Thursday, June 4, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Confirmation Politics 101
The Washington Post
5/5/09
The search for the man (or woman) who will replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter began in earnest Monday as President Barack Obama placed calls to Sens. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to sound them out on the process.
"[President Obama] vowed to consult regularly with Senators in both parties to ensure an orderly confirmation process that will allow Justice Souter's replacement to be confirmed by the beginning of the Court's next session," according to a readout on the calls released by the White House.
The outreach to Senators to gauge their thoughts on the critical traits present in any picks is one of any number of spoken and unspoken rules that must be followed to ensure that the eventual nominee has the best chance at confirmation possible.
What transpires between yesterday, the day the nominee is announced and the day he or she is either confirmed or rejected is Washington at its best (or worst, depending on your perspective) -- a confluence of Senate prerogatives, interest group politics and spin wars with the highest possible stakes: a lifetime appointment to the most powerful bench in the country.
"From a political perspective it is a very unique process," said Steve Schmidt, who oversaw the confirmation fights for Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. "It is one of the very few occasions when the three branches of government come together."
The process can strengthen or weaken a president's hand depending on how it is handled. President George W. Bush drew kudos for his pick of Roberts and the roll-out was flawless -- painting the now-Chief Justice as a squeaky clean legal genius. Bush was widely castigated months later, however, for nominating Harriet Miers, his White House counsel, for the second vacancy. Bush badly misjudged the opinion of grassroots conservatives to the pick and watched as even Republican Senator bucked the pick. Miers withdrew roughly three weeks after she was nominated.
What are the essential steps that must be followed to navigate the treacherous politics of a Supreme Court pick? We consulted with a few people -- including Schmidt -- who have been deep in the trenches of such fights. Here are their recommendations:
* Attention Must Be Paid: The Senate -- especially those members who sit on the Judiciary Committee -- expects to be consulted directly by the president in advance of the pick being made. That's not to say they want their particular favorite to be the pick but rather that they want to feel as though they understand the way the president is thinking about the selection. (It's all very high minded stuff.) Ed Gillespie, who along with Schmidt managed the Roberts and Alito confirmations, said that "understanding that the Senate is a full partner in this process...is really helpful." Obama, who spent several years in the Senate before being elected president, already appears to be doing his due diligence: he spoke with Judiciary Committee Chair Pat Leahy (Vt.) last Friday and then, as noted above, with Specter and Hatch on Monday. The more conversations like these the better, according to the experts.
* Read Up, Prepare for the Worst: Any person who will be considered for a Supreme Court vacancy is certain to have said and written any number of things over their career in law. Find those writings -- and read them as carefully as possible. If the person did any government work, find any emails he or she sent. Read them. Assume that everything the nominee has EVER written, even in private correspondence, will be made public somehow and someway. Expect "thoroughly misleading attacks about the intent of a single sentence written in one out of hundreds of thousands of emails," said Schmidt.
* Understand the (Interest Group) Universe: The Senate may be the final arbiter on whether the nominee will be confirmed or not but the various interest groups that gear up every time there is an Supreme Court opening have a tremendous say over the landscape on which the hearings are conducted. People for the American Way, Judicial Confirmation Network, NARAL Pro-Choice America and American Center for Law & Justice are among the regular players who are certain to play a role -- how big or small depends on whom Obama picks -- in the confirmation process. (Remember back to NARAL's controversial ad, which they pulled down, that accused Roberts of defending abortion clinic bombers. That had the effect of making Roberts into a more sympathetic figure during his confirmation hearings.) The x-factor of course is new groups that pop up to defend or damage the nominee with little ability to check where the money comes from and who is behind the efforts.
* A Date Certain Set: Politics abhors a vacuum and that is exactly what is created from the moment the nominee is formally introduced to the time he or she goes before the Judiciary Committee to answer questions. The longer the time between those two events, the more danger the nominee is in as his or her detractors work to sway public opinion by a combing through of their public and private statements and writings to paint them as badly out of the mainstream. "The longer there is a person who is unable to defend themselves and there are questions that can be raised about that person's fitness, there accumulates a weight of public opinion that maybe there is something wrong with this person," said Schmidt. To avoid that twisting in the wind phenomenon, work as quickly as possible to secure support from the chairman and ranking member on Judiciary for a date certain that the hearings will start. Obama and his team are already seeking to speed up the timing of the process; in his daily briefing on Monday, press secretary Robert Gibbs said that "this is something the president believes must be done before the Court starts its work again in October."
5/5/09
The search for the man (or woman) who will replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter began in earnest Monday as President Barack Obama placed calls to Sens. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to sound them out on the process.
"[President Obama] vowed to consult regularly with Senators in both parties to ensure an orderly confirmation process that will allow Justice Souter's replacement to be confirmed by the beginning of the Court's next session," according to a readout on the calls released by the White House.
The outreach to Senators to gauge their thoughts on the critical traits present in any picks is one of any number of spoken and unspoken rules that must be followed to ensure that the eventual nominee has the best chance at confirmation possible.
What transpires between yesterday, the day the nominee is announced and the day he or she is either confirmed or rejected is Washington at its best (or worst, depending on your perspective) -- a confluence of Senate prerogatives, interest group politics and spin wars with the highest possible stakes: a lifetime appointment to the most powerful bench in the country.
"From a political perspective it is a very unique process," said Steve Schmidt, who oversaw the confirmation fights for Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. "It is one of the very few occasions when the three branches of government come together."
The process can strengthen or weaken a president's hand depending on how it is handled. President George W. Bush drew kudos for his pick of Roberts and the roll-out was flawless -- painting the now-Chief Justice as a squeaky clean legal genius. Bush was widely castigated months later, however, for nominating Harriet Miers, his White House counsel, for the second vacancy. Bush badly misjudged the opinion of grassroots conservatives to the pick and watched as even Republican Senator bucked the pick. Miers withdrew roughly three weeks after she was nominated.
