bloombergville” a few months back, and to shut down peaceful occupations elsewhere. Bloomberg says that the park will be open for public usage following the cleaning, but with a notable caveat: Occupy Wall Street participants must follow the “rules”. These rules include, “no tarps or sleeping bags” and “no lying down.” So, seems likely that this is their attempt to shut down #OWS for good. PLEASE TAKE ACTION: 1) Call 311 and tell Bloomberg to support our right to assemble and to not interfere with #OWS. If you are calling from outside NY use this number 212-NEW-YORK. 2) Come to #OWS on FRIDAY AT 6AM to defend the occupation from eviction. Occupy Wall Street is committed to keeping the park clean and safe — we even have a Sanitation Working Group whose purpose this is. We are organizing major cleaning operations today and will do so regularly. If Bloomberg truly cares about sanitation here he should support the installation of portopans and dumpsters. #OWS allies have been working to secure these things to support our efforts. We know where the real dirt is: on Wall Street. Billionaire Bloomberg is beholden to bankers. We won’t allow Bloomberg and the NYPD to foreclose our occupation. This is an occupation, not a permitted picnic.

Continue reading …
Oliver Letwin caught dumping letters and documents in park bins

Letwin, the PM’s chief policy adviser, accused of security breach but spokesman says documents were ‘not of a sensitive nature’ Given his title – minister for the Cabinet Office – it would be a fair assumption that Oliver Letwin would have some cabinets in which to put his documents. But Cameron’s chief policy adviser has been caught on a number of occasions disposing of letters and documents in park waste paper bins. Letwin, a “policy fixer” in the words of one close Cameron aide, has been seen throwing the paperwork into bins, the Daily Mirror reported. The newspaper, which ran a picture of Letwin apparently about to drop papers into a bin while talking on a mobile phone, said they included correspondence on terrorism and national security as well as constituents’ private details. One document was said to describe how intelligence chiefs “failed to get the truth” on Britain’s involvement in controversial terrorist interrogations. The newspaper described his actions as a “security breach”, but a spokesman for the minister insisted that the papers did not contain any sensitive material. “Oliver Letwin does some of his parliamentary and constituency correspondence in the park before going to work, and sometimes disposes of copies of letters there,” the spokesman said. “They are not documents of a sensitive nature,” he added. Letwin is a polymath who has some idiosyncrasies. He talks openly about being an early riser, which stems from the period he worked for the bank NM Rothschild. Letwin still does an early circuit of St James’s Park, usually starting at 5:30am. In this period, he dictates sometimes as much as 90 minutes worth of letters for typing by his secretary during the day. Oliver Letwin Conservatives David Cameron Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

The Massachusetts State GOP released its first attack ad against consumer advocate and U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren Wednesday. The Web ad comically attempts to use selective quoting and distorting camera effects to make Warren look anti-business, or violent, or like an inarticulate speaker, or… something. They are clearly trying to make her seem like a very scary class warrior. Republicans don’t like the fact that she has pointed out that wealthy businesspeople did not make it on their own, and that the entire society played a role in their success by building roads and educating workers and paying cops and firefighters they rely on. These points seem pretty obvious to me, but to Scott Brown and the Republican Party this is frightening, violent rhetoric. This video makes a few other things clear. Brown and the Republicans are obviously going to try to tie Warren to Harvard at every chance, even though polling suggests voters couldn’t care less about where Warren teaches. And other than sexism and empty and tired claims of “class warfare,” Brown really doesn’t have much to work with in his fight for reelection. Having done some polling on the class warfare stuff, and knowing it doesn’t work for the Republicans, my guess is that this ad isn’t really aimed at voters at all, but at their corporate donors. The campaign clearly wants to scare the wealthy corporate special interests that support Brown, so they will drop even more money in his lap. Check the ad out, and contrast it with the actual remarks in full Warren made on this topic: EDITOR’S NOTE: Warren still looks awesome even in an attack ad against her.

