Whipsawed

Two years in, President Obama probably understands that he’s going to get slammed by the Foxnutters whatever he decides.

I’ll believe that when I see it. President Obama continues to make bizarre statements about hoping to work with the GOP.

New reports are that he plans to meet with the Chamber of Commerce.

He is either an incredible sucker or a Manchurian Candidate determined to destroy the Democratic Party.

“So which is it to be, higher taxes or fewer services?”

.
I vote for fewer services. Since the last 80 years of liberal entitlement programs have been a complete failure.

And the usual suspects–i.e. the same wingnut noisemakers who went berserk after the Undiebomber and Times Square incidents–have made body searches their holiday pinata.

Actually, there are plenty of reasonable people on the left and right who find this latest example of boondoggle security theater objectionable and wasteful.
.
This isn’t Drudge vs the White House, this is people vs the ridiculous, ass-covering bureaucracy.
.
That the White House is on the wrong side of an issue again isn’t merely because the rightist noise machine exploits every opportunity. Those of us who aren’t partisan Democrats first know this.

Turning this into the usual suspects vs the usual suspects allows the usual suspects to avoid talking about the real issue with which everyone outside the Beltway is primarily concerned: we know that this latest regime is mostly security theater that has no real impact on safety at all.

Square, before getting you shorts in a twist over the meeting with the Chamber of Commerce you may want to read up on the why of it.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/79341/torture-chamber

Especially since as of yet there has been not a single plot foiled by any security measure put in place besides that of alert passengers and of good intelligence and police work.

Nevermind that all of these policies are completely reactionary

Seriously? This is the extent of your argument.

Reality service will need to be cut, but which ones are you willing to cut? I am going to bet none that effect you. And cutting spending will not do it alone and personal tax cuts have never worked to create jobs and grow the revenue stream. And there is no factual evidence to support the claims that they do.

ass-covering bureaucracy

Redundancy at its finest. Is there any other kind of bureaucracy? It exists only to perpetuate itself so ass-covering is a natural function.
..
I agree that this security theater is a complete waste of time. These procedures certainly do not indicate that we have gotten serious about security. Perhaps they should consider a more thorough examination of baggage for starters.

The wingnut noisemakers will hue and cry over anything that might cause problems for Obama, even things they supported under Bush.

But these sorts of increased hassle measures don’t actually increase anyone’s security. They do, however, make sure no one carries a 4 oz bottle of shampoo on vacation.

I understand perfectly well why Obama plans to do it. I just find his justifications laughably absurd.
.
I completely support the WH’s attempts to create a rival faction, Business Forward. They should stick with those efforts.
.
Obama is a fool if he trusts the Chamber. You think they won’t campaign against him in 2012? Please. The Chamber will do what is in the interest of its billionaire backers. Period.
.
Most likely, the Chamber will get Obama to spend the next 18 months undermining liberal policy efforts. Then, just before the election, if it is close, they will dump a bunch of cash in opposition to Obama and tell him to f— off.
.
Maybe Obama can avoid this by moving further to his right, triangulating against his party, and causing the Democrats to lose the Senate as well as the House. Great. Then a fully-corporate Democrat will have retained the WH. Yippee!
.
Once the Chamber showed a crack in its armor, Obama should have doubled down on his attacks: called for hearings or investigations into illegal/foreign-financed election violations. He should have leaked that the Chamber asked him to meet but that he declined:

“The President is very pro-business. He will continue to meet with business leaders, including through forums like Business Forward. He is encouraged that the Chamber appears to be taking steps to behave in a less-partisan and more pro-business fashion. However, he remains concerned that its fund-raising efforts are not sufficiently transparent.
.
Ultimately, the President cannot rule out a meeting in the future, but any meeting with the Chamber at this point would risk creating the public perception that the President no longer is concerned about their partisan fund-raising practices. And that is not the case.