What are the essential steps that must be followed to navigate the treacherous politics of a Supreme Court pick? We consulted with a few people -- including Schmidt -- who have been deep in the trenches of such fights. Here are their recommendations:
* Attention Must Be Paid: The Senate -- especially those members who sit on the Judiciary Committee -- expects to be consulted directly by the president in advance of the pick being made. That's not to say they want their particular favorite to be the pick but rather that they want to feel as though they understand the way the president is thinking about the selection. (It's all very high minded stuff.) Ed Gillespie, who along with Schmidt managed the Roberts and Alito confirmations, said that "understanding that the Senate is a full partner in this process...is really helpful." Obama, who spent several years in the Senate before being elected president, already appears to be doing his due diligence: he spoke with Judiciary Committee Chair Pat Leahy (Vt.) last Friday and then, as noted above, with Specter and Hatch on Monday. The more conversations like these the better, according to the experts.
* Read Up, Prepare for the Worst: Any person who will be considered for a Supreme Court vacancy is certain to have said and written any number of things over their career in law. Find those writings -- and read them as carefully as possible. If the person did any government work, find any emails he or she sent. Read them. Assume that everything the nominee has EVER written, even in private correspondence, will be made public somehow and someway. Expect "thoroughly misleading attacks about the intent of a single sentence written in one out of hundreds of thousands of emails," said Schmidt.
* Understand the (Interest Group) Universe: The Senate may be the final arbiter on whether the nominee will be confirmed or not but the various interest groups that gear up every time there is an Supreme Court opening have a tremendous say over the landscape on which the hearings are conducted. People for the American Way, Judicial Confirmation Network, NARAL Pro-Choice America and American Center for Law & Justice are among the regular players who are certain to play a role -- how big or small depends on whom Obama picks -- in the confirmation process. (Remember back to NARAL's controversial ad, which they pulled down, that accused Roberts of defending abortion clinic bombers. That had the effect of making Roberts into a more sympathetic figure during his confirmation hearings.) The x-factor of course is new groups that pop up to defend or damage the nominee with little ability to check where the money comes from and who is behind the efforts.
* A Date Certain Set: Politics abhors a vacuum and that is exactly what is created from the moment the nominee is formally introduced to the time he or she goes before the Judiciary Committee to answer questions. The longer the time between those two events, the more danger the nominee is in as his or her detractors work to sway public opinion by a combing through of their public and private statements and writings to paint them as badly out of the mainstream. "The longer there is a person who is unable to defend themselves and there are questions that can be raised about that person's fitness, there accumulates a weight of public opinion that maybe there is something wrong with this person," said Schmidt. To avoid that twisting in the wind phenomenon, work as quickly as possible to secure support from the chairman and ranking member on Judiciary for a date certain that the hearings will start. Obama and his team are already seeking to speed up the timing of the process; in his daily briefing on Monday, press secretary Robert Gibbs said that "this is something the president believes must be done before the Court starts its work again in October."
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Mugabe's Zimbabwe
Throughout the past couple of years much has been made of life in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe's leader for 29 years, Robert Mugabe, was once seen as a stable and capable leader. A long time freedom fighter for the oppressed black majority, Mugabe rose to power in the early 1980s. Yet, recently Mugabe has fallen into despotism. He seemingly exerts absolute control over his nation and seems less and less willing to embrace the democratic principles he once stood for.
Using the two articles provided to you, please comment. Discuss in what ways Mugabe's government is undemocratic and what, if anything, you believe the U.S. should do in response.
Comment should be at least 500 words.
Using the two articles provided to you, please comment. Discuss in what ways Mugabe's government is undemocratic and what, if anything, you believe the U.S. should do in response.
Comment should be at least 500 words.
Monday, February 9, 2009
The Media's Relationship with the Government
Below you will find various links to stories about the role the media plays in our political system. Below these links, one will find recent Daily Show clips dealing with the same media/government relationship.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec08/campaignmedia_10-23.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/insider/media/jan-june08/mediaprimary_02-27.html
http://pbs-newshour.onstreammedia.com/cgi-bin/visearch?user=pbs-newshour&template=template.html&query=media+bias&keywords=media+bias&category=blank
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec08/campaignmedia_10-23.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/insider/media/jan-june08/mediaprimary_02-27.html
http://pbs-newshour.onstreammedia.com/cgi-bin/visearch?user=pbs-newshour&template=template.html&query=media+bias&keywords=media+bias&category=blank
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Disney Propaganda
Donald Duck the Nazi?
Watch the embedded video below. Pay careful attention to the use of propaganda in the cartoon. After you have finished watching the cartoon please post a comment detailing how propaganda was used by Disney.
Now watch this documentary on Nazi propaganda. Pay careful attention to the symbols used. After watching add you insights about Nazi propaganda and compare them to Disney's. What are the competing messages?
Watch the embedded video below. Pay careful attention to the use of propaganda in the cartoon. After you have finished watching the cartoon please post a comment detailing how propaganda was used by Disney.
Now watch this documentary on Nazi propaganda. Pay careful attention to the symbols used. After watching add you insights about Nazi propaganda and compare them to Disney's. What are the competing messages?
Monday, January 19, 2009
A Different America
As the nation celebrates the life of Martin Luther King Jr. and looks to swear-in its first African American president, it is clear that our nation has changed dramatically over the past 40 years. The legacy of the civil rights movement has brought about profound change. Yet, it is more than just a new philosophy that grips the United States. The very face of the U.S. had evolved to include a wide spectrum of new faces.
Who We Are Now
We have a new president. But he, too, has a new nation to lead, one that's changing almost beyond recognition.
We have a new president. But he, too, has a new nation to lead, one that's changing almost beyond recognition.