Continue reading …
How Barack Obama went from cool to cold

Barack Obama’s measured approach won him the White House. So why do supporters think he lacks the ‘fierce urgency of now’? In June 2002, during a budget crisis in Illinois, a state senator from Chicago’s West Side, Rickey Hendon , made a desperate plea for a child-welfare facility in his constituency to be spared the axe. A junior senator from Chicago’s South Side, Barack Obama, voted against him, insisting hard times call for hard choices. Ten minutes later Obama rose, calling for a similar project in his own constituency to be spared, and for compassion and understanding. Hendon was livid and challenged Obama on his double standards from the senate floor. Obama became livid too. As Hendon has told it, Obama approached him, ” stuck his jagged, strained face into my space “, and said: “You embarrassed me on the senate floor and if you ever do it again I will kick your ass.” “What?” said an incredulous Hendon. “You heard me,” Obama said. “And if you come back here by the telephones where the press can’t see it, I will kick your ass right now.” The two men vacated the senate floor and, depending on whom you believe, either traded blows or came close to it. This is a rare tale of Obama both directly facing down an opponent and losing his cool. But during the past year many of his supporters have wished he would show such flashes of anger, urgency and passion more often (if perhaps a bit more focused and less macho and juvenile). He campaigned on the promise to transcend the bipartisan divide; many of his supporters would like to see him stand his ground against his Republican opponents. Having praised his calm-headed eloquence, some would now like to see more passion. The presidency is not just the highest office in the land. It is in no small part a performance. To some extent Americans look to their president to articulate the mood and embody the aspirations of the nation, or at the very least that part of it that elected them. Presidents are not just judged on what they say and do but how they say and do it. It’s not just what they achieve but how they are perceived, to the point where image trumps reality. Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling 17 times, ballooned the deficit, reduced tax loopholes and tax breaks. But he remains the darling of the Tea Party movement because he talked their talk, even if he didn’t walk their walk. With his soaring rhetoric and impassioned oratory Obama performed brilliantly as a candidate. But in office he has come across as aloof at a time of acute economic pain and insufficiently combative when faced with an increasingly polarised political culture. The former academic is regularly accused of taking too professorial a tone: talking down to the public rather than to them. “Americans would like their president to be sick and needy,” explains James Zogby , head of the Arab American Institute and executive member of the Democratic Executive Committee. “Bill Clinton would shake literally tens of thousands of hands every Christmas. Each person he’d meet would say: ‘I think he remembered me.’ Obama doesn’t like to do it. No real person would like to do it. And therefore he doesn’t do it. And people resent that. They want their president to really need them. He doesn’t. He’s OK, he’s relaxed, cool, calm. I’d love him to call me up like Clinton would … people like that, he doesn’t need it.” But come election day next year he will need them. And with his approval ratings languishing in the low 40s, it looks as though they might not be there for him. There are two particular areas where most commentators and the public feel that Obama has fallen short. The first is the economy. Poverty and repossessions are at a record high, the Dow keeps tanking, the deficit keeps growing and unemployment remains stuck at around 9%. Yet the man who recalled Martin Luther King’s evocation of ” the fierce urgency of now ” on the campaign trail has struck few as being either fierce or urgent as the nation teeters on the brink of another recession. “You get the sense that this president, while intellectually engaged, is not emotionally engaged with what the American people are going through,” says Michael Fletcher , the Washington Post’s economics correspondent. “People want to feel there’s someone out there fighting their corner even if that person doesn’t win.” Charlie Cook , one of Washington’s premier political analysts, believes there’s only so much Obama can do at this stage. “I think the problems are more objective,” he says. “Yes, he tends to lecture and tends to be professorial. I think that’s a problem, but I don’t think it’s the problem. I think eloquence only gets you so far. I think the emphasis was on going on television and trying to explain his agenda, to the point now where I think if the American people haven’t hit the mute button their finger is very close to that button where they just don’t listen any more. If things get better, we’ll re-evaluate, but right now – we’re not listening.” Drew Westen, academic and author of The Political Brain , thinks they would listen if Obama changed the pitch. “What Americans really needed to hear from Barack Obama was not only I feel your pain, but also I feel your anger. And he’s a person who just doesn’t do anger. And if you can’t be angry