Again I say two words: “Rectal Bomb” (only because I’m sure the filter will catch any alternate words I could put there)
.
This will happen. We need to have a serious discussion about whether any and all security precautions are reasonable simply because they *may* prevent a handful of failed terrorist attacks every 4th year. To that extent, I present the question of the rectal bomb: when it happens, will we accept that every passenger must use a beefed up body scanner or undergo a cavity search?
.
I’d like to remind everyone that they took away our liquids because they successfully unraveled a terrorist plot using liquid explosives. So regardless of whether the rectal bomb makes it onto the airplane or not, if the terrorists create a rectal bomb that can’t be found using existing measures, they will seriously consider beefing up security. Considering drug mules still haven’t been caught by the existing scanners, it isn’t that difficult to imagine that they could successfully hide a bomb.
.
So I ask you now: what is the limit? Or is there none?

“And the usual suspects–i.e. the same wingnut noisemakers who went berserk after the Undiebomber and Times Square incidents–have made body searches their holiday pinata.”
.
That Josh Marshall made a very similar argument blows my mind.

The real problem for TSA is not this brouhaha over the pat downs, but that it has no credibility with the general public. It is viewed as an incompetent useless nuisance. Until confidence is established for the agency, and it never has to date, nothing it does will be accepted by the public.

To add to my comment at 3.5, my own view is as I described, incompetent nuisance, but my only wish is for their procedures to not take forever, or cause me to miss a flight. In that regard, I am as exasperated with the general public in the security lines, many who seem to have no clue of what it’s all about, and are not prepared for inspection…shoes, metal objects, etc. I wait anxiously for them to prepare at the last instant and watch the incompetent TSA look on and not help move things more efficiently.

“He is either an incredible sucker or a Manchurian Candidate determined to destroy the Democratic Party.”
.
Between seeking love from those who hate him and the grandiosity of some of his speeches, the guy should probably see a psychiatrist.

And it doesn’t even need to be a bomb. It just needs to be a test run with a bomb-like device. We’ve reached the point of enforcing security measures against would-be terror plots that never even got anywhere.

FL, is it a privilege to fly or a right? I think that would help to answer your questions.

Does anyone know if Federal legislators & top members of administration have to go through the full TSA airport screening like everyone else? Legislators fly into and out of DC constantly, and otherwise fly all over the place, I simply cannot imagine those egomaniacs waiting in line, being talked to like they are developmentally disabled, taking their shoes and belst off, having Neanderthals dig through their bags, and now get porno x-rayed and felt up.

Anybody know if they are exempt from this treatment?

nfl-are you suggesting that because it’s not a right no limits apply?

is it a privilege to fly or a right?

Based upon the actions of the TSA and the government’s “no fly” list, it is most certainly a privilege though I think, in this case, it is a distinction without difference.

The freedom to fly or not fly is a right, not a privilege.

When the Democrats are in power, the Republicans always make the deficit and big government the main issue, yelling at the top of their lungs that the sky will fall really, really soon if the budget isn’t balanced tomorrow. When Republicans are in power, they always make national security the main issue. It’s what they always do and the American people always fall for it, including national media types who get paid lots of bucks to analyze these things. Reagan harped against the deficit and succeeded in making Carter look even more hapless than he was. They tried this against Clinton, but the economy was in much better shape and he actually succeeded in reducing the deficit. They know perfectly well that deficit reduction is the wrong medicine right now but are using the hysteria they are creating to generate support for their long-held desire to gut Social Security, Medicare, etc. When asked what he’s going to do about the deficit, Obama should reply loud and clear and repeatedly that he will get Americans back to work and the economy booming again. Whiplash? Not really. It’s just Republican politics as usual.

I tend to think it’s a privilege to fly, just like it’s a privilege to drive, walk, ride the bus/train/subway, bike, or Segway from one point to another. We have the \freedom\ to do all of that, but all transportation modes have to be governed by reasonable rules that would help ensure safety as much as possible. I’d stop at body cavity searches and groping if I flew.

Why wasn’t the TSA a problem when Blush was in office? If a terrorist attack happened and the procedures *weren’t* in place can you imagine what the neocons would be saying then? Why do they constantly play both ends against the middle??