The message seemed mixed. It was 3 o'clock on the afternoon of Sunday, Oct. 3, 1965, and President Lyndon B. Johnson had come to the foot of the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor to sign the unsexily named Immigration and Nationality Act. It was a grand and sentimental stage for Johnson, who loved the grand and the sentimental. There he was, less than a year into a term he'd won in the greatest of landslides over Barry Goldwater, at the mythic gateway to America, Robert and Ted Kennedy in the audience, the eyes of the press fixed on him in the shadows of the nation's most fabled icon of freedom. "Our beautiful America was built by a nation of strangers," Johnson said, reaching for political poetry. "From a hundred different places or more they have poured forth into an empty land, joining and blending in one mighty and irresistible tide."
But the president was openly ambivalent, too. "The bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill," he said, defensively, almost as though to reassure white Americans that they had nothing to fear. "It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or our power."
To borrow an old line about Winston Churchill, when Lyndon Johnson was right, he was right, but when he was wrong, well, my God. (See, for example, War, Vietnam.) On reflection, the bill LBJ signed on that October day was one of the most significant of his momentous presidency, and the virtually forgotten legislation played a key role in creating the America that made this week's inauguration of Barack Obama possible.
Why exhume the long-dead Johnson on the occasion of one of the most engaging inaugurals since George Washington took the oath at Federal Hall in New York City in 1789? Because who we are now—a country in which traditional barriers of race and age and gender are crumbling—flows in many ways from what LBJ did then. His conflicting language on that October day, meanwhile, underscores the nation's occasionally wary view of the changes wrought by immigration. We like to say we love the new, but the familiar, come to think of it, is awfully comfortable, too. So which will it be in the coming years: the America of the melting pot, or the America of resentments? The America of Lincoln's better angels, or the America of Nixon's Silent Majority?
The answer is almost certainly that we will be one or another of these Americas at different times depending on different circumstances. One reason to think that we might find ourselves with Lincoln more often than with Nixon, though, is that the "we" is getting ever trickier to define quickly and easily in terms of race, ethnicity and religion. We the People of 2009 are not the We the People of 1959 or 1969 or even 1979. And that is because of Lyndon Johnson.
There is something quintessentially American about a lumbering white man from Texas—a complex, gifted and ultimately tragic politician—transforming, however inadvertently, a largely Anglo-Saxon nation into a country which, in roughly the same amount of time that separates us from John F. Kennedy's inauguration, will have more people of color than whites. (The shorthand for this milestone, projected to take place in about 2050, is the arrival of a "majority-minority" country, but if the minorities are actually the majorities, we should probably find a cleaner linguistic way to talk about the coming reality.)
Stories about demography tend to be prospective and general, and it is all too easy to exaggerate this turn in the statistics or that tick in the projections. But this much is clear and certain: the nation over which Obama will preside is changing, rapidly, and history is likely to connect his political rise to the shifting nature of a country that was largely one thing in the wake of World War II and through the Cold War and into the opening years of the 21st century, and quite another as the Obama era began.
In the understandable thrill of the inaugural season, all eyes are turned to this single man, all ears attuned to his voice. Whatever your politics, the election of the 44th president represents a kind of redemption from the long and tragic history of blacks in America since the first slaves arrived in Jamestown, Va., in 1619. Ever since, as the biographer Taylor Branch once wrote, color has defined American life as it defines vision itself.
Yet the Obama victory is about more than Obama, and about more than black and white. In a democratic republic like ours (a product, in large part, of Madison's insight, Jackson's energy and Lincoln's genius), the president is both a maker and a mirror of the manners and morals of the electorate that has invested him with ultimate authority. We have not reached the promised land in which race and ethnicity no longer matter; history tells us that racism, tribalism and nativism will be always with us. The America of 2009, though, is not the America that Johnson felt coming into being the year before he spoke at the Statue of Liberty. After signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he told an aide he had just handed the South to the Republicans for a generation. (If you count a generation as roughly 21 years, he was off the mark, since the racially inspired backlash shaped politics for more than 40 years.)
For the moment—and it could be a very brief moment—the division of voters into us and them along racial and ethnic lines is at once more difficult and less effective. As the electorate changes, voters themselves are more likely to come from diverse backgrounds or live in a world in which diversity is the rule, not the exception. Not every part of the country is like the Bronx, where there is a 90 percent chance that any two people chosen at random will be of a different race or ethnicity. But there are now Hispanics, for instance—the country's fastest-growing population—living in practically every county in the country.
The roots of this new America—for it is quite new—can be traced to our long-running debate over immigration, a debate Johnson was trying to shape. Immigration boomed in the first decade of the 20th century, too. Waves came from Italy (1.9 million), Russia (1.5 million) and Austria-Hungary, which included Poland (2 million). All told, by 1910 there were about 13.5 million foreign-born people in the United States, according to the U.S. Census, and 87.4 percent of them were European.
Nativist Americans, though, thought many of the Europeans who were being admitted were inferior, and the Immigration Restriction League was formed to argue against the undesirables, most of whom were Southern and Eastern Europeans. In 1909, Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge proposed a literacy test to restrict the influx of "Italians, Russians, Poles, Hungarians, Greeks, and Asiatics." (Lodge liked "English-speaking [immigrants] … Germans, Scandinavians, and French.") The test, along with other restrictions, passed in 1917. In the 1920s, amid difficult economic times and fears of communism in the wake of the Russian Revolution, America passed quotas that favored Lodge's preferred region of Europe. Jews and Asians were particular targets.
Then, in 1952, Congress passed the McCarran-Walter Act, which essentially made naturalization colorblind. In other words, anyone admitted as an immigrant could apply for citizenship. "By eliminating racial discrimination in naturalization, it helped change the whole pattern after that," says Roger Daniels, professor emeritus of history at the University of Cincinnati and author of several authoritative books on immigration. "Not a lot of Europeans came immediately after the 1952 act, but many recent immigrants, especially Asians who had not been able to naturalize, were able to become citizens."
