Invitation to Israeli Leader Puts Obama on the Spot

Image via Wikipedia
By HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON — A Republican invitation for Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to address Congress next month is highlighting the tensions between President Obama and Mr. Netanyahu and has kicked off a bizarre diplomatic race over who will be the first to lay out a new proposal to reopen the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

For three months, White House officials have been debating whether the time has come for Mr. Obama to make a major address on the region’s turmoil, including the upheaval in the Arab world, and whether he should use the occasion to propose a new plan for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

One administration official said that course was backed by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the president himself, but opposed by Dennis B. Ross, the president’s senior adviser on the Middle East.

As the administration has been pondering, Mr. Netanyahu, fearful that his country would lose ground with any Obama administration plan, has been considering whether to pre-empt the White House with a proposal of his own, before a friendly United States Congress, according to American officials and diplomats from the region.

“People seem to think that whoever goes first gets the upper hand,” said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator and a director at the New America Foundation. Using Mr. Netanyahu’s nickname, he said: “If Bibi went first and didn’t lay out a bold peace plan, it would be harder for Obama to say, actually, despite what you said to Congress and their applause, this is what I think you should do.”

The political gamesmanship between the two men illustrates how the calculation in the Middle East has changed for a variety of reasons, including the political upheaval in the Arab world. But it also shows the lack of trust and what some officials say is personal animosity between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu.

White House officials are working on drafts of a possible proposal, but they have not decided how detailed it will be, or even whether the president will deliver it in a planned speech. If Mr. Obama does put forward an American plan, officials say it could include four principles, or terms of reference, built around the final status issues that have bedeviled peace negotiators since 1979.

The terms of reference could call for Israel to accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. For their part, Palestinians would have to accept that they would not get the right of return to land in Israel from which they fled or were forced to flee. Jerusalem would be the capital of both states, and Israeli security would have to be protected.

Mr. Netanyahu has made it clear that he wants Israel’s security needs addressed before any peace deal with the Palestinians. He has become even more concerned about security because shifts in power among Arab states in recent months have weakened Israel’s already fragile relations with its neighbors, particularly Egypt.

The tussling between the Obama administration and the Israeli government reached a peak last week when Mrs. Clinton, in Qatar for a meeting of the U.S.-Islamic World Forum, announced that Mr. Obama would be “speaking in greater detail about America’s policy in the Middle East and North Africa in the coming weeks.”

Her announcement electrified Israeli officials, who quickly got on the phone with American officials and journalists to determine whether Mr. Obama had decided to put an American plan on the table. He had not made such a decision, and White House officials cautioned that the internal debate was still going on.

But two days later, the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, announced his intention to invite Mr. Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress. “America and Israel are the closest of friends and allies, and we look forward to hearing the prime minister’s views on how we can continue working together for peace, freedom and stability,” Mr. Boehner said in a news release.

Like many other foreign leaders, Mr. Netanyahu has addressed Congress before. He did so in 1996, and four other Israeli prime ministers have over the past 35 years. The platform gives American elected leaders the opportunity to publicly demonstrate their support for Israel before the politically crucial Israel lobby.

Mr. Netanyahu’s address will coincide with the planned meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, arguably the most powerful of the American groups that advocate for Israel.

Brendan Buck, Mr. Boehner’s press secretary, said that staff members had received no pushback from the White House about the invitation to Mr. Netanyahu. “Obviously, it’s a troubled time for the region,” he said. “Our members have been very interested in demonstrating that we stand with Israel.”

Last November, Representative Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, told Mr. Netanyahu that the new G.O.P. majority in the House would “serve as a check on the administration,” in a statement that was rare for its blunt disagreement on American foreign policy as conveyed to a foreign leader.

Mr. Cantor put out a statement after a meeting with Mr. Netanyahu saying that he “made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other.”

Brian Katulis, a national security expert with the Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization, said that Republicans were trying to “make Israel a partisan wedge issue.”

“And that’s bad for Israel, and that’s bad for the United States,” Mr. Katulis said. But he added that the administration would never publicly, or even privately, oppose the notion of an Israeli leader addressing Congress.

Two American officials, speaking on condition of anonymity out of diplomatic caution, said they thought that if Mr. Netanyahu intended to make a bold proposal for a peace deal with the Palestinians, he would do so before his own people in the Knesset.

“Instead of focusing on peace-making, everybody seems to be focused on speech-making,” said Martin S. Indyk, vice president for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution and a former United States ambassador to Israel. “And unless the speeches generate peace negotiations, making speeches will not generate peace.”

Much of the debate is taking place under a pending deadline of the United Nations General Assembly meeting scheduled in September, when the Assembly is expected to broadly endorse Palestinian statehood in a vote that could prove deeply embarrassing to Israel and the United States, which are both expected to vote against it.

Wallace's "Power Player" Designation For O'Keefe Ignores His History Of Deception | Media Matters for America

Wallace's "Power Player" Designation For O'Keefe Ignores His History Of Deception | Media Matters for America

Wallace Touted ACORN Sting, Promoted Upcoming Video Release. Wallace began his "Power Player of the Week" segment by touting O'Keefe's ability to go after "big targets" and get "stunning results," regardless of "[w]hether you admire or condemn his tactics." Wallace went on to tout how O'Keefe's ACORN videos "pushed Congress to cut off federal funding," and concluded by noting that a video from "an undercover sting of a public television executive" would be released by O'Keefe in the coming week. From the March 13 edition of Fox News Sunday:

WALLACE: Whether you admire or condemn his tactics, there's no debating that undercover activist James O'Keefe has taken on some big targets and come up with some stunning results. Once again, he's our "Power Player of the Week."

O'KEEFE: We thought it'd be a funny YouTube video and we'd get them to say something silly like "Oh, you guys, that's cute." But we never in our wildest dreams did we ever imagine this.

WALLACE: That was James O'Keefe in 2009, marveling at the impact of his undercover ACORN videos that pushed Congress to cut off federal funding. Now he has struck again, masterminding a sting of NPR executives at what was supposedly a lunch with rich Muslim donors that showed their political bias here against the tea party.

RON SCHILLER [then-NPR Foundation president, video clip]: I mean, it's scary. They're seriously racist.

WALLACE: We wanted to know what drives the 26-year-old O'Keefe, who describes himself not as a conservative but a progressive radical. And what we discovered is an outrage with liberal hypocrisy.

O'KEEFE: If you use their rules against them, you can really just tease them and mock them and really destroy them.

[...]

WALLACE: In 2009, when Hannah Giles called and proposed they sting ACORN, O'Keefe was on board.

O'KEEFE: She said, "I can be a prostitute." And that's when I said, "What if I'm a pimp?" And then we said, what if there are 13-year-old girls involved? And we just upped the ante and just made it more ridiculous.

WALLACE: O'Keefe has had problems. Last May, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for posing as a phone repairman to get into Senator Mary Landrieu's office. But now he has a new scalp. The head of NPR was forced out in the latest scandal, and Congress may oblige what that executive said was his secret hope.

SCHILLER [video clip] : It is very clear that we would be better off in the long run without federal funding.

[...]

Related articles

• NPR's Polarizing Shakeup (thedailybeast.com)
• James O'Keefe, NPR-Slayer: What Kind Of Journalist Is This? (huffingtonpost.com)

Antonin Scalia charms Tea Party caucus - Simmi Aujla - POLITICO.com

Image by The Higgs Boson via FlickrAntonin Scalia charms Tea Party caucus - Simmi Aujla - POLITICO.com

Justice Antonin Scalia steered cleared of hot-button legislation during his closed-door talk hosted by the Tea Party caucus on Capitol Hill Monday night that attracted 50 members of Congress, including three Democrats.

“We were delighted with Justice Scalia,” said chair of the caucus Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). “Both Democrats and Republicans stood up and asked questions of the justice. And he gave freely of his time.”

Scalia, the intellectual leader of the Supreme Court’s conservative wing, charmed the crowd with his wit during his hour-long presentation, which included the history of the relationship between Congress, the Supreme Court and the presidency. He urged members to read the Federalist Papers to understand the founding fathers’ intentions. He also took questions from the crowd.

“He has a very dry wit, and it was on display today,” Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said.

Members who attended said the Supreme Court justice didn’t touch any major legislation passed recently that could come up for judicial review, like the health care reform law.

Bachmann praised Scalia for talking to members and noted that he took questions from both Democrats and Republicans.

About 50 members attended the event in all, only three were Democrats — Reps. Melvin Watt (D-N.C.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.). Nadler and Watt are members of the House Judiciary panel.

Though he steered clear of any current legislation, Scalia did answer a question about earmarks. Scalia said that Congress can control where federal dollars go through earmarks, or forgo earmarks and allow the president to have more control over how money is spent, according to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

Scalia’s appearance hasn’t gone without criticism.

University of Maryland law professor Sherrilyn Ifill called the event “grossly inappropriate.”

“Federal judges should refrain from conduct that undermines the appearance of impartiality,” she wrote in POLITICO Arena on Monday. “But as Scalia revealed in his belligerent defense of his duck-hunting trip with then-Vice President Dick Cheney, he is unconcerned with the public’s perception of the judiciary. He has become the “in your face” justice, wearing his political conservatism on his sleeve.”

The New York Times said in an editorial last month that Scalia should reject the invitation from Bachmann or risk his reputation as an impartial judge.

“By meeting behind closed doors, as is planned, and by presiding over a seminar, implying give and take, the justice would give the impression that he was joining the throng — confirming his new moniker as the ‘Justice from the Tea Party,’ “ the editorial board wrote.

It’s not uncommon for members of the high court to speak to members of Congress. Last Wednesday, Justice Stephen Breyer spoke privately to the House Judiciary Committee at a bipartisan retreat to encourage communication between Republicans and Democrats. In 2009, Sonia Sotomayor spoke to the Congressional Caucus on the Judicial Branch. The caucus, led by Reps. Judy Bigger (R-Ill.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), has heard from nine justices since 2003.

Former White House counsel Ed Gillespie compared Scalia’s appearance to Thurgood Marshall talking to the Congressional Black Caucus in the 1990s.

“I thought that was a good thing then and I think this is a good thing now,” he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

Related articles

• Scalia addresses tea party-organized event (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

The Maddow Blog - Never let hate diminish you

Image via WikipediaThe Maddow Blog - Never let hate diminish you

Because hate will certainly try to make less of you, and because it certainly can. Rep. James Clyburn (D-South Carolina), writing on The Hill's Congress Blog:

I have been asked often in recent days if the current public discourse is the worst I have ever seen. In my experience, the answer is no. For those of us who lived through the 1960s, we have poignant memories of the dark days when President Kennedy, Dr. King and Senator Robert Kennedy were assassinated. We lived through bombings, lynchings, and mobs spewing such venomous hate that we all wondered how we would overcome. But we did. We overcame with Dr. King’s admonition that our protests must remain nonviolent. In his words, “Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.” And even more importantly, in my opinion, you refuse to allow his h

Congressional Black Caucus Gains Power, Focuses on Jobs - BV Black Spin

Congressional Black Caucus Gains Power, Focuses on Jobs - BV Black Spin

While the mid-term elections were a blood bath for the Democrats, one group that came out surprisingly unscathed was the Congressional Black Caucus. Members of the CBC and the Hispanic Caucus will hold roughly one-third of all Democratic seats in Congress (61 out of 190), increasing their power within government. They also plan to use this influence to focus on job creation.

The Democrats who took the greatest drubbing during mid-terms tended to be the centrists of the party. The Black and Hispanic caucuses, however, only lost four out of 60 bids for re-election. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, a member of the Hispanic caucus is now the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, and Maxine Waters will be the second leading Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. Their increases in power came largely because of the defeats of other Democrats.

"We'll have to make our case for our priorities from a minority position so it will obviously be more difficult to advance the CBC agenda," Rep. Bobby Scott told the Wall Street Journal. "What we spend our time on will depend to a large extent on what the majority does."

One area in which the CBC will focus their energy is job creation. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. is planning to introduce legislation to create a jobs bill that he compares to the Works Progress Administration of 1935. He argues that Democrats should push for such a bill to prove that they are worthy of being in power.

Not every member of the CBC is on the same page. Allen West out of Florida is a Republican Tea Party candidate who has opposed most of President Obama's policies. West was accused of torturing a man he suspected of helping the insurgents when he served in the Iraq War. He was forced to retire after the incident, where he reportedly shot a bullet past the man's head to fake his execution. He has even referred to the work of the CBC as "failed liberal social welfare policies," and said they have not worked. West is likely to be a thorn in the side of both the CBC and the Democratic Party, but being black never meant you had to be on the same page.

The work of the Congressional Black Caucus has always been important to all Americans, particularly the poor and those of color. Their focus on creating jobs has never been more critical, and we are all hopeful that they can find more creative ways to get the job done. Recent investigations into the work of Charles Rangel, Maxine Waters and other members of the CBC have been disturbing in light of the fact that there may be a concerted effort to undermine the power of the caucus. Either way, they must continue to march forward, and they will.

More...

Related articles

• Black, Hispanic Caucus Members Gain Clout (online.wsj.com)
• Is There a Place for Republicans in the Congressional Black Caucus? (theroot.com)

D.C. Voting Rights 'Dead as a Doornail': Taxation Without Representation Lives On

D.C. Voting Rights 'Dead as a Doornail': Taxation Without Representation Lives On

"This country was founded on resistance to taxation without representation," declared Vincent Gray, mayor-elect of the nation's capital, at a recent hotel groundbreaking. If the city does not secure voting rights in the House and Senate sometime soon, he allowed, widespread civil disobedience may be required to force the issue.

No tea party firebrand, Gray, a Democrat, used the battle cry of Revolutionary colonists -- voiceless in the British Parliament they helped finance -- to note that this city of nearly 600,000 sends $3.6 billion a year to the IRS. That's more money paid than seven states that enjoy full voting rights. As for the supreme sacrifice, Washington has lost more men and women in battle than 20 states, according to the D.C. Council.

That said, Congress -- which has no fully empowered House or Senate lawmakers from D.C.-- can veto any local bill or budget item already approved by the mayor, the council or the voters. That means the city is ultimately run by lawmakers most Washingtonians have never heard of from states they've never visited. Congress refused to let D.C. use its own tax money for abortions for poor women, banned needle exchanges for drug addicts and barred local election officials from counting any ballots in a 1998 referendum on medical marijuana (reportedly approved by 69 percent of the electorate).

More...

Related articles

• On Suffrage Anniversary, D.C. Voters Are Still Left Out (politicsdaily.com)

Poll Suggests Opportunities for Both Parties in Midterms - NYTimes.com

Poll Suggests Opportunities for Both Parties in Midterms - NYTimes.com

By JEFF ZELENY and MEGAN THEE-BRENAN

Republicans are heading into the general election phase of the midterm campaign backed by two powerful currents: the highest proportion of Americans in two decades say it is time for their own member of Congress to be replaced, and voters are expressing widespread dissatisfaction with President Obama’s leadership.

But the latest New York Times/CBS News poll also finds that while voters rate the performance of Democrats negatively, they view Republicans as even worse, providing a potential opening for Democrats to make a last-ditch case for keeping their hold on power.

The poll represents a snapshot of the country’s political mood as the campaign pivots from primary contests that have revealed deep divisions among Republicans into the general election, where the parties deliver their competing arguments to a wider audience. The findings suggest that there are opportunities and vulnerabilities for both parties as they proceed into the final seven weeks of the campaign.

A case for Republicans: Voters are remarkably open to change, even if they are not sure where Republicans will lead them. Most Americans, including one-third of those who were part of the coalition that elected Mr. Obama, now say he does not have a clear plan to solve the nation’s problems or create jobs. Democrats remain highly vulnerable on the economy.

A case for Democrats: The party is seen as having better ideas for solving the country’s problems. The public steadfastly supports the president’s proposal to let tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans. And far more people still blame Wall Street and the Bush administration than blame Mr. Obama for the country’s economic problems.

More...

Op-Ed Columnist - Attacking Social Security - NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Columnist - Attacking Social Security - NYTimes.com

Social Security turned 75 last week. It should have been a joyous occasion, a time to celebrate a program that has brought dignity and decency to the lives of older Americans.

But the program is under attack, with some Democrats as well as nearly all Republicans joining the assault. Rumor has it that President Obama’s deficit commission may call for deep benefit cuts, in particular a sharp rise in the retirement age.

Social Security’s attackers claim that they’re concerned about the program’s financial future. But their math doesn’t add up, and their hostility isn’t really about dollars and cents. Instead, it’s about ideology and posturing. And underneath it all is ignorance of or indifference to the realities of life for many Americans.

About that math: Legally, Social Security has its own, dedicated funding, via the payroll tax (“FICA” on your pay statement). But it’s also part of the broader federal budget. This dual accounting means that there are two ways Social Security could face financial problems. First, that dedicated funding could prove inadequate, forcing the program either to cut benefits or to turn to Congress for aid. Second, Social Security costs could prove unsupportable for the federal budget as a whole.

But neither of these potential problems is a clear and present danger. Social Security has been running surpluses for the last quarter-century, banking those surpluses in a special account, the so-called trust fund. The program won’t have to turn to Congress for help or cut benefits until or unless the trust fund is exhausted, which the program’s actuaries don’t expect to happen until 2037 — and there’s a significant chance, according to their estimates, that that day will never come.

Meanwhile, an aging population will eventually (over the course of the next 20 years) cause the cost of paying Social Security benefits to rise from its current 4.8 percent of G.D.P. to about 6 percent of G.D.P. To give you some perspective, that’s a significantly smaller increase than the rise in defense spending since 2001, which Washington certainly didn’t consider a crisis, or even a reason to rethink some of the Bush tax cuts.

More...

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama slams GOP on Social Security - Abby Phillip - POLITICO.com (armwoodnews.blogspot.com)
• Democrats Attack Republican Positions As 'Radical' On 75th Anniversary Of Social Security (huffingtonpost.com)
• Attacking Social Security (nytimes.com)