Month: June 2012

An elderly supporter of President Barack Obama joins others to cheer near a house where Obama is holding a campaign event in Los Angeles, California, on June 7, 2012. Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has outraised Obama for the first time in the White House race, with the challenger raking in more than $76 million, campaign figures showed Thursday. Obama, who proved himself a fundraising juggernaut during his presidential run four years ago, raised 'more than $60 million' in May along with the Democratic National Committee and local committees, the campaign said in a Twitter message. By Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images.

Friedersdorf finds "very little reason to think Obama will be remembered as a great foreign policy president." Larison puts Obama's record in context:

Among post-WWII Presidents, Obama’s foreign policy record has been competent enough that it shouldn’t be ranked anywhere near the real failures (e.g., LBJ, Bush II, Kennedy, etc.), but it shouldn’t be confused with one of the very best records, either. It’s true that Obama’s record seems much better than it is when compared with George W. Bush’s, but then that is the relevant comparison for political purposes. Even when Obama blunders, he doesn’t suffer as much political damage because we still remember how badly Bush performed and we are regularly reminded of what the terrifying practical alternative to Obama was every time McCain sounds off on an international crisis. Judged by those admittedly low standards, Obama’s record looks a lot better than if we assessed his overall record simply on the merits.

It all depends on whether he gets a second term. The strategies he has followed from Day One point to that.

The Romney campaign issues a rebuttal to Obama's speech on the economy: 

The RNC highlights the lack of new ideas in the speech: 

Meanwhile, Nate Cohn questions the Obama campaign's "risky restraint" on ad buys: 

The Obama campaign has concentrated their expenditures on a smaller number of swing states, ensuring that they at least remain competitive in the markets they consider most important. But when you concentrate resources, some areas end up short-changed, and the decision to narrow the playing field has left Obama without substantial purchases in several media markets. According to The Washington Post’s ad tracker, Obama has not aired ads  in the expensive Washington media market, even though Crossroads GPS has already spent more than $2 million. Arizona was floated as a possible pick-up opportunity for Obama, but Obama hasn’t run any ads in the potentially competitive southwestern state. In contrast, Crossroads, which has money to spare, is running ads in Michigan, a state that voted for Obama by 16 percentage points in 2008 but that might be tightening according to recent polls. Of course, there is no guarantee that the Romney/Crossroads effort in Michigan will pay off. But the Obama campaign is taking a big risk in letting Romney and Crossroads continue unimpeded.

Total Super PAC spending is approaching the $100 million mark. 

Previous Ad War Updates: June 14, June 13, June 12, June 11, June 8, June 6, June 5, June 4, June 1, May 31, May 30, May 29, May 24, May 23, May 22, May 21, May 18, May 17, May 16, May 15, May 14, May 10, May 9, May 8,  May 7, May 3, May 2, May 1, Apr 30, Apr 27, Apr 26, Apr 25, Apr 24, Apr 23, Apr 18, Apr 17, Apr 16, Apr 13, Apr 11, Apr 10, Apr 9, Apr 5, Apr 4, Apr 3, Apr 2, Mar 30, Mar 27, Mar 26, Mar 23, Mar 22, Mar 21, Mar 20, Mar 19, Mar 16, Mar 15, Mar 14, Mar 13, Mar 12, Mar 9, Mar 8, Mar 7, Mar 6, Mar 5, Mar 2, Mar 1, Feb 29, Feb 28, Feb 27, Feb 23, Feb 22, Feb 21, Feb 17, Feb 16, Feb 15, Feb 14, Feb 13, Feb 9, Feb 8, Feb 7, Feb 6, Feb 3, Feb 2, Feb 1, Jan 30, Jan 29, Jan 27, Jan 26, Jan 25, Jan 24, Jan 22, Jan 20, Jan 19, Jan 18, Jan 17, Jan 16 and Jan 12.

Joel Goldstein shakes his head:

The belief that a vice presidential candidate must be boring comes in part from our tendency to remember as unexciting some candidates whose selection or campaign performance were viewed quite differently at the time.

Former Vice President Al Gore frequently portrayed himself as wooden and wonkish, the master of the stationary Macarena. Yet Bill Clinton’s unorthodox choice of a fellow southern centrist from the baby boomer generation was a galvanizing move. The announcement was electric, beyond the expectations of the Clinton campaign. It reinforced aspects of Clinton’s own biography to such an extent that the Clintons and Gores embarked on political, double date bus tours, which were then a novelty in presidential campaigns. The visual image of two able, young southern centrists promised change in a way that Clinton’s presence alone could not. Clinton’s choice of Gore helped define and propel his campaign.

Steven Weiss suggests that Facebook get out of the advertising business:

As I discussed with Forbes managing editor Bruce Upbin, Facebook's virtual ID can easily be used as a credit card (which we'll call "FacebookCard")—a revolving-credit account, just like your Visa or MasterCard, that's usable anywhere. Facebook would have to spend some of the billions it now has in the bank to set up customer-service operations and credit facilities with banks to launch it, and invest in making Facebook logins more secure; the things every credit-card company has to do in order to operate.

A reader writes:

Instead of dealing with and forthrightly acknowledging your belief that America should have the special right to extinguish civilian lives wherever and whenever it wants, you fall back on claims like "the notion that the fundamental reason the US is now targeted simply because we defended ourselves from a brutal attack…seems far too simplistic to me." AQAP had nothing to do with 9/11 and as we know from recent reporting, much of the al Qaeda that instigated 9/11 has been dismantled.  Can you (or anybody) plausibly claim that jihadis currently living in Yemen or Pakistan have "brutally attacked us?"