The 1965 bill was intended to reward the Southern and Eastern Europeans (chiefly the Italians and the Poles) who had been loyal Democrats. It completely abolished national quotas and allowed naturalized citizens to send for relatives—thus rewarding initiative and family stability. "Johnson thought that he was getting payback for the things that had been done to the new immigrants of 1920, the Italians and the Poles, and he thought this would take care of them," says Daniels. "If this had passed soon after World War II, when Europe was a mess, maybe that would have been true. And if it had not been for the Iron Curtain, it would have been something else. But in 1965, immigration from Europe was down to 10 percent." Asians, Mexicans and other Latin Americans began flowing in. Four decades on, Census data estimate that of the nearly 40 million foreign-born people in the United States, the largest percentages come from Mexico, China, the Philippines, India and Vietnam.
The tension between assimilation and separation is eternal, but there is no doubt that this flood of immigration and the breaking down of barriers between previously estranged groups within the country has created a much more fluid culture than previous generations might have thought possible.
The new reality is reflected in the NEWSWEEK Poll. Sixteen years ago, in the wake of the recession of 1991–92, anti-immigrant sentiment ran high, with 60 percent of Americans saying that they thought current immigration to the United States was a bad thing on the whole, and only 29 percent saying it was a good thing. Now the public is evenly divided, 44 percent to 44 percent. The percentage saying there are too many people coming to America from Africa has dropped from 47 percent in 1992 to 21 percent. Closer to home, public approval of interracial marriages (like the one between Obama's parents) has risen significantly in the past decade, from 54 percent in 1995 to 80 percent today. The percentage of Americans who say they know a mixed-race couple has risen from 58 to 79 percent since 1995, and more than a third (34 percent) say they or a close family member have married or live with someone of another race or who has a very different racial, ethnic or religious background, including a quarter (24 percent) who say it is specifically an interracial marriage or live-in relationship.
By and large, the younger you are, the more assimilated you are in this new tapestry of daily life. The key cohort is the 75 million-strong generation known as the millennials (those born roughly between 1980 and 2000). To state the obvious, the experiences of the younger generation—now voting and beginning their adult lives—are not the experiences of their parents or of their grandparents. Vietnam seems as distant as Saratoga; Roe v. Wade as far off as Dred Scott. That much is self-evident, and perennial. (Every generation is shaped by unique forces; that is part of what makes them a generation, aside from the accident of a birth date.) What was less than clear until the election of 2008 was whether the experience of younger Americans would produce a shift in political attitudes, and would such a shift be felt beyond Facebook and Starbucks? Could Obama count on them to show up?
Yes, he could. The disparity between older and younger voters was greater in 2008 than at any other time since exit polling began in 1972, according to the Pew Research Center. Obama won 66 percent of the 18- to 29-year-old vote, 12 points more than John Kerry attracted in 2004. The younger cohort is more diverse than the general population, more female, more secular, less socially conservative and more willing to describe themselves as liberals. Note to the ghost of LBJ: 20 percent of this crucial group are children of immigrants.
And 2009 is only the beginning of the story. According to Pew, if current trends continue, the U.S. population will rise from 296 million in 2005 to 438 million in 2050. Eighty-two percent—let me repeat that: 82 percent—of the increase will be attributable to immigrants arriving after 2005 and to their descendants. By that point, whites may make up only 47 percent of the country, ending centuries of a majority-white America.
Will the journey be smooth? That is doubtful. Politics can quickly turn mean. In hard economic times there is often a search for an "other" on which to blame the problems of life. In the wake of a possible terrorist attack, fear could easily lead to tension, resentment and discord. The good news about America, though, is that for all of our nativist fevers and periodic witch hunts, we tend, often after having exhausted every other option, to do what is right.
Johnson closed his remarks in October 1965 by alluding to nearby Ellis Island, "whose vacant corridors echo today the joyous sound of long-ago voices." The voices of the new America, of Obama's America, are just beginning to be heard.
With Pat Wingert, Marc Bain and Daniel Stone
© 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
A funny thing happened on the way to being president...
10 Weirdest Inauguration Day Blunders
By Megan Shay
A very historic Inauguration Day is approaching. But a few presidential inaugurations became historic for less-than-flattering reasons. From extravagant parties and unruly mobs to streets littered with poisoned pigeons, let's revisit history's most memorable Inauguration Day mishaps.
1. Long winded
The longest inaugural speech in U.S. history was given by President William Henry Harrison, clocking in at one hour and 45 minutes. Harrison delivered the long-winded speech during a snowstorm and without an overcoat, circumstances that are often blamed for his untimely death by pneumonia. However, it wasn't exposure to the elements that really caused his illness. It was actually a common cold, caught weeks after the inauguration, which turned into pneumonia and was likely worsened by the hectic schedule of a newly elected president who had no time to rest.
2. Sneaking out the back door
President Andrew Jackson, regarded as a "man of the people," had to flee through the back door of his own inaugural reception in 1829 when the crowd crashed his party. Thousands of supporters came to the capital for the inauguration, and though some came looking for jobs, most came to support Jackson and cheer their new president. After his speech, however, the crowds swarmed the reception, mingling with government officials and generally regarding the house as theirs. Mud was tracked in, china and glasses were broken, and the crowds only left when the refreshments were put on the lawn outside.
3. Don't feed the pigeons
On the day of Richard Nixon's 1973 inauguration, Pennsylvania Avenue was dotted with sick and dead pigeons. At the president's request, the inauguration committee spent $13,000 to spread a chemical bird repellent on the tree branches along the parade route to deter the pigeons. According to the Washington Post, the chemicals in Roost-No-More were supposed to cause the birds' feet to itch so they wouldn't roost in the trees. Unfortunately, the birds ate the repellent, causing them to get sick and die along the parade route.