Recently John Boehner was observed avoiding security at Reagan airport while other legislators had to endure it. My understanding, and it may be off, is that Boehner was accompanied by some security entourage that pulled strings. So it may be a pecking order thing so far as the politicos.

The freedom to fly or not fly is a right, not a privilege.

SZ, you are referring to freedom of choice which is a right and boarding a passenger plane is certainly not a right.

Why do they constantly play both ends against the middle??

Because it’s fun, easy and, most of all, profitable.
..
This has been another edition of easy answers to simple questions.

It’s what Republicans do (see my comment above). They create hysteria over deficits and big government when they are out of power. It isn’t meant to make sense, only to confuse people and portray government as inept and/or malevolent and to limit what a Democratic administration can do. The TSA wasn’t a problem for Republicans when they were in power because they were in power. (Creating hysteria over national security gives them even more power as people are willing to put up with more and more intrusive measures. Remember all those “orange” alerts?)

lauriefive:
.
You write:

“When asked what he’s going to do about the deficit, Obama should reply loud and clear and repeatedly that he will get Americans back to work and the economy booming again.”

No, he mustn’t do that!
.
No, no!
.
Obama should reply loud and clear that he welcomes business leaders, Republicans and Independents (all of the Republican-leaning ones) into the fold.
.
It sounds crazy, as if Obama were handing a loaded revolver to terrorists, and saying “Please, take me hostage, now,” but it’s the best political strategy possible.

I know this because aged Democratic consultant Pat Caddell (of Jimmy Carter re-election bid fame, I’m sure you’ve seen him often on Fox News) told me so in the pages of a Washington Post Op-Ed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202846.html
.
One and done: To be a great president, Obama should not seek reelection in 2012
.
By Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell
.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
.
President Obama must decide now how he wants to govern in the two years leading up to the 2012 presidential election.
.
It is clear that the president is still trying to reach a resolution in his own mind as to what he should do and how he should do it.
.
To that end, we believe Obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012.
.
Obama can restore the promise of the election by forging a government of national unity, welcoming business leaders, Republicans and independents into the fold.
.
But if he is to bring Democrats and Republicans together, the president cannot be seen as an advocate of a particular party, but as somebody who stands above politics, seeking to forge consensus. And yes, the United States will need nothing short of consensus if we are to reduce the deficit and get spending under control…

Now, I know that Pat Caddell hasn’t been associated with a winning Presidential campaign since 1976, and was recently fired from Andrew Romanoff’s Senate bid in Colorado, but I trust Pat Caddell’s advice to the letter.
.
Want to know why I place my faith in quintuple loser (George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1980, Gary Hart in 1984, Joe Biden in 1988, and Jerry Brown in 1992) and Fox News Democrat Pat Caddell?
.
Because Barack Obama apparently trusts this clown’s advice, too.
.
How do I know that?
.
Well, on November 14th of this year, the influential (in the Beltway) Washington Post prints the grand advice of Pat Caddell, and then only 8 days later, Barack Obama apparently runs with Caddell’s “strategy”! It’s true, at least according to Bloomberg Executive News:

Obama Is Preparing New Overtures to Counter Anti-Business Image
.
By Mike Dorning – Nov 22, 2010 12:01 AM ET
.
President Barack Obama is preparing new overtures to business that may start with a walk into the headquarters of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a retreat with corporate chief executive officers, according to people familiar with his plans.
.
The Obama administration has been at odds with the Chamber, which fought Obama’s health-care and financial regulatory overhauls and committed $75 million to political ads in the midterm congressional elections, mainly directed against Democrats. The CEO summit would be a way to address complaints from some executives the Democratic administration is anti- business…