when Wall Street speculators just gambled away the livelihoods of eight million of your fellow citizens then there’s something wrong with you.” The other area is that the Tea Party leads the opposition that is now calling the shots within the Republican party. Here, whether on negotiations about the debt ceiling or the budget, Obama generally starts talking tough only to draw a line in the sand, erase it and then keep conceding ground to his opponents until they get most of what they want. Westen believes the end result is to give a sense of a man of little conviction. “Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama – and by extension, the party he leads – believes on virtually any issue.” Since his jobs speech in early September, he has taken to confronting Republicans more directly and using the bully pulpit to go over the head of Congress to rally the public behind tax hikes on the wealthy as part of a second wave of economic stimulus. It is unlikely he can have much effect on the economy between now and election day apart from persuading people that it was not his fault, but that of the intransigent Republicans. But Bush showed that, on some levels, intransigence works – even if nothing else did. “From the Bush White House you got a more consistent message,” says Fletcher, who covered both administrations. “Maybe there was less intellectual honesty, but you got a consistent, firm, very clear message. When Obama speaks, the other side always has a point, both sides are to blame. It’s almost as if he’s observing his presidency from outside of his presidency.” In 2008 this was to Obama’s advantage. The fact that he was intellectual, consensual and measured contrasted well with the shortcomings of his predecessor. “One of the things that made Obama attractive to many Americans was a Bush hangover,” explains Bruce Riedel , a senior foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution who has advised the last three presidents on issues relating to the Middle East and south Asia. “There was a sense we’d had too much shoot from the hip, or shoot from the lip, that that had got us into two wars and the economic depression that we’re in. They wanted a more cerebral president who thought ahead rather than plunged in. Two years ago, that cerebral look seemed cool to many Americans. Two years later it seems cold. I think there are moments when Americans want a very black and white situation, and they want to cut to the chase, and Obama needs to reach beyond his natural personality to get there.” Salim Muwakkil, a Chicago-based journalist, thinks in times of crisis Americans value impulsiveness in a leader. “Isn’t that part of the American myth?” he asks. “We don’t get stuck in the paralysis of analysis. We strike out when we see the wrong. Bush embodied that, Reagan had a bit of that. These times are calling even more for that kind of quality.” This might be easier said than done. Not only does Obama have to perform the role of president, but also that of the first black one. Whatever detractors thought of Clinton or Bush Jr, they never accused them of not being born in the United States or secretly belonging to another faith. Part of his ostensible “post-racial” appeal as a candidate was the paradoxical claim that he did not scare white voters too much. Before the election Senate leader Harry Reid privately said his chances were good because he was a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one”. If these were the criteria for success, would the US really want an angry black man with the codes to the nation’s nuclear arsenal? Muwakkil, who has known Obama for several years, believes the president may have overcompensated. “I think he’s brought an element of calm serenity to the office in a way that others have not done. In some ways it’s the epitome of the cool style. Almost ironically it’s a stereotype. It’s like the pimp from Iceberg Slim . The guy who was not perturbed by anything. Murders would happen in his vicinity and he’d carry on as if nothing happened.” At certain moments this style has paid off. When Osama bin Laden was assassinated , for example, Obama performed the commander-in-chief role in a manner that most Americans thought was pitch perfect. “You wanted cold, calculating; you got cold, calculating,” says Riedel. “He coldly calculated the odds of whether Osama bin Laden would be in that villa – they were about 50/50. He coldly calculated that we would probably never get odds as good as 50/50 and so he went forward. It was a careful assessment of risk and opportunity.” After a gunman opened fire in Tucson, Arizona, earlier this year , killing six and injuring several others, including congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, he managed to weave a more hopeful tapestry of the US’s political future from the tragedy, leaving his detractors looking petty and insubstantial. Nevertheless, while he has mostly sung on the stump, he has stuttered in power. This inability to connect was exemplified last September during a televised town hall meeting when Velma Hart , a black woman – the demographic bedrock of Obama’s electoral base – expressed her frustration with his presidency. “I’m exhausted. I’m exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now.” Obama acknowledged hard times but went on to answer with a laundry list of achievements that failed to address the underlying tone of disillusionment in the question. A few months later Hart lost her job. “Here’s the thing,” she told me recently. “I didn’t engage my president to hug and kiss me. But what I did think I’d be able to appreciate is the change he was talking about during the campaign. I want leadership and decisiveness and action that helps this country get better. That’s what I want, because that benefits me, that benefits my circle, and that benefits my children.” “Do you think he’s decisive?” I asked her. “Ummm, sometimes … not always, no.” Barack Obama US elections 2012 United States US politics Gary Younge guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