4. Less is more?
After criticism for his first inauguration in 1981, which cost $16.3 million for nine white-tie balls, President Ronald Reagan attempted to scale back the budget and have a more "for the people" celebration. However, the budget ballooned from $12 million to $20 million, and there were 10 balls instead of nine and two galas instead of one. Apparently, "scaling back" meant that the balls were black tie instead of white and the entertainment was less high-brow than at previous events, according to the Washington Post.
5. Turn up the heat
After the north wing of the Treasury Building proved too small for President Ulysses S. Grant's first inaugural ball in 1869, a temporary structure was built in Judiciary Square for his second inaugural ball in 1873. Unfortunately, the structure had no heat or insulation, so guests danced in their coats and hats to stay warm in the minus-4-degree temperature, according to the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Events. Making matters worse, the food was cold, the hot chocolate and coffee ran out and the poor caged canaries -- used as decorations -- froze to death.
6. Sink or swim
The weather was so bad at Abraham Lincoln's second inauguration that pedestrians who could not swim were urged to stay away from the muddy, rain-soaked streets. According to the Washington Post, the great poet Walt Whitman actually referred to the rain as "slanting rain, full of rage." It was definitely not a nice day for a parade.
7. Rats!
For Richard Nixon's second inauguration, Vietnam War protesters dragged around a 25-foot-long rat made out of paper and chicken wire. To the protesters, the rat was symbolic of President Nixon. It was part of the largest Inauguration Day protest in U.S. history, with more than 25,000 protesters. Interesting, then, that according to the Washington Post, the ceremony went well and was "unmarred by any serious incidents."
8. Coat check, please
Ulysses S. Grant's first inauguration in 1869 ended with fights in the coat-check line and many guests abandoning their coats and hats due to an extremely long wait. The Washington Post reported that the coat check was staffed by illiterates who were unable to read the claim tickets, which surely slowed down the line even more. A similar event occurred at the end of the evening of a 1989 inaugural celebration when Republicans actually stormed the coat check of the Texas State Society's Tie and Boots ball, later referred to as "The Bastille Day Coat Check Affair."
9. It's getting hot in here
At the first inaugural ball, held for James Madison in 1809, it reportedly got so hot inside the hotel that revelers broke out windows for ventilation. Madison's wife Dolley must have been quite warm, herself -- she was wearing a gown with a long velvet train and a Parisian headdress decked out with feathers and white satin.
10. All dressed up with no place to go
Woodrow Wilson refused to have a ball for his 1913 inauguration because he considered it inappropriate for such a dignified and solemn occasion. His wife Ellen, on the other hand, had no such feelings. And unfortunately for her, she had already purchased a gown for the affair.
By Megan Shay
A very historic Inauguration Day is approaching. But a few presidential inaugurations became historic for less-than-flattering reasons. From extravagant parties and unruly mobs to streets littered with poisoned pigeons, let's revisit history's most memorable Inauguration Day mishaps.
1. Long winded
The longest inaugural speech in U.S. history was given by President William Henry Harrison, clocking in at one hour and 45 minutes. Harrison delivered the long-winded speech during a snowstorm and without an overcoat, circumstances that are often blamed for his untimely death by pneumonia. However, it wasn't exposure to the elements that really caused his illness. It was actually a common cold, caught weeks after the inauguration, which turned into pneumonia and was likely worsened by the hectic schedule of a newly elected president who had no time to rest.
2. Sneaking out the back door
President Andrew Jackson, regarded as a "man of the people," had to flee through the back door of his own inaugural reception in 1829 when the crowd crashed his party. Thousands of supporters came to the capital for the inauguration, and though some came looking for jobs, most came to support Jackson and cheer their new president. After his speech, however, the crowds swarmed the reception, mingling with government officials and generally regarding the house as theirs. Mud was tracked in, china and glasses were broken, and the crowds only left when the refreshments were put on the lawn outside.
3. Don't feed the pigeons
On the day of Richard Nixon's 1973 inauguration, Pennsylvania Avenue was dotted with sick and dead pigeons. At the president's request, the inauguration committee spent $13,000 to spread a chemical bird repellent on the tree branches along the parade route to deter the pigeons. According to the Washington Post, the chemicals in Roost-No-More were supposed to cause the birds' feet to itch so they wouldn't roost in the trees. Unfortunately, the birds ate the repellent, causing them to get sick and die along the parade route.
4. Less is more?
After criticism for his first inauguration in 1981, which cost $16.3 million for nine white-tie balls, President Ronald Reagan attempted to scale back the budget and have a more "for the people" celebration. However, the budget ballooned from $12 million to $20 million, and there were 10 balls instead of nine and two galas instead of one. Apparently, "scaling back" meant that the balls were black tie instead of white and the entertainment was less high-brow than at previous events, according to the Washington Post.
5. Turn up the heat
After the north wing of the Treasury Building proved too small for President Ulysses S. Grant's first inaugural ball in 1869, a temporary structure was built in Judiciary Square for his second inaugural ball in 1873. Unfortunately, the structure had no heat or insulation, so guests danced in their coats and hats to stay warm in the minus-4-degree temperature, according to the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Events. Making matters worse, the food was cold, the hot chocolate and coffee ran out and the poor caged canaries -- used as decorations -- froze to death.
6. Sink or swim
The weather was so bad at Abraham Lincoln's second inauguration that pedestrians who could not swim were urged to stay away from the muddy, rain-soaked streets. According to the Washington Post, the great poet Walt Whitman actually referred to the rain as "slanting rain, full of rage." It was definitely not a nice day for a parade.
7. Rats!
For Richard Nixon's second inauguration, Vietnam War protesters dragged around a 25-foot-long rat made out of paper and chicken wire. To the protesters, the rat was symbolic of President Nixon. It was part of the largest Inauguration Day protest in U.S. history, with more than 25,000 protesters. Interesting, then, that according to the Washington Post, the ceremony went well and was "unmarred by any serious incidents."