How reassuring to me, as a Democrat!
.
Thank God that Barack Obama had the judgment to listen to the counsel of the savant Pat Caddell when he advised the President to begin “…welcoming business leaders…into the fold” (especially business leaders who had just spent $75 million dollars defeating Democrats)!
.
Thank God the President seems to be doing exactly what Serious Beltway publications inform him is politically necessary, “if we are to reduce the deficit and get spending under control.”
.
Thank God the Administration has the wisdom to do the only thing that makes any sense in times of great, widespread economic suffering on the part of the American people –which, of course, is to immediately schedule “a retreat with corporate chief executive officers.”
.
What political genius!
.
The only question left for me, as a voter, is whether Barack Obama has the unique foresight and leadership to take the next key step in governing. And no, I do not mean that weak half-measure suggested by Fox News’ Pat Caddell, I do not mean that Barack Obama should immediately announce that he isn’t going to run for re-election in 2012, as advised in the Washington Post.
.
No, since, as Pat Cadell points out “The president has almost no credibility left with Republicans,” I’m suggesting that Barack Obama go that extra mile for bipartisanship, and step down as President, resigning effective today, November 23rd, 2010.
.
Wouldn’t stepping down as President two years before an election in which –for the good of the nation– he shouldn’t compete send the ultimate signal of goodwill and pro-business intent on the part of the Administration?
.
Paltry symbolic gestures, like literally inviting corporate CEOs to run the government

To address corporate criticism, Obama is also contemplating bringing business leaders into his administration.
.
One possibility is retired Procter & Gamble Co. Chief Executive Officer Alan Lafley, who could be appointed to a high- level post as a Cabinet member or senior presidential adviser, said a person familiar with the deliberations.
.
Altman has defended the Obama administration against criticism that it is anti-business while also saying the administration has made mistakes in its approach.
.
Another open position that may be filled with a business executive is deputy Commerce secretary, said an administration official.

just won’t cut it with either business leaders or Republicans or Republican-leaning independents (when those groups actually diverge, I mean), and so it’s obviously time to do the right thing by them…I mean the country, to do the right thing by the country, and preemptively step down.
.
That way the President –I mean, soon-to-be-former President can’t possibly “be seen as an advocate of a particular party,” except maybe the Republican Party, which would be exactly what Americans are looking for in terms of Democratic leadership.
.
So, there it is:
.
At the very least Barack Obama immediately resigns the office of the Presidency, and gets back to the task of attempting to “address both our national challenges and the serious threats to his credibility and stature,” as Pat Caddell puts it, or his chances of re-election are finished.
.
Please, please do not demand that Barack Obama “get Americans back to work” and “reply loud and clear” to elite deficit peacocks in the Beltway that his first concern is the people who elected him President.
.
He mustn’t ever do that, because Pat Caddell is

convinced that if Obama immediately declares his intention not to run for reelection, he will be able to unite the country, provide national and international leadership, escape the hold of the left, isolate the right and achieve results that would be otherwise unachievable.

, and five-time loser Pat Caddell is correct, at least about one thing:
.
This sort of “strategy” will, indeed, “achieve results that would be otherwise unachievable.”
.
Thanks so much for reading and considering this, lauriefive.

I think (at least I hope) that I understand where you’re getting the idea of travel as a “privilege”:

Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
.
As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as “right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them.”[1]
.
However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the “privileges and immunities” clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3]

Is that what you mean?

Yes, freedom of movement is a fundamental right of all citizens. How one moves is a choice. As a private citizen and a paying customer, you have purchased a ticket to fly on a commercial airplane. That ticket is a license subject to a variety of rules and laws and your travelling on said airplane is certainly not a right of any kind. Should you be deemed in violation of those rules or laws, your privilege of flying can and may be revoked.
..
All of that said, I think the TSA is a tremendous failure and an utter waste of time. They have been wholly ineffective at stopping terrorists and have only succeeded at irritating the flying public. I hope the scan boycott tomorrow is utilized widely.

“Turning this into the usual suspects vs the usual suspects allows the usual suspects to avoid talking about the real issue with which everyone outside the Beltway is primarily concerned…”
.
Isn’t it always fascinating when Beltway bi-partisanship fetishists seem incapable of understanding actual non-partisanship?