The Republicans’ Unprecedented Obstructionism by the Numbers

enlarge Credit: Perrspectives “Congressional historians said Mr. Boehner’s move was unprecedented.” A month before Senate Republicans blocked Barack Obama’s popular jobs bill , that’s how the New York Times described Speaker John Boehner’s refusal to grant the President’s request for a September 7 address to joint session of Congress to present the American Jobs Act. As it turns out, “unprecedented” is apt description for almost every boulder in the stone wall of Republican obstructionism Barack Obama has faced from the moment he took the oath of office. From the GOP’s record-setting use of the filibuster and its united front against Obama’s legislative agenda to blocking judicial nominees and its admitted hostage-taking of the U.S. debt ceiling , the Republican Party has broken new ground in its perpetual quest to ensure that Barack Obama will be a one-term president. Even before Barack Obama took the oath office , Republicans leaders, conservative think-tanks and right-wing pundits were calling for total obstruction of the new president’s agenda. Bill Kristol , who helped block Bill Clinton’s health care reform attempt in 1993, called for history to repeat on the Obama stimulus – and everything else. Pointing with pride to the Clinton economic program which received exactly zero GOP votes in either House, Kristol in January 2009 advised: “That it made, that it made it so much easier to then defeat his health care initiative. So, it’s very important for Republicans who think they’re going to have to fight later on health care, fight later on maybe on some of the bank bailout legislation, fight later on on all kinds of issues.” And so, as the chart above reveals, it came to pass. Time after time, President Obama could count the votes he received from Congressional Republicans on the fingers (usually the middle one) of one hand. The expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program ( S-CHIP ) to four million more American kids earned the backing of a whopping eight GOP Senators. (One of them, Arlen Specter, later became a Democrat.) Badly needed Wall Street reform eventually overcame GOP filibusters to pass with the support of just three Republicans in the House and Senate , respectively. Last summer, it took 50 days for President Obama to get past Republican filibusters of extended unemployment benefits and the Small Business Jobs Act . As for the DISCLOSE Act , legislation designed to limit the torrent of secret campaign cash unleashed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, in September Republican Senators prevented it from ever coming to a vote. The one-way street that is bipartisanship in Washington was most clearly on display during each party’s attempts to pass tax cuts and economic stimulus. While some turncoat Democrats (like debt super committee member Max Baucus ) helped Reagan and Bush sell their supply-side snake oil, Republicans were determined to torpedo new Democratic presidents: Consider the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act now credited with saving up to three millions jobs and preventing what McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi called ” Depression 2.0 .” Obama’s margins in the passage of the final $787 billion conference bill were almost unchanged from the earlier versions produced by the House and Senate. Despite then Minority Whip Eric Cantor’s earlier claim that Obama’s bipartisan outreach was a “very efficient process,” the President was shut out again by Republicans in the House. In the Senate, the stimulus actually lost ground, as Ted Kennedy’s absence and the no-vote of aborted Commerce Secretary Judd Gregg made the final tally 60-38. So much for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s January 2009 statement that the Obama stimulus proposal “could well have broad Republican appeal.” (If that all-out Republican obstructionism sounds familiar, it should. When Clinton’s 1993 economic program scraped by without capturing the support of even one GOP lawmaker, the New York Times remarked, “Historians believe that no other important legislation, at least since World War II, has been enacted without at least one vote in either house from each major party.”) Sadly, President Obama’s obsession with bipartisan consensus only served to produce more political masochism when it came to his health care initiative. In the House , exactly one Republican voted for a health care reform bill which first passed by a 220-215 margin. Contrary to John McCain’s mythology that in the Senate, there had been “no effort that I know of — of serious across the table negotiations,” Obama repeatedly reached out to GOP Senators like Olympia Snowe and left the writing of the Senate health bill to the bipartisan ” Gang of Six .” For that, President Obama only got what Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) called a ” holy war ” – and zero Republican votes. But if Barack Obama’s legislative agenda ran into endless Republican obstacles in Congress, his judicial nominees hit a brick wall . The same Republicans who decried the judicial filibuster and demanded an ” up or down vote ” for President Bush’s selections to the federal bench have stymied Obama’s choices at a record rate. Citing research by the Alliance for Justice , in June ThinkProgress reported: [T]he Senate confirmed fewer of [Obama's] district and circuit nominees than every president back to Jimmy Carter, and the lowest percentage of nominees – 58% – than any president in American history at this point in a President’s first term. By comparison, Presidents George W. Bush, Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Reagan and Carter had 77%, 90%, 96%, 98%, and 97% of their nominees confirmed after two years, respectively. Senate Republicans’ mass obstruction of Obama’s judges stands in stark contrast to the treatment afforded to past presidents. Indeed, the Senate confirmed fewer judges during Obama’s first two years in office than it did during the same period in the Carter Administration, even though the judiciary was 40 percent smaller while Carter was in office. As dismal as that record is, it’s actually an improvement from a year earlier , when only 43& of President Obama’s judicial appointments had been confirmed: Not content that federal judges are now retiring at twice the rate that replacements are being confirmed, Congressional Republicans headed off to their five-week August recess without taking action on 20 Obama judicial nominees (16 of them approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee). As ThinkProgress also noted, the rapidly growing caseload for the under-sized federal judiciary means that “even if all judicial vacancies were filled, we’d still need more judges.” It’s no wonder Chief Justice John Roberts – certainly no friend of Barack Obama and the Democracy Party – urged action to address “the persistent problem of judicial vacancies.” Republican obstructionism hasn’t merely destroyed the nominations of judicial standouts like Goodwin Liu , who this week assumed his new position on the Supreme Court of California. High profile Obama administration nominees like Dawn Johnson and Peter Diamond , the latter a Nobel Prize-winning economist, never saw the light of day in the Senate. And having already dissuaded President Obama from choosing Elizabeth Warren to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by Congress last year, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the GOP would block any and all comers put forward by the White House: “It’s not sexist. It’s not Elizabeth Warren-specific,” McConnell spokesman Donald Stewart said. “It’s any nominee.” Just to be on the safe side, Republicans maneuvered to ensure that President Obama could make no recess appointments during the current Congressional recess. As Ian Millhiser reported in April , Republicans blocked scores of Obama nominees over matters large and small. Often, very small: Following in the footsteps of Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), who placed a hold on over 70 of President Obama’s nominees last year in order to extort tens of billions of dollars worth of pork for his state, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) threw a similar tantrum yesterday over a mere $50,000. Graham (R-SC) promised to shut down all executive branch and judicial confirmations in the Senate until he gets $50,000 to conduct a study on deepening the Port of Charleston. Since House Republicans assumed their new House majority in January 2011, President Obama’s agenda has been effectively shut down. But even before their successful hostage-taking of the federal budget and U.S. debt ceiling, Senate Republicans for years had been shattering filibuster records to stop Democratic legislation dead in its tracks. As it turns out, the Roadblock Republicans started their work when Democrats recaptured the Senate in 2007, only to redouble their efforts when Barack Obama walked into the Oval Office in 2009. Back in 2007 , former Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott explained the successful Republican strategy for derailing the new Democratic majorities in the House and Senate: “The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. So far it’s working for us.” And the Republicans of the 110th Congress were just getting warmed up. The Senate GOP hadn’t merely shattered the previous records for filibusters. As McClatchy reported in February 2010 , the Republicans of the 111th Congress vowed to block virtually everything, counting on voters to blame Democrats for the GOP’s own roadblocks: As even Robert Samuelson (no friend of Democrats) acknowledged, “From 2003 to 2006, when Republicans controlled the Senate, they filed cloture 130 times to break Democratic filibusters. Since 2007, when Democrats took charge, they’ve filed 257 cloture motions.” The Senate’s own records reveal obstructionism is the new normal for Republicans: The Republicans didn’t merely eviscerate the old mark for cloture motions and filibusters after their descent into the minority in 2007. As Paul Krugman detailed, the GOP’s obstructionism has fundamentally altered how the Senate does – or more accurately, doesn’t do – business: The political scientist Barbara Sinclair has done the math. In the 1960s, she finds, “extended-debate-related problems” — threatened or actual filibusters — affected only 8 percent of major legislation. By the 1980s, that had risen to 27 percent. But after Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006 and Republicans found themselves in the minority, it soared to 70 percent. Earlier this year, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow put those numbers of threatened or actual filibusters into an easy-to-read chart so simple that even John McCain could understand it: By the time Congressional Republicans brought the United States to the brink of default over the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling last month, GOP obstructionism had become the new normal. But even that gambit was unprecedented. While members of both parties (including then-Senator Obama in 2006) have historically cast symbolic votes against a debt ceiling increase to protest the majority’s agenda, never in recent times has the majority itself had the power to block a boost in the America’s borrowing authority. If anyone had any lingering doubts that the R epublican Party and its Tea Party hardliners were responsible for the recent downgrading of the U.S. credit rating, S&P itself left no doubt on the matter: A Standard & Poor’s director said for the first time Thursday that one reason the United States lost its triple-A credit rating was that several lawmakers expressed skepticism about the serious consequences of a credit default — a position put forth by some Republicans. Without specifically mentioning Republicans, S&P senior director Joydeep Mukherji said the stability and effectiveness of American political institutions were undermined by the fact that “people in the political arena were even talking about a potential default,” Mukherji said. “That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable,” he added. “This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns.” Especially among ones who are responsible for most of the debt now facing the country. Leave aside for the moment that small government icon Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt and signed 17 debt ceiling increases into law. (That might explain why the Gipper repeatedly demanded Congress boost his borrowing authority and called the oceans of red ink he bequeathed to America his greatest regret .) As it turns out, Republican majorities voted seven times to raise the debt ceiling under President Bush and the current GOP leadership team voted a combined 19 times to bump the debt limit $4 trillion during his tenure. (That vote tally included a “clean” debt ceiling increase in 2004, backed by 98 current House Republicans and 31 sitting GOP Senators.) Of course, they had to. After all, the two unfunded wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the budget-busting Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 (the first war-time tax cut in modern U.S. history) and the Medicare prescription drug program drained the U.S. Treasury. Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Eric Cantor voted for all of it. That’s why Eric Cantor’s July statement is so laughable: “I don’t think the White House understands is how difficult it is for fiscal conservatives to say they’re going to vote for a debt ceiling increase.” Just not when a Republican is in the White House. As Vice Cheney famously put it in 2002, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” But now that a Democrat is sitting in the Oval Office, Republicans have had a change of heart -and tactics. Now, GOP obstructionism and brinksmanship is not only routine. It’s unprecedented. Of course, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has a different explanation for the failure of the American Jobs Act and so much else of Obama’s agenda to budge the Republicans’ immovable object in Congress. What Team Obama only now calls sabotage , McConnell pretends, instead is all the President’s fault: “[T]hat’s their explicit strategy — to make people believe that Congress can’t get anything done. “And how do you make sure of it? By proposing legislation you know the other side won’t support — even when there’s an entire menu of bipartisan proposals the President could choose to pursue instead. The President can govern as though this is the congress he wants or he can deal with the congress he has. Along the first path lies gridlock and along the second lies the kind of legislative progress Americans want. And as for Republicans, well, we’ve been crystal clear from the outset that we prefer the latter route.”

Continue reading …
Carrefour, Europe’s biggest retailer, sounds the alarm over the economy

• French store chain issues its fifth profit warning of the year • Analysts slash forecasts for growth in Germany Deepening economic gloom has forced Europe’s biggest retailer, Carrefour, to issue its fifth profit warning this year and Germany’s leading independent forecasters to highlight the risk of a recession in

Continue reading …