8. Coat check, please
Ulysses S. Grant's first inauguration in 1869 ended with fights in the coat-check line and many guests abandoning their coats and hats due to an extremely long wait. The Washington Post reported that the coat check was staffed by illiterates who were unable to read the claim tickets, which surely slowed down the line even more. A similar event occurred at the end of the evening of a 1989 inaugural celebration when Republicans actually stormed the coat check of the Texas State Society's Tie and Boots ball, later referred to as "The Bastille Day Coat Check Affair."
9. It's getting hot in here
At the first inaugural ball, held for James Madison in 1809, it reportedly got so hot inside the hotel that revelers broke out windows for ventilation. Madison's wife Dolley must have been quite warm, herself -- she was wearing a gown with a long velvet train and a Parisian headdress decked out with feathers and white satin.
10. All dressed up with no place to go
Woodrow Wilson refused to have a ball for his 1913 inauguration because he considered it inappropriate for such a dignified and solemn occasion. His wife Ellen, on the other hand, had no such feelings. And unfortunately for her, she had already purchased a gown for the affair.
Friday, January 16, 2009
A New View of the U.N.?
Since the United States spearheaded its creation, the United Nations has presented both an asset and hindrance to U.S. foreign policy goals. This has led to a tense relationship. This relationship has been strained even further by the ongoing military operations in Iraq and the war against terror. Some have criticized the Bush administration for its seemingly negative tone toward this world body. Many have suspected that the Obama administration would take a different stand. At the confirmation hearings of Obama's choice for U.N. Ambassador it appears those feelings are correct.
At Hearing, Obama's U.N. Pick Decries Disunity
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 16, 2009; Page A16
United Nations ambassador-designate Susan E. Rice said yesterday she would seek to improve what she called "an indispensable if imperfect institution" while seeking "strong international partnerships" on a range of issues.
"The United States will address all these challenges unencumbered by the old divisions of the 20th century," Rice said in her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "We cannot afford to be burdened with labels such as 'rich' or 'poor,' 'developed' or 'developing,' 'North' or 'South,' or the 'non-aligned movement.' In the 21st century, these false divisions rarely serve anyone's interests."
The 44-year-old foreign policy veteran promised a major shift on climate change policy from that of the Bush administration, saying the incoming administration would "engage vigorously" in U.N. climate-change talks.
She also said the administration of President-elect Barack Obama would work closely through the United Nations to prevent "the spread and use of nuclear weapons" and improve the organization's ability to manage complex peace operations.
Rice said it was "unacceptable" that the planned peacekeeping force for the conflict in Sudan's troubled Darfur region -- a situation the Bush administration has described as genocide -- was at only half its authorized strength. But she said that U.N. peacekeeping is "a deal compared to what we would spend if we did it ourselves," estimating a similar U.S. mission would cost about eight times more.
However, Rice appeared skeptical about a proposed peacekeeping force for Somalia, backed by the Bush administration, saying the incoming administration would have to take "a very careful and close look" at the plan.
Rice, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, was one of Obama's chief foreign policy aides during the presidential campaign. She served in a similar role for the committee chairman, John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, when he was the Democratic nominee for president in 2004. Rice, no relation to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, was an assistant secretary of state for Africa and a White House aide during the Clinton administration.
Rice was greeted warmly by the senators and there appeared to be no obstacles to a speedy confirmation.
The committee yesterday also overwhelmingly backed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to be the next secretary of state. The panel voted 16 to 1 to send her nomination to the Senate floor, where she is not expected to face any obstacles to full confirmation. The former first lady fielded few tough questions at her confirmation hearing Tuesday, as Democrats and Republicans alike praised her intellect and abilities.
The sole negative vote was from Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who said he was concerned about the overseas charitable fundraising activities of her husband, former president Bill Clinton. He decried the former president's foundation as a "multimillion dollar minefield of conflicts of interest."
In a deal with the transition team, the former president agreed to annually release the names of overseas donors. Sen. Clinton shrugged off calls from some committee members to amend the agreement in order to provide greater and more timely disclosure of overseas contributions during her tenure as secretary.
At Hearing, Obama's U.N. Pick Decries Disunity
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 16, 2009; Page A16
United Nations ambassador-designate Susan E. Rice said yesterday she would seek to improve what she called "an indispensable if imperfect institution" while seeking "strong international partnerships" on a range of issues.
"The United States will address all these challenges unencumbered by the old divisions of the 20th century," Rice said in her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "We cannot afford to be burdened with labels such as 'rich' or 'poor,' 'developed' or 'developing,' 'North' or 'South,' or the 'non-aligned movement.' In the 21st century, these false divisions rarely serve anyone's interests."
The 44-year-old foreign policy veteran promised a major shift on climate change policy from that of the Bush administration, saying the incoming administration would "engage vigorously" in U.N. climate-change talks.
She also said the administration of President-elect Barack Obama would work closely through the United Nations to prevent "the spread and use of nuclear weapons" and improve the organization's ability to manage complex peace operations.
Rice said it was "unacceptable" that the planned peacekeeping force for the conflict in Sudan's troubled Darfur region -- a situation the Bush administration has described as genocide -- was at only half its authorized strength. But she said that U.N. peacekeeping is "a deal compared to what we would spend if we did it ourselves," estimating a similar U.S. mission would cost about eight times more.
However, Rice appeared skeptical about a proposed peacekeeping force for Somalia, backed by the Bush administration, saying the incoming administration would have to take "a very careful and close look" at the plan.
Rice, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, was one of Obama's chief foreign policy aides during the presidential campaign. She served in a similar role for the committee chairman, John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, when he was the Democratic nominee for president in 2004. Rice, no relation to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, was an assistant secretary of state for Africa and a White House aide during the Clinton administration.
Rice was greeted warmly by the senators and there appeared to be no obstacles to a speedy confirmation.
The committee yesterday also overwhelmingly backed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to be the next secretary of state. The panel voted 16 to 1 to send her nomination to the Senate floor, where she is not expected to face any obstacles to full confirmation. The former first lady fielded few tough questions at her confirmation hearing Tuesday, as Democrats and Republicans alike praised her intellect and abilities.