“when Beltway bi-partisanship fetishists seem incapable”
.
At this point, I can’t tell whether it’s incapability or refusal (sort of like the “Are they crazy or are they lying?” debate).

Stuart,

Conventional wisdom inside the beltway defies logic, doesn’t it? As I said, people who are paid lots of money to analyze politics get suckered every time (suckered or co-opted?). I’m no admirer of Reagan, but he was a canny politician and had the best response to his detractors…”There they go again.” I wish Obama would try this rather than being so earnest and doggedly polite. This Pat Caddell character should be laughed off the talk circuit.

“This Pat Caddell character should be laughed off the talk circuit.”
.
…instead of being invited to write Op-Eds in the Washington Post, perhaps?
.
Unfortunately, the best career move in Serious journalism seems to be the ability to write pieces that are proven demonstrably, observably wrong.
.
That’s the career “advice” that dominates the capital, which explains much about our broken political system —and economy.

…and thanks so much again for taking the time to read through all of that!

I think it is reasonable for the TSA to, say, keep guns off planes. Why? Because if there is a drunken fight between two otherwise honest citizens that results in guns drawn, one shot can kill a lot of innocent people simply by depressurizing the plane. Ok, that’s an extreme example, but my point remains: I’m more concerned about stupid actions from otherwise good people who don’t understand enough about the risks from aircraft than I’ve ever been from terrorists. The TSA working to prevent those people from having things that enable their stupidity to be dangerous – I’m ok with that. But I think there’s little point in putting significant efforts into preventing the one terrorist attack a year globally by inconveniencing everyone. We stopped the water bottle bomb and we stopped the first draft of 9/11 (1992, Phillipines, IIRC) through good counter terrorism efforts, not because of the TSA. I’m even less interested in the TSA’s efforts when I consider that I can’t recall a single TSA success at preventing a terrorist attack.

I think it was Joe Klein himself who said, when the commander-in-chief tells you to do something, you have to do it.

The most frequent answer to the question, at least for our elites, is probably a third choice: lying to themselves, which tends to appear as craziness to the well-informed, less deluded.

This is part of Boehner’s put down of Pelosi. He is going to fly commercial airline rather than private jet. Of course, he failed to say that he has secret service accompanying him and that he will bypass security checks. And, how many people are bounced to make room for his security people?

The right wing is so obvious. They have always wanted a privatized TSA from the time it was instituted.
.
http://allisonkilkenny.com/2010/11/are-republicans-pro-tsa-privatization-because-of-unionization/
.
Of course, racial profiling is there hope and dream.

which is it to be, higher taxes or fewer services?
.
What services? A total body massage at an airport? You can keep it. I’ll take lower taxes.
.
Or, we can search door to door for terrorists just to make ourselves look good. That way nobody feels like they are singled out because they fit the profile: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists
.
Oh look no three year old children or grandmas on the list. That means we should subject everyone including grandma to a strip search.
.
And when there is a bank robbery or the local 7-11 gets hysted in the middle of the night cops can break down every door in town looking for suspects, using the same stupid reasoning.
.
Here’s an idea: How about we stop crying about profiling and realize that when a suspect fits a description, that’s who you look for. Duh. It’s not racial profiling; it’s using your freakin’ brain. Or, let’s just continue to be absolutely moronic and subject everyone that’s NOT a terrorist to search without a warrant or reasonable suspicion.