Another is on the same page:

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists is very specific. It targets only nations, organizations, or persons [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons. This, in my inexpert reading, means only al-Qaeda and the Taliban. So yes, let's assume drone strikes against those organizations are lawful. But the question becomes, are there any natural limits on such strikes?

We've already killed or captured nearly everyone who had anything to do with 9/11. Does the fact that people go around calling themselves al-Qaeda and Taliban necessarily mean that they are the people intended to be targeted by the resolution? These organizations are almost entirely just names at this point, that some people adopt for themselves to score political points but which have almost nothing to do with the original group of perpetrators. Furthermore, what do people in Yemen, Somalia and now the Philippines have to do with 9/11? I'm pretty sure not even John Bolton would argue that the Philippines had any connection to the hijackers or their accomplices.

Another shifts gears:

You said "I agree – how could one not? – that the drone program can backfire. Which is why I said it has to be conducted with extreme care."

The underlying premise here – that it's possible to conduct a drone assassination program "with extreme care" – is the sticking point. Greenwald has made it quite clear over his career that he believes the more power you give the government, the more it will abuse that power. His belief (and mine) is that you can't trust powerful people to use their power "with extreme care," because even if they believe they're actually doing that, they will always end up abusing their power to protect their own interests. So no matter how much you argue about how effective the drone strikes are and whether they're worth the blowback they will inevitably cause, you'll never come to agreement with Greenwald because you believe our governments can be trusted to act "with extreme care" and he believes they can be counted on to do the exact opposite.

This issue – trust in authority – is the main difference between you and Greenwald. The question I would pose is this: What makes you believe our government is capable of conducting an extra-judicial international assassination program with "extreme care"?

I'll be responding to these readers and to Glenn Greenwald next week.

(Photo: A Pakistani labourer works at a house in front of the demolished compound of slain Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, in northern Abbottabad on April 25, 2012. A year after Osama bin Laden died in a US raid, Al-Qaeda keeps spreading its message of terror in Pakistan, analysts say, with splinter groups threatening the country's fragile stability. A campaign of missile attacks by unmanned US drone aircraft in Pakistan's lawless northwest, long a hideout for militants, has weakened Al-Qaeda's structure by eliminating some of its leadership. By Aamir Qureshi/AFP/Getty Images)

He's been awfully quiet today. When pressed, he echoed Rubio's statement, saying "I happen to agree" with him. Here's Rubio:

There is broad support for the idea that we should figure out a way to help kids who are undocumented through no fault of their own, but there is also broad consensus that it should be done in a way that does not encourage illegal immigration in the future. This is a difficult balance to strike, one that this new policy, imposed by executive order, will make harder to achieve in the long run.

Today’s announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem. And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one.

It is not, strictly speaking, an executive order, but leave that aside. The president agrees with Rubio that he would prefer a comprehensive immigration reform. But the GOP won't hear of it – and Romney pledged to veto the DREAM Act in the primaries. Which is why, if Romney is now agreeing with Rubio on this suggestion that this is a distracting downpayment on real Congressional action, McKay Coppins is right:

But did someone tell the base that? At some point, it seems to me, Romney will have to explain his sudden shift on an issue he was insistently draconian on in the primaries – and enrage his base or alienate Latinos even further. Does he think, as Rubio does, that we need a legislative solution to the problem of the innocent children of illegal immigrant parents?

Rick Perry, call your office. Romney lied in order to defeat you. He does that kind of thing.

Triumph the Insult Comic Dog backs up Kenneth the Page at Chicago's infamous Weiner Circle. Comedy gold:

"Debating the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality in our culture is something that Bryan Fischer is actively engaged in, and has been for over a decade. You know what? I used to be there too. The term 'righteous anger' would have been an appropriate term to describe the ferocity with which I would debate this issue, and others. The problem is that it doesn't work. Somebody who yells and screams makes for great entertainment, but little else. I've found that is is exponentially more difficult to shut my mouth, and listen. It is also exponentially more rewarding.

Pushing your own agenda using the veil of religion has been used all throughout history. Today is no exception, and individuals in the evangelical community do it as much as anyone else. When someone wraps their own hate speech in a "god blanket" it makes it easier for a subset of people to accept, and eventually it may even gather a following. The problem is that anyone outside of that subset is turned away from not only that particular subset, but from the entire religion," – Dennis Mansfield, a former close friend of uber-Christianist Bryan Fischer.

If you haven't read Jane Mayer's new profile of Fischer, do yourself a favor. Things I learned: Fischer does not believe HIV causes AIDS, believes that Muslims should be barred from immigration, and that non-Christians "have no First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion." When Mitt Romney had to face down this raving lunatic, in the case of his openly gay national security spokesman, Ric Grenell, Romney blinked. That's worth knowing.

It's actually useful for people to know that the Daily Caller has only a tangential relationship to journalism. It's a circus for Breitbart wannabes. For the record, Tucker Carlson, for whom I once had a smidgen of respect, concedes that the reporter was indeed "heckling" in the middle of a statement – rather than asking a legitimate tough question afterwards – but concludes:

We’re proud of Neil Munro.