The sole negative vote was from Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who said he was concerned about the overseas charitable fundraising activities of her husband, former president Bill Clinton. He decried the former president's foundation as a "multimillion dollar minefield of conflicts of interest."
In a deal with the transition team, the former president agreed to annually release the names of overseas donors. Sen. Clinton shrugged off calls from some committee members to amend the agreement in order to provide greater and more timely disclosure of overseas contributions during her tenure as secretary.
Obama and the Torture Game
Since the events of 9/11 our nation has debated the issue of torture. The nation has been forced to ask itself whether it condones the use of torture against those that wish us harm. When is torture allowed? Should the United States abide by international agreements when fighting an enemy that follows no law of the civilized world? These questions require answers and they require a deep-rooted discussion about our nation's principles. Of course any such discussion requires an exploration of what exactly constitutes torture. The Bush administration and President Bush, himself, has stated that the United States does not "torture", while the CIA has confirmed that it engaged in "harsh interrogations" that much of the world believes to be torture. Now President Obama must weigh in. His answer?
Sources: Obama ready to ban harsh interrogations
By LARA JAKES and PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writers Lara Jakes And Pamela Hess, Associated Press Writers –
WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to prohibit the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques by ordering the CIA to follow military rules for questioning prisoners, according to two U.S. officials familiar with drafts of the plans. Still under debate is whether to allow exceptions in extraordinary cases.
The proposal Obama is considering would require all CIA interrogators to follow conduct outlined in the U.S. Army Field Manual, the officials said. The plans would also have the effect of shutting down secret "black site" prisons around the world where the CIA has questioned terror suspects — with all future interrogations taking place inside American military facilities.
However, Obama's changes may not be absolute. His advisers are considering adding a classified loophole to the rules that could allow the CIA to use some interrogation methods not specifically authorized by the Pentagon, the officials said. They said the intent is not to use that as an opening for possible use of waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.
The new rules would abandon a part of President George W. Bush's counterterrorism policy that has been condemned internationally. Bush has defended his policies by pointing to the fact that the nation has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on its soil.
Obama spokeswoman Brooke Anderson did not have an immediate comment Friday about the drafted plans, which the two officials discussed only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.
No final decisions have been made about how to adjust the government's interrogation standards. Obama is still weighing whether to alter interrogation policy by executive order during his first days in office or to work with Congress through legislation.
The plans do not specifically address the issue of extraordinary rendition, the policy of transferring foreign terrorism suspects to third countries without court approval.
In private Capitol Hill meetings, CIA Director nominee Leon Panetta and Director of National Intelligence designate Dennis Blair have said Obama wants a single set of rules for interrogations. And in Senate testimony Thursday, Attorney General nominee Eric Holder called the Army manual "a good place to start."
The 384-page Army manual, last updated in September 2006, is a publicly available document. It authorizes 19 interrogation methods used to question prisoners, including one allowing a detainee to be isolated from other inmates in some cases. The manual explicitly prohibits threats, coercion, physical abuse and waterboarding, which creates the sensation of drowning. Holder termed waterboarding a form of torture on Thursday.
The CIA also banned waterboarding in 2006 but otherwise has been secretive about how it conducts interrogations. In the past, its methods are believed to have included sleep deprivation and disorientation, stress positions and exposing prisoners to uncomfortable cold or heat for long periods. It's also believed that some prisoners have been forced to sit in cramped spaces with bugs, snakes, rats or other vermin as a scare tactic.
Waterboarding has been traced back hundreds of years and is condemned by nations worldwide. Hayden acknowledged last year that the CIA waterboarded three top al-Qaida operatives — including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed — in 2002 and 2003 because of fears that more attacks were imminent.
The Army manual can be amended by the military. It is unclear whether the CIA would be held to the one published in 2006 or future versions.
The military rejected adding a classified annex to the manual before it was published in 2006 because it believed having two sets of rules could confuse soldiers and reasoned that the classified techniques would quickly become known once those interrogated were released. A classified annex would also complicate sharing the manual with foreign governments and would undermines the military's goal of full transparency after Abu Ghraib.
For Obama, who repeatedly insisted during the 2008 presidential campaign and the transition period that "America doesn't torture," a classified loophole would allow him to follow through on his promise to end harsh interrogations while retaining a full range of presidential options in conducting the war against terrorism.
The proposed loophole, which could come in the form of a classified annex to the manual, is designed to satisfy intelligence experts who fear that an outright ban of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques would limit the government in obtaining threat information that could save American lives. It would also preserve Obama's flexibility to authorize any interrogation tactics he might deem necessary for national security.
However, such a move would frustrate Senate Democrats and human rights, retired military and religious groups that have pressed for a government-wide prohibition on methods they describe as torture.
Glenn Sulmasy, an international law professor at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn., said Obama can and should preserve his executive authority to order aggressive interrogations when necessary. But he said that should be done on a case-by-case basis and not become a broad policy.
"There are some coercive techniques that he might employ on a ticking time bomb scenario, but he'll distinguish himself by making it clear that the presumption under the law is that there is no torture," Sulmasy said Friday.
Critics, however, said Obama cannot claim to ban torture if it's not clear what interrogation methods will be allowed.
"That would not be good," said the Rev. Richard Killmer, executive director of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture. "We don't need to be able to torture and we don't need to engage in any interrogation techniques that are not humane. And unless we have absolute clarity that these interrogation techniques will not be used, they are not going to be able to say that."
Speaking with reporters Thursday, outgoing CIA Director Michael Hayden said harsh interrogation tactics have been needed to get information from the most hardened terror suspects. He and some other U.S. intelligence officials oppose limiting the CIA to the Army manual, which was written specifically for military interrogations and may not be effective on the most dangerous detainees.
"It is an honest discussion to talk about what techniques we should use, but to assume automatically that the Army Field Manual would suit the needs of the republic in all circumstances is a shot in the dark," Hayden said.
Senate Democrats aren't likely to support a classified annex. Holder on Thursday said the interrogation methods outlined in the Army manual would be just as effective as those used by the CIA.
"I'm not convinced at all that if we restrict ourselves to the Army field manual that we will be in any way less effective in the interrogation of people who have sworn to do us harm," Holder said.
Amnesty International, the human rights group, on Friday hailed word that the field manual would extend to the CIA but said it would oppose a classified annex.
Sources: Obama ready to ban harsh interrogations
By LARA JAKES and PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writers Lara Jakes And Pamela Hess, Associated Press Writers –
WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to prohibit the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques by ordering the CIA to follow military rules for questioning prisoners, according to two U.S. officials familiar with drafts of the plans. Still under debate is whether to allow exceptions in extraordinary cases.
The proposal Obama is considering would require all CIA interrogators to follow conduct outlined in the U.S. Army Field Manual, the officials said. The plans would also have the effect of shutting down secret "black site" prisons around the world where the CIA has questioned terror suspects — with all future interrogations taking place inside American military facilities.
However, Obama's changes may not be absolute. His advisers are considering adding a classified loophole to the rules that could allow the CIA to use some interrogation methods not specifically authorized by the Pentagon, the officials said. They said the intent is not to use that as an opening for possible use of waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.
The new rules would abandon a part of President George W. Bush's counterterrorism policy that has been condemned internationally. Bush has defended his policies by pointing to the fact that the nation has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on its soil.
Obama spokeswoman Brooke Anderson did not have an immediate comment Friday about the drafted plans, which the two officials discussed only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.
No final decisions have been made about how to adjust the government's interrogation standards. Obama is still weighing whether to alter interrogation policy by executive order during his first days in office or to work with Congress through legislation.
The plans do not specifically address the issue of extraordinary rendition, the policy of transferring foreign terrorism suspects to third countries without court approval.
In private Capitol Hill meetings, CIA Director nominee Leon Panetta and Director of National Intelligence designate Dennis Blair have said Obama wants a single set of rules for interrogations. And in Senate testimony Thursday, Attorney General nominee Eric Holder called the Army manual "a good place to start."
The 384-page Army manual, last updated in September 2006, is a publicly available document. It authorizes 19 interrogation methods used to question prisoners, including one allowing a detainee to be isolated from other inmates in some cases. The manual explicitly prohibits threats, coercion, physical abuse and waterboarding, which creates the sensation of drowning. Holder termed waterboarding a form of torture on Thursday.
The CIA also banned waterboarding in 2006 but otherwise has been secretive about how it conducts interrogations. In the past, its methods are believed to have included sleep deprivation and disorientation, stress positions and exposing prisoners to uncomfortable cold or heat for long periods. It's also believed that some prisoners have been forced to sit in cramped spaces with bugs, snakes, rats or other vermin as a scare tactic.
Waterboarding has been traced back hundreds of years and is condemned by nations worldwide. Hayden acknowledged last year that the CIA waterboarded three top al-Qaida operatives — including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed — in 2002 and 2003 because of fears that more attacks were imminent.
The Army manual can be amended by the military. It is unclear whether the CIA would be held to the one published in 2006 or future versions.
The military rejected adding a classified annex to the manual before it was published in 2006 because it believed having two sets of rules could confuse soldiers and reasoned that the classified techniques would quickly become known once those interrogated were released. A classified annex would also complicate sharing the manual with foreign governments and would undermines the military's goal of full transparency after Abu Ghraib.
For Obama, who repeatedly insisted during the 2008 presidential campaign and the transition period that "America doesn't torture," a classified loophole would allow him to follow through on his promise to end harsh interrogations while retaining a full range of presidential options in conducting the war against terrorism.
The proposed loophole, which could come in the form of a classified annex to the manual, is designed to satisfy intelligence experts who fear that an outright ban of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques would limit the government in obtaining threat information that could save American lives. It would also preserve Obama's flexibility to authorize any interrogation tactics he might deem necessary for national security.
However, such a move would frustrate Senate Democrats and human rights, retired military and religious groups that have pressed for a government-wide prohibition on methods they describe as torture.
Glenn Sulmasy, an international law professor at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn., said Obama can and should preserve his executive authority to order aggressive interrogations when necessary. But he said that should be done on a case-by-case basis and not become a broad policy.
"There are some coercive techniques that he might employ on a ticking time bomb scenario, but he'll distinguish himself by making it clear that the presumption under the law is that there is no torture," Sulmasy said Friday.
Critics, however, said Obama cannot claim to ban torture if it's not clear what interrogation methods will be allowed.
"That would not be good," said the Rev. Richard Killmer, executive director of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture. "We don't need to be able to torture and we don't need to engage in any interrogation techniques that are not humane. And unless we have absolute clarity that these interrogation techniques will not be used, they are not going to be able to say that."
Speaking with reporters Thursday, outgoing CIA Director Michael Hayden said harsh interrogation tactics have been needed to get information from the most hardened terror suspects. He and some other U.S. intelligence officials oppose limiting the CIA to the Army manual, which was written specifically for military interrogations and may not be effective on the most dangerous detainees.
"It is an honest discussion to talk about what techniques we should use, but to assume automatically that the Army Field Manual would suit the needs of the republic in all circumstances is a shot in the dark," Hayden said.
Senate Democrats aren't likely to support a classified annex. Holder on Thursday said the interrogation methods outlined in the Army manual would be just as effective as those used by the CIA.
"I'm not convinced at all that if we restrict ourselves to the Army field manual that we will be in any way less effective in the interrogation of people who have sworn to do us harm," Holder said.
Amnesty International, the human rights group, on Friday hailed word that the field manual would extend to the CIA but said it would oppose a classified annex.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