This whole new program is just stupid for at least the following 7 reasons:
.
1) It totally violates the 4th Amendment. Searching people for no reason without a warrant is illegal, full stop. Just because you want to get on a plane does not make you a suspect in a terrorism case anymore than living in a city where a bank robbery took place makes you a robbery suspect. Sorry the Constitution is pretty freaking clear on this.
.
2) These searches are needlessly intrusive. Not one person who is supportive of these new measures that I’ve seen interviewed on the topic has failed to stumble when asked “Well, you’re OK with it, but you want your wife and kids touched/photographed like this?” They all say “^%*$ NO! Absolutely not!” Meanwhile the people that say “Well it’s all about safety, so I’m OK with it” should first read point 1 and secondly remember that Hitler started (at the very very outset) his campaign against the Jews with basically the same argument. I’m not calling the TSA fascists here, just pointing out that argument is a very slippery slope with a rather outlandish example. Not to mention, how many incidents has the TSA stopped since 9/11? Oh yeah, exactly zero terrorist apprehended by the TSA.
.
3) This is all ineffective. We are multiple steps behind the terrorists on this. They’ve moved on to toner cartridges (now banned) while the TSA has moved up to felony sexual assault and soft core porn because of some idiot with a bomb in his underwear a year ago. Not to mention that heroin smugglers routinely smuggle hundreds of grams of heroin by swallowing condoms full of it. The same could be done with C4 or Semtex and nothing short of an MRI or CAT scan will find it, and a couple hundred grams of C4 or Semtex will put one heck of hole in an airplane even from inside the human body.
.
4) They are not targeted correctly. Hasn’t anyone noticed that the recent plots to blow up an airplane have all come from OVERSEAS where they don’t have this nudiemachine or grope process? It doesn’t matter one little bit if the new X-Ray backscatter or whatever the other tech is called CAN or CAN’T see PETN on the human body if the person wearing said explosive never goes through one because they fly in from outside the U.S.!
.
5) The security lines the TSA creates are a nightmare for us and a dream for terrorists at the same time. I was in MIA a few years back, standing in a line that must have been 600 people deep (one of a few such lines might add) that took over an hour to go through. Can you say “soft target”? Any effing retard with an AK
(semi-auto or full auto) could have done some serious damage there. Give him a few hand grenades and WHOOOOEEEE! Air travel shuts down for months and you need dozens of body bags; if not hundreds. Now, give him an advanced scout with a cell phone to tell him where the armed cops are and half a dozen equally well armed friends? Crap, it’s fish in a damn barrel and pretty much everyone dies, armed cops first.
.
Or he could go Swordfish style and just run in with 10lbs of Semtex/C4 (pick your plastic explosive of choice) and 20lbs of 1/4 inch ball bearings strapped to his chest (making himself a very large human hand grenade) and BLAM hundreds dead. Multiply that by 2 guys for each such line times 5 airports (Al Qaeda likes to make a splash, you gotta give them this: they dream big) and you can kiss the whole dang commercial aircraft business goodbye. Then you won’t have to worry about the TSA because they will literally have no reason to exist.
.
6) Terrorists are not stupid. Misguided, possibly retarded religious extremists hell bent on killing civilians? Yes. Stupid, no. They are very creative and NO MATTER WHAT WE DO they will eventually find a way around it if they choose to do so. The argument that it’s OK to give up your rights for safety goes out the window for sure right here. When it’s taken into account that terrorists are crafty and committed you would have 0 rights if the U.S. government was going to try to stop 100% of terrorist attacks here in America, and such attacks would still happen.
.
7) Do you really believe the government can do this job well? The same government that was warned about the underwear bomber months in advance by the kids own father yet somehow managed to forget they had been warned he wanted to kill us? Then they let him on a plane? Oh wait, they didn’t even bother to mention to ANYONE that they had even heard of him! No fly list my butt.
.
Stupid, ineffective, unnecessarily intrusive, unconstitutional and more of a safety risk than that which they [the TSA] are trying in vain to prevent.
.
Then again Americans could just grow a pair and realize that nothing in life is risk free, but that will never happen.

Good point on #5. Airport designs “redone” for TSA lines in existing ones are a disaster waiting to happen. Keep people moving already. Even without terrorism, imagine a fire, fight, or something else breaking out and people panic.

I agree with everything you said. The idea that searching people who are just trying to fly to grandmas for a holiday makes us safer is just as stupid as it gets. It’s a total waste of time and resources. No one is safer, just violated and hassled.
.
And, the TSA has been a joke from the beginning. We just have to stop with all the PC